Benedict XVI’s grim “state of the union” (Christmas) address to the Roman Curia

The Holy Father’s 2005 Christmas greetings address to the Roman Curia was one of the most important of his still short pontificate.

He has now delivered his 2010 address. It serves, among other things, as a kind of “state of the union” address.

It was a hard and grim assessment of the state of the Church and the world. At one point he says:

“The very future of the world is at stake.”

Merry Christmas, everyone.

He spoke of the suffering that came from the continuing clerical sexual abuse scandal and the Year for Priests. He even used some statistics. At one point he spoke of the Book of the Apocalypse and the sins of Babylon. Don’t miss the quote from the visions of St. Hildegard. He cites Alexis de Tocqueville. He speaks of Bl. John Henry Newman’s beatification, what it means, and compares Newman’s conversion to the Copernican Revolution. He even brings up Newman’s Toast about “conscience” and explains it.  He brings up proportionalism as a cause of many of the Church’s problems.

Let’s have a look, with my emphases and comments. It is about 3800 words uncut, but I will edit. This is long, but it is worthwhile to look at this together carefully.

The Vicar of Christ is painting a grim and challenging picture.

Pope Benedict XVIDear Cardinals,

Brother Bishops and Priests,

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

[…]

Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni. [Stir up Your might, O Lord, and come!] Repeatedly during the season of Advent the Church’s liturgy prays in these or similar words. They [are] invocations that were probably formulated as the Roman Empire was in decline. [Is Western civilization is in its sunset?] The disintegration of the key principles of law and of the fundamental moral attitudes underpinning them burst open the dams which until that time had protected peaceful coexistence among peoples. [Speaking of sunset…] The sun was setting over an entire world. Frequent natural disasters further increased this sense of insecurity. There was no power in sight that could put a stop to this decline. All the more insistent, then, was the invocation of the power of God: the plea that he might come and protect his people from all these threats.

Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni. Today too, we have many reasons to associate ourselves with this Advent prayer of the Church. For all its new hopes and possibilities, our world is at the same time troubled by the sense that moral consensus is collapsing, consensus without which juridical and political structures cannot function. Consequently the forces mobilized for the defence of such structures seem doomed to failure. [I must here remind the reader that Catholics used to pray the “Leonine Prayers” after low Masses.]

Excita – the prayer recalls the cry addressed to the Lord who was sleeping in the disciples’ storm-tossed boat as it was close to sinking. [Benedict used this image just before his election in his 2005 Good Friday Stations of the Cross for the Ninth Station. He was clearly talking about the clerical crisis: “Lord, your Church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side. In your field we see more weeds than wheat. The soiled garments and face of your Church throw us into confusion. Yet it is we ourselves who have soiled them! It is we who betray you time and time again, after all our lofty words and grand gestures. Have mercy on your Church; within her too, Adam continues to fall. When we fall, we drag you down to earth, and Satan laughs, for he hopes that you will not be able to rise from that fall; he hopes that being dragged down in the fall of your Church, you will remain prostrate and overpowered. But you will rise again. You stood up, you arose and you can also raise us up. Save and sanctify your Church. Save and sanctify us all.”] When his powerful word had calmed the storm, he rebuked the disciples for their little faith (cf. Mt 8:26 et par.). He wanted to say: it was your faith that was sleeping. He will say the same thing to us. Our faith too is often asleep. Let us ask him, then, to wake us from the sleep of a faith grown tired, and to restore to that faith the power to move mountains – that is, to order justly the affairs of the world. [In their State of the Union addresses American Presidents usually come out of the blocks with the declaration that “The state of the Union is strong!” That is not what Benedict XVI is doing, at least insofar as the human dimension is concerned.]

Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni: amid the great tribulations to which we have been exposed during the past year, this Advent prayer has frequently been in my mind and on my lips. We had begun the Year for Priests with great joy and, thank God, we were also able to conclude it with great gratitude, despite the fact that it unfolded so differently from the way we had expected. Among us priests and among the lay faithful, especially the young, there was a renewed awareness of what a great gift the Lord has entrusted to us in the priesthood of the Catholic Church. We realized afresh how beautiful it is that human beings are fully authorized to pronounce in God’s name the word of forgiveness, and are thus able to change the world, to change life; we realized how beautiful it is that human beings may utter the words of consecration, through which the Lord draws a part of the world into himself, and so transforms it at one point in its very substance; we realized how beautiful it is to be able, with the Lord’s strength, to be close to people in their joys and sufferings, in the important moments of their lives and in their dark times; how beautiful it is to have as one’s life task not this or that, but simply human life itself – helping people to open themselves to God and to live from God. We were all the more dismayed, then, when in this year of all years and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime.

In this context, a vision of Saint Hildegard of Bingen came to my mind, a vision which describes in a shocking way what we have lived through this past year. “In the year of our Lord’s incarnation 1170, I had been lying on my sick-bed for a long time when, fully conscious in body and in mind, I had a vision of a woman of such beauty that the human mind is unable to comprehend. She stretched in height from earth to heaven. Her face shone with exceeding brightness and her gaze was fixed on heaven. She was dressed in a dazzling robe of white silk and draped in a cloak, adorned with stones of great price. On her feet she wore shoes of onyx. But her face was stained with dust, her robe was ripped down the right side, her cloak had lost its sheen of beauty and her shoes had been blackened. And she herself, in a voice loud with sorrow, was calling to the heights of heaven, saying, ‘Hear, heaven, how my face is sullied; mourn, earth, that my robe is torn; tremble, abyss, because my shoes are blackened!

And she continued: ‘I lay hidden in the heart of the Father until the Son of Man, who was conceived and born in virginity, poured out his blood. With that same blood as his dowry, he made me his betrothed.

For my Bridegroom’s wounds remain fresh and open as long as the wounds of men’s sins continue to gape. And Christ’s wounds remain open because of the sins of priests. [May God have mercy on me, a sinner.] They tear my robe, since they are violators of the Law, the Gospel and their own priesthood; they darken my cloak by neglecting, in every way, the precepts which they are meant to uphold; my shoes too are blackened, since priests do not keep to the straight paths of justice, which are hard and rugged, or set good examples to those beneath them. Nevertheless, in some of them I find the splendour of truth.’

And I heard a voice from heaven which said: ‘This image represents the Church. For this reason, O you who see all this and who listen to the word of lament, proclaim it to the priests who are destined to offer guidance and instruction to God’s people and to whom, as to the apostles, it was said: go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation’ (Mk 16:15)” (Letter to Werner von Kirchheim and his Priestly Community: PL 197, 269ff.).

In the vision of Saint Hildegard, the face of the Church is stained with dust, and this is how we have seen it. Her garment is torn – by the sins of priests. The way she saw and expressed it is the way we have experienced it this year. [Remember: this is a “state of the union” address.] We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal. Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again. [Priestly formation… indeed.] This is also the moment to offer heartfelt thanks to all those who work to help victims and to restore their trust in the Church, their capacity to believe her message. In my meetings with victims of this sin, I have also always found people who, with great dedication, stand alongside those who suffer and have been damaged. This is also the occasion to thank the many good priests who act as channels of the Lord’s goodness in humility and fidelity and, amid the devastations, bear witness to the [un-forfeited] beauty of the priesthood.

We are well aware of the particular gravity of this sin committed by priests and of our corresponding responsibility. [This is not the Pontifical We.] But neither can we remain silent regarding the context of these times in which these events have come to light. There is a market in child pornography that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society. [He has spoken of the Church. Now he speaks about the world around us.] The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times. [At the top he spoke of the “sunset”.]The Book of Revelation includes among the great sins of Babylon – the symbol of the world’s great irreligious cities – the fact that it trades with bodies and souls and treats them as commodities (cf. Rev 18:13). In this context, the problem of drugs also rears its head, and with increasing force extends its octopus tentacles around the entire world – an eloquent expression of the tyranny of mammon which perverts mankind. No pleasure is ever enough, and the excess of deceiving intoxication becomes a violence that tears whole regions apart – and all this in the name of a fatal misunderstanding of freedom which actually undermines man’s freedom and ultimately destroys it. [Echoing his Message for the World Day of Peace.] From Bishops of developing countries I hear again and again how sexual tourism threatens an entire generation and damages its freedom and its human dignity.

[He has not been holding back. But now we get to some classic Ratzinger…] In order to resist these forces, we must turn our attention to their ideological foundations. In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than”. Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today. Against them, Pope John Paul II, in his 1993 Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, indicated with prophetic force in the great rational tradition of Christian ethos the essential and permanent foundations of moral action. [In a state of the union address, you must also give direction…] Today, attention must be focused anew on this text as a path in the formation of conscience. It is our responsibility to make these criteria audible and intelligible once more for people today as paths of true humanity, in the context of our paramount concern for mankind. [Spoken with some urgency. Dust off your copy of Veritatis splendor.   The Pope is talking about the moral problems that have been caused by proprtionalism. He is saying that to correct our paths, we have to return to a proper moral theology.  No wonder he speaks of formation of priests.]

[… His second point concerns the Synod on the Middle East and the situation of Christians, ecumenical relations, etc. …]
I would willingly speak in some detail of my unforgettable journey to the United Kingdom, but I will limit myself to two points that are connected with the theme of the responsibility of Christians at this time and with the Church’s task to proclaim the Gospel. [A common theme for this pontificate: our voice in the public square.] My thoughts go first of all to the encounter with the world of culture in Westminster Hall, an encounter in which awareness of shared responsibility at this moment in history created great attention which, in the final analysis, was directed to the question of truth and faith itself. It was evident to all that the Church has to make her own contribution to this debate. Alexis de Tocqueville, in his day, observed that democracy in America had become possible and had worked because there existed a fundamental moral consensus which, transcending individual denominations, united everyone. Only if there is such a consensus on the essentials can constitutions and law function. This fundamental consensus derived from the Christian heritage is at risk wherever its place, the place of moral reasoning, [NB: derived from the Christian heritage…] is taken by the purely instrumental rationality of which I spoke earlier. In reality, this makes reason blind to what is essential. To resist this eclipse of reason and to preserve its capacity for seeing the essential, for seeing God and man, for seeing what is good and what is true, is the common interest that must unite all people of good will. [NOTA BENE…] The very future of the world is at stake.

Finally I should like to recall once more the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman. Why was he beatified? [Not a few have asked that.] What does he have to say to us? Many responses could be given to these questions, which were explored in the context of the beatification. I would like to highlight just two aspects which belong together and which, in the final analysis, express the same thing. The first is that we must learn from Newman’s three conversions, because they were steps along a spiritual path that concerns us all. Here I would like to emphasize just the first conversion [Classic Ratzinger!]: to faith in the living God. Until that moment, Newman thought like the average men of his time and indeed like the average men of today, who do not simply exclude the existence of God, but consider it as something uncertain, something with no essential role to play in their lives. [This is a fruit of the Immanentism-Lite which most of society is mired in.] What appeared genuinely real to him, as to the men of his and our day, is the empirical, matter that can be grasped. This is the “reality” according to which one finds one’s bearings. The “real” is what can be grasped, it is the things that can be calculated and taken in one’s hand. In his conversion, Newman recognized that it is exactly the other way round: that God and the soul, man’s spiritual identity, constitute what is genuinely real, what counts. These are much more real than objects that can be grasped. This conversion was a Copernican revolution. What had previously seemed unreal and secondary was now revealed to be the genuinely decisive element. Where such a conversion takes place, it is not just a person’s theory that changes: the fundamental shape of life changes. We are all in constant need of such conversion: then we are on the right path.

[More classic Ratzinger. Very often in his long career he has dealt with the issue of the faith and reason, authority and intellect.] The driving force that impelled Newman along the path of conversion was conscience. But what does this mean? In modern thinking, the word “conscience” signifies that for moral and religious questions, it is the subjective dimension, the individual, that constitutes the final authority for decision. The world is divided into the realms of the objective and the subjective. To the objective realm belong things that can be calculated and verified by experiment. Religion and morals fall outside the scope of these methods and are therefore considered to lie within the subjective realm. Here, it is said, there are in the final analysis no objective criteria. The ultimate instance that can decide here is therefore the subject alone, and precisely this is what the word “conscience” expresses: in this realm only the individual, with his intuitions and experiences, can decide. Newman’s understanding of conscience is diametrically opposed to this. For him, “conscience” means man’s capacity for truth: the capacity to recognize precisely in the decision-making areas of his life – religion and morals – a truth, the truth. At the same time, conscience – man’s capacity to recognize truth – thereby imposes on him the obligation to set out along the path towards truth, to seek it and to submit to it wherever he finds it. Conscience is both capacity for truth and obedience to the truth which manifests itself to anyone who seeks it with an open heart. The path of Newman’s conversions is a path of conscience – not a path of self-asserting subjectivity but, on the contrary, a path of obedience to the truth that was gradually opening up to him. [The Pope of Christian Unity adds this…] His third conversion, to Catholicism, required him to give up almost everything that was dear and precious to him: possessions, profession, academic rank, family ties and many friends. The sacrifice demanded of him by obedience to the truth, by his conscience, went further still. Newman had always been aware of having a mission for England. But in the Catholic theology of his time, his voice could hardly make itself heard. It was too foreign in the context of the prevailing form of theological thought and devotion. In January 1863 he wrote in his diary these distressing words: “As a Protestant, I felt my religion dreary, but not my life – but, as a Catholic, my life dreary, not my religion”. He had not yet arrived at the hour when he would be an influential figure. In the humility and darkness of obedience, he had to wait until his message was taken up and understood. [We are, perhaps, still waiting.] In support of the claim that Newman’s concept of conscience matched the modern subjective understanding, people often quote a letter in which he said – should he have to propose a toast – that he would drink first to conscience and then to the Pope. But in this statement, “conscience” does not signify the ultimately binding quality of subjective intuition. It is an expression of the accessibility and the binding force of truth: on this its primacy is based. The second toast can be dedicated to the Pope because it is his task to demand obedience to the truth.

[…]

Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni.

We set out from this plea for the presence of God’s power in our time and from the experience of his apparent absence. [Ah yes… the apophatic.] If we keep our eyes open as we look back over the year that is coming to an end, we can see clearly that God’s power and goodness are also present today in many different ways. So we all have reason to thank him. Along with thanks to the Lord I renew my thanks to all my co-workers. May God grant to all of us a holy Christmas and may he accompany us with his blessings in the coming year.

I entrust these prayerful sentiments to the intercession of the Holy Virgin, Mother of the Redeemer, and I impart to all of you and to the great family of the Roman Curia a heartfelt Apostolic Blessing. Happy Christmas!

Posted in Clerical Sexual Abuse, Pope of Christian Unity | Tagged ,
22 Comments

Refusal the Extraordinary Form could break unity with the Pope

Our friends at Rorate (happy anniversary to them) posted about a conference on traditional forms of liturgical worship held in France.

The great Msgr. Nichola Bux spoke.

I have written of Msgr. Bux before.  He is a liturgical scholar who, among other things, serves as a consultant for the Office of Pontifical Ceremonies and other dicasteries.  You may recall the BUX PROTOCOL.

Msgr. Bux …

… began his intervention by saying that the French bishops, who like to interact with non-Christians, ought also to dialogue with Catholics and that they must not be afraid of the sheep of their own flock! They should confront reality and not the perception that they have of it. He recalled that the Extraordinary Form is for all of the People of God, and not just a minority, and that it ought to serve as a training for the better celebration of the Ordinary Form. He indicated that, in Italy, the implementation of the Motu proprio is done through priests. He therefore admonished priests to be courageous in the implementation of this text. Finally, he added that the refusal of the Extraordinary Form could be considered as a rupture of communion with the Pope.

Get that?

“Refusal of the Extraordinary Form could be considered as a rupture of communion with the Pope.”

Posted in The Drill | Tagged
23 Comments

QUAERITUR: positive promotion of good practices rather than correction of abuses

From a reader:

You have posted numerous times regarding how to address issues of abuse within a parish in respect to how to compile evidence regarding said abuse, and by what channels to contact the local bishop or the prefect for the CDW.

My question is thus: what type of process should be taken to encourage the use of chant at Mass byt both the priest and “the Ministry”?

That is a good question.

I suppose you could argue that the denial of the people of God of the Gregorian chant the Council required is in itself a liturgical abuse.   That, of course, won’t get you too far.

I will also ask the readers to chime in on this.

However, I think that any time you want to start something “new” in a parish, you have to a) demonstrate that it is going to get support from lay people so the priest doesn’t have to do it all on his own, and b) provide the resources to get it done.

Provide the resources: If you want Gregorian chant, you have to have a schola which can sing it.  That will either require the use of the existing choir or the formation of another (unless you bring people in from outside).   So… form a schola.   Remember: there will be “turf” dynamics here.  In some parishes the music people are very touchy.  In some places the music people are paid.  Sharpen your diplomatic skills.

Demonstrate support: Try to get a sense of how many people would like to have chant.  You could start by talking about the Vatican II liturgical reforms and the relevant paragraphs.  I would avoid “canvassing”, since that will probably annoy the pastor (unless he is already on your side).

There will have to be some catechesis too, either before or while it is starting up.    You will also have to convince people a) that this is what the Church asked for b) that this is the real liturgical music of the Roman Church and c) it really isn’t that hard.

It is a very tall order getting something like this going.  Every parish setting has its own dynamics and characters.   One plan will not “fit all”.

That said, perhaps some people have the experience of getting something going.  Maybe they could be induced to offer their experience and observations.

This has been framed in terms of Gregorian chant, but perhaps some of the strategies here can be useful in other ways (i.e., promoting Communion on the tongue, bringing back an altar rail, moving to ad orientem worship, etc.).

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged ,
19 Comments

QUAERITUR: Pastor changes the offertory. What do I do?

From a reader:

How should I approach my pastor about liturgical abuses he has been committing?

The recurring abuse has been his changing the Offertorium to “Lord, accept this bread and wine. It comes from the earth, and it comes from our hands. May they become for us both the bread of life and the cup of your salvation.”

If your priest is doing that, then he is committing a serious liturgical abuse.

First, you do have the right to do something about it.

In a 2004 document of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments called Redemptionis Sacramentum, you rights and your duties are spelled out.

6. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity. [BE CLEAR!  A person has the right always to write to Rome directly as the first step.  Normally, however, it is best to work your way up the chain.]

Priests may not on their own authority simply change the rites of the Church has given them.  They are not to change the order of actions.  They are not to change the texts.

What you describe shows that the priest has collapsed a two-fold offertory, in two stages, which is theologically significant, into one action.  He thus changes the texts.  And he changes them in a way which introduces concepts which are not in the approved English texts.  That is grave.

Redemptionis Sacramentum also says:

[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

“Reprobate” means to abolish something in a quite severe way so as to make it impossible to appeal to custom even after future violations of law over a long time (as was the case with altar girls, etc. etc.).

Approaching a priest about a liturgical abuse is tricky.  Most priests, even sound sensible loyal priests, don’t take it well.  You must be very calm and not get in his face.  Just lay down the facts and then leave it be.  If that doesn’t result in any positive change, then get the bishop involved.  If that doesn’t produce a change, then write to the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome.  They will take an interest, I assure you.

But they only take an interest on the basis of something concrete to work with, printed matter, video, etc, proof that this is an ongoing problem and not just an isolated incident, proof that the bishop or pastor have not corrected the situation in a reasonable amount of time.   A “reasonable” amount of time on my planet is about a day, given the invention of the telephone… but that’s my planet.  On planet Earth, these things take longer.

I wouldn’t get all revved up about a word here or there or a very small thing, but this sounds rather more serious.

If you have a face to face meeting with the pastor, then go home and immediately write down exactly, without opinions, what happened.  Use that as the basis of a letter to the priest himself about what happened.  In other words… make a record of the conversation so that there is one.  Keep copies of your letter and his response.

You should carefully review this page with TIPS for writing to ecclesiastical authorities.

You are not being a “busy body” by doing this provided that:

  • this is your parish and you are registered and active
  • you are accurate in what you describe (many people think priests are doing things wrong, but they themselves are wrong)
  • you are gracious about it

At every stage, keep copies. Keep in mind that this might take a while.

If other people get involved, they should also be careful not to be jerks.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Classic Posts, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged ,
31 Comments

Liturgical “You” v. “Thou” – WDTPRS POLL ALERT!

There is a POLL at the end.

These days I have been comparing on a daily basis (sometimes on the blog) the new, or corrected ICEL prayers (in a couple revisions) with the Latin originals.  And while comparing them to the lame-duck versions still in use until Advent 2011 is only worth a chuckle, sometimes looking at old “hand missals” and more traditional translations people used for decades is fruitful.

One thing I wish the new translation had is the old “thee” and “thou” and “thy” language.

The norms of Liturgiam authenticam state that the speech of or liturgical worship should be distinct from every day speech (my emphases and comments):

27. Even if expressions should be avoided which hinder comprehension because of their excessively unusual or awkward nature, [“thou” surely isn’t that] the liturgical texts should be considered as the voice of the Church at prayer, rather than of only particular congregations or individuals;  [not merely cutting across global boundaries, but also the boundaries of time] thus, they should be free of an overly servile adherence to prevailing modes of expression. [Just because not many people say “thou” at work or home doesn’t mean we can’t say it in church.] If indeed, in the liturgical texts, words or expressions are sometimes employed which differ somewhat from usual and everyday speech, it is often enough by virtue of this very fact that the texts become truly memorable and capable of expressing heavenly realities. Indeed, it will be seen that the observance of the principles set forth in this Instruction will contribute to the gradual development, in each vernacular, of a sacred style that will come to be recognized as proper to liturgical language. [That has already happened with “thou”, etc.] Thus it may happen that a certain manner of speech which has come to be considered somewhat obsolete in daily usage may continue to be maintained in the liturgical context.

There it is.

In my opinion, the “thee” thing certain does what Liturgicam authenticam asks.  I don’t cry over the choice not to “thou” it up in the new, corrected translation.   Still… I like that sort of thing and I think others would also.

That said, most people are under the impress that “thee” and “thou” are formal.  They originally weren’t.

“Thee… thou.. thy… thine…” are familiar forms of pronouns for the second person singular used by a superior to an underling or between equals or friends.

The “you” form (derived from “ye”) is the more formal.

It was the use of “thou” and not “you” for the  second-person singular pronoun in Early Modern English translations of the Bible which gave “thou” etc. the solemn and formal feeling it has now.  In other words, over time those translation turned “thou” on its head and made it’s connotation the opposite of what it had before.  Unless  you are Amish or Quaker you don’t hear the familiar impact of “thou”.  You hear something formal.

My point is that the impact of “thou” for most people is now solemn and formal and venerable.

In traditional prayers (Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy name…) we address God with a familiar, intimate form.   Think of the ruckus that would result if we forced Catholics to say “Our Father, who are in heaven, let your Name be holy”.

I grant that thou wouldst raise an eyebrow or two at the bowling alley with thy peeps if thou didst shift to “thou”:

“It being the tenth frame and since thou hadst a strike, thrice canst thou bowl.  Take thou up thy ball and bowl thou, already, ‘cause I gotta go home.”

That last phrase shows some lame-duck ICEL influence, but I think you get my drift.

In the lame-duck Sacramentary now in use ICEL improperly provided “Alternative Prayers” having nothing to do with Latin edition, which has no alternative opening prayers.

Too bad we can’t have alternative prayers in the new, corrected translation with the “thee”s and “thou”s.

I know you will have your own opinion.

Here is a WDTPRS POLL.  You don’t have to be registered to vote.

Choose your best answer and then, if you are a registered user, give your reasons in the combox.    Let people speak their piece without engaging with them or arguing with them.  But please stick to the topic.

You v. Thou in our liturgical prayer

View Results

Posted in POLLS, WDTPRS, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged
58 Comments

The Holy Father’s 2011 visit to Germany

Next year the German-born Benedict XVI will have his first state visit to Germany.  His previous visits to Germany were apostolic visits.   During the September 2011 state visit Pope Benedict is slated to address the German Parliament in the Bundestag in Berlin.

The openly homosexual Volker Beck is agitating against Pope Benedict speaking to the German Parliament.

“The German Bundestag is justifiably cautious when inviting a foreign head of state,” Beck told the German daily Die Welt. “Firstly the pope is the head of a religion and secondly the head of a state.”

Here is a Reuters story about the issue.

I suspect there will be protests in Germany that will make those in England look like Afternoon Tea.

Posted in New Evangelization, Pope of Christian Unity, The Drill | Tagged ,
16 Comments

A priest speaks about celebrating Mass “ad orientem” for 5 years

ad orientemThis is from Vultus Christi, the blog of Fr. Mark Daniel Kirby is Prior of the Diocesan  Benedictine Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle in Tulsa, Oklahoma established by H.E. Most Rev. Edward Slattery.

Fr. Kirby speaks about his impressions of celebration Holy Mass “ad orientem”.   This is useful for priests who are thinking about this but perhaps are still hesitant to just do it.

My emphases and comments.

Be sure to go to his place and leave an good comment in his combox!  Spike those stats!

Five Years of “Ad Orientem”

By Father Mark on December 16, 2010

Taking the Step

December 17, 2010 will mark the fifth anniversary of my standing before the altar ad orientem for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I began offering Holy Mass exclusively ad orientem at the Monastery of the Glorious Cross, where I served for a number of years as chaplain. I prepared the change in Advent 2005 with an appropriate pastoral and mystagogical catechesis.

Then Came Summorum Pontificum

After September 14, 2007, Summorum Pontificum made it much easier to celebrate the traditional rite of Holy Mass and, since undertaking my mission in Tulsa, I have offered the Extraordinary Form daily, having no desire and seeing no need, in the context of contemplative monastic life, of celebrating in the Ordinary Form. [With proper catechesis the same could be said for a parish.]

No Going Back

That being said, after five years of offering Holy Mass ad orientem, I can say that I never want to have to return to the versus populum position [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] While traveling, I am, however, sometimes obliged to celebrate versus populum, notably in Ireland, in France and Italy; it leaves me with a feeling of extreme inappropriateness. [Understandable.] I suffer from what I can only describe as a lack of sacred pudeur, or modesty in the face of the Holy Mysteries. When obliged to celebrate versus populum, I feel viscerally, as it were, that there is something very wrong — theologically, spiritually, and anthropologically — with offering the Holy Sacrifice turned toward the congregation.

Ten Advantages

What are the advantages of standing at the altar ad orientem, as I have experienced them over the past two years? I can think of ten straight off:

1. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is experienced as having a theocentric direction and focus. [Not anthropocentric.]
2. The faithful are spared the tiresome clerocentrism that has so overtaken the celebration of Holy Mass in the past forty years. [Do I hear another “Amen!”?]
3. It has once again become evident that the Canon of the Mass (Prex Eucharistica) is addressed to the Father, by the priest, in the name of all.
4. The sacrificial character of the Mass is wonderfully expressed and affirmed.
5. Almost imperceptibly one discovers the rightness of praying silently at certain moments, of reciting certain parts of the Mass softly, and of cantillating others.
6. It affords the priest celebrant the boon of a holy modesty.
7. I find myself more and more identified with Christ, Eternal High Priest and Hostia perpetua, in the liturgy of the heavenly sanctuary, beyond the veil, before the Face of the Father.
8. During the Canon of the Mass I am graced with a profound recollection.
9. The people have become more reverent in their demeanour. [Amen!]
10. The entire celebration of Holy Mass has gained in reverence, attention, and devotion.

Good work, Father.  WDTPRS KUDOS.

I wonder if people can add more reasons.

Also, perhaps for the sake of your own discussion so this issue, you could try to come up with good reasons for the versus populum celebration of Mass and test the arguments.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes | Tagged ,
26 Comments

Very cool webpage

The Vatican websites have a couple really cool pages.

Here is one of them.

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged
8 Comments

WDTPRS POLL ALERT! (This might get things going.)

I love the title of this entry.   No, not the title of this entry… but Damian Thompson’s title on the entry where he posts Michael Voris’s latest.

Lesbian-hugging Marxist nuns have reduced US parishes to nuclear wasteland, Catholic pundit tentatively suggests

Mr. Voris should go to a workshop with some modern sisters to help get in touch what what he really thinks and stop repressing his feelings, maybe walk a labyrinth… do some enneagram stuff.

I was happy to hear the use of “Fishwrap” in there, btw.

WDTPRS POLL:

AFTER watching that video, AFTER, pick the best answer below and give your reasons (if you are among the chosen registered) in the combox, below.  Some comments may wind up in a moderation queue.

Do NOT engage each other.  Do NOT engage each other. Do NOT engage each other.

I want people to feel free to speak their piece without others in the combox jumping on them, liberal, conservative, whatever.  Therefore, clean it clean, concise and don’t provoke me.

About that Michael Voris video....

View Results

Posted in POLLS, The Drill | Tagged ,
96 Comments

“God’s Pit Bull”

Raymond Card. BurkeHis Eminence Raymond Card. Burke has been underscoring the interplay of civil law and the Church’s canon law.  Last summer he organized a conference on that very subject.

This will be more and more important as the Church and state (and prevailing mores) become more and more estranged.

Catholics must consider what it will be like to maintain the Catholic identity of Catholic schools and hospitals (…. and, eventually, parishes).  We must consider whether it is worth trying to do so.  Most people will say that it is.

Under what conditions and constraints?  At what cost?

I suspect we are going to get more direction from Card. Burke on these matters.   Once he gets hold of something he, like a pit bull, doesn’t let it go.  Think of can. 915.

Card. Ratzinger was nicknamed “God’s Rotweiller”.

Perhaps Card. Burke will be “God’s Pit Bull”.

Posted in New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , ,
19 Comments