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

This is the feast of St. Marcella, one of the friends of St. Jerome (+420).  She died in 410 during invasion of Alaric the Visigoth.  We know about her mainly from the letters of her friend St. Jerome.  Jerome wrote about her in epp. 23-29.32, 34.37-44. 46.97 and in a eulogy in ep. 127 two years after her death which he described as tristitia incredibilis.

Marcella came from a wealthy family.  As usual, Marcella was married off, but her husband died shortly after, leaving her very wealthy.  From that point she lived as a widow and was restrained in her dress and customs.  She rejected suitors urged on her by her mother Albina, including a a Consul.  She put her wealth to use helping the poor.  When young she met the great exiled Bishop of Alexandria, St. Athanasius (+373), who gave her a his biography of Anthony the Abbot (+356), the desert hermit and ascetic who was so instrumental in the development of monasticism.   Athanasius taught her about Pachomius (+348) and the life of virgins and widows who lived only for Christ.  She was greatly influenced also by the example of the great Peter of Alexandria (+311).  She determined to live austerely in her palace on the Aventine with her mother and other Roman noble women Asella, Principia, Marcellina, Lea and Sophronia.  When St. Jerome was in Rome he was their teacher and spiritual father.  Marcella excelled and became somewhat of a Scripture expert in Jerome’s absence.  She even helped with the controversy over Origen.  Eventually she left her Aventine palace and lived on the outskirts of Rome with Principia.

Then in 410 the Goths came.  She was a target.  Finding only simple possession in her home, they tortured her, knowing that she was wealthy.  They dragged them back to the Aventine looking for booty.  She begged them to leave her student Principia unmolested.  Eventually, at her pleading, the took her to St. Paul’s tomb on the road to Ostia, where she died a few days later.  Marcella died praising God.   Her body is interred at St. Paul’s Basilica outside the walls.

Jerome wrote to Principia comparing Marcella the biblical Anna had who lived in the temple waiting for the Messiah, saying that whereas Anna had been with her husband seven years.

Here is the view from my window tonight:

However, I am still in touch with the Sabine Farm via webcam when I need a fix.
Here is the view I would be seeing from my desk.

I have the best of both worlds.

In my fervent blogorial* solicitude for participants, I added a comment preview function. 

This will give you the chance to make … adjustments… before posting: to content, not just spelling!

Enjoy!

*A neologism based on the frequent error made by people who really mean "pastoral".

Not only is this fun, from a pop-culture point of view, it is true.

The Eucharist, its celebration and itself as the extraordinary Sacrament, is the “source and summit of Christian life”.
If we really believe that, then we must also hold that what we do in church, what we believe happens in a church, makes an enormous difference.

Do we believe the consecration really does something? Or, do we believe what is said and how, what the gestures are and the attitude in which they made are entirely indifferent? For example, will a choice not to kneel before Christ the King and Judge truly present in each sacred Host, produce a wider effect?

If you throw a stone, even a pebble, into a pool it produces ripples which expand to its edge. The way we celebrate Mass must create spiritual ripples in the Church and the world.

So does our good or bad reception of Holy Communion.

So must violations of rubrics and irreverence.

Mass is not merely a “teaching moment” or a “celebration of unity” or a "tedious obligation". Our choice of music, architecture, ceremonies and language affect more than one small congregation in one building. We are interconnected in both our common human nature and in baptism. When we sin we hurt the whole Body of Christ the Church.

If that is true for sin, it must also be true for our liturgical choices. They must also have personal and corporate impact. Any Mass can be offered for the intentions of the living or the dead.

Not even death is an obstacle to the efficacy of Holy Mass.

Celebrate Mass well, participate properly – affect the whole world. Celebrate poorly – affect the whole world.

In each age since Christ’s Ascension, people have felt they were in the End Times. They were right. In any moment, when the conditions are right, the Lord could return.

Considering what is happening in the world now, I am pushed to think about the way Mass is being celebrated, even the number of Masses being celebrated. Once there were many communities of contemplatives, spending time before the Blessed Sacrament or in contemplation, in collective and in private prayer. There were many more Masses.

Many more people went to confession.

Who can know how they all lifted burdens from the world and turned large and small tides by their prayers to God for mercy and in reparation for sin?

A single droplet of Christ’s Precious Blood consecrated at Holy Mass is the price of every soul ever created in God’s unfathomable plan.

So I repeat:

In the Sunday Angelus address today, His Holiness lauded St. Thomas Aquinas and spoke of the necessity of reason for the sake of modern society.

He mentioned his speech in Regensburg. Benedict spoke of the way St. Thomas was able to harmonize "Arab and Hebrew thought of his day" with Christianity. Thus he can be considered a good model for modern times of dialogue between cultures and religions.

I am sure you will be reading the translation of the address when it is released. However, when Benedict mentioned his controversial speech at Regensburg I thought of something I posted in another entry, about Fr. Foster’s negative view of an eventual Motu Proprio to derestrict the older form of Mass. 

Fr. Foster thought the problems caused in Regensburg with Arabs were part of a weight of difficulties making such an indult impossible. Foster said that Benedict wants to avoid negative reactions.

If Benedict was really afraid of negative reactions why would be mention his Regensburg Address and Arabs so often in public?

In the Sunday Telegraph there is an article by Malcolm Moore about famed Fr. Reginald Foster, OCD, long-time Latinist for the Holy See. In the article Moore quotes Foster about the so-called "Tridentine" indult. Foster is not positive (emphasis mine).

He said reports that Pope Benedict will reintroduce the Tridentine Mass, which dates from 1570 and is largely conducted in Latin, were wrong – not least because of the Pope’s desire to avoid more controversies. A speech last year offended Muslims and more recently he gave initial support to a Polish archbishop who was eventually forced to resign, after admitting that he had collaborated with the communist-era secret police.

"He is not going to do it," Fr Foster said. "He had trouble with Regensberg, and then trouble in Warsaw, and if he does this, all hell will break loose." In any case, he added: "It is a useless mass and the whole mentality is stupid. The idea of it is that things were better in the old days. It makes the Vatican look medieval."

I have great respect for Fr. Foster, whom I studied with for many years. My Latin experiences with him changed my life. I know him to be a very kind and generous soul. I consider him a friend.

I also know that he rarely speaks in moderate terms. Hyperbole characterizes nearly everything about him. Fr. Foster often makes very strong statements to make sure he is understood and, perhaps above all, to provoke reactions. I have heard him say entirely crazy things and observe the looks of disbelief on faces around him. I do not think that he is insincere. I believe this is the way a man with 200ghz more brain speed than anyone else in the room copes with what he sees going on in the Church and the world.

That said… I think Fr. Foster is wrong about this. But may be right in one respect.

I think the indult is going to happen. However, recent controversies may have made the Holy Father decide to wait for a good moment.

Right now in Rome (with the exception Foster, obviously) there is sepulchral silence about this document. Fr. Foster, though in the Secretariate of State, may not be in the best position to know the status of the Motu Proprio. He is a translator, not a policy maker. It may be that he will be the one to make sure the Latin text of the document is clean. Perhaps he hasn’t seen it, and so he thinks it won’t happen. Maybe his statement is motivated by wishful thinking.

If Fr. Foster doesn’t want to see a return of the use of the older form of Missale he is perfectly within his rights. Good men and differ on this matter. It is entirely okay that he voice his opinions. There is room for discussion. don’t want… don’t like the "Tridentine" Mass? Okay, fine!

What needs to be done to help Holy Church find her liturgical bearings for the future?

Biretta tip to Catholic Church Conservation for the heads up on a comment made by the director of the German section of Vatican Radio, Fr. Eberhard von Gemmingen SJ. (Emphasis mine)

In all probability Pope Benedict will give the permission to celebrate again the traditional or Tridentine Rite. It would however be completely wrong if Catholics started to quarrel over this, some of them full of joy about this reversal, the others full of anger. It is to be noted that the Pope will not on any account reintroduce the old liturgy or even make it compulsory. He is only of the opinion that the prohibition of the classical Rite after the Council is in contradiction to Church tradition, because according to his conviction, Rites can be further developed but cannot be abrogated.

Notwithstanding the above, Rome is pretty quiet about any forthcoming Motu Proprio. My usual suspects are hearing nothing. This brings me to conclude that the Pope has the document now. He will make the decision when it seems opportune.

What Does The Prayer Really Say?  4th Sunday In Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2007

    I had a lovely experience. I went for supper with a priest and 13 sisters visiting Rome. The Sister Servants of the Eternal Word told me they pray every day in their community for accurate translations of the liturgy. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

    You will remember last week’s report about the meeting of liturgists in Toronto where His Excellency Donald W. Trautman, chair of the USCCB’s Committee on the Liturgy (BCL), lamented in his keynote speech that the new translations being prepared will be too hard for people to understand and that everyone should raise their prophetic voices in protest. Bishop Trautman says that if the priest says Christ died “for you and for many” (pro vobis et pro multis) during the consecration of the Precious Blood, people will become confused and maybe even LEAVE THE CHURCH! In his words, “the new texts will contribute to a greater number of departures from the Catholic Church.” This is because the new translations are going to be reeeeally harrrrrd. He thinks priests are not capable of explaining what really hard things mean.

    As His Excellency put it during an interview last June with John L. Allen Jr. of the lefty National Catholic Reporter, “I don’t think we’ll convince people that ‘consubstantial,’ for example, is better than ‘one in being,’ which has been used for 35 years. People say that England has been using it for all these years, but I think our priests are stretched too thin already.” Translating this, American priests just aren’t up to the task. They have neither the time nor ability to explain hard words, like “consubstantial.” Apparently we should get some English priests to cross the pond to shed some light on the language for the backward Americans.

    I checked with a few English priests about what they say in the Creed. On their scepter’d isle they proclaim Christ to be “of one being with the Father,” not “consubstantial.” Anyhow, Brits know English. But if they can’t come, we can take a page from the troops in Iraq and write to the chair of the BCL: Pleeze help us biship troutman! We need eezee tra…transz…tranzayshins…tr…eezeur wurdz!

    Folks, “one in being with the Father” isn’t merely theologically wrong; it’s boring. Everything that exists is “one in being” with the Father, since they are all in being. An ashtray is one in being with the Father: They both have being, granted in different ways, but both have being. Only a divine Person can be of one “substance with” the Father (“con-substantial”). The Second Person was of one substance with the First Person, the Father, from all eternity. After the Annunciation and Incarnation the Son has been of one substance also with His Mother, and therefore with all humanity. So, “one in being” is easy and wrong. Worse yet, it’s boring, provoking nothing interesting in the mind. It will not fire up a person’s passion to learn more about what it might possibly mean in its strangeness. One English priest told me how when he was a child the word “consubstantial” in a hymn fascinated him. In the hymn Christ Was Made the Sure Foundation we sing:

Laud and honor to the Father,
laud and honor to the Son,
laud and honor to the Spirit,
ever Three, and ever One,
consubstantial, coeternal,
while unending ages run.

    Child abuse! How on earth did people, a child, sing that hymn?

    “Laud…consubstantial…coeternal….” Look at the hard words! Is it possible that precisely because they sang hymns like that, with engaging lyrics, and followed Holy Mass in their hand missals, by slavish but accurate translations, they came to understand words like “consubstantial” and phrases like “for you and for many” quite well?

    The Holy See got it right with the proper translation of pro multis (after over 30 years). I think we will see a proper translation of consubstantialis Patri in the Creed. In the meantime, we must raise our voices in support of accurate translations and the norms expressed in Liturgiam authenticam (LA). I like in particular this paragraph:

    53. Whenever a particular Latin term has a rich meaning that is difficult to render into a modern language (such as the words munus, famulus, consubstantialis, propitius, etc.) various solutions may be employed in the translations, whether the term be translated by a single vernacular word or by several, or by the coining of a new word, or perhaps by the adaptation or transcription of the same term into a language or alphabet that is different from the original text (cf. above, n. 21), or the use of an already existing word which may bear various meanings.

    Nota bene: LA 53 speaks not only of munus but also of consubstantialis. During the USCCB meeting in June 2006, His Excellency Bishop Trautman tried to argue from LA 53 that “one in being with the Father” ought to be retained in the new translation. I read LA 53 to mean that whatever solution is chosen to render difficult terms into English, the solution should aim at something accurate rather than something merely convenient, even if that means choosing a Latin cognate (read: hard word). LA 21 says (my emphasis):

    Especially in the translations intended for peoples recently brought to the Christian Faith, fidelity and exactness with respect to the original texts may themselves sometimes require that words already in current usage be employed in new ways, that new words or expressions be coined, that terms in the original text be transliterated or adapted to the pronunciation of the vernacular language,…

    That sounds like “consubstantial” to me. Or am I wrong?

Post Communionem (2002 Missale Romanum):
Redemptionis nostrae munere vegetati, quaesumus, Domine,
ut hoc perpetuae salutis auxilio
fides semper vera proficiat.

    This was the Postcommunio for “Sabbato in albis,” the Saturday during the Octave of Easter. It is also in the ancient Veronese Sacramentary in the month of July, though slightly different:…fides semper vera perficiat. Here we read perficio rather than proficio. The pre-Conciliar Missale Romanum has proficio, just like the Novus Ordo.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord,
you invigorate us with this help to our salvation.
By this eucharist give the true faith continued growth
throughout the world.

    Lewis & Short, great resource that it is, tells us the late-Latin verb vegeto means “to arouse, enliven, quicken, animate, invigorate.” Albert Blaise produced a very useful work revised by Antoine Dumas, OSB, called Le vocabulaire latin des principaux thèmes liturgiques….The Latin Vocabulary of the Principal Themes of the Liturgy. This is what we call Blaise/Dumas in these articles. Blaise/Dumas examines vegeto, giving it the meaning “fortify” or “strengthen” when it is associated with the Eucharist. It provides examples of liturgical texts having also forms of munus and the verb auxilior. This is similar to today’s prayer.

    Proficio has a range of meanings. Basically, it is “to go forward, advance, gain ground, make progress.” In different contexts it is also, “to grow, increase” and “to be useful, serviceable, advantageous, etc., to effect, accomplish; to help, tend, contribute, conduce.” Think of the English “proficient.” We could say in our prayer “that the true faith may always grow,” which would be in keeping with the imagery invoked in vegetati (“quickened, enlivened, strengthened”) or perhaps we might say “that the true faith may always advance,” which would hark to how we are pilgrims in this world. Perhaps “gain ground” captures both. I am reminded of how my (vegetative) oregano and thyme plants “gain ground” over their neighbors. They creep and spread and take more and more surface as they grow.

    We frequently see munus in our Latin prayers. There is the munus which refers to the “duty” or “office,” and also the munus which is “gift.” In liturgical language it is often God’s gift of the Eucharist received. Munus was singled out in Liturgiam authenticam, as we saw above.

Literal Translation:
Having been quickened by the gift of our redemption,
we beseech You, O Lord, that true faith may always gain ground
by means of this support for eternal salvation.

    We have in this prayer two closely related words, redemptio (redemption) and salus (salvation). God created man in a state of original justice. By the sin of our first parents, the entire human race fell into enslavement to the Enemy of the soul, the Devil. By His Sacrifice on the Cross, Christ, both Priest and Victim, took our place and bought us back. His Sacrifice satisfied the justice due to God for our sins. The Redeemer won back for us the friendship of God. The concept of redemption, therefore, includes both our initial fall and then the price Christ paid to restore us.

    Salvation goes somewhat beyond redemption. Salvation is the freeing of the soul from sin and, in consequences, the attaining of Heaven as our proper end. For our salvation we must cooperate with God and depend on His love and the mercy. God will give light and graces sufficient for every soul, but the ordinary path to our salvation is through membership in the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church.

    Formal membership in the Catholic Church gives us so much more help for our salvation (salutis auxilium) than we would otherwise have in this perilous world, for now so much the dominion of the Enemy. Of such value is our visible membership in the Church that She teaches “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus…outside the Church there is no salvation.” Properly understood, this means that all whom God saves are saved through His Church. He who recognizes what (Who) the Church is, but refuses to become a member, chooses the path to perdition. Someone who, through no fault of his own, does not belong to the Church will not be damned to eternal Hell on account of his ignorance, unless his ignorance is willed and culpable. Those who are ignorant of the true Faith, as Blessed Pius IX taught (Allocutio of December 9, 1854), will not be held guilty in the eyes of God provided their ignorance is invincible (oops, hard word: can’t be won over by correct information, good arguments, examples of charity, etc.).

    The Eucharist is for our redemption and for our salvation. It is simultaneously our freedom and our hope. It is the source and the summit of our entire Christian identity. And yet many receive the Eucharist improperly. Many do not receive because they are not in unity with the Catholic Church. What shall we do about this?

    Our prayer today asks that vera fides, true Faith, advance by the Eucharist. It advances within us by our good reception of Communion. Nourished and strengthened with the Eucharist, we then go directly out of Mass to live our vocations in the world. The Eucharist then advances the true Faith not only within us, but also in the world we influence by and for true Faith.

    St. Augustine of Hippo (+430) regularly attaches the adjective vera to terms like iustitia (justice), pietas (devotion), and of course fides so as to differentiate what Christians have and do from the ways of the world. Our faith must be true Faith, rooted in the Eucharist, shaped by the Church, manifested in action.

Smoother Version:
Strengthened by the gift of our redemption, O Lord,
we entreat You that, by this assistance for our eternal salvation,
the true faith may always flourish.

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  4th Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2006

Some indirect and somewhat dated feedback:  In December there was an interesting conference in Rome sponsored by The Becket Fund.   The events director, MD, told me that her grandfather is quite the fan of WDTPRS.  So, to him I send kind greetings and thanks for his indirect kudos.   

SUPER OBLATA (2002MR)
Altaribus tuis, Domine, munera nostrae servitutis inferimus,
quae, placatus assumens,
sacramentum nostrae redemptionis efficias.

Right away you will be struck by the alliterative ‘s’ sounds.  Today’s so-called “Prayer over the gifts” is also in the ancient Veronese Sacramentary.

The densely printed pages of your very own copy of that paragon of Latin lemmas, the The Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary, divulge that servitus is (despite its us ending) a feminine noun.  It means, “the condition of a servus; slavery, serfdom, service, servitude.”   Infero is “to carry, bring, put, or throw into or to a place”.  This verb also can mean “to conclude, infer, draw an inference.”   

Latin, like all of us, has moods but not good moods or bad moods.  Getting Latin moods into English can be a chore.  Latin has the subjunctive mood, the bane of many a Latin student.  In Latin, the subjunctive mood represents the predicate as an idea, as something conceived in the mind, abstracted from reality.  Often people translate subjunctives into English with the auxiliary verbs “may, can, must, might, could, should, would” and indeed the subjunctive can be used to express views and wishes.  However, the subjunctive is also applied to things that are in fact very concrete but in the sentence are somewhat logically remote from the subject and verb of the main sentence and are therefore considered to be abstract.  This is the case in many relative sentences.  In relative sentences the thing being treated can be very concrete and real but, because it is in a relative sentence, the subjunctive is used.  It is very tempting for Latin students always to use those abovementioned auxiliary verbs automatically upon spotting any subjunctive.  However, very often it is more accurate to make Latin subjunctives sound indicative when putting them into English.  We must do that with our prayer today.   Efficias is a subjunctive and some will be tempted to say something like “which you may make into the sacrament of our redemption.”   It is actually more accurate to give efficias an indicative sound.   So, let’s give this our best shot.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
We are bringing in to place upon your altars, O Lord, the gifts of our service,
which, having been appeased as you take them up,
you make into the sacrament of our redemption.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord,
be pleased with the gifts we bring to your altar,
and make them the sacrament of our salvation.

What did the ICEL translator really do to the Latin prayer?  Obvious he (she?  they?) changed plural altaribus to a singular.  Does this mean anything?  Is there anything sinister here?  Theologically spooky?   Probably not, but we can use this as an opportunity to discuss Catholic things.  

I try to give the ICEL versions the benefit of the doubt, but they obviously veer, sharply, nay rather careen away from the Latin original.  Why?  Anyone with a little Latin can see this.  We are justifiably suspicious of anything offered by ICEL, even the present, ongoing project.  In the past the translators had reasons for their choices to distort the originals.  It is not possible to believe that the bishops purposely employed translators so fantastically incompetent that they botched the prayers out lack of skill.   In those days bishops would have still had a little background in Latin.  They must have picked people with at least a minimum competency in Latin.  Let’s leave aside their agenda of composing prayers not in the Missale Romanum.  The translators therefore must have seen that, in today’s prayer, the Latin had a plural.  Therefore, they wanted to change the Latin into something else.  As Sherlock Holmes observed, when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Now, all in all today’s ICEL version isn’t completely off base.  But why would the translators change Latin “altars” into “altar”?  Was there a theological reason for making the change?  

We need a lens to view the question more closely.  Consider a first point:  Catholics (which word in its roots means “universal”) have never historically been interested in making things or people “smaller”, in the sense of placing unreasonable or unrealistic restrictions on them.  Our Church, despite what the media say or some sour-grapes fringe progressives claim, is not into placing unreasonable limits.   For example, there is a famous principle of interpretation of the Church’s law whereby the advantages people have as expressed in law are to be amplified while the things that place restrictions on them must be interpreted as strictly or narrowly as possible so as to favor the rights of the individual (odiosa restringenda sunt, favorabilia amplianda).  Consider also a second point: as members of the Church we belong to something not only spread throughout the whole world but also transcending even the grave.   No, Catholics are not into making people or things “small”.

Turn now to the ICEL prayer.   The translator, by using a singular “altar” rather than the accurate “altars” repressed the fact that Catholics all over the world are this Sunday presenting their gifts on myriads of altars (altaribus), grand or small, simple or ornate, fixed to a wall or free-standing, marble with gilt reredos or on the hood of a sand-pocked armored humvee.   People of many cultures focus on their hugely varying altars every day.  Every day the one and same Sacrifice of the Mass is being offered for both the living and the dead of every age and in every place.  

Please understand: it is a good thing to help a congregation to recognize its particular identity as it is gathered at its particular altar in its particular parish.   It is not a good thing to do this at the expense of the Church’s universality, its catholicity.  Moreover, altars are a sign of the presence of Jesus Christ, who is not to be limited to one place and time alone.  Christ is not to be made “small”, nor is the unity of the Catholic People of God through time, space and even the passage of the grave.

We can shift gears and come at this from another direction.  Does the change to singular “altar” have anything to do with the attempt on the part of some to constrain all celebrations of Mass to be “facing the people”?   This is a big jump.  Consider the following points.  In the ancient Church, churches had usually one altar.  As the Church grew and her understanding of the Blessed Sacrament and efficacy of Mass and role of priests evolved, churches were built with more than one altar especially under the influence of Western monasticism.  There was clearly a main altar, a principal altar, which was the architectural, the visible, logical focus of the whole building.  That special place within the sanctuary, itself set apart from the rest of the sacred building – like the ancient Jewish Holy of Holies within the Temple – was where the sacred mysteries were celebrated.  Other altars in the church might be used at different times, particularly when many priests were in residence near the church who all needed to say Mass each day.  This was certainly the case at a monastery, seminary or, once upon a time, parish.   This was also during the time before “concelebration” was revived in the West.

For a long time there has been a movement to emphasize, in an exaggerated way, the importance of one unique altar in the sacred space of the church.  This principle of the unicity of the altar is a theological concern not to be trifled with.  Much serious ink has been spilled over this issue. However, an otherwise good principle can be applied with so heavy a hand that damage is done.  This was certainly the case with the use of the vernacular versus Latin.  For decades a maniacal effort to tear “extra” altars out of churches, even historic churches, has resulted in destruction that might have shocked the Visigoths.  At the very best some main altars at the wall were converted into shelves for plants.  But once the one altar principle was coupled with the goofy idea that the priest must face the people for the Eucharistic Prayer, the door was opened to jack-hammer and crowbar toting reformers.  As it happens, the historical foundation for Mass facing the people has been debunked with real scholarship, but the damage has been done far and wide in older churches. The “experts” have had their way in most places.  The “high altars” of our churches have been torn out in favor of a table, sometimes not even placed in the center of the eye’s focus.  In some places altar are absurdly juxtaposed to and counterbalancing the ambo where the Scriptures are read.   My comments here are more than a mere laus temporis acti… a praise of times gone by.   The orientation of an altar is truly significant.  People glean something very important from the layout of a church and the way the altar is placed and treated. By turning altars around we have, in my opinion, lost as a Church far more than we imagine we have gained.   By forcing priest and people to face each other, in closed circle, we have made ourselves “small”.

Here in Rome and elsewhere you find churches with the main altar intact.  However, in nearly every case a table altar has been set up in front of it.  When I see a huge and magnificent high altar with a silly little ironing board set up also, I shake my head in incredulous disbelief.  Many people have been duped into thinking that saying Mass versus populum is of such overriding value that they justify what looks like a picnic table compared to what stands behind it.  Many of the same people will then harp on liturgical “diversity” to the point where virtually any liturgical abuse is tolerated, while clamping down in draconian ferocity on anyone who suggests that it is okay to have Mass also… get this… also oriented so that priest and congregation together face the liturgical “East”, whence the Church traditionally believed the Lord would return.   

The discussion above is not irrelevant to the issue of liturgical translations, which is what WDTPRS is about.  For example, the document of the USCCB called Built of Living Stones: Art, Architecture, and Worship (BLS), when treating the position of altars, in footnote 73 (once note 75) in its online version mistranslates the Latin of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) par. 299.  The English mistranslation in BLS of the Latin description of the placement of the altar is skewed so as to impose versus populum celebrations of Mass, which the Latin does not say.  The mistranslation was published in November 2000 and remains online now despite the fact that the Latin of that very paragraph 299 in the GIRM had been specifically explained and clarified by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS – Prot. No. 2036/00/L – 25 September 2000) before the American bishops promulgated BLS.  Those who wrote BLS and submitted it to the bishops for approval had to have known about that clarification by the CDWDS and so they must have submitted the mistranslation on purpose.  Again, exclude the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.  It is not naïve to suppose that presuppositions drive translation choices.  They sure do in these columns!   

Dear reader, include our bishops in your prayers.  Ask their angel guardians to guide them in their duty to develop an accurate new English translation according to the norms.  

What Does the Prayer Really Say? Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2001

This prayer comes in a time when we see in the newsworthy activities being covered by the media that love of God and neighbor should be prayed for with great and intense fervor. The season of the liturgical year called “Ordinary Time” is particularly helpful in guiding us into a proper Christian approach to the nitty-gritty details of the routine of daily living through the year. It might not be an exaggeration to suggest that the two-fold great command of Jesus is to be found at the foundation of daily life.

COLLECT:
LATIN (1970 Missale Romanum)
Concede nobis, Domine Deus noster,
ut te tota mente veneremur,
et omnes homines rationabili diligamus affectu.

A probably not very significant detail: the phrase Domine Deus noster is used in only three collects of Ordinary Time, this week, the 5th and 33rd.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Grant us, O Lord our God,
that we may venerate you with our whole mind,
and may love all men with rational good-will.

We are asking God to permit us, to allow us as a great gift and favor granted, to “venerate” God with our whole mind. This veneror, as the great The Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary provides, has a deeply religious connotation and means, “to reverence with religious awe, to worship, adore, revere, venerate… to do homage.” Think of its use in the well-known Tantum Ergo, which describes us as cernui, “heads bowed to the ground.” To “venerate” as we should, it will be necessary to seek to know Him for we are to do this with our “whole mind.” But there is a close link between knowing and loving. More on this below.

What we are hearing in this collect is clearly an echo of the two-fold command of Jesus, teaching and expanding the repeated command in Deuteronomy (cf. especially 6:5, the Shema – “Hear, O Israel…”), to love God and neighbor (cf. Matthew 22:36-38; Mark 12:2-31; Luke 10:26-28 – which has omni mente rather than tota). In the three Synoptic Gospels where a version of the two-fold command appears we have the Greek word dianoia for “mind.” Jerome in the Vulgate used mens to translate the Greek dianoia. Dianoia is used in the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint (usually abbreviated LXX). But looking at the Deuteronomy passage, we find in English translations “heart.” Dianoia translates the Hebrew lebab: heart…. and a lot more besides. Furthermore, in the Latin Vulgate for the Deuteronomy, we find for dianoia the word cor - “heart”. Like the English “heart”, Hebrew lebab can mean very many things, including “inner man, mind, will, heart, soul, understanding, mind, knowledge, thinking, reflection, memory, inclination, resolution, determination (of will), conscience. “Heart” can mean the seat of moral character or courage. Biblical anthropology and the relationship of “mind, heart, soul” is a complicated study, and we do not have time and space for it here. By looking into that mens of our prayer we are digging for a road map to avoid the pitfalls and traps that the word “love” carries around today like so much baggage. “Mind” and “heart” are closely related faculties in man and cannot be separated from each other.

We are commanded by the Savior to love. Mother Church remembers this in this week’s prayer. But “love” can mean so many things today. Many of you reading this will remember C.S. Lewis’ book The Four Loves. Commonly used, “love” today usually refers not to the kind of love which is really Christian “charity”, that sacrificial love which in seeking always the good of the other resembles the sacrificial love of Christ, the theological virtue that permits us to love as images of God. Bob can “love” his Ferrari, Susie can “love” her kitty, and without doubt we all “love” baseball and spaghetti. We can talk about the different tenors of love, such as the love of benevolence, or of complacence, of enemies, concupiscence. But we are called to a special sort of love in this prayer… true charity: the infused virtue which makes it possible for us to love God for His own sake and love all those who are made in His image. This is more than benevolence or tolerance, more than appetitive desire. Love is not merely a response to some appetite, like seeing a beautiful member of the opposite sex, a well-turned double-play, or a plate of spaghetti all’amatriciana. It isn’t the sloppy gazing of passion drunk sweethearts or what we see on TV primetime. I call that luv. Real love is the adhesion of the will to an object which is grasped by the intellect to be good. Real love, the sort of love invoked in our prayer, is an act of will. This love delights in the other and is informed by a longing for the good of the other. It makes two resound with one spirit. Love, in the sense this prayer offers, is an act of will based on the work of a discerning intellect that is reshaped and informed by grace. This why we find in our prayer that phrase rationabilis affectus. Rationabilis is an adjective meaning: rational, reasonable. Our stupendous Lewis & Short Dictionary shows us that affectus indicates “A state of body, and esp. of mind produced in one by some influence, a state or disposition of mind, affection, mood: Love, desire, fondness, good-will, compassion, sympathy.” Rationabilis affectus reflects what it is to be truly human, made in God’s image and likeness, with faculties of willing and knowing and, therefore, loving.

We come back to the connection of knowledge and love, mentioned above. It seems to me that these two are so closely related that they cannot be easily distinguished at times. I am willing to bet that all of us have had the experience of getting to know something or someone and then, “falling in love.” Billy might be fascinated by bugs. From this love for bugs he simply must come to know everything there is to know about them, thus setting the stage for a brilliant career in entomology. On the other hand, we get to know a person or a city and, the more we learn about this complex object of our intellectual effort, we slowly come to appreciate their beauty and come even to a genuine love. Simply put, when we love someone, we want to know everything about him or her and the more we learn the more we love. This is how we must be with God: constantly seeking to understand Him more and more so as to love Him more and more, and by that very love coming to understand things about God that, without love, would not be possible for us to learn. The desire for both love and knowledge are built into who we are and we have a relationship with the objects of both love and knowledge. The great 13th century saint and doctor of the Church Bonaventure described “ecstatic knowledge.” This kind of knowledge is merely the product of abstract investigation. Rather, it starts first from standing back and contemplating. By contemplation, the knower becomes engaged with the object, becomes fascinated by it and wants to know it more deeply. This longing draws the knower into the object. Consider: we can study about God and our faith. But really the object of study is a living Person, not a set of abstractions. We need the sort of knowledge of God that draws us into Him. This is a “knowledge” which reaches into us, seizes us, pulls us into itself and transforms us. To experience God’s love is to have certain knowledge, more certain than any knowledge which can be arrived at by means of merely rational examination (but not in opposition to it).

And we are commanded to love our neighbor, all made in God’s image and all individually intriguing – fascinating, in a way that resembles the way we love God and ourselves. This we are to do with our minds, hearts, and our strength.

ICEL:
Lord our God,
help us to love you with all our hearts
and to love all men as you love them.

This version of the collect we examine this week leaves me a bit disappointed. The sound of it is really quite flat and uninteresting, repetitive, rather like the 1967 John Lennon/Beatles song: “Love… love… love… all you need is luv”. I wholeheartedly embrace the sentiment it expresses: “Help us to… love all men as you love them”, is a fine thing if we consider with what sort of love God loves. Also, there is a profound difference between concede (“grant”) and “help.” Concede indicates our dependance on God, whereas “help” indicates a much more limited role for God. God does more than “help” us and we fallen human beings need more than “help.” When I hear “help” over and over again in ICEL prayers, I get a whiff (imagined or not) of Pelgaianism. That said, I don’t see how this really translates the Latin original.

A long time ago, in a parish far far away, I got in terrible trouble on the feast of St. Angela Merici (+1540), foundress of the Ursulines in Brescia and a patroness of Catholic education. 

I was asked to bless the school rooms of the K-8 parish school.  This would clearly also involve talking with the children to make sure they knew what this was all about. 

One reasonably expects some confusion in the very youngest children about, say, the difference between a sacrament and a sacramental. After 6-8 years of Catholic education, however, the older children ought to know this. To my astonishment, in the 6th, 7th and 8th grade classes I could not find a single child… not a single child… who could tell me even the name of ONE of the sacraments, much less what a sacrament is much less a sacramental.   Seeing how things were going I spent some time in each room explaining what a sacrament is before I blessed the room and then asked some questions afterward.  I figured that if the kids were going to HOLY COMMUNION at school Masses, they might as well know that "that piece of bread thing"* was a sacrament.

In most schools when the priest comes to the classroom, the teachers are pleased to see him and make sure the kids know that it is a special occasion.  Not at this school!  What was the reaction of the teachers? They got angry with ME for explaining to the children what sacraments are and what the difference is between them and sacramentals (like blessing the room).  Leave aside the fact that it was THEIR responsibility in the school room to teach the basics of our Catholic faith. 

To make a long story short, I always remember with bittersweet fondness the feast day of St. Angela Merici.

Here is the "opening prayer" for today’s great saint, St. Angela Merici.

COLLECT:
Pietati tuae, quaesumus, Domine,
nos beata virgo Angela commendare non desinat,
ut, eius caritatis et prudentiae documenta sectantes,
tuam valeamus doctrinam custodire
et moribus profiteri.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
We beg You, O Lord, let the blessed virgin Angela
not cease to commend us to Your mercy,
so that, closely following her concrete examples of charity and prudence,
we may be able to guard Your fundamental teaching
and make progess in a good conduct of life.

Here I think is in doctrina an echo of the Italian "dottrina", "teaching" in the sense of "catechism" for children, the fundamentals.  When Italians call religious instruction for children "la dottrina". Since this prayer concerns a saint foundress of an order dedicated to teaching children, this seems a good choice.

I will thus put to you simple questions.

• Do your children know what a sacrament is?
• Do they know the names of the sacraments?
• Do they know what the difference is between a sacrament and a sacramental?

Take time to review the fundamental teachings of our Catholic Faith. We read in 1 Peter 3:15: "Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." A good way to make this review would be with your own copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Get one and give one to those whom you love.

*This was an actual response from a child two days before making their First Holy Communion. I was asked to show the kids the church and help them understand what to do.  I showed them how to genuflect before the tabernacle. They were previously unaware of such a practice.  Children like to know WHY they do things, right?  I said we pay special attention to the tabernacle (pointing to it and explaining that I meant that beautiful box, etc. etc.) because that is where Jesus is present in the Host they were going to receive for their First Communion. Blank stares.  So, we had a little quiz about Communion, and its meaning. Blank stares. I asked about Jesus and His being present in Communion. Blank stares. I asked about if they had ever noticed that their parents receive the Host during Mass. At that point one young boy said, "You mean that piece of bread thing?"

The Cardinal Secretary of State has a big job, to say the least. But these days, he is busy with book presentations.

He had one a couple days ago, for a book on people who helped Jews during WWII. Today he was at one (as was I) for a new book by Nicola Bux and Adriano Garuti, Pietro ama e unisce: La responsibilita personale del Papa per la Chiesa universale (Bologna: ESD, 2007) considering the Petrine ministry in a solidly Catholic way.

Also present at today’s presentation were José Card. Saraiva Martins (Prefect of Causes of Saints), H.E. Rino Fisichella (auxilliary of Rome) various other prelates and functionaries. 

The advertised presence of Cardinal Bertone was sure to bring out some of the curial workers bees, seeking face time. You can always tell the careerists of the Secretariate of State, who came in through the finishing school, from their carefully planned hair and the peculiar walk that results from shoes that are too tight. But I digress.

On both occasions Cardinal Bertone spoke of Pius XII. In the first case it is an obvious thing to talk about Pius XII because of his amazing efforts to save the lives of thousands of Jews (a fact the mainstream media hates and therefore hides).

Today, however, Card. Bertone mentioned that Pius XII had received an apparition of the Lord, something His Eminence clearly believed, judging from the way he spoke about it.

I find it interesting that in a span of about 48 hours, His Eminence spoke at book presentations about Servant of God Pope Pius XII. 

Today is the feast of St. Vitalian, Pope (657-672), who is also a co-patron of the Suburbicarian Diocese of Velletri-Segni.  He was born in Segni (where the finest chestnuts of Italy are found). I would be remiss if I did not mention him today, which is his die natalis.

In the Basilica of St. Peter there is a proper prayer for him used with the Common of Pastors (with the Mass Suscitabo):

COLLECT:
Deus, qui beatum Vitalianum divina caritate flagrantem,
fideque, quae vincit mundum, insignem,
sanctis Pastoribus mirabiliter aggregasti,
praesta quaesumus, ut ipso intercendente
nos quoque in fide et caritate perseverantes
eius gloriae consortes fieri mereamur.

LITERAL RENDERING:
O God, who wonderously included in the ranks of Shepherds blessed Vitalius,
burning with divine charity
and outstanding in the faith which refutes the world,
grant we beseech You, that as he intercedes,
we also, persevering in faith and charity,
may merit to become sharers of his glory.

St. Pope Vitalianus tried to put relations of Rome and Constantinople on a better footing even as he battled monothelitism (the heresy that Christ had only one will, and therefore lacked a perfect human nature).  The other day we saw Pope Benedict bless lambs, the wool of which is destined for the pallia to be given to metropolitans.  In 633 Constans gave golden pallium to Vitalian, dined with him after Mass, and then stole some of his bronzes, including some of the bronze from the Pantheon.  Beware Greeks bearing gifts, I guess. Vitalian also defended the authority of the papacy when the Archbishop of Ravenna decided it was time to go autocephalic (he mutinied). 

Claudio Card. Hummes, Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, has written to all the priests of the world via the website of the Congregation. Let’s look at the central section and pull it apart. I have some obervations along the way.

Here are some excepts from the letter. Some of it sounds a little like gobbledegook, but we can sort it through:

 

... We are bearers of a specific identity that constantly characterizes us in our existence and in our activity. We are consecrated and incorporated into the activity of Christ. The gestures and the words of Jesus become re-actualized (It: "riattualizzati") in time and in history to elicit in those who fulfill them "the same sentiments of Christ" and the same effects of salvation.

The Church, in conferring the sacrament of orders, ontologically constitutes the priest as an "alter Christus," or as some say, an "ipse Christus"; and it establishes him as a minister of the word and as a minister of the prophetic action and pastoral love of Christ. His function, therefore, is not to exhaust himself exclusively in the dimension of worship, but to fulfill himself in the prophetic dimension by proclaiming the word and in the pastoral dimension by being a guide for the community.

Among the beautiful expressions of the Second Vatican Council is the following statement, which synthesizes the functions of the priest while delineating his identity: "Priests, while engaging in prayer and adoration, or preaching the word, or offering the Eucharistic sacrifice and administering the other sacraments, or performing other works of the ministry for men, devote all this energy to the increase of the glory of God and to man’s progress in the divine life" ("Presbyterorum Ordinis," 2).

...

From the Vatican, Jan. 24, 2007
Memorial of St. Francis de Sales

More than one odd phrases cause us to scratch our heads. For example, "The gestures and the words of Jesus become re-actualized (It: "riattualizzati") in time and in history".

The dicta et acta of the Lord, especially known through Scripture, are central. But, "reactualized"? What on earth does that mean? The Italian, "riattualizzati" is one of those jargon words Italians put together when talkin’ purty. In Italian "attuale" is "present, current". Thus, "attualizzare" means "to bring into the present, ripopose in modern terms", which makes perfect sense in this context. "Riattuallize" is just a fancier sounding way of saying this. The English translation is a bit to slavish in sticking to the Italian.

Let’s pull this apart at the seams:

... We are bearers of a specific identity that constantly characterizes us in our existence and in our activity. [The sacrament of Holy Orders changed who we are and effects all that we do.] We are consecrated and incorporated into the activity of Christ. [Because of that, we are "set apart" (clerus) and Christ acts through us in a particular way.] The gestures and the words of Jesus become re-actualized (It: "riattualizzati") in time and in history to elicit in those who fulfill them "the same sentiments of Christ" and the same effects of salvation. [In priests, Christ’s words and actions are brought into the present and cause His will to be done in the ongoing salvation of souls.]

The Church, in conferring the sacrament of orders, ontologically constitutes the priest as an "alter Christus," or as some say, an "ipse Christus" [When the Church ordains a man, he is so conformed to Christ that he can be called "another Christ"]; and it establishes him as a minister of the word and as a minister of the prophetic action and pastoral love of Christ. [thus, he proclaims and explains the Word of God and preaches the Good news while being active in good works according to Christ command to love.] His function, therefore, is not to exhaust himself exclusively in the dimension of worship, but to fulfill himself in the prophetic dimension by proclaiming the word and in the pastoral dimension by being a guide for the community. [Therefore the priest should not remain only "in the sacristy" but should also be active in the community.]

Among the beautiful expressions of the Second Vatican Council is the following statement, which synthesizes the functions of the priest while delineating his identity: "Priests, while engaging in prayer and adoration, or preaching the word, or offering the Eucharistic sacrifice and administering the other sacraments, or performing other works of the ministry for men, devote all this energy to the increase of the glory of God and to man’s progress in the divine life" ("Presbyterorum Ordinis," 2).

Tha last part is fairly clear.

One of the things I find a bit odd in this piece is the way the liturgical role of the priest is so diminished in view of "pastoral" work, as if those two things are somehow not in harmony. Furthermore, while it is true that the letter does speak clearly about the ontological change Holy Orders makes in the soul, this dimension seems to take a back seat to "activity" and "functions". It almost sounds as if there is a zero-sum view at work: a focus on liturgy can’t be "pastoral", a priestly identity is more active than contemplative.

I find this dichotomy frequently among priests and prelates: if you are contemplative, you are not "pastoral"; if you are liturgical, you are not "pastoral"; if you are intellectual, you are not "pastoral" and therefore… if you are contemplative, liturgically minded and smart… you are suspect. You might even be dangerous. As a result, the model for modern priests shifts in formation and pressure from above and from peers to emphasize being constantly busy, not too interested in all that liturgy stuff, and being "just plain folks". Therefore, "pastoral" priests are constantly on the move, they delegate liturgical matters to lay people, and usually eschew being very challenging in preaching, counseling, and conversation.

I know I am just playing around with this to see what is going on, and maybe I am being too hard on the letter, but here is my rendering again, extracted from the original text above. See what you think:

The sacrament of Holy Orders changed who we are and effects all that we do. Because of that, we are "set apart" (clerus) and Christ acts through us in a particular way. In priests, Christ’s words and actions are brought into the present and cause His will to be done in the ongoing salvation of souls. When the Church ordains a man, he is so conformed to Christ that he can be called "another Christ"; thus, he proclaims and explains the Word of God and preaches the Good news while being active in good works according to Christ command to love. Therefore the priest should not remain only "in the sacristy" but should also be active in the community.

Today the great Sts. Timothy and Titus overshadow all others who are listed in the Roman Martyrology.

2. Hippone Regio in Numidia, sancti Theogenis, martyris, de quo sanctus Augustinus sermonem habuit. .. At Hippo Regius in Numidia (N. Africa), [the feast] of Saint Theogenus, about whom Saint Augustine gave a sermon.

Hmm…. I think not. St. Augustine mentioned St. Theogenus, but he doesn’t really give a sermon about him. And he mentions him in more than one sermon, and a letter also.

Let’s take a look at this fellow.

St. Theogenus was a former bishop of Hippo Regius. He was martyred. He may have been a contemporary of Cyprian and attended the Council of Carthage in 256. The very name "Theo-genus" harks to rebirth in God by baptism. In ancient times, the newly baptized, called infantes, took names which reflected their new state of spiritual rebirth and adoption, their new sonship, e.g., Adeptus, Regeneratus, Renatus, Deigenitus, Theogonus.

The Council of Carthage in 256 seems to have quoted St. Theogenus in Sententiae episcoporum numero 87 de haereticis baptizandis:

Theogenes ab Hippone Regio dixit: Secundum sacramentum dei gratiae caelestis, quod accepimus, unum baptismum, quod est in ecclesia sancta, credimus. ... Theogenus from Hippo Regius said: According to God’s sacrament of heavenly grace, which we received, we believe to be one sacrament, which is in the Holy Church.

In one of Augustine’s newly discovered letters, ep. 26*,1 we find that there was a church of Hippo dedicated to St. Theogenus where a certain Donantius of Suppa, who had fraudulently attempted to get himself ordained a deacon, was placed as Porter, in order to keep him out of trouble, but when Augustine was gone, the priests threw him out. Oh well… moving right along….

In s. 272B shows that on the day of Pentecost, there was a service at the Church of St. Theogenus in Hippo, almost as at a Roman "station", and a passage was read from the Book of Tobit. Theogenus is probably connected with other martyrs, like St. Fructuosus.

In s. 273 St. Theogenus is mentioned among others by St. Augustine in order to make a point about how Christians actually honor God when the honor martyr saints. This is worth reviewing. We have heard the accusations of ignorant protestants about Catholic veneration of saints.

7. And yet, dearly beloved, while those [pagan] gods are in no way at all to be compared to our martyrs, we don’t regard our martyrs as gods, or worship them as gods. We don’t provide them with temples, with altars, with sacrifices. Priests don’t make offerings to them; perish the thought! These things are provided for God; or rather these things are offered to God, by whom all thigs are provided for us. Even when we make the offereing at the shrines of the holy martyrs, don’t we offer it to God? The holy martyrs have their place of honor. Notice please; in the recitation of names at the altar of Christ, their names are recited in the most honored place; but for all that, they are not worshiped instead of Christ.

When did you ever hear it said by me at the shrine of St. Theogenus, or by any of my brethren and colleagues, or by any priest, "I am offering to you, St. Theogenus"? Or, "I’m offering to you, Peter," or "I am offering to you, Paul"? You never did; it doesn’t happen, it is not permitted. And if you should be asked, "Do you, then, worship Peter?" answer what Eulogius answered about Fructuosus: "I do not worship Peter, but I worship God, whom Peter also worships." The Peter loves you. Because if you want to treat Peter as God, you stumble over the rock, and take care you don’t break your foot by stumbling over the rock.

Oh… by the way… today is also the anniversary of the death of St. Paula (+404), the friend and patroness of St. Jerome, living in Jerusalem.

In the Wall Street Journal story I wrote about in another entry the claim was made that "Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung became the first Communist head of state to visit the Holy See."

Blog participant RBrown reminded me of the visit of Mikhail Gorbachev on 1 December 1989, which we both witnessed.  I did some digging and found the front page of the weekly English language edition of L’Osservatore Romano on that visit.  Biretta tip to RBrown for reminding me about that:  o{]:¬)

Something is up with the Holy See and East Asia. Some are taking notice.

There is story in the Wall Street Journal today (my emphasis).

Vietnam and the Vatican
January 26, 2007

The Vatican has been home to many miracles, but yesterday’s was especially striking. Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung became the first Communist head of state to visit the Holy See. Diplomatic relations may soon follow. Vietnam’s Catholics and the Church would celebrate such a reconciliation. So would China’s Catholics, to whom such a move might lend hope.

...

So, too, with religious freedom. Crackdowns on Protestants, while still far too common, are starting to ease. Vietnam’s six million Catholics can celebrate Mass, attend religious classes, and do community service without harassment. In an informal arrangement, the Holy See nominates bishops, and the government almost always approves them. The Vatican also maintains a regular dialogue with Hanoi.

We hope Beijing is watching. After a brief period of reconciliation last year, China’s official church reverted to unofficial ordinations and severe crackdowns, saying it didn’t want the Vatican interfering in its "internal affairs." China’s Catholics know that "internal affairs" are those of the soul, not the state. How wonderful—dare we say, miraculous—that Hanoi is moving in that direction.

Sandro Magister put this forth also (my emphasis):

Mission Asia: The Laboratory is South Korea
After the summit on China, the audience with the prime minister of Vietnam: Benedict XVI sees in the Far East the future terrain of the Church’s expansion.

ROMA, January 26, 2007 – For the second time in a few days, Benedict XVI has called everyone’s attention back to the present and future of Christians in East Asia.

On Thursday, January 25 he received (see photo) the Vietnamese prime minister, Nguyen Tan Dung, the first top official of the regime of Ho Chi Minh City ever to visit the Vatican. Vietnam is one of the Asian countries with the highest percentage of Catholics, preceded only by the Philippines. And the Church is especially lively there, in spite of the absence of religious freedom.

A few days earlier, on January 19-20, Benedict XVI had convened a meeting in the Vatican on the Catholic Church in China. ...

There are thought to be more than 12 million Catholics in China today. In 1949, before the advent of Mao Zedong, there were 3 million. Every year about 150,000 new baptized persons are added to their ranks, most of them adults. Many of these come from the professional classes and from the universities.

Another country of the Far East in which the Catholic Church is especially vigorous is South Korea. The faithful there have almost doubled in number over the past ten years, and now make up 10 percent of the population. ...

John Paul II had already indicated Asia to the Church as "our common task for the third millennium." And Benedict XVI is showing that he is very determined to continue along this road.

Today Asia is the continent with the lowest number of Catholics. But with the emergence of great nations like India and China, it will be the axis of the world in the future. ...

[...] South Korea is a laboratory of great importance for the present and future of the Catholic Church in Asia.

Here is today’s entry in the 2005 Martyrologium Romanum for the feast of Sts. Timothy and Titus:

Memoria sanctorum Timothei et Titi, episcoporum, qui, discipuli santi Pauli Apostoli et adiutores eius in apostolatu, alter Ecclesiae Ephesinae, alter vero Cretensi praefuit; quibus inscriptae sunt epistulae, quae sapientes praebent admonitiones pro pastorum et fidelium institutione. ... The memorial of Saints Timothy and Titus, who, as disciples of Saint Paul the Apostle and as helpers in his apostolate, presided one of them at the Church of Ephesus and the other at Crete; to them letters were addressed, which the wisely offered suggestions for the instruction of pastors and the faithful.