What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

Here is a festive detail from an early 20th c. Roman catafalque which was being set up for the Requiem High Mass at San Gregorio dei Muratori this evening. I link to a larger version so you can enjoy it as a wallpaper if you wish.

We continue our Patristic Rosary Project today with the:

4th Glorious Mystery: The Assumption

We do not know if Mary died and was assumed body and soul into heaven or if she was assumed without dying. Either way, it was fitting that the Mother of God, who had never known the stain of sin, while requiring a Redeemer just like every other human being, should not experience the corruption of the grave. Our humanity is seated at the right hand of the Father in the divine Person of our Lord, but now also in the human person of our Lady. Christ is consubtantial with the Father. Christ is consubstantial with His mother. Mary is Mother of a divine Person with two natures. She is not Mother of part of Christ, but Mother of all of Christ in His integrity. And so, we can call her Mother of God and Mother of the Church. Her heavenly Assumption was fitting.

There are not elaborate reflections in the writings of the Fathers on the Assumption, because it was not a main point of reflection. Still, we can find their thoughts on some passages of Scripture
which help us to understand Mary’s role in the plan of our salvation.

As a perfect model for our own Christian discipleship, we can consider, among many texts, Proverbs 8:

And now, my sons, listen to me: happy are those who keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Happy is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For he who finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD; but he who misses me injures himself; all who hate me love death.

 

While this concerns Wisdom, in a sense it harks to Mary, Wisdom’s seat. Here is the reflection of Athenagoras on this section of Proverbs:

[The Son] is the first offspring of the Father, I do not mean that He was created, for, since God is eternal mind, He had His Word within Himself from the beginning, being eternally wise. Rather did the Son come forth from God to give form and actuality to all material things, which essentially have a sort of formless nature and inert quality, the heavier particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit agrees with this opinion when He says, "The Lord created me as the first of His ways, for His works." Indeed we say that the Holy Spirit Himself, who inspires those who utter prophecies, is an effluence from God, flowing from Him, and returning like ray of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those called atheists who admit God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who teach their unity of power and their distinction in rank? ... We affirm, too, a crowd of angels and ministers, whom God, the maker and creator of the world, appointed to their several tasks through His Word, He gave them charge over the good order of the universe, over the elements, the heavens, the world, and all it contains. [A plea regarding Christians 10]

 

This fellow sounds a bit like a subordinationist, but he is fascinating. This passage is interesting also for its hints at the cosmology and phyics of late antiquity. Also, it aims at the spiritual hierarchy in which our wonderous Lady has a privileged place.

Consider that the reward of assumption into the beatific vision stems as well from her perfect act of free will when she gave her "Fiat" to God’s will as expressed by the angel. Here is St. Augustine speaking of the impact of free will:

Man in paradise was capable of self-destruction by abandoning justice by an act of will; yet if the life of justice was to be maintained, his will alone would not have sufficed, unless He who made Him glad had given him aid. But, after the fall, God’s mercy was even more abundant, for then the will itself had to be freed from the bondage in which sin and death are the masters. There is no way at all by which it can be freed by itself, but only though God’s grace, which is made effectual in the faith of Christ. Thus, as it is written, even the will by which "the will itself is prepared by the Lord" so that we may receive the other gifts of God through which we come to the Gift eternal – this too comes from God. [Enchiridion 28.106]

 

God’s grace and Mary’s "Fiat" which was by grace. Mary was drawn with love into God’s plan and, later, into God’s presence. The Fathers made frequent use of the Song of Songs. St. Gregory the Great writes about the exchanges of heaven and earth which marked the plan of salvation:

The Church speaks through Solomon: "See how he comes leaping on the mountains, bounding over the hill!" ... By coming for our redemption the Lord leaped! My friends, do you want to become acquainted with these leaps of His? From heaven He came to the womb, from the womb to the manger, from the manger to the Cross, from the Cross to the sepulcher, and from the sepulcher He returned to heaven. You see how Truth, having made Himself known in the flesh, leaped for us to make us run after Him. [Forty Gospel Homilies 29]

 

Our Lady, who would feel Christ leap beneath her heart, would herself leap after Christ in her heart by her "Fiat". She leapt to begin His public ministry when she said at Cana "Do whatever He tell you." She leapt up Calvary with Him when the Blood and water flowed down. Her motherly and Christian heart leapt in joy in seeing Him gloriously risen. She leapt to Him in heaven when her earthly life was concluded.

In heaven Mary shines with the glory God shares with her. In the book of Revelation we have a description chapter 12 of the woman clothed with the sun. The Fathers speak about this image. They will mostly consider the woman as an image of the Church. We cannot reduce the Church to Mary. Nor in talking of the Church as Christ’s Body reduce Christ to the Church. But the three, Christ, Mary and Church are intimately associated. Hippolytus (+245) writes:

By the "woman clothed with the sun", he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s Word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by "the moon under her feet," he referred to [the Church] being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words "upon her head a crowd of twelve stars" refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded.

Of course Christ founded the Church on the Apostles, and chiefly upon the Rock who is Peter. The description of the woman, however, fits Mary the Mother of the Church as well as the Church herself. Here is an extended piece by someone not too many in the West may read, Oecumenius (6th c.) called the "Rhetor" who wrote the earliest Greek commentary on Revelation:

The vision intends to describe more completely to us the circumstances concerning the antichrist…. However, since the incarnation of the Lord, which made the world his possession and subjected it, provided a pretext for Satan to raise this one up and to choose him [as his instrument] – for the antichrist will be raised to cause the world again to fall from Christ and to persuade it to desert to Satan – and since moreover His fleshly conception and birth was the beginning of the incarnation of the Lord, the vision gives a certain order and sequence to the material that it is going to discuss and begins the discussion from the fleshly conception of the Lord by portraying for us the mother of God. What does he say? "And a sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sum and the moon was under her feet." As we said, it is peaking about the mother of our Savior. The vision appropriately depicts her as in heaven and not on the earth, for she is pure in soul and body, equal to an angel and a citizen of heaven. She possesses God who rests in heaven – "for heaven is my throne" – it says yet she is flesh, although she has nothing in common with the earth nor is there any evil in her. Rather, she is exalted, wholly worthy of heaven, even though she possesses our human nature and substance. For the Virgin is consubstantial with us. Let the impious teaching of Eutyches, which make the fanciful claim that the Virgin is of another substance than we, be excluded from the belief of the holy courts together with his other opinions. And what does it mean that she was clothed with the sun and the moon was under her feet? The holy prophet Habakkuk, prophesied concerning the Lord, saying, "The sun was lifted up, and the moon stood still in its place for light." calling Christ our Savior, or at least the proclamation of the gospel, the "sun of righteousness". When He was exalted and increased, the moon – that is, the law of Moses – "stood still" and no longer received any addition. For after the appearance of Christ, it no longer received proselytes from the nations as before but endured diminution and cessation. You will, therefore, observe this with me, that also the holy Virgin is covered by the spiritual sun. For this is what the prophet calls the Lord when concerning Israel he says, "Fire fell upon them, and they did not see the sun." But the moon, that is, the worship and citizenship according to the law, being subdued and become much less than itself, is under her feet, for it has been conquered by the brightness of the gospel. And rightly does he call the things of the law by the word "moon", for they have been given light by the sun, that is, Christ just as the physical moon is given its light by the physical sun. The point would have been better made had it said not that the woman was clothed with the sun but that the woman enclothed the sun, which was enclosed in her womb. However, that the vision might show that the Lord, who was being carried in the womb, was the shelter of His own mother and the whole creation, it says that He was enclothing the woman. Indeed, the holy angel said something similar to the holy Virgin: "The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." For to overshadow is to protect, and to enclothe is the same according to power. [Commentary on the Apocalypse 12.1-2]

Take careful note of the image drawn on by the interesting Oecumenius, which also speaks to the cosmology of late antiquity. First, Oecumenius either knew that the sun gave light to the moon, as it does, or he extrapolates this from the glory that Christ gives to Mary.

All our Marian feasts, all our reflection, to keep the sunlight and moon theme going, always must draw us back to the Person of the Lord. We reflect on the face of the Lord who is reflected in the face of His Mother. Our recitation of the Rosary brings us to know the Lord more and more and, in turn, know ourselves better. We reflect His image and likeness and He came into the word to reveal us more fully to ourselves.

If there were ever a concrete demonstration that the traditionalist dimension of the Church tends, as I often say, to attract the sort of person who is happy only when he is unhappy, (but not exclusively, thanks be to God) it would be the The Remnant, a newspaper which is quite literally related to the paper for which I write each week, The Wanderer. As we can say with any paper, sometimes The Remnant gets it right and their articles are pretty insightful. Often, well…

In another entry on this blog a commentor said something about an article by Christopher A. Ferrara in The Remnant:

However, in The Remnant (July 31), in the same I Media interview with Archbishop Ranjith, it was reported: “In the end, the people will assist at [attend] the Tridentine Mass and our churches [the New Mass] will empty,” this according to Archbishop Ranjith himself. That quote was not mentioned in CWR. Wonder why?

The Remnant made a big deal out of this. Indeed, it is an amazing thing to read and there is sharped steel within it.

However, in a millisecond, you will very correctly wonder if that could really have been what Archbishop Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments actually said.

The answer: yes and no.

The source for the quote was an interview I-Media did with Archbishop Ranjith, in French. Here is a LINK to the whole text. Here is the part in question:

Q.: Les abus liturgiques sont-ils réellement si nombreux ?

R.: Chaque jour, nous recevons tellement de lettres, signées, où les gens se lamentent des nombreux abus : des prêtres qui font ce qu’ils veulent, des évêques qui ferment les yeux ou, même, justifient ce que font leurs prêtres au nom du ‘renouveau’… Nous ne pouvons pas nous taire. Il est de notre responsabilité d’être vigilants. Car, à la fin, les gens vont assister à la messe tridentine et nos églises se vident. La messe tridentine n’appartient pas aux Lefebvristes. C’est le moment de cesser les affrontements et de voir si nous avons été fidèles aux instructions de la Constitution conciliaire Sacrosanctum Concilium . C’est pourquoi il faut de la discipline pour ce que nous faisons sur l’autel. Les règles sont bien indiquées dans le Missel romain et les documents de l’Eglise.

Q:. Are liturgical abuses really so numerous?

A: Everyday we get signed letters in which people complain about numerous abuses: by priests who do whatever they want, about bishops who close their eyes to them or, similarly, justify what their priests do in the name of "renewal"... We can’t be silent. It is our responsibility to be vigilant. Because, in the end, people will go to attend the Tridentine Mass and our churches will empty. The Tridentine Mass does not belong to Lefebvrites. It is high time to stop confrontations and to see if we have been faithful to the instructions of the conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. This is why what we do at the altar takes discipline. The rules are clearly indicated in the Roman Missal and the documents of the Church.

So, what does Archbishop really say? He is pointing to liturgical ABUSES.

Abuses are by definition not part of the Novus Ordo. Abuses are violations of the rubrics.

Ranjith is saying that if we continue to have violations of the Novus Ordo, violations and abuses of the rite as it is laid down in the rubrics and documents of the Church, then people will drift away from the Church. They could even go to others who are disobedient in a different way: Lefebvrites.

From what Ranjith is saying, if there are celebrations of the Tridentine Mass those celebrations should also follow the proper rubrics. His stong point here is that for the unity of the Church and the good of the people, we have to obey the Church especially in the observance of the rubrics. What is harmful to the Church is not the Novus Ordo as such, but rather the priests and bishops who are not doing their jobs, fulfilling their liturgical responsibilities.

I think it is safe to say that had the Novus Ordo been implemented as it ought to have been, according to the texts and the mind of the Council Fathers, few if any people today would have continued over time to desire the older form of Mass. That is supposition, of course, but it is borne out by personal experience of places which don’t have wacky things going on and the books are followed closely and with an eye to the Roman tradition. Still, far and wide things are wacky and few eyes are turned to tradition. Therefore, we need some corrections. We need to reenvision the Novus Ordo and, especially, how it is to be celebrated through the lens of the older form of Mass.

Bring on the new indult and bring it now!

I have been asking around a little about the new Archpriest of the Basilica of St. Peter, S.E. Angelo Comastri, whom I knew very little about. Here is what I am getting from people.

First, it seems that His Excellency, while perhaps not having a strongly conservative pedigree, during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II made Loretto into a major center of Marian spirituality according to the Pope’s design and played a good role in the Pope’s Marian program for the Church. There are some Italian bishops who over time made real shifts in their points of view and Comastri seems to be one of them. This is a world-wide phenomenon. Also, Mons. Comastri is said to be an extremely kind gentleman and very loyal to the Holy See. I have not met him yet.

Second, as one friend put it, "if Mons. Comastri’s liturgy is half as good as his loyalty to the Pope, St. Peter’s Basilica will be seeing better days."

His Eminence Claudio Card. Hummes, OFM, will be the new prefect of Clergy. I have met him on several occasions and had the chance to talk with him one on one and pick his brains. He is very kind and answers questions frankly. In describing the situation in his diocese of São Paulo, one of the largest cities in the world with all its attendant problems, H.E. was deeply concerned that many in Rome didn’t understand the severity of how over 1% of Catholics per year are bleeding off into sects and falling away. He spoke about this with great passion. This fellow has been Archbishop of one of the world’s toughest dioceses. He has great experience.

Pope Benedict knows what Card. Hummes is all about. By bringing Card. Hummes to Rome, Benedict has not brought in a yes-man or someone who will sit on his hands. Furthermore, His Holiness can now put someone of his choosing into the critical see of São Paulo who will fit his strategy. In his new role, he will be more conservative than he has been perceived to be, maybe not because he is, but because he has to be. Moreover, Card. Castrillon Hoyos now may focus on the work of the Pont. Comm. "Ecclesia Dei" which is going to have more to do pretty soon.

Very often conservatives think that just because you are conservative you are automatically going to be good at everything. That is pure fantasy. Benedict needs to find people who are capable of implementing the things he wants done. This or that conservative might not actually be able to get the job done. There is wisdom in putting someone who has a chance of succeeding in a job even if he has not in the past been 100% in harmony with what you stand for or don’t automatically agree with what you say just because you say it. It is more important to get things done than simply have good plans and then fail because you didn’t find the right people.

Benedict takes his own advice. He thinks before acting.

The French bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Besançon and the bishops of Strasbourg and Metz sent a snarky note to Pope Benedict XVI to communicate their complaints (the Italian daily Il Giornale called "lamentele… grumblings") about the establishment of the Bon Pasteur Institute in Bordeaux and a possible a Motu proprio to derestrict the "Tridentine" Mass. In their statement they write:

Considering as they do that the liturgy is the expression of the Church’s theology, the bishops fear that the entry into general use of the Roman Missal of 1962 will call into question the direction taken by the second Vatican Council. Such a decision also has the potential to cause harm to the unity existing between priests, no less than that between the faithful.

Am I getting something wrong here? Wasn’t the 1962 form of Mass precisely the Mass that nourished, accompanied, shaped and underpinned the Second Vatican Council? The 1962 Missale Romanum gave the Council its direction and the previous editions shaped all the the bishops of the Council. There is no discontinuity between the Council and the 1962 Mass.

This is why wider use of the old Mass will help us with the newer form of Mass and with richer understanding of the texts of the Council. There must be continuity with the past before a direction can be plotted for the future.

Our friends on the Rorate Coeli team get a tip of zee ol’ biretta  o{]:¬) for being sharp-eyed and catching the article in the Italian daily Il Giornale having a paragraph on the old Mass indult. They have their translation. Here is mine:

In the last few weeks many French bishops sent their grumblings (“lamentele”) to Rome to protest against the “Motu proprio” which ought to derestrict the pre-Conciliar Mass, but apparently Benedict XVI is bent on going forward, though with the necessary precautions, in order to heal the mini-schism of [Archbishop] Lefebvre and in order to guarantee traditionalist faithful the use of the old Missal with a generous gesture.

 

What I really enjoy here is the use of the Italian word "lamentele". This has a range of meanings but nearly all of them have an overtone of whining. To be sure, I double-checked with a couple Italian wordsmiths I trust and got a confirmation.

Nelle ultime settimane molti vescovi francesi hanno fatto arrivare a Roma le loro lamentele per protestare contro il «Motu proprio» che dovrebbe liberalizzare la messa preconciliare, ma a quanto pare, Benedetto XVI è deciso ad andare avanti, pur con le dovute cautele, per sanare il miniscisma di monsignor Lefebvre e garantire, con un atto di liberalità, ai fedeli tradizionalisti l’uso del vecchio messale.