WDTPRS – 23rd Ordinary Sunday (N.O.): Our perfectly amazing adoption

roman sarcophagus man sonThe Collect for the 23rd Ordinary Sunday – this Sunday – was not in any pre-Conciliar edition of the Roman Missal, but it was in the 8th century Gelasian Sacramentary in a section for evening prayers during Paschaltide.  You have to wonder how they – the cutting and pasting experts – made these decisions.  Right?

Deus, per quem nobis et redemptio venit et praestatur adoptio, filios dilectionis tuae benignus intende, ut in Christo credentibus et vera tribuatur libertas, et hereditas aeterna.

Take note of the lovely chiasms (so-called because, stylistically, they form a X or Greek chi): redemptio venit…praestatur adoptio (subject verb… verb subject) and also vera libertas…hereditas aeterna (adjective noun…noun adjective).  And the two passives make a nice bridge.  It is brilliantly crafted and typically terse, according to the Roman genius.

chiasmus

Vocabulary connections suggest to me Patristic sources for this prayer (e.g., in St Hilary of Poitiers (+ c. 368) de trin 6, 44; St Ambrose of Milan (+ 397) ep 9, 65, 5).

Praesto, -iti, -atum means effectively “to stand before or in front”.   It has a wide range of meanings, however, including “to fulfill, discharge, maintain, perform, execute” and concepts surrounding the same, making praesto a little confusing.  The lexicographer Souter says that in about the 2nd century praesto meant, “lend” (like French “prêter”) and from the 4th century onward “offer”.  Cassiodorus (+ c. 583) and other authors use praesto for “help, aid, give”.   A. Blaise suggests the French “accorder” when praesto concerns God.  Some weeks ago, (19th Sunday) we saw adoptioHereditas can be, “heirship” or the inheritance, the patrimony, itself.

OBSOLETE ICEL (1973):

God our Father, you redeem us, and make us your children in Christ. Look upon us, give us true freedom and bring us to the inheritance you promised.

BTW.. in all the years that I wrote these columns, I constantly reminded people that the slavishly literal versions I provided week in and week out were intended to help you see how the Latin works, to get the bones of the prayers, for the sake of comparing and contrasting more easily the official translations..  They were never intended to be liturgically ready versions… even though they were often better than what we got!  So, keep that in mind.  They are workhorses, merely.

SUPER LITERAL RENDERING:

O God, through whom to us come both redemption and adoption is guaranteed, kindly give attention to your beloved children, so that both true freedom and the inheritance everlasting may be bestowed on those believing in Christ.

See what I did in there?

CURRENT ICEL (2011):

O God, by whom we are redeemed and receive adoption, look graciously upon your beloved sons and daughters, that those who believe in Christ may receive true freedom and an everlasting inheritance.

What do you think?

By the fact of our unity with Christ in His and our common human nature, the way to divine sonship was opened up to us by the Father in Christ.

Christ is the Father’s Son by nature, we are sons and daughters by grace.

Our adoption through grace is “perfect” (adoptio perfecta) because it complete. Perfecta is from perficio, “bring to an end or conclusion, finish, complete”.

From God’s point of view our adoption is perfect because He puts His mark upon us, especially in baptism and confirmation.  Since God is not limited by time and for Him there are no past or future distinct from the present, He sees in perfection the results of every gift of adoption.

From our point of view adoption will only be completed when we see Him face to face.  Because of baptism the Father’s mark is sealed into us forever.  In this marvelous adoption the Holy Spirit brings the Father and Son to us when He takes up His rightful place in our souls, thus creating the perfect communion, even family, within our souls.

Today’s Collect has its foundation certainly in the New Testament imagery of adoption, but I think it also flows out of ancient Roman legal concepts of manumission and adoption, freeing of slaves and adoption of heirs.

Ancient prayers rang differently in the ancient ears than they do in ours.  Trying to get the content that rang then to ring also today is tricky.  Sometimes it can’t be done, and still retain the prayer’s concision, a characteristic of the Roman style.

Let’s bang our hammer on the bell that is “adoption” for a while and see what rings out.

Our adoption by God takes us out of slavery and gives us a new status as free members of the Church and as sons and daughters.  Baptism confers this freedom, membership, and adoption.

Even natural children of a father in ancient Rome required the father’s recognition (Latin recognitio) before they were legally considered to be his legitimate children and heirs with any rights.  Adoption could grant those same rights and privileges.  Roman adoptio removed a person from one familia and put him in another, while adrogatio legally placed people not under the power of a parent into a familia, thus placing them under the authority of the paterfamilias.  In Latin, a familia is a house and all belonging to it, a family estate, family property, fortune.  A familia had a head, the paterfamilias (or –familiae, the –as being a Greek genitive), the master of the house.

The baptized are no longer subject to Satan and destined for hell, but are now under new mastership of God.

In Rome there was also an “adoption”, being named an heir with the right of taking the name of the one bequeathing the patrimony.  However, this was not an adoption in the fullest sense: you became heir of the father’s name and property without the other powers of a paterfamilias until they were confirmed by magistrates, etc.

Even after baptism our state can be deepened through confirmation.

Ancient slaves could be freed, but that did not make them Roman citizens with the greater rights.  By baptism, we become citizens of heaven, members of the family of the Church.  Not only are we free, but we gain even the chance of eternal salvation.

In ancient Rome a slave could become a citizen through certain types of manumission, by adoption, through military service, or a special grant to a community or territory.  In a way, we have undergone all of these: by laying His hand on us (manus “hand” and mittere), we have been freed.  We have been made sons and daughters of a heavenly Father.

We are now soldiers in the Church militant.

By membership of the society of the Church, a holy and priestly People, we gain privileges and obligations.   God has recognized us as His own children with a perfect adoption.  This is true freedom and true heirship, excluding nothing and, in some sense, lavishing on us even more than we might have had before we fell under the Devil’s dominion through sin.

This is a difficult mystery to grasp: we are already sons and daughters in a perfect sonship by adoption, but that sonship is not yet complete: we lack the final essential component, that is, perseverance in faith and obedience for the whole course of our lives and their ratification in death and our particular judgment.

It is through many trials that we come to the perfection of adoption which we now share in an imperfectly perfect way.

These collects during the summer, during Ordinary time, contain reminders of who we are and, therefore, what we are to do.

Christ reveals both.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, WDTPRS |
Comments Off on WDTPRS – 23rd Ordinary Sunday (N.O.): Our perfectly amazing adoption

Rome Shot 267

Photo by The Great Roman™

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
1 Comment

Rome Shot 266

Photo by The Great Roman™

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
1 Comment

ASK FATHER: Good sources for chapel veils, mantillas

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Father – back in 2009, you posted asking for help finding high-quality chapel veils.  Most, if not all of the suggested businesses listed in the answers are closed up, (sad).  Could you post the question again, as I imagine there are new veil-making businesses popping up all the time now with the resurgence of the TLM (happy!).

This is a good question!  Anyone?

Now that the TLM will be under attack or suppressed in some places, I had a little moment of Schadenfreude, picturing the consternation of lib priests and bishops as more and more women started wearing chapel veils and saying the Rosary (the usual accusation) in their Novus Ordo Masses.

¡Hagan lío!

BTW… we should explore St. Paul on the veiling of women’s hair sometime.  There are some pretty deep elements.

 

 

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged
36 Comments

3 Sept – Feast of St. Phoebe, Non-Deacon

Today there is fervent celebration of the great St. Phoebe, of Romans 16.  She was apparently a wealthy woman of Cenchreae (near Corinth), a friend and supporter (prostatis) of Paul (he had several female patronesses), a “servant” (diakonos – note that the word in masculine form can apply to either sex), and probably Paul’s FedEx guy to Rome with his Letter.

The fervent supporters of the ordination of women – and let’s never pretend that they don’t want ordination to the priesthood no matter how they protest that it’s just about diaconate – claim that this wonderful woman was a sacramentally ordained deacon because Paul uses the word diakonos for her.   They make the entirely unsubstantiated claim that she didn’t just “serve” the Church around Corinth, but she also “preached”, thus making her the equivalent of a real deacon, such as Stephen or Philip.   There isn’t any good reason to connect to Phoebe of Cenchreae to what Paul wrote to Timothy about women (gunaikas) having to be “likewise” worthy as the men should be for diaconal ministry.  All that means is that they shouldn’t be intemperate and or “malicious talkers”, etc.  So, too, Paul would say of everyone.

St. Phoebe is one of those shadowy figures in the New Testament about whom we know far too little.  She is still properly to be venerated as a saint, according to our Catholic tradition.  Our Catholic tradition is to be respected and, we find, our traditions get it right.  Concerning Phoebe, there is nothing in our Catholic tradition to give us serious ideas about her being a sacramentally ordained deacon, like Stephen or Philip.  For Phoebe, the word diakonos meant that Paul honored her as a true servant of the needs of the Church near Corinth at Cenchreae.  An analogy today might be a wealthy woman, very active in the parish, maybe even diocesan committees and projects, whom Father trusts enough even to be an emissary in important matters.

The idea that Paul would get confused about his own teaching that women shouldn’t speak in the assembly and imagine that Phoebe was that sort of deacon is plainly absurd.

Back in 2009 the annual international meeting of scholars of the Early Church and Late Antiquity met, as always, at my school, the Augustinianum in Rome.   The topic that year was “Diakonia, Diaconiae, Diaconato.  Semantica e storia nei Padri della Chiesa.

One of the most important offerings at the conference – I was there – was a paper by a left-leaning Jesuit prof at the Biblicum, Corrado Marucci, “Il ‘diaconato’ di Febe (Rom. 16, 1-2) secondo l’esegsi moderna” in the Acts of that conference published by the Augustinianum in Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 117 of 2010, pp. 685-695.

If you look around at Marucci’s previous writings about female diaconate, you might find him supporting a notion that an ordination received by women, called deacons, was “analogous” to male ordination, perhaps sacramental.  That was his position in 1997 in his work “Storia e valore del diaconato femminile nella Chiesa antica” in Rassegna di Teologia 38 (1997), pp. 771-795.    However, by 2009, and the conference at the Augustinianum – I was there – he had changed his tune, backed off that claim rather sharply.

In his 2009 paper, Marucci, summing up the evidence from the Fathers and Church writers up to modern times, notes three possible ways that Phoebe might have been considered to be a deacon.  First, that she had a significant ministerial role which women, especially, were able to carry out.  Second, that there was a more specific ministry for women delineated as deacons.  Third, that Rom 16 is, in fact, a testimony that there was a female diaconate like that of men but in a rudimentary form.

That said, Marucci observes that, between these three alternatives, there is no unified position among the exegetes of that passage, about the word diakonos in Rom 16, but he, Marucci, said that the substantive diakonos was a title, for a stable function, a ministry that was not just secular or civic (insofar as she was an important person in the community) but also ecclesial, without being able to be more precise about a stable, sacramental function (p. 694).

Marucci said that no scholar of the question had to that time convincingly demonstrated a growth in an ecclesial structure in the period before Romans, and that the attempt to port over the development of various ministries of a much later date (from Protestant origins) gave proof to the scriptural and historical challenges.  He said that there wasn’t a good connection between Phoebe as “deacon” and also the “true widows” of Timothy.  Finally, he said that hardly any of the ecclesiastical authors, Greek or Latin, venture into the “ministry” of Phoebe.  He brought up late Medieval writers, who thought there might have been ordained deaconesses in the early Church, though rare and then vanished. That’s quickly dismissed.  Marucci probably included that for the sake of being thorough.

In short, we should celebrate the Feast of St. Phoebe, whom we might designate as the patron saint of FedEx guys, for probably being the one who carried Paul’s letter to Rome.  She wasn’t a deacon in a sacramental sense, but she did carry out diakonia, true and valuable service to the Church at Cenchreae, just as so many faithful women do now, either women religious or involved lay women, who give so much to the Church of their time, treasure and talent.

What would we do without them?

St. Phoebe, pray for us.

 

Posted in Deaconettes, Saints: Stories & Symbols, The Drill | Tagged , , ,
1 Comment

Biden, Abortion and Can. 915

Can. 915.

Bishops…. is it time yet?

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Emanations from Penumbras | Tagged ,
33 Comments

LONDON: 11-19 September – Eucharistic Octave with different Catholic Rites

One of you readers sent me notice about something that will take place at Corpus Christi in Maiden Lane, London.  The programme HERE.

It will be the “London Eucharistic Octave” organized by the parishes of central London.  At the end there will be a Eucharistic Procession (“Meno chiacchiare! Più processioni!”).  You readers helped to raise money for their beautiful canopy.  HERE and HERE

When you look at the schedule, you will find that, at the same Corpus Christi, recently exquisitely renovated, Votive Masses in various Rites, including, the Novus Ordo, the Traditional Roman Rite (apparently now an official separate Rite – but we shall see) the “Anglican” Ordinariate Use, the Ukrainian Divine Liturgy (I lived with Ukrainians in Rome for a while and got to know that; they liked my bass voice), and of course the procession.

What a splendid outpouring of faith.

Pray for good attendance and good weather.

 

Posted in Just Too Cool, Save The Liturgy - Save The World, The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged ,
3 Comments

Rome Shot 265

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
Comments Off on Rome Shot 265

Wherein a priest alumnus of the North American College responds. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

This is NOT a representation or subtle comment on the writer. Keep reading and you’ll get why there is a picture of a Horned Lizard here.

From an alumnus of the North American College (US seminary in Rome) … edited so that the style of writing can’t be traced to any one priest by those who might recognize it.

As a NAC grad, I read your article [HERE] with interest.

I disagree that a student will get in trouble for googling the Latin Mass and related material.

Things that will get a seminarian in trouble are wearing a cassock, biretta, or bad mouthing Conciliar theology or the Vatican II liturgy in public.

Men who show openly an affinity for pre-Conciliar ‘look’ make formators nervous.

I work with priests who are fans of the usus antiquior.  It’s not their interest in that liturgical form that gets them in trouble.  What gets them in trouble are firm statements on faith or morals.  They are black and white and might polarize the faithful.  What gets them in trouble is a biretta, which can really anger some of the older Vatican II clergy.

Or what get’s them in trouble is their ‘obsession’ with using a one thousand year old document, the Summa Theologiae, as a catechetical resource.

That’s what gets them in trouble.

“What gets them in trouble are firm statements on faith or morals….”

That’s it in one.

Liturgy is doctrine, of course.  And we are our rites.

The enemies of Tradition might not always be very bright or well-formed, but they sense the truth of that connection of doctrine and worship viscerally and they react in nasty ways, rather like the Horned Lizard which literally shoots blood from its eyes as a defensive instinct.

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

Yes, experience informs that this is a pretty good analogy.

Birettas and Latin trigger that generation.

They were conditioned in those halcyon days of change and revolution, protests and the “spirit” and liberation, all oozing together in the ambient of the Church and COUNCIL, to the point that they fused into a kind of mythic icon.

The sight of a biretta, a black chasuble, ad orientem, triggers violent flashbacks, sends them back to their roots of protest and change.

When they see younger priests embracing those things they threw away, literally into dumpsters, they feel threatened and become defensive. Many of them sense in the younger generation’s desire for tradition an implicit attack on their own persons, on their priestly identity (resting on whatever sort of foundation), a criticism of their whole life’s work. So they lash out.

In a sense, they are not wrong that the embrace of Tradition by younger priests is an implicit criticism of their life’s work. That’s because what they strove to build after Vatican II didn’t have the desired effect. In fact, looking around at the Church, on the level of statistics, it was a real failure.

We can blame them and not blame them.  They weren’t and aren’t perfect.  No priests are.  Most of them put their backs into doing what they were told.   The real blame, the blamable blame, lies with a few.

Most of our now older priests were absolutely sincere in what they did. They were good priests and they were formed in their particular time.  But a lot of their work, in the end, didn’t work, objectively.   Yes, yes… there are many factors.  Blah blah blah.  But as bishops and priests go, the Church will go, to the point where St. Jean Eudes’ dire admonishment kicks in.

It stings these older men to suggest that maybe we ought to go back a few squares, and rethink our path.

The younger guys don’t intend to stick a finger in their eye. That’s not their intention in becoming more “trad”.   They just don’t have the baggage of the previous waves of priests. They are simply not as invested in that chimeric ‘spirit’ of the Council and those oh so halcyon days.   Those aren’t their own days!   These are their days!  For them, The Council was just a Council, along with a bunch of other Council’s in a chain of continuity that doesn’t cancel out the value of the previous Councils.  These younger men just want to have their patrimony – all of it, and not just the part that started on 11 October 1962 onward – and get on with things, do their priestly, pastoral work.  They just want to be priests and do things that actually work, not just repeat the obviously failed experiments of the past.

If some few do want to rub it in the face of their older brethren, well… shame on them. Thanks, guys, you few, you unhappy few, for betraying our cause by your willful imprudence.

The vast majority of priests who want Tradition simply want to get on with things, the more the merrier: “Join us, please! We will welcome you. Give us a hand.” Or, at least, “If not, please leave us alone. Don’t mess with our joy.”

I’ve made this comparison before.

Say you are in Chicago and you want to drive to New York. You set out and drive for a long time. Suddenly, thinking you were drawing nearer to Empire State you see a sign saying “Kansas Welcomes You!” What do you do? Do you keep driving in the same direction? Not if you really desire to get to New York. No. Commonsense dictates that you do a U-turn and head the other direction until you start see welcome signs for Eastern states. That’s the smart course. It would be stupid to continue driving in the opposite direction once you know you have strayed. Let’s add to this the fact that you have put on your car a sign, “NEW YORK OR BUST!” You pull into the gas station in Kansas to fuel up and the guy there says, “Hey, didn’t you come in from the East? Buddy, you are going in the wrong direction!” You pay him and start to pull out onto the road, again toward the West. The guy runs out waving his arms, shouting, “HEY! THAT WAY! NEW YORK IS THAT WAY!” But, no. You are on your path.

For these older guys who committed to what they committed in the 60s, 70s, 80s, the sight of a growing congregation at a Traditional Latin Mass is like hot coals on their forehead.  But they’ve got those thinning white-knuckled  hands locked onto the steering wheel and, by gum, they’re not turning the car back.

For this reason, some of them, sad to say, would rather drive off a cliff than turn around.  They would rather destroy a thriving, growing community of happy, zealous young Catholics than let it grow.  Instead of joining them, or at least benignly watching from afar, they’ll run over them with the car on the way to the cliff’s edge.

Because, in the end, it’s all about them.

We can and must act, in charity, in the face of this new round of challenges.

 

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, "How To..." - Practical Notes, Cri de Coeur, Francis, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, Pò sì jiù, Priests and Priesthood, Save The Liturgy - Save The World, Seminarians and Seminaries, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, Traditionis custodes, Vatican II, Wherein Fr. Z Rants |
16 Comments

“Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood!”

UPDATE:

BTW… doesn’t that ACLU graphic remind you of something?

Doctor Strangelove, maybe?


I thought this was an interesting juxtaposition.

Being bullied into being injected with something that isn’t really a vaccine, that does who knows what, is really furthering your civil liberties!   It’s science!

Now Francis, from his recent interview with COPE.

Traditionis custodes was intended to “support and consolidate Summorum Pontificum.”

Pretty much gutting the document and trampling the legitimate aspirations of the most marginalized group in the Church based on who know what survey evidence, is really supporting and consolidating that document.  It’s pastoral!

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

Baby, do you understand me now
Sometimes I feel a little mad
But don’t you know that no one alive
Can always be an angel
When things go wrong I seem to be bad
But I’m just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged
6 Comments