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

While many in Italy are moaning and grousing, Carlo Card. Caffarra, Archbishop of Bologna, known to be quite papalino has established the older form of Mass, according to Summorum Pontificum, as of Sunday 18 October, every Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation at 1800h, at the church Santa Maria della Pietà in Via s. Vitale.

Biretta tip to Petrus   o{]:¬)

I am listening to the radio interview with His Excellency Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs about Summorum Pontificum. 

It is very interesting and balanced!

He makes some great observations about Mass ad orientem, young people who want the older Mass, and priests who are inclined to follow the rubrics.

You can listen here.

Discussion?

Our friends in the common cause over at Rorate have put up the full text of the talk, in English, delivered in the Netherlands by His Excellency Most Reverend Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.

You will remember that in an unscripted part of his talk, Archbp. Ranjith said: this, with my emphases.

“The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Liturgy of July 7^th 2007 is the fruit of a deep reflection by our Pope on the mission of the Church. It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right.
What the Holy Fathers says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do
not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.”

My emphases and comments.

OBEDIENCE AND THEOLOGY
Challenges to the Mission of the Church Today

Your Excellency, the Apostolic Nuncio Mons. François Bacquè
Your Lordship,
Dear Rev. Fathers,
President and Members of the Dutch Association for Latin Liturgy,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

I
am overjoyed to have had the opportunity to celebrate the Holy Mass and
address this distinguished gathering on the occasion of the Annual
General Meeting of your Association. I thank you for the kind
invitation extended to me.

The Holy Father in his post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation [Sacramentum Caritatis]
called for the more frequent use of Latin as well as Gregorian Chant in
the Liturgy recommending that even the lay faithful be helped to recite
common prayers and sing parts of the Liturgy in Latin [no. 62]. [This is what Sacrosanctum Concilium said this too.  This is very good.] It is
in this happy situation for those of you who love this language and its
use in the Liturgy that I have come to spend this day with you
encouraging you in your efforts. And making use of this opportunity I
thought of speaking to you today about a matter of great importance for
the life of the Church – Faith and Obedience [The theme.] in the study of Theology
and in the sense of discipline which should accompany the mission of
the Church.

It is not a surprise that the writers of the Holy Scriptures and, precisely, the traditions behind the Genesis story of Creation and Fall
visualize the fall of man in terms of an act of pride and disobedience. [The theological foundation: the devil and pride are involved in disobedience.]
It leads man to become a slave of his own instincts seeking for himself
power and domination and moves him not only to jealousy and murder [Gen 4: 1 – 16] but also for equality with God. He becomes his own god and wishes to build a tower “with its top reaching heaven” [Gen 11: 4].
The first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis then, is the story of
disobedience and estrangement from God. But it does not end there. God
in his great mercy does not abandon man to his destiny of self
destruction which he had set for himself. He calls and establishes in
the faith of Abraham the beginnings of the history of salvation.
Abraham responds by deep faith and obedience and thus becomes the
father of the people of Israel, God’s chosen instrument for the
salvation of the world [Deut. 7: 7-8]. And as the letter to the Hebrews
states – “it was by faith that Abraham obeyed the call to set out for a country that was the inheritance given to him and his descendants and that he set out without knowing where he was going” [Heb. 11: 8].
The author of the letter then sets out into a journey of discovery of
the faith and obedience to God of all his servants through Abraham to
Moses and Jesus ending up with the exhortation: “let
us keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, who leads us in our faith and brings
it to perfection; for the sake of the joy which laid ahead of him, he
endured the Cross, disregarding the shame of it and has taken his seat
at the right of God’s throne” [Hebrews 12: 2]. Salvation history, then, is a story of faith and obedience.

The covenant ratified on mount Sinai [Ex. 24: 3-16] establishes
once again that relationship between God and humanity through the
obedience of Israel. It is sealed by the book of laws that God gives
his people – the Torah.

Living out the laws of that covenant
then marks the entire history of the People of Israel, blessings being
the result of obedience and sufferings the result of the opposite
attitude. Obedience is demanded both at the level of the individual and
of the people and blessings or disaster is shown to flow out naturally
on the basis of their response, individually or collectively. In truth,
obedience becomes the expression of a response of love towards God by
the people of Israel. It is not so much a covenant of a “give and take”
form as was prevalent at that time in the treaties of the Hittites with
their suzerain states but a treaty of an intimate union of love between
God and Israel visualized as one between a Father [mother] and his
[her] Son [Ex. 4: 22; Is. 49: 14-15; Jer. 3: 19; 31: 9, 20; Hos. 11: 1-11] or Husband and wife [Is. 54: 5-8; Jer. 2: 2; 3: 20; Hos. 2: 4-25]. The formula which signifies the covenant is modeled on the formula which seals a marriage – “I will be your God, you will be my people” [Song of Songs 7: 11].
The demands placed on the people and on God reflect essentially not
just a spirit of obedience and service but much deeper virtues of love
and fidelity [Ps. 117: 1-2]. Besides, it is God who makes the first move. He loved humanity first [Deus Caritas Est 1].
Infidelity in the forms of idolatry and moral disobedience lead the
people not only to suffering and death but also to slavery and exile in
foreign lands. Besides, the right to land is a consequence of Israel’s
faithfulness to the covenant. And so invasion and exile are the fruits
of disobedience. The entire deuteronomic reform and the emergence of
prophecy are consequences of the constant allurement and attraction
Israel felt to idolatry, infidelity and insincerity driving the people
away from God.

Jesus and the new Torah

As Pope Benedict explains in “Jesus of Nazareth”,
Jesus completed the formation of the people of God by both lifting the
veil that excluded the gentiles from entering into communion with God
and introducing the new Torah of love, which is the law of the more
perfect and eternal covenant with words of authority – “but I say to you…” [Mt. 5: 22 et al].
The people of this more perfect covenant superseded all boundaries, a
universal communion – Jews and gentiles together – bonded in and
through him in the free and conscious living out of the law of love
which he gave them and ratified with His own blood – “this cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you” [Lc. 22: 20]. States the Pope
“this restructuring of the social order finds its basis and its
justification in Jesus’ claim that he, with his community of disciples,
forms the origin and center of the new Israel”, [Jesus of Nazareth,
Doubleday, New York 2007, p. 114] and that “he teaches not as the rabbis do, but as one who has authority” [Mt. 7: 28 et al] [ibid p. 102]. And this authority came to him by the fact that he indeed was the Messiah, the anointed one of God.

Thus
faithfulness to Jesus and the living out of the new Torah which he gave
his disciples becomes the essential condition for belonging to the
community of the new covenant – the sole gateway to the Kingdom of God.
States the Pope – “in Jesus’ case it
is not the universally binding adherence to the Torah that forms the
new family. Rather it is adherence to Jesus himself, to his Torah”
[ibid p. 115].

And Jesus wants his disciples to
personally follow his own example in not only accepting him but above
all in living out the way he lived, following him on the Cross. “If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me” [Mc. 8: 34].
In the case of the old alliance it was faithfulness to the Torah that
assured the individual or the community its sense of belonging to the
Lord and being under his loving care. But in the case of the new
alliance it is not so much a matter of adherence to a law as much as to
a person: Jesus. Loving him, following him and imitating him was the
essential condition. In fact, Jesus’ commandment of love – “love one another as I have loved you” [Jn. 13: 34]
is a commandment that urges all to follow his own example of love. Love
is not what we feel it is, but the way He lived it out. And Jesus did
live out his love for humanity so profoundly and selflessly that he
laid down his life for them – “no one can have a greater love than to lay down his life for his friends” [Jn. 15: 13] or “I lay down my life for my sheep” [Jn. 10: 11]. It is not a life taken by others as much as is laid down by Jesus himself.

St.
Paul quoting an ancient Confessional Hymn of the Church portrays the
entire life of Christ as a living out of the twin moments of the loving
and voluntary self emptying by Jesus and his glorification at the hands
of God which signifies his baptism. For him, Jesus, the Christ, “although
he was in the form of God, thought not robbery to be equal with God:
but made himself of no reputation and took upon himself the form of a
servant and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion
as a man, he humbled himself becoming obedient unto death, even death
of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him
a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee
should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth and things under
the earth. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord, to the glory of the Father” [Phil. 2: 5-11]. The key phrase in the hymn consists of the words “obedient unto death” [vs. 8]. The Greek verb “hupekoos” used here is to be understood as the opposite of that act of disobedience of Adam. St. Paul himself states so – “for
as by one man’s disobedience [Parakohes] many were made sinners, so by
the obedience [hupakohes] of one, shall many be made righteous” [Rom.
5: 19].

The theological dictionary of the new testament by Gerhard Kittel states that “hupakohe” in general “is measured by the attitude of obedience to God” [p. 224 vol. 1]. St. Paul places it in opposition to “hamartia” – sin. States St. Paul “you
can be the slaves either of sin [hamartia] which leads to death or of
obedience [hupakohe] which leads to righteousness” [Rom. 6: 16].

The
idea is clear. Jesus’ whole life which is the fulfillment of the
history of salvation is one of sheer obedience to the Father as seen
and understood in the background of the disobedience of Adam. Says the
letter to the Galatians, the Lord Jesus “gave
himself for our sins to liberate us from this present wicked world, in
accordance with the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for
ever and ever” [Gal. 1: 4]. Indeed Jesus did state so – “I have come from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me” [Jn. 6: 38] or “I seek to do not my own will, but the will of him who sent me” [Jn. 5: 30].
He understands his mission on earth as the realization of the type of
obedience required by God so that his divine kingship may be realized
on earth. In and through Jesus and the Church, then, God enters human
history in the fullest sense and His Kingdom is thus established
definitively. This Church or the community of “the called” is the mystical presence of Jesus in history and the manifestation of God’s Kingdom on earth. And as Lumen Gentium states it “subsists
in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and
by the bishops in union with that successor” [LG 8]. And again, “Although
many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside of
her visible structure, these elements, however, as gifts properly
belonging to the Church of Christ, posses an inner dynamism toward
Catholic unity” [ibid].

The Church thus exists in order
to expand the process of sanctification and liberation which Jesus
brought to fulfillment through his obedience to the Father. Its mission
is precisely that of imitating Jesus in his great act of obedience to
the Father, so that God may re-enter human reality and ennoble all of
it in the creation of the “new heaven and the new earth” [II Pet. 3: 13]
– that the Kingdom of God may be established definitely and fully in
the world. The Church becomes thus the locus of humanity’s profound
sense of obedience to God. It is in this way that God continues to
re-enter human reality and transform and ennoble it. Obedience in the
imitation of Jesus should not be seen merely as a burden or the
acceptance and the faithful implementation of a law or norm but rather
as the way to sanctification and to the rendering sacred of all human
and cosmic reality.  [This directly pertains to what comes from the Holy See.]

This mission is indeed something sacred and
liturgical. The famous exhortation of St. Paul on turning our lives
into a sacrifice [logiké latreia] acceptable to God states: “I
urge you, then, brothers, remembering the mercies of God, to offer your
bodies as a living sacrifice, dedicated and acceptable to God; that is
the kind of worship for you, as sensible people. Do not model your
behaviour on the contemporary world, but let the renewing of your minds
transform you, so that you may discern for yourselves what is the will
of God – what is good and acceptable and mature” [Rom. 12: 1-2].

It
is this same sense of obedience and discipline in the life of a
Christian whatever his or her role in the Church be, that gives
effective credibility to what Jesus represents: a life of total and
self negating subjection to the will of the Father. In a world
dominated by egoism and its resultant corollaries of individualism,
subjectivism and relativism, where in the name of liberty any vestige
of authority is rejected as a burden and an obstacle to human freedom,
the Church has to manifest itself as the community of God, consisting
of those in whose life the acceptance and submission to the will of God
and a noble sense of unity ought to shine out. If the world visualizes
freedom as “freedom from”, the Church has to firmly reflect freedom as “freedom for”.

If
the world wishes to become a place where confusing and contradictory
philosophies, values and a cacophony of noisy and disorderly political
orientations make human life neurotic, the Church has to be the sign of
truth, good and beauty which in their most supreme form reflect God’s
own essence. If the world has become the market place of greed and the
reduction of human kind to an object of consumism, then the Church has
to become the community that extols God’s own providence and reflects a
sense of detachment and respect especially for those who become the
victims of such greed; If the world becomes the arena of moral laxism,
hedonism and the subjugation of mankind to transient and empty allures,
then the Church has to be the sign of the purity and holiness of God.

In
other words the Church cannot be the arena of confusion, philosophical
or moral relativism, sophistry and casuistic dilution of the revealed
truth which is the foundation of its Credo, the Word of God as revealed
in the Sacred Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church and
interpreted by the official magisterium of the Church and open dissent
or public debate even in the name of the freedom of theological
research. My mind goes back to the story of the construction or shall
we say the attempted construction of the Tower of Babel. Its
constructors felt confident that they could scale the heavens with
their own resources and strength without God. Hasn’t that same spirit
re-appeared perhaps in a more sophisticated form in the world and the
Church today? There are some people who even claim that they make the
Church as if the Church is a creation of us humans.

But the Church is not what we make. [We can’t just blow off what Rome sends.] It is what Jesus established and continues to nourish and sustain. Says Lumen
Gentium “Christ, the one mediator, established and ceaselessly sustains
here on earth His Holy Church, the community of faith, hope and
charity, as a visible structure. Through her He communicates truth and
grace to all” [LG 8]. It is thus, even in its visible
manifestation, a divine institution which is called to live and make
real in the world God’s own holiness, truth and beauty as well as the
harmony and peace that comes from Him alone. For, as St. Paul stated, “God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints” [1 Cor. 14: 33].

The
Church is not an association or federation or a democracy made up of
the faithful. [We don’t vogte on what we want to implement.] It is the mystical body of Christ with its own inner life
that comes from Christ, who is its supreme and invisible head. It has
its visible structure which is not to be separated from the mystical.
The Council states “but the society
furnished with hierarchical agencies and the mystical body of Christ
are not to be considered two realities, nor are the visible assembly
and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church
enriched with heavenly things. Rather they form one inter-locked
reality which is comprised of a divine and a human element” [LG 8]. The Council then goes on to compare this mystical divine – human interlocking with the mystery of the incarnation itself [cfr LG 8].
It is, as the Council further confirms, the one, holy, Catholic and
apostolic Church referring thus to its uniqueness, its singular
vocation, its universal nature and its missionary dimension.

The
hierarchical nature of the Church as the same document confirms does
not come from a bottom to top orientation but the other way around.
Christ is the supreme shepherd and spouse of the Church. He established
it on the foundation of the apostles and, as Lumen Gentium further clarifies, “after
the resurrection our Saviour handed her over to Peter to be shepherded
[Jn. 21: 17], commissioning him and the other apostles to propagate and
govern her [cf Mt. 28: 18 ff]. Her he erected for all ages as “the
pillar and mainstay of the truth” [1 Tim. 3: 11]” [LG 8]. And as
the Church teaches, through apostolic succession and the power to bind
and loose, the College of Apostles with Peter as its head is succeeded
by the College of Bishops who with the Pope who “is
the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of
the Bishops and of the whole company of the faithful” [LG 23] becomes the hierarchical leadership of the Church. Lumen Gentium 22 states further
“the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as
pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over
the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” and further “the College of Bishops, has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head” [LG 22].
Naturally as Jesus often expressed all authority in the Church has to
be exercised in a pastoral sense – in that loving and caring as well as
gently guiding way of the good shepherd and not of those who seek to
Lord it over [cfr 22: 25-26].

Provided
that authority in the Church is understood and exercised as a service,
rather than a means of domination in an egoistic sense, [Ehem… we should be obedient to what is issued from Rome.] it is essential
that unity not only in its communitarian form but also in its direction
be preserved and the effective fulfillment of its mission be
facilitated. Disagreement is possible but it should not be allowed to
deteriorate and become a cause of division, hostility and a sign of
mundane frivolity. As we see in that singular reflection of the early
Christian Community at the first Council of Jerusalem [Acts 15: 6-29]
even if the issue at stake, the question of the uncircumcised, was seen
differently by them, they all agreed to settle for a united position
after prayer and listening to the different views of Paul, Barnabas,
James and Simon Peter. The voice of Peter was decisive here and James
agreed with him. The cause of unity was served best that way. It was a
debate among brothers and not in the fora of the roman civil or
religious courts or in the aeropagus of Athens. The Council of
Jerusalem was an experience of communion in which the voice of the
apostles, especially of Peter set the pace for whatever was decided.

Disagreement
and even debate are part of the search for an understanding of one’s
faith given the limitedness of the human mind. Since theology itself is
“fides querens intellectum” and is based on the centrality of faith, “credo ut intelligam”,
sin can cause the search for that understanding to become ruffled and
muddy. For faith cannot co-exist with sin and intellectual arrogance.
It requires listening, silence, and most of all prayer which prepares
the heart and mind to receive God’s word. [Which is "active participation".] Where such an attitude does
not prevail, disagreement can lead the seeker to be a prisoner of his
own thoughts, feel stimulated by considerations of self aggrandizement,
pride and lead to open dissent which would be harmful to the faith. It
will cause just the opposite effect and can lead one on to the path of
disobedience and falling prey to the machinations of the evil one. [This is strong.  Well said.] The
example of the Council of Jerusalem is important here – once Simon
Peter set the pace, the debate took a decisive turn towards identifying
an acceptable solution which is in the best interests of the mission of
the Church. The Acts of the Apostles states that “and when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them…” [Acts 15: 7] and surprisingly the Acts states that at the end of Peter’s discourse –“all the multitude kept silence” [Acts 15: 12] and James seconded what Peter said ending the debate with a decision which was good for all.

Besides,
since the Church is a spiritual communion enriched by the life of Grace
that flows from Christ especially in the sacrament of the Holy
Eucharist, what should be of foremost concern for all its members is to
reflect and live that intimate communion with the Lord, and in him with
all the brothers and sisters, as fruitfully and as truly as possible.
Every effort then ought to be made not to demean the inner dynamism of
the Church through our selfishness and sinfulness especially through
intellectual pride and arrogance. [Make the connection…] Rendering glory to God and edifying
the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, in order to make her carry on
her mission effectively should be more important.

It is here
that a deep spirit of self denial, sense of humility before the mystery
of God’s ways and an awareness that the life of Christ is somehow
present and active in the Church and in the person of the Vicar of
Christ ought to animate all of us, especially the bishops, priests, the
religious, the theologians and experts in the various ecclesial
disciplines.  [Excellent.] We ought to always remember the words of Isaiah – “who
was it who measured the water of the sea in the hollow of his hands and
calculated the heavens to the nearest inch; gauged the dust of the
earth to the nearest bushel, weighed the mountains on scales, the hills
in a balance? Who directed Yahweh, what counselor could have instructed
him? Whom has he consulted to enlighten him, to instruct on the path of
judgment, to teach him knowledge and show him how to understand?” [Is.
40: 12 – 14]. Speaking of wisdom, Job exclaims – “God
alone understands her path and knows where she is to be found …. Then
he said to human beings, wisdom? – that is the fear of the Lord;
intelligence? – avoidance of evil” [Job 28: 23-28].

It is
most unfortunate to note, that often enough we tend to forget that
there is a far superior mission in our hands than that of engaging in
hair splitting theological debate. Even theology is at the service of
faith, it is not its master. Faith comes first and then only theology.
For, if there is no faith in theology, it would only be a matter of
words and empty noise which would not be effectively contributive
towards the mission of the Church.

A so called dissident theologian from Asia recently wrote as follows: “many
Christians in Asia are increasingly unable to think of salvation
exclusively in terms of the Church or as only mediated by Jesus Christ.
We have come to realize that such a view would imply that the vast
majority of the people of Asia were not saved. The point has slowly
dawned on us that this is not acceptable…. The more I studied the issue
of salvation the more I was impressed with the serious inadequacy of
the Church’s doctrinal teaching” [Tissa Balasuriya, From Inquisition to
Freedom, Continuum 2001, pg.90]. And again – “In
Asia where Christianity is a minority religion, we cannot accept that
the whole of humanity is in original sin in the sense that they are
alienated from God. We cannot accept that all our fore bearers are in
hell. Regarding redemption, I have maintained my view that Jesus did
not have to pray a price to God to save us, although this
interpretation has so impregnated our prayers, hymns and attitudes….
The mission of the Church is not so much to convert to Christianity as
to convert all to humanity” [ibid. pg. 105].

What I see
here is an approach to theology bereft of that sense of faith and
transcendence and geared rather towards the humanization of the
society, than its divinization. The mission of Jesus who wished to
usher in the era of the reign of God in human life was certainly not
limited to making man merely more human. That kind of understanding is
very reductive of the great mission of Jesus. Besides, it is rather
subjective without any consideration given to the objective sources of
divine revelation – the Sacred Scriptures and the Tradition of the
Church, of which the latter is rather quickly dismissed as a creation
of what is called “Orthodoxy”. The same writer rejects what he calls arbitrary authority and the states, “there
comes a point when we must say that eternal destiny is not determined
by particular persons or what is called orthodoxy but by one’s
conscience and by our relationship to the divine” [ibid. pg. 108]. Both these latter principles are as we can see, of a subjective order.

The
rejection of objective revelation places such theologizing outside the
realms of the faith and once it becomes an object of debate leads to
attitudes incompatible with the noble spiritual mission of theology
which is that of “edifying the Church” [cfr 1 Cor. 14: 4]. It is good to note here that St. Paul warned Timothy to beware of “anyone
who teaches anything different and does not keep to the sound teaching
which is that of our Lord Jesus Christ, the doctrine which is in
accordance with true religion, is proud and has no understanding, but
rather a weakness for questioning everything and arguing about words”
[1 Tim. 6: 3 – 4]. This type of attitude can influence all if
care is not exercised in always keeping before us an attitude of
humility in the face of the great mysteries of God.

Today more
than ever the Church needs men and women who portray in their lives
that sense of humility and self negation as well as obedience to God’s
will, which is manifested in a special way through the Church and its
visible head, the Roman Pontiff. Discussion and debate in a fraternal
way, yes, but if it does not in the end lead to a spirit of obedience
in the service of unity then it divides and can only be interpreted as
a manifestation of the intent of the evil one to disturb and retard the
noble mission of Christ. Even those wearing ecclesiastical purple or
red are not exempt from the tempter’s enchantments.

We see this
happening unfortunately quite often nowadays. It is not a rare feature
to see the emergence of ecclesiastics in responsible positions who are
intrumentalised by the media and forces inimical to the Church, to make
statements critical of the directions from the Roman Pontiff or from
the dicastries that carry out his decisions. [Sound like anyone we have encountered on WDTPRS?] Others take the attitude
of ignoring or disregarding such directions and so great harm in
procured for the mission of the Church – especially through the sense
of loss and confusion brought about by such attitudes on the faithful.

St.
Paul tells us how he changed when he met Jesus on the way to Damascus –
no longer was he the proud and zealous Jew who persecuted the Church –
he states “what things were gain for
me, those I counted loss for Christ, yea doubtless, and I count all
things but less for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my
Lord for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and so count them
but dung, that I may win Christ” [Phil. 3: 7-8]. And again – “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me” [Gal. 2: 20].
What counts for him is not so much who he is or what he thinks but what
he has become – for Christ owns him, and lives in him. It is this new
life that made him, Christ’s apostle, who in turn is being called to,
like St. John the Baptist, let his personality recede to the background
allowing Christ to shine out in his life.

This I feel should be our own attitude especially in these troubled days – “he must increase, I must decrease” [Jn. 3: 30].
We should pray the Lord to keep us all to be like him who though he was
in the form of God assumed the form of a slave and became obedient to
the Father accepting to undergo death and death on a Cross.

May He bless and protect the Church!

Thank you.

+Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith
Secretary,
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,
Vatican City.
6th October 2007

My memory is a little fuzzy:

First, before a consistory but after the promulgation of the names of the new Cardinals

1) Do we call them "Your Eminence"?  I think so.

2) They could vote in a conclave even if, quod Deus avertat, the Pontiff who named them should die before the consistory.  I think so.

I was surprised on the selection

First, His Excellency Daniel DiNardo did a License at the Augustinianum!

He had a good statement on the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

What is going on?

Both men, Archbp. Foley, and Archbp. DiNardo are from Pennsylvania.

Archbp. Wuerl?

He’s from Pennsylvania too.

Not on the list?

Archbp. Piero Marini isn’t on it either! (He’s not from Pennsylvania.)

What is going on?

It strikes me that Pope Benedict is doing something for the USA based on his experience of Germany.

In Germany there are some sees which are virtually a lock on a red hat.  Go there, you’ll be named cardinal.  However, it happens that the cardinalate is bestowed here and there on bishops who aren’t in those traditionally cardinal sees.

It might be that this is what is going on in the selection of Cardinal DiNardo.  It maybe that Pope Benedict wanted this particular man, in this see at this time with no intention of establishing a tradition (which St. Louis lost).

A floating red hat in the USA would sure keep some men on their toe, wouldn’t it?

Congratulations to the new Cardinals Elect!

Ad multos annos!

I got an e-mail from a priest.  Maybe you readers can give some feed-back and information.  Here is what I received (edited):

Fr.,

I am going to be using the option ad orientem during the
upcoming Advent season and Lent. I have been using the bulletin to educate
the people on it. I have said it that way in the chapel for daily Mass for
the past 4 years for a small group of mostly elderly people. I really feel
like I am stepping out into deep water on this since I know of no other parish
where it is done with the Novus Ordo on Sundays in the main church.

My question
is: Do you know of any churches in the U.S. where this is done on Sundays at
all the Masses?

COMMENTS BEING UPDATED

I read something today that really made me mad.   I don’t mad too often, but this … grrrr…

I see Matt Abbott tackled him too.

Here is a 16 September blurb in the parish bulletin of Sacred Heart Catholic Church and St. Catherine of Siena Mission in Bolivar, Missouri where Fr. James Patrick Wissman is pastor.  He is just "Fr. Pat", there.  I picked it up from the website of The Remnant.

It is available only in scanned form on that page, so here it is transcribed.

This is undoubtedly one of the stupidest things I have ever read from the pen of a priest. 

In the wake of Summorum Pontificum we can really see with these extreme examples, how the sides are divided.

My emphases.  I don’t think this needs much interlinear comment, and prudence restrains me.  The errors and ignorance speak for themselves.

Dear Parishioners,

As the Bishop goes through the process to see if the document concerning the Sacraments in Latin applies to the situation in our diocese, I offer the following observations.

1) Some people wrote a letter to the Bishop requesting Latin.  They have no parish identity but belong to various parishes.  And some seem to have been going to Masses offered in Latin.  However, the priest is not in union with Rome.  If all these people belonged to one parish and had a stable present in ONE parish over a number of years, one could think that they might constitute a recognizable though selfish request.

2) If they were to constitute a "floating" parish with the imported Latin Mass priest, they would not fit the parochial model for a diocese to recognize.

If a "shadow" Church were to be established, would it do its own RCIA?  Would it accept only those who want Latin?  In time we have every right to expect that those who want Latin would die out.  I would say anyone who was born after 1968 when the vernacular was introduced for the entire Mass should not be allowed to join such a group of God forbid such should be allowed.

3) The people who want Latin have never accepted Vatican II, neither in fact nor in spirit.  They have shown unwavering disobedience and would relate to a quasi-heretical group (the Nebraksa group) rather than there own Bishop.

4) Speaking of Bishops, I would think any Bishop worth his salt would complain to Rome that their authority is diminished by the Pope’s Motu Proprio.  Is it then going to rely upon the priest to make a decision that has rightly belonged to the Bishop alone?

5) In my opinion, the people who have been at the core of wanting Latin have been disobedient to the Church vis-a-vis Vatican II.  Is this the reward for their disobedience?  If this is the case, obedience is not worth the trouble.  (During the years that the changes were being introduced many of us priests rightly sweated over the best way to introduce those changes.  Whe [sic] properly explained, the changes were successful.)  May the priest then not create his own Mass in any way he wishes?  What if he thinks he should celebrated Mass in "tongues"?  Compose his own Eucharistic prayers?  More next week!

Blessings!

Fr. Pat

For obvious reasons, I won’t open the combox.  However, if you send me your intelligent comments by e-mail, I will add them here.

Here is the second part, from the bulletin of 23 September:

6) The Pope seems to be out of touch with the ordinary church.  He seems to be acting in good will, but giving into the "letter writers" who have been complained for years, he will create a shadow church and cause great divisions in every diocese.  Such will be that when churches are built, they would have to accommodate both rites and seminarians would have to take courses in Latin.  During many centuries seminarians have fallen through the cracks and not been able to reach the goal of the priesthood because Latin was too difficult for them.  This was a scandal!  To return to such a course would be lunacy!

7) The nature of the language we worship in is crucial.  Worship language must be immediate... namely, not translated in the head – Latin would speak to the intellect at bestand [sic] that is not good enough.  The language of worship must speak to the heart as well as the head.

8) The gospel is meant to enlighten and challenge us!  It is my opinion that the use of Latin should have been done away with hundreds of years ago.  This is one of the things that Martin Luther was right about.  After WWII Christians worldwide shook their heads in sober sadness and declared that Christianity had failed in Europe because it has let Hitler and his hateful and mad ways to succeed.   Some very holy people said: "No, Christianity was just never tried."  I fault the use the Latin as partly responsible for the rise and success of Hitler and his neo-pagan mythology which was obviously the religion he was supporting and that actually managed to capture the German imagination.. [sic]  I say the people, because of Latin never confronted by the gospel.  The Mass and the sacraments never really reached deep into the soul.  There are some notable exceptions of priests and laity and some very heroic ones as well as Protestant theologians who confronted the lies of Hitler – of course, they were gotten rid of.

9) As soon as the Romance languages attained literary status they should have become the language of worship and sacrament.

10) Saint Paul says that it is better to pray to God with ten words we understand than to pray with thousands of words we don’t understand.  He says, too, that some people want their ears to be caressed by all they hear, that they are itching for what pleases them.  They are being misled by the power of evil.

More next week!

Blessings,

Fr. Pat

Did you get that whole thing about Latin, Hitler and evil? 

Okay… I am getting dumber by the minute just typing this out, but here we go with part three from the bulletin of 30 September:

Dear Parishioners,
Continuing with reflections on the Motu Proprio on the use of Latin.

11. I fear that one of the reasons the church has done so poorly in Europe is because the renewal of the Liturgy never took place.  It did here, though!  It has been one of the reasons that the American Church has thrived and even now grows greatly by new members joining from other Christian churches.  When exposed to the liturgy and sacraments of the Church, they are overjoyed at the theology, the content and faith they portray and feel they have found their true home.  Latin would make even the Holy Spirit stumble.

12.  Latin is not a "sacred" language (as would be Hebrew or Greek (and Aramaic), the languages the bible was originally written in.  But even they would be a hindrance to true worship and sacrament.  Can it be that the people who want Latin really don’t want to be challenged by the gospel and be called to be thoughtful of others and be willing to sacrifice an external like Latin for the sake of the whole?

13. The choice to do a Latin Mass or sacraments according to the Pope’s document would rest with the priest, not with the people and not with the Bishop.

14.  There is an insinuation in the Motu Proprio and certainly with the people who want Latin, that the changes of Vatican II were unnecessary, that the liturgy was in a good state and returning to some of the ancient practices of a better time were wrong.  They would suggest there was no need for a renewal or an awakening of the faithful to the liturgy of Mass and sacraments.  This attitude is unacceptable.  The liturgy was in deplorable state, not only the language was unintelligible but the accretions of meaningless practices and legalistic attitudes of rubricism were a hindrance to meaningful celebration.  In those days Catholic spirituality was in a bad state.  Holy Communion was rarely taken by the faithful (a law had to be made to force them to take communion at least once a year) and Mass was viewed as something magical and superstitious.  The true understanding of the theology of Mass and sacrament was rare.

15.  The Gregorian chant although beautiful when sung correctly was almost never done with skill and beauty outside monasteries.  Singing in the Catholic world of the United States was a poor at best and monotonous -  with a few hymns making up the entire parish repertory, the exception being at Christmas where there were plenty of English language songs to be sung.

16. The unity of our rite or worship would be seriously jeopardized.  If we are going to develop a variety of rites that a catechumen or candidate would choose from, we would confront them with confusion.

We can perhaps reflect on the wonderful gifts from God that we call Sacraments!

Blessings!

Fr. Pat

Folks, if you think I don’t hold you readers in high regard, think of what it cost me to type that out.

In these words, however, we have a window into the mind of a true aging-hippy, one of the priests whom I describe as "one change priests" (they had one change in them, they spent it, and they are now the most rigid and inflexible priests you can imagine).  This is truly instructive.

Finding a remedy for this will not be easy.  We must parse their words with clarity and drag them out into the sunlight.  They must not go unchallenged.  However, for this sort of extremist, who will never be convinced by arguments I doubt he could understand, we must fast, pray and given alms.  And I do mean that literally. 

We must be very careful in how we deal with fellows like this… and those whom he has influenced.

May I suggest saying a prayer for the illumination of Fr. Pat and for the consolation of those poor people whom he has so terribly abused with his comments?

Lord Jesus, we your people pray to You for our priests. You have given them to us for OUR needs. We pray for them in THEIR needs.

We know that You have made them priests in the likeness of your own priesthood. You have consecrated them, set them aside, annointed them, filled them with the Holy Spirit, appointed them to teach, to preach, to minister, to console, to forgive, and to feed us with Your Body and Blood.

Yet we know, too, that they are one with us and share our human weaknesses. We know too that they are tempted to sin and discouragement as are we, needing to be ministered to, as do we, to be consoled and forgiven, as do we. Indeed, we thank You for choosing them from among us, so that they understand us as we understand them, suffer with us and rejoice with us, worry with us and trust with us, share our beings, our lives, our faith.

We ask that You give them this day the gift You gave Your chosen ones on the way to Emmaus: Your presence in their hearts, Your holiness in their souls, Your joy in their spirits. And let them see You face to face in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread.

We pray to You, O Lord, through Mary the mother of all priests, for Your priests and for ours. Amen.

By John Cardinal O’Connor

March, 1995

I posted an entry the other day about statements made by the excommunicated SSPX bishop Williamson in which he takes exception to the naming of females as Doctors of the Church.

I closed down the comments on that entry when I saw that some people just weren’t getting the point.

However, after closing down the combox, more than one person sent me a really interesting tidbit of information.  Here is just one of the notes I got on the same subject:

I found something
today that I thought you might find interesting. And you closed the comments on
Bishop Williamson’s opposition to female Doctors of the Church before I could
post it.



In the Roman Catholic Daily Missal by Angelus Press the little blurb on St.
Teresa of Avila before the Propers of the Mass (page 1454) states in part:


"On account of her invaluable works on mystical Theology, she may be
considered one of the greatest Doctors of the Church."



I certainly found that interesting considering Bishop Williamson’s beliefs and
the connection between Angelus Press and the SSPX.

<supportLineBreakNewLine]—>

I get lots of questions via e-mail and I am considering how to revive the old ASK FATHER Question Box.  In any event, here is something I got recently (edited):

QUAERITUR:

Recently a visiting priest said some of the Masses at our
church. He was quite young and of very traditional disposition. I know that he
often offers Mass in the Extraordinary Form at his own parish. His
masses were very reverent but I did notice that, though he was offering the
Novus Ordo in English, he used many of the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form,
especially the many signs of the cross, placing the host on the corporeal
before later placing it on the paten, signing himself with the empty paten, and
the crossings of the consecrated host over the chalice, etc. Was he free to do
so or was this a co-mingling of rites and therefore not allowed?

More seriously, he very clearly and distinctly said
"for many", at the consecration of the Precious Blood. Was this
a step too far? Did he have the freedom to make the change himself, before it
has officially been done, and did it in any way make his Mass
invalid?

First, his saying "for many" did not make that Mass invalid.  How could it?  It is what "pro multis" means?  And we know that the vicar of Christ has confirmed that.  I think he would do well to stick to the approved texts, however.

Second, it is very good that this priest is
interested in the older ways.  That is to
be applauded.  However, at this point I would suggest he not be quite so obvious in what he is
doing, viz. using elements of the older form in the newer.  He should stick more closely to the Novus
Ordo when using that book.   There are times when I say the Novus Ordo that, because I use the older form most of the time, some elements slip in from habit.  You have to really concentrate to keep things straight.   Those  genuflections before the elevation, for example… well.. what can I say?  Sometimes they just happen.  Still, it is best to stick closely to the book.  

Over time the gravitational forces of liturgy will exert their inescapable influences.

Thank you, dear querist, for the questions.