Category Archives: WDTPRS

Over at Rorate Caeli there is an entry about the rumored papal document freeing up the use of the older Missale, the so-called "Tridentine" Mass. Rorate provided a translation of part of an article in Il Giornale about this, which … Read More →

EXCERPT:
So, in today’s Post Communion, the priest affirms that we are the co-heirs of Christ and the inheritance we both have now already and still do not yet have in full possession is a share in God’s own glory. We do not know fully what this glory is. It will be revealed to us eventually (cf. Romans 8:18). However, we do know that somehow participation in that glory to come involves our suffering now. If we are co-heirs of the glory that Christ obtains for us, then we are also the co-heirs of His sufferings. Each of us, in our own and individual way, must embrace the sufferings we are offered in anticipation of the glory to come. The Cross always precedes the glory. Read More →

EXCERPT:
The flowing water of the baptismal font opens the way to the other sacraments, in particular the reception and celebration of the Eucharist, the “source and summit” (fons et culmen) of our Christian lives (LG 11; CCC 1324). We are enabled by baptism to participate in Holy Mass with “full, conscious and active participation” (SC 14). The word “full” (plena) refers to the integral way the baptized take part in the liturgy, i.e., internally and externally. “Conscious” (conscia) demands knowledge of what one is doing, excluding any superstition or false piety. “Active” (actuosa) means primarily interior receptivity, made possible by baptism, resulting from an act of will to unite oneself with the sacred action being wrought in the liturgy by the real “Actor”, Jesus Christ the High Priest. This interior participation (actuosa participatio) comes to be expressed also in outward, physical participation. Through this participation, when we unite our gifts, sacrifices and aspirations to the sacrifice of the priest at the altar, the abundant blessings of God flow forth to us in a manner that we cannot hope to comprehend in this life. Non-Christians and non-Communicants can indeed “get a lot out of Mass”. But “full, conscious and active participation” has its moment of perfection: when the actively receptive and properly disposed baptized person receives Holy Communion (cf. De musica sacra 22, c). The act of reception of Communion in the state of grace perfectly unites both the interior activity of the heart, mind and soul with the exterior actions of processing forward and physically accepting the Eucharist with gestures of reverence. Communion is perfect active participation which must be prepared for interiorly.
Read More →

EXCERPT:

In our prayer today there is a theme of continuity. We even have a form of the word continuus. In the beginning of the Post communion Father refers to the constant helps we depend on from the actual graces God confers upon us. The effect of redemption will be eternal and unending. In the final line we hear of that eternal effect linking and yoking together our participation in the sacred sacramental mysteries we experience in Holy Mass, on the one hand, with the conduct and mores of our lives on the other. For the baptized Catholic Christian there must be continuity between our reception of the sacraments and the way we live. Read More →

A tip of the biretta is owed to frequent participant Henry    o{]:¬)   for the news that WDTPRS is quoted on the site of the Diocese of Knoxville, where His Excellency Bishop Joseph E. Kurtz is laboring in the Lord’s vineyard.  … Read More →

EXCERPT:
The vocabulary of our prayer today is very dense, and so our English translation will suffer if we try to come up with one-to-one equivalents for the Latin elements. For example, the word sensus has great weight. It means more than simply “sense”. Even in a non-theological source such as the preferred Latin Dictionary of fame we find that sensus carries meaning beyond what we might perceive by the five physical senses of the body or by the perceiving powers of the mind. It points to that which is common to all human beings, “common sense”. This not the “common sense” which we might have (or lack) in, for example, not standing too close with our back to the lions’ cage when posing for a photo. This is also not the Kantian a priori principle of every judgment of taste, the Kantian term for the so-called subjective principle which determines only by feeling rather than concepts, though nonetheless with universal validity, what is liked or disliked by all people. It is not quite the ancient Greek idea of koine aisthesis according to the Aristotle (De anima – II,6, 418a17-20) which applies to our capacities of perceiving objects through more than one sense. Aristotle suggests a “common sense” power by which we perceive things. Medieval Aristotelians suggest that sensus communis is the root and origin of all sensing. Thus we are able to hear the roar, feel the bite and then see the shaggy mane and realize that it is the one and the same lion gnawing us as he drags our leg into the cage … when we lack the other sort of common sense. So, we might say that this is the power of uniting mentally the impressions conveyed by the five physical senses which constitutes ordinary understanding, without which one is foolish or insane and thus prone to lack common sense.
Read More →

EXCERPT:
Holy Mass is both the Sacrifice of the Cross renewed, and the Supper, a meal foreshadowing the heavenly banquet to come. It is Calvary being renewed inseparably within the context of the renewal of the Last Supper Christ celebrated with His Apostles as His Passion began. Holy Mass is simultaneously both Supper and Sacrifice.

Perhaps in the last two decades and more, we have all experienced descriptions of Holy Mass which emphasize the meal dimension of the liturgical action to the point that the sacrificial dimension of Mass is so completely obscured that it is virtually obliterated. This eclipsing of the sacrificial aspect by the more warm and comforting meal facet results nearly always in a choice of a liturgical style that, to put it mildly, departs from the traditional Roman style. I think it is not unusual in the least to find in the meal point of view a greater measure of fellowship and celebration, commonality, and even informality (particularly in a culture becoming ever more informal). While the meal characteristic might be described as more “horizontal,” the sacrificial element is decidedly more “vertical.” The very thought of “sacrifice” might lead most people to be introspective rather than outgoing, quiet and reserved rather than boisterous, solemn rather than informal. Therefore, the style of service at the altar, the content of homilies, the choice of music, the quality of vestments and so forth, will be very much influenced by the gravitational pull exerted by one “force” in the Mass or the other, meal or sacrifice, horizontality or verticality, introspection or outward expressiveness.

Yet, the Holy Mass of Catholics must be allowed to reveal both dimensions, meal and sacrifice, in a dynamic unity. What I mean by dynamic here is that from day to day, week to week, season to season, Holy Mother Church may highlight one more than the other according to the time and feast. Also, within a Mass we might be more sensible of now one, now the other as being the primary focus of a prayer, an action, and even a silence and rest. All of us are challenged to maintain a balance of vision and perception during Mass. When the meal dimension is being brought to the fore, we must always strive to view the meal through the lens of sacrifice, and vice versa. This is particularly the challenge of the priest, sometimes banally described by some who emphasize the horizontal, as the “waiter” at the “meal.” He must be both “servant” in the sense of “ministry” (from Latin ministro which among various things means “to serve out or hand out food”) as well as the priest/victim, simultaneously offering sacrifice and being sacrificed on the altar, which is simultaneously a “table.” Read More →

EXCERPT: [Someone asked about “astare” in the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer and wanted a clarification for those who want to say that this means that people must stand during the Eucharistic Prayer.]

To your question about astare: I wrote about this in the series on the Eucharistic Prayers in June 2004. The Preface of the 4th Eucharistic Prayer uses similar vocabulary. I wrote in these WDTPRS pages last year but, Fr. RF, you made me dig a little more. Some might not immediately recognize asto as adsto, which the precious Lewis & Short Dictionary says means, “to stand at or near a person or thing, to stand by”. The L&S will also make clear that asto has the synonym adsisto. If you have ever heard the phrase “to assist (adsisto) at Holy Mass” this is the concept: you are present and actively participating. Also, during the Roman Canon the priest describes the people as circumstantes, literally “standing around”. This doesn’t mean ought to be physically standing around the altar with their hands in their pockets (though I must confess I have seen precisely that). Rather, they are morally and spiritually “around” the altar, participating each according to their vocation and capacity. In his supplement to L&S, A. Souter says that adsto is the equivalent of sum. A. Blaise, on the other hand, says liturgical adsto is “to be nearby; to serve”. The same goes for adsisto. I think anyone who would try to use this as a defense of standing during the consecration would be using a terribly superficial argument. Moreover, whatever the translation says, the Church’s clear liturgical law says that at that moment, unless they are impeded, everyone must be kneeling at the time of the consecration in most of the world’s dioceses. In the USA people must kneel from the end of the Sanctus, through the whole of the Eucharistic Prayer, to the end of the great “Amen” (GIRM 23). This adaptation was purposely sought by the bishops of the USA and it was approved by Rome. Are people kneeling? Read More →

In the 1962 Missale Romanum there are texts available for the feast "B. Mariae Virginis Divini Pastoris Matris" in the section toward the back of Masses for certain places. Here is the nice… COLLECT:Domine Iesu Christe, Pastor bone,qui pro ovibus … Read More →

EXCERPT:
I think it is important to emphasize that when the Vatican or most decent priests make distinctions about what lay people can or cannot do, say in the context of Mass or in the realm of moral theology, they are not simply being mean or oppressive. The principle at work is this. Lay people have a great dignity of their own. To uphold that dignity, sometimes it is necessary to say “no”, and it is not “clericalism” to say it. When the inherent dignity of lay people is underappreciated the mistake is often made of imposing on them a false dignity by “clericalizing” them. Much of the clericalization of lay people has come from a truly “clericalistic” attitude. It is a common error to think that priests (and religious) are the “real” members of the Church and therefore, in order to bring lay people up the ladder of dignity, they need to be made be act like ordained priests and do the things priests do. Some priests have shuffled off their own proper roles onto the shoulders good-hearted willing volunteers whom Father is seeking to actualize. This does untold damage to both lay people and priests alike, since by this process neither of them are able properly to attend to their true vocations. At the same time it must be recognized that many of the things that priests are being required to do today are often best handled by lay people. The extremes of Father doing everything and Father abandoning even his own roles must both be avoided. And if people make the mistake sometimes of thinking that priests, etc., are the real Church, similarly we must avoid the error of thinking that priests don’t belong to the Church. The Church is both lay and ordained, each complementing and building the other. Read More →