Archive for the ‘New Springtime of the Church’ Category

Feast of St. Philomena – August 11, 2010: Photo Gallery from the Missa Cantata

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

The Feast of St. Philomena, Virgin and Martyr (August 11th) was celebrated with a Missa Cantata in the Extraordinary Form, followed by individual blessings with the blessed oil which burns in the lamp before her relics at her Sanctuary in Mugnano del Cardinale, Italy and the veneration of her first-class relic.  Rev. Msgr. Charles Mangan, Director of our Diocesan Marian Apostolate, preached the homily, and Mr. and Mrs. Nathan Knutson beautifully lead the chanting of the Common Mass of a Virgin Martyr.  The Mass, which was attended by over 200 people, including families from as far away as Aberdeen, SD, concluded a Triduum of Prayer in St. Philomena’s Honor, which began on Monday evening, August 9th, at 7:00pm.

For a copy of the Devotions in Honor of St. Philomena, click here: Devotions booklet contents  and here for the cover: Booklet Cover

For a copy of the Mass Propers (Common of a Virgin Martyr, Loquebar), click here:  Proper of the Mass – St. Philomena 

Gallery Type 1:

Gallery Type 2:

IMG_3195

Picture 1 of 45

Complete Text of Msgr. Marini’s Conference of January 6th – INTRODUCTION to the SPIRIT OF THE LITURGY

Saturday, February 20th, 2010

Msgr. Guido Marini

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPIRIT OF THE LITURGY

(Editor’s note: Section 3 — on the direction the Celebrant faces during the Liturgy of the Eucharist–  is in bold for your convenience.   Please take note of its relevance.)

Vatican City, January 6, 2010

A Conference for the Year of the Priest

by Msgr. Guido Marini,

Pontifical Master of Liturgical Ceremonies

I propose to focus on some topics connected to the spirit of the liturgy and reflect on them with you; indeed, I intend to broach a subject which would require me to say much. Not only because it is a demanding and complex task to talk about the spirit of the liturgy, but also because many important works treating this subject have already been written by authors of unquestionably high caliber in theology and the liturgy. I’m thinking of two people in particular among the many: Romano Guardini and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

One the other hand, it is now all the more necessary to speak about the spirit of the liturgy, especially for us members of the sacred priesthood. Moreover, there is an urgent need to reaffirm the “authentic” spirit of the liturgy, such as it is present in the uninterrupted tradition of the Church, and attested, in continuity with the past, in the most recent Magisterial teachings: starting from the second Vatican council up to the present pontificate. I purposefully used the word continuity, a word very dear to our present Holy Father. He has made it the only authoritative criterion whereby one can correctly interpret the life of the Church, and more specifically, the conciliar documents, including all the proposed reforms contained in them. How could it be any different? Can one truly speak of a Church of the past and a Church of the future as if some historical break in the body of the Church had occurred? Could anyone say that the Bride of Christ had lived without the assistance of the Holy Spirit in a particular period of the past, so that its memory should be erased, purposefully forgotten?

Nevertheless at times it seems that some individuals are truly partisan to a way of thinking that is justly and properly defined as an ideology, or rather a preconceived notion applied to the history of the Church which has nothing to do with the true faith.

An example of the fruit produced by that misleading ideology is the recurrent distinction between the preconciliar and the post conciliar Church. Such a manner of speaking can be legitimate, but only on condition that two Churches are not understood by it: one, the pre Conciliar Church, that has nothing more to say or to give because it has been surpassed, and a second, the post conciliar church, a new reality born from the Council and, by its presumed spirit, not in continuity with its past. This manner of speaking and more so of thinking must not be our own. Apart from being incorrect, it is already superseded and outdated, perhaps understandable from a historical point of view, but nonetheless connected to a season in the church’s life by now concluded.

Does what we have discussed so far with respect to “continuity” have anything to do with the topic we have been asked to treat in this lecture? Yes, absolutely. The authentic spirit of the liturgy does not abide when it is not approached with serenity, leaving aside all polemics with respect to the recent or remote past. The liturgy cannot and must not be an opportunity for conflict between those who find good only in that which came before us, and those who, on the contrary, almost always find wrong in what came before. The only disposition which permits us to attain the authentic spirit of the liturgy, with joy and true spiritual relish, is to regard both the present and the past liturgy of the Church as one patrimony in continuous development. A spirit, accordingly, which we must receive from the Church and is not a fruit of our own making. A spirit, I add, which leads to what is essential in the liturgy, or, more precisely, to prayer inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit, in whom Christ continues to become present for us today, to burst forth into our lives. Truly, the spirit of the liturgy is the liturgy of the Holy Spirit.

I will not pretend to plumb the depths of the proposed subject matter, nor to treat all the different aspects necessary for a panoramic and comprehensive understanding of the question. I will limit myself by discussing only a few elements essential to the liturgy, specifically with reference to the celebration of the Eucharist, such as the Church proposes them, and in the manner I have learned to deepen my knowledge of them these past two years in service to our Holy Father, Benedict XVI. He is an authentic master of the spirit of the liturgy, whether by his teaching, or by the example he gives in the celebration of the sacred rites.

If, during the course of these reflections on the essence of the liturgy, I will find myself taking note of some behaviours that I do not consider in complete harmony with the authentic spirit of the liturgy, I will do so only as a small contribution to making this spirit stand out all the more in all its beauty and truth.

1. The Sacred Liturgy, God’s great gift to the Church.

We are all well aware how the second Vatican Council dedicated the entirety of its first document to the liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium. It was labeled as the Constitution on the sacred liturgy.

I wish to underline the term sacred in its application to the liturgy, because of its importance. As a matter of fact, the council Fathers intended in this way to reinforce the sacred character of the liturgy.

What, then, do we mean by the sacred liturgy? The East would in this case speak of the divine dimension in the Liturgy, or, to be more precise, of that dimension which is not left to the arbitrary will of man, because it is a gift which comes from on high. It refers, in other words, to the mystery of salvation in Christ, entrusted to the Church in order to make it available in every moment and in every place by means of the objective nature of the liturgical and sacramental rites. This is a reality surpassing us, which is to be received as gift, and which must be allowed to transform us. Indeed, the second Vatican Council affirms: “…every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others…” (Sacrosanctum concilium, n.7)

From this perspective it is not difficult to realise how far distant some modes of conduct are from the authentic spirit of the liturgy. In fact, some individuals have managed to upset the liturgy of the church in various ways under the pretext of a wrongly devised creativity. This was done on the grounds of adapting to the local situation and the needs of the community, thus appropriating the right to remove from, add to, or modify the liturgical rite in pursuit of subjective and emotional ends. For this, we priests are largely responsible.

For this reason, already back in 2001, the former Cardinal Ratzinger asserted: “There is need of, at the very least, of a new liturgical awareness that might put a stop to the tendency to treat the liturgy as if it were an object open to manipulation. We have reached the point where liturgical groups stitch together the Sunday liturgy on their own authority. The result is certainly the imaginative product of a group of able and skilled individuals. But in this way the space where one may encounter the “totally other” is reduced, in which the holy offers Himself as gift; what I come upon is only the skill of a group of people. It is then that we realise that we are looking for something else. It is too little, and at the same time, something different. The most important thing today is to acquire anew a respect for the liturgy, and an awareness that it is not open to manipulation. To learn once again to recognise in its nature a living creation that grows and has been given as gift, through which we participate in the heavenly liturgy. To renounce seeking in it our own self-realisation in order to see a gift instead. This, I believe, is of primary importance: to overcome the temptation of a despotic behaviour, which conceives the liturgy as an object, the property of man, and to re-awaken the interior sense of the holy.” (from ‘God and the World’; translation from the Italian)

To affirm, therefore, that the liturgy is sacred presupposes the fact that the liturgy does not exist subject to the sporadic modifications and arbitrary inventions of one individual or group. The liturgy is not a closed circle in which we decide to meet, perhaps to encourage one another, to feel we are the protagonists of some feast. The liturgy is God’s summons to his people to be in His presence; it is the advent of God among us; it is God encountering us in this world.

A certain adaptation to particular local situations is foreseen and rightly so. The Missal itself indicates where adaptations may be made in some of its sections, yet only in these and not arbitrarily in others. The reason for this is important and it is good to reassert it: the liturgy is a gift which precedes us, a precious treasure which has been delivered by the age-old prayer of the Church, the place in which the faith has found its form in time and its expression in prayer. It is not made available to us in order to be subjected to our personal interpretation; rather, the liturgy is made available so as to be fully at the disposal of all, yesterday just as today and also tomorrow. “Our time, too,” wrote Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, “calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist.” (n. 52)

In the brilliant Encyclical Mediator Dei, which is so often quoted in the constitution on the sacred Liturgy, Pope Pius XII defines the liturgy as “…the public worship… the worship rendered by the Mystical Body of Christ in the entirety of its Head and members.” (n. 20) As if to say, among other things, that in the liturgy, the Church “officially” identifies herself in the mystery of her union with Christ as spouse, and where she “officially” reveals herself. What casual folly it is indeed, to claim for ourselves the right to change in a subjective way the holy signs which time has sifted, through which the Church speaks about herself, her identity and her faith!

The people of God has a right that can never be ignored, in virtue of which, all must be allowed to approach what is not merely the poor fruit of human effort, but the work of God, and precisely because it is God’s work, a saving font of new life.

I wish to prolong my reflection a moment longer on this point, which, I can testify, is very dear to the Holy Father, by sharing with you a passage from Sacramentum Caritatis, the Apostolic Exhortation of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, written after the Synod on the Holy Eucharist. “Emphasising the importance of the ars celebrandi,” the Holy Father writes, “also leads to an appreciation of the value of the liturgical norms… The eucharistic celebration is enhanced when priests and liturgical leaders are committed to making known the current liturgical texts and norms… Perhaps we take it for granted that our ecclesial communities already know and appreciate these resources, but this is not always the case. These texts contain riches which have preserved and expressed the faith and experience of the People of God over its two-thousand-year history.” (n. 40)

2. The orientation of liturgical prayer.

Over and above the changes which have characterised, during the course of time, the architecture of churches and the places where the liturgy takes place, one conviction has always remained clear within the Christian community, almost down to the present day. I am referring to praying facing east, a tradition which goes back to the origins of Christianity.

What is understood by “praying facing east”? It refers to the orientation of the praying heart towards Christ, from whom comes salvation, and to whom it is directed as in the beginning so at the end of history. The sun rises in the east, and the sun is a symbol of Christ, the light rising in the Orient. The messianic passage in the Benedictus canticle comes readily to mind: “Through the tender mercy of our God; * whereby the Orient from on high hath visited us”

Very reliable and recent studies have by now proven effectively that, in every age of its past, the Christian community has found the way to express even in the external and visible liturgical sign, this fundamental orientation for the life of faith. This is why we find churches built in such a way that the apse was turned to the east. When such an orientation of the sacred space was no longer possible, the Church had recourse to the Crucifix placed upon the altar, on which everyone could focus. In the same vein many apses were decorated with resplendent representations of the Lord. All were invited to contemplate these images during the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy.

Without recourse to a detailed historical analysis of the development of Christian art, we would like to reaffirm that prayer facing east, more specifically, facing the Lord, is a characteristic expression of the authentic spirit of the liturgy. It is according to this sense that we are invited to turn our hearts to the Lord during the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy, as the introductory dialogue to the Preface well reminds us. Sursum corda “Lift up your hearts,” exhorts the priest, and all respond: Habemus ad Dominum “We lift them up unto the Lord.” Now if such an orientation must always be adopted interiorly by the entire Christian community when it gathers in prayer, it should be possible to find this orientation expressed externally by means of signs as well. The external sign, moreover, cannot but be true, in such a way that through it the correct spiritual attitude is rendered visible.

Hence the reason for the proposal made by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, and presently reaffirmed during the course of his pontificate, to place the Crucifix on the center of the altar, in order that all, during the celebration of the liturgy, may concretely face and look upon Lord, in such a way as to orient also their prayer and hearts. Let us listen to the words of his Holiness, Benedict XVI, directly, who in the preface to the first book of his Complete Works, dedicated to the liturgy, writes the following: “The idea that the priest and people should stare at one another during prayer was born only in modern Christianity, and is completely alien to the ancient Church. The priest and people most certainly do not pray one to the other, but to the one Lord. Therefore, they stare in the same direction during prayer: either towards the east as a cosmic symbol of the Lord who comes, or, where this is not possible, towards the image of Christ in the apse, towards a crucifix, or simply towards the heavens, as our Lord Himself did in his priestly prayer the night before His Passion (John 17.1) In the meantime the proposal made by me at the end of the chapter treating this question in my work ‘The Spirit of the Liturgy’ is fortunately becoming more and more common: rather than proceeding with further transformations, simply to place the crucifix at the center of the altar, which both priest and the faithful can face and be lead in this way towards the Lord, whom everyone addresses in prayer together.” (trans. from the Italian.)

Let it not be said, moreover, that the image of our Lord crucified obstructs the sight of the faithful from that of the priest, for they are not to look to the celebrant at that point in the liturgy! They are to turn their gaze towards the Lord! In like manner, the presider of the celebration should also be able to turn towards the Lord. The crucifix does not obstruct our view; rather it expands our horizon to see the world of God; the crucifix brings us to meditate on the mystery; it introduces us to the heavens from where the only light capable of making sense of life on this earth comes. Our sight, in truth, would be blinded and obstructed were our eyes to remain fixed on those things that display only man and his works.

In this way one can come to understand why it is still possible today to celebrate the holy Mass upon the old altars, when the particular architectural and artistic features of our churches would advise it. Also in this, the Holy Father gives us an example when he celebrates the holy Eucharist at the ancient altar of the Sistine Chapel on the feast of the Baptism of our Lord.

In our time, the expression “celebrating facing the people” has entered our common vocabulary. If one’s intention in using this expression is to describe the location of the priest, who, due to the fact that today he often finds himself facing the congregation because of the placement of the altar, in this case such an expression is acceptable. Yet such an expression would be categorically unacceptable the moment it comes to express a theological proposition. Theologically speaking, the holy Mass, as a matter of fact, is always addressed to God through Christ our Lord, and it would be a grievous error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is the community. Such an orientation, therefore, of turning towards the Lord must animate the interior participation of each individual during the liturgy. It is likewise equally important that this orientation be quite visible in the liturgical sign as well.

3. Adoration and union with God.

Adoration is the recognition, filled with wonder, we could even say ecstatic, (because it makes us come out of ourselves and our small world) the recognition of the infinite might of God, of His incomprehensible majesty, and of His love without limit which he offers us absolutely gratuitously, of His omnipotent and provident Lordship. Consequently, adoration leads to the reunification of man and creation with God, to the abandonment of the state of separation, of apparent autonomy, to loss of self, which is, moreover, the only way of regaining oneself.

Before the ineffable beauty of God’s charity, which takes form in the mystery of the Incarnate Word, who for our sake has died and is risen, and which finds its sacramental manifestation in the liturgy, there is nothing left for us but to be left in adoration. “In the paschal event and the Eucharist which makes it present throughout the centuries,” affirms Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia de Eucharistia, “there is a truly enormous capacity which embraces all of history as the recipient of the grace of the redemption. This amazement should always fill the Church assembled for the celebration of the Eucharist.” (n.5)

“My Lord and my God,” we have been taught to say from childhood at the moment of the consecration. In such a way, borrowing the words of the apostle St. Thomas, we are led to adore the Lord, made present and living in the species of the holy Eucharist, uniting ourselves to Him, and recognising Him as our all. From there it becomes possible to resume our daily way, having found the correct order of life, the fundamental criterion whereby to live and to die.

Here is the reason why everything in the liturgical act, through the nobility, the beauty, and the harmony of the exterior sign, must be condusive to adoration, to union with God: this includes the music, the singing, the periods of silence, the manner of proclaiming the Word of the Lord, and the manner of praying, the gestures employed, the liturgical vestments and the sacred vessels and other furnishings, as well as the sacred edifice in its entirety. It is under this perspective that the decision of his Holiness, Benedict XVI, is to be taken into consideration, who, starting from the feast of Corpus Christi last year, has begun to distribute holy Communion to the kneeling faithful directly on the tongue. By the example of this action, the Holy Father invites us to render visible the proper attitude of adoration before the greatness of the mystery of the Eucharistic presence of our Lord. An attitude of adoration which must be fostered all the more when approaching the most holy Eucharist in the other forms permitted today.

I would like to cite once more another passage from the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis: “During the early phases of the reform, the inherent relationship between Mass and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was not always perceived with sufficient clarity. For example, an objection that was widespread at the time argued that the eucharistic bread was given to us not to be looked at, but to be eaten. In the light of the Church’s experience of prayer, however, this was seen to be a false dichotomy. As Saint Augustine put it: ‘nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit; peccemus non adorando – no one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it.’ In the Eucharist, the Son of God comes to meet us and desires to become one with us; eucharistic adoration is simply the natural consequence of the eucharistic celebration, which is itself the Church’s supreme act of adoration. Receiving the Eucharist means adoring him whom we receive. Only in this way do we become one with him, and are given, as it were, a foretaste of the beauty of the heavenly liturgy.” (n.66)

I think that, among others, the following passage from the text I just read should not go unnoticed: “[The Eucharistic celebration] is itself the Church’s supreme act of adoration.” Thanks to the holy Eucharist, his Holiness, Benedict XVI, asserts once more: “The imagery of marriage between God and Israel is now realised in a way previously inconceivable: it had meant standing in God’s presence, but now it becomes union with God through sharing in Jesus’ self-gift, sharing in his body and blood.” (Deus Caritas est, n.13) For this reason, everything in the liturgy, and more specifically in the Eucharistic liturgy, must lead to adoration, everything in the unfolding of the rite must help one enter into the Church’s adoration of her Lord.

To consider the liturgy as locus for adoration, for union with God, does not mean to loose sight of the communal dimension in the liturgical celebration, even less to forget the imperative of charity toward one’s neighbour. On the contrary, only through a renewal of the adoration of God in Christ, which takes form in the liturgical act, will an authentic fraternal communion and a new story of charity and love arise, depending on that ability to wonder and act heroically, which only the grace of God can give to our poor hearts. The lives of the saints remind and teach us this. “Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or who will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians.” (Deus caritas est, n. 14)

4. Active Participation.

It was really the saints who have celebrated and lived the liturgical act by participating actively. Holiness, as the result of their lives, is the most beautiful testimony of a participation truthfully active in the liturgy of the Church.

Rightly, then, and by divine providence did the second Vatican Council insist so much on the necessity of promoting an authentic participation on the part of the faithful during the celebration of the holy mysteries, at the same time when it reminded the Church of the universal call to holiness. This authoritative direction from the council has been confirmed and proposed again and again by so many successive documents of the magisterium down to the present day.

Nevertheless, there has not always been a correct understanding of the concept of “active participation”, according to how the Church teaches it and exhorts the faithful to live it. To be sure, there is active participation when, during the course of the liturgical celebration, one fulfills his proper service; there is active participation too when one has a better comprehension of God’s word when it is heard or of the prayers when they are said; there is also active participation when one unites his own voice to that of the others in song….All this, however, would not signify a participation truthfully active if it did not lead to adoration of the mystery of salvation in Christ Jesus, who for our sake died and is risen. This is because only he who adores the mystery, welcoming it into his life, demonstrates that he has comprehended what is being celebrated, and so is truly participating in the grace of the liturgical act.

As confirmation and support for what has just been asserted, let us listen once again to the words of a passage by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, from his fundamental study “The Spirit of the Liturgy”: “What does this active participation come down to? What does it mean that we have to do? Unfortunately the word was very quickly misunderstood to mean something external, entailing a need for general activity, as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action. However, the word ‘part-icipation’ refers to a principal action in which everyone has a ‘part’…By the actio of the liturgy the sources mean the Eucharistic prayer. The real liturgical action, the true liturgical act, is the oratio….This oratio—the Eucharistic Prayer, the “Canon”—is really more than speech; it is actio in the highest sense of the word.” (pp. 171-2) Christ is made present in all of his salvific work, and for this reason the human actio becomes secondary and makes room for the divine actio, to God’s work.

Thus the true action which is carried out in the liturgy is the action of God Himself, his saving work in Christ, in which we participate. This is, among other things, the true novelty of the Christian liturgy with respect to every other act of worship: God Himself acts and accomplishes that which is essential, whilst man is called to open himself to the activity of God, in order to be left transformed. Consequently, the essential aspect of active participation is to overcome the difference between God’s act and our own, that we might become one with Christ. This is why, that I might stress what has been said up to now, it is not possible to participate without adoration. Let us listen to another passage from Sacrosanctum Concilium: “The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God’s word and be nourished at the table of the Lord’s body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.” (n. 48)

Compared to this, everything else is secondary. I am referring in particular to external actions, granted they be important and necessary, and foreseen above all during the Liturgy of the Word. I mention the external actions because, should they become the essential preoccupation and the liturgy is reduced to a generic act, in that case the authentic spirit of the liturgy has been misunderstood. It follows that an authentic education in the liturgy cannot consist simply in learning and practicing exterior actions, but in an introduction to the essential action, which is God’s own, the paschal mystery of Christ, whom we must allow to meet us, to involve us, to transform us. Let not the mere execution of external gestures be confused with the correct involvement of our bodies in the liturgical act. Without taking anything away from the meaning and importance of the external action which accompanies the interior act, the Liturgy demands a lot more from the human body. It requires, in fact, its total and renewed effort in the daily actions of this life. This is what the Holy Father, Benedict XVI calls “Eucharistic coherence”. Properly speaking, it is the timely and faithful exercise of such a coherence or consistency which is the most authentic expression of participation, even bodily, in the liturgical act, the salvific action of Christ.

I wish to discuss this point further. Are we truly certain that the promotion of an active participation consists in rendering everything to the greatest extent possible immediately comprehensible? May it not be the case that entering into God’s mystery might be facilitated and, sometimes, even better accompanied by that which touches principally the reasons of the heart? Is it not often the case that a disproportionate amount of space is given over to empty and trite speech, forgetting that both dialogue and silence belong in the liturgy, congregational singing and choral music, images, symbols, gestures? Do not, perhaps, also the Latin language, Gregorian chant, and sacred polyphony belong to this manifold language which conducts us to the center of the mystery?

5. Sacred or liturgical music.

There is no doubt that a discussion, in order to introduce itself authentically into the spirit of the liturgy, cannot pass over sacred or liturgical music in silence.

I will limit myself to a brief reflection in way of orienting the discussion. One might wonder why the Church by means of its documents, more or less recent, insists in indicating a certain type of music and singing as particularly consonant with the liturgical celebration. Already at the time of the Council of Trent the Church intervened in the cultural conflict developing at that time, reestablishing the norm whereby music conforming to the sacred text was of primary importance, limiting the use of instruments and pointing to a clear distinction between profane and sacred music. Sacred music, moreover, must never be understood as a purely subjective expression. It is anchored to the biblical or traditional texts which are to be sung during the course of the celebration. More recently, Pope Saint Pius X intervened in an analogous way, seeking to remove operatic singing from the liturgy and selecting Gregorian chant and polyphony from the time of the Catholic reformation as the standard for liturgical music, to be distinguished from religious music in general. The second Vatican Council did naught but reaffirm the same standard, so too the more recent magisterial documents.

Why does the Church insist on proposing certain forms as characteristic of sacred and liturgical music which make them distinct from all other forms of music? Why, also, do Gregorian chant and the classical sacred polyphony turn out to be the forms to be imitated, in light of which liturgical and even popular music should continue to be produced today?

The answer to these questions lies precisely in what we have sought to assert with regard to the spirit of the liturgy. It is properly those forms of music, in their holiness, their goodness, and their universality, which translate in notes, melodies and singing the authentic liturgical spirit: by leading to adoration of the mystery celebrated, by favouring an authentic and integral participation, by helping the listener to capture the sacred and thereby the essential primacy of God acting in Christ, and finally by permitting a musical development that is anchored in the life of the Church and the contemplation of its mystery.

Allow me to quote the then Cardinal Ratzinger one last time: “Gandhi highlights three vital spaces in the cosmos, and demonstrates how each one of them communicates even its own mode of being. Fish live in the sea and are silent. Terrestrial animals cry out, but the birds, whose vital space is the heavens, sing. Silence is proper to the sea, crying out to the earth, and singing to the heavens. Man, however, participates in all three: he bares within him the depth of the sea, the weight of the earth, and the height of the heavens; this is why all three modes of being belong to him: silence, crying out, and song. Today…we see that, devoid of transcendence, all that is left to man is to cry out, because he wishes to be only earth and seeks to turn into earth even the heavens and the depth of the sea. The true liturgy, the liturgy of the communion of saints, restores to him the fullness of his being. It teaches him anew how to be silent and how to sing, opening to him the profundity of the sea and teaching him how to fly, the nature of an angel; elevating his heart, it makes that song resonate in him once again which had in a way fallen asleep. In fact, we can even say that the true liturgy is recognisable especially when it frees us from the common way of living, and restores to us depth and height, silence and song. The true liturgy is recognisable by the fact that it is cosmic, not custom made for a group. It sings with the angels. It remains silent with the profound depth of the universe in waiting. And in this way it redeems the world.” (trans. from the Italian.)

At this point I would like to conclude the discussion. For some years now, several voices have been heard within Church circles talking about the necessity of a new liturgical renewal. Of a movement, in some ways analogous to the one which formed the basis for the reform promoted by the second Vatican Council, capable of operating a reform of the reform, or rather, one more step ahead in understanding the authentic spirit of the liturgy and of its celebration; its goal would be to carry on that providential reform of the liturgy that the conciliar Fathers had launched but has not always, in its practical implementation, found a timely and happy fulfillment.

There is no doubt that in this new liturgical renewal it is we priests who are to recover a decisive role. With the help of our Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of all priests, may this further development of the reform also be the fruit of our sincere love for the liturgy, in fidelity to the Church and the Holy Father.

Msgr. Guido Marini

Pontifical Master of Liturgical Ceremonies

DAMIAN THOMPSON: What if we just said, get stuffed?

Friday, January 15th, 2010
DAMIAN THOMPSON

What if we just said: get stuffed?

by Damian Thompson

Damian Thompson is Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group.
Elderly liberals in the United States, horrified by the return of solemnity to Catholic worship, are mounting a campaign against the new English translation of the Mass, entitled What If We Just Said Wait. The campaign and petition have been endorsed by the supersmug National Catholic Reporter, which really tells you all you need to know.

Here’s my suggestion. What If We Just Said Get Stuffed, You Finger-Wagging Liberals Who Wreck The Mass Every Sunday By Boring The Pants Off Us With Your Politicised Bidding Prayers, Dreary Folk Antiphons And Other Self-Aggrandising Stunts.

Or, if you’d like to express yourself more temperately, sign this petition, entitled: “We’ve Waited Long Enough”. It reads:

We believe that the newly approved English translation of the 2002 Missale Romanum needs to be implemented as soon as possible.

We believe that the Church in English-speaking nations has waited far too long for an accurate, faithful translation of the original Latin.

We believe that the current translation currently in use in English-speaking nations is overdue to be replaced, as it was developed using the method of dynamic translation, a method rejected by the Vatican in the document Liturgiam Authenticam.

We stand united with the English-speaking bishops’ conferences in their approval of the new translation.

We oppose any efforts to continue to delay this new translation.

If you agree with these statements – and the Priest of Salem, your blogging pastor, certainly does, you add your name by going here:  http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/enoughwaiting/

Link to Damian Thompson’s article:  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100022346/what-if-we-just-said-get-stuffed/

Link to Damian Thompson’s posts:  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/

Father Aidan Nichols, OP: Eucharistic Theology and the Rite of Mass

Monday, January 11th, 2010

Eucharistic Theology and the Rite of Mass

Father Aidan Nichols, OP

From August 24-28, 2009, the Latin Mass Society of Great Britain sponsored a training conference on celebrating the Mass in the Usus Antiquior for priests at All Saints Pastoral Centre, London Colney, Herts. During this conference, Father Nichols delivered the following lecture which stressed the plurality of rites in the Church and then discussed the strengths of the Rite of St Pius V and the contribution it can make to Pope Benedict’s project to restore a more authentic liturgical life. [Reprinted from Mass of Ages, the quarterly magazine of the Latin Mass Society of Great Britain, number 162/Nov. 2009; for more information about The Latin Mass Society, go to www.latin-mass-society.org]

Introduction 

From December 1576 to April 1577 the students at Douai studied the (to them) unfamiliar Roman rite under the direction of Dr Laurence Webbe, who had come from Rome to teach it. George Godsalf, ordained on 20 December 1576, must have been the first English priest to say Mass according to the reformed Missal. If Douai used the Solemn Mass, or the students were old enough to have assisted at such a Mass in Mary Tudor’s reign, they may have regretted the disappearance of the three. five or seven deacons and as many sub-deacons, the two or more thurifers, the three cross-bearers, the fan of rich materials held over the celebrant’s head by a deacon during the Canon, and doubtless other things I don’t know about. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Or is it? The difference between the Use of Sarum, to which English students at Douai had hitherto been accustomed, and the newly promulgated Rite of Pius V was certainly less than that between the Rite of Pius V, even with such changes as affected it over the next four hundred years, and the reformed Missal of 1970. Still, it is well to be reminded that the Usus Antiquior or, as I prefer to say, on the analogy of Novus Ordo, the Antiquus Ordo, was itself once novus even if it is closely related to late mediaeval precedents, especially the Missal of the Franciscans and the Roman Curia.

Why is it well to be so reminded? For two reasons. The first is that, shocking as the radicalism of the reformers of the post Vatican II Concilium was, we cannot in all honesty call the history of the Western Liturgy a seamless garment, without rupture of any kind. And secondly, to preserve a sense of perspective in these matters, we need to recognize that, by and large, the plurality of Eucharistic rites in the Church is, in the words of Sellars and Yeatman [cf. 1066 and All That], a “Good Thing”. Such plurality is, on the whole, a good thing because it serves the better manifestation of Catholic truth.

Benefit of a plurality of rites

Why do I say that? Where public worship is concerned, not everything able to throw light on the mystery of the Mass can be said in words or executed in ritual equally comprehensively by everyone everywhere at one and the same time. In Lord of the World, Robert Hugh Benson has Fr Percy Franklin, the future Pope Sylvester III, describe the abolition of all the non-Latin rites in the Church as a form of ecclesial consolidation in the face of a widespread apostasy that turns out to be the prelude to the coming of Antichrist. The circumstances were, to say the least, unusual. But Benson doesn’t give the impression he realizes how much poorer the worshipping life of the Church would be if she were deprived of, for instance, the Byzantine Liturgy. By ‘poorer’, I don’t just mean aesthetically poorer, but poorer in her grasp of the mystery she celebrates in the Holy Eucharist.

To take one seemingly small example: the rite of the Zeon, where a little warm water is added to the consecrated chalice, reminds us that the Eucharistic Lord the faithful will receive in Communion is the risen and glorified Lord whose blood is warm with superabundant life. That point, thus made in ritual, is not unimportant. Some Catholic Traditionalists, who view the Mass, rightly, as the re-presentation of Calvary through the symbolism of immolation provided by the separate consecration of the bread/Body and wine/Blood, don’t seem to have taken on board that the Mass would not be the Mass without the Resurrection. In The Mysteries of Christianity, the late nineteenth century German Catholic theologian, Matthias Joseph Scheeben, wrote, contrastingly:

The glorious immortality of Christ’s Body after its Resurrection, far from being an impediment to the continuation of his Sacrifice, is the very condition without which the Sacrifice, once consummated, could not avail as a Sacrifice that is to endure for all eternity.

Or again, speaking of learning from another Liturgy, what about the merits of the Byzantine formula for the administering of Communion? It runs, “The servant of God N., receives the precious and holy Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, for the remission of his sins and life everlasting.” We might think that the Byzantines, like the Latin Church of the Middle Ages, had good reason to amplify the somewhat bald patristic formula, “The Body of Christ”, “The Blood of Christ”, to which the post-Conciliar reformers, in a rush to the head of what Pius XII in ‘Mediator Dei’ called “archeologism”, were keen to return us.

Testimony to Eucharistic faith

There is (this at any rate is my claim) in the best sense of the word, a ‘conspiracy’ among the various Liturgies, a conspiratio, a concerted action of the Holy Spirit, to give us a testimony as adequate as any testimony can be, this side of Heaven, to what the Eucharist is and does.

When we hear the phrase “the Church’s Eucharistic doctrine”, we’re liable, if we are orthodox, to call to mind first the body of conciliar and papal teaching which has responded to various crises in the history of this sacrament. One thinks of the early mediaeval controversies about the Real Presence which lie behind Lateran IV’s teaching on the “wonderful conversion” of bread and wine into the Lord’s Body and Blood, reiterated, in the face of early Protestantism, in Session 13 of the Council of Trent, or the same Council’s doctrine of the Euucharistic Sacrifice, in Session 22, which clarified Catholic teaching over against the Reformers, or Pope Paul VI’s 1965 letter ‘Mysterium Fidei’, drawing attention to the weaknesses of theories of the Eucharistic change emanating largely from the Netherlands.

And yet the Word of God in transmission tells us about the Eucharistic Mystery chiefly through the actual celebration of that Mystery in the worship of the Church where the Scriptures are actualized and the contribution of the Fathers is integrated. This is the ‘theological place’ that the sixteenth century Dominican, Melchior Cano, supposedly the first person to write a treatise on theological method, called “praxis Ecclesiae”, the “practice of the Church”. Magisterial documents, though essential markers for our faith, cannot take the place of the witness given to the doctrine of the Eucharist by the Liturgies themselves. And by “the Liturgies” I mean all the historic Liturgies which have been celebrated in peace and union with the Catholic Church, whose own apostolically given guardian of canonical unity is the See of Rome.

Is the Novus Ordo included?

So you see, perhaps, the direction in which I’m heading. I certainly wouldn’t want to rule out the possibility that the Novus Ordo can play a role in this ‘conspiracy’, can offer something to enrich the Eucharistic sensibility of the Catholica. We know that the Second and Fourth Eucharistic Prayers in the Missal of Paul VI are themselves examples of historic borrowing, one from the long forgotten early Roman book later known to scholars as the Egyptian Church Order and the other from the Syrian-Byzantine Anaphora of St Basil. The Third, however, though innovatory, is nonetheless a deeply satisfying text whose section beginning with the words “Respice, quaesumus, in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae” is, I believe, a better condensed statement of the Mass as both sacrifice of the Church and sacrifice of Christ than is anyone such section in the Roman Canon. What a pity the itchy fingers of Roman bureaucrats didn’t stop with the four forms the Great Prayer took in 1970, but couldn’t resist adding further Eucharistic Prayers, the inspiration of which is a good deal more debatable.

Today, however, at this gathering, we have not come to praise or even blame the Novus Ordo. We have come to acclaim the Antiquus Ordo in the sense of the Rite of St Pius V. So I shall devote the rest of this talk to that with, however, occasional continuing glances at the East. And at least one feature of the Usus Antiquior I’ll be drawing attention to is only, to my mind, distinctive of it because we have let things slip in the celebration of the Usus Recentior, to our loss.

The Mass of St Pius V: the Sacrifice

As I wrote in a recent article in The Catholic Herald (3 July 2009), the single most obvious reason we have, in terms of Eucharistic doctrine, for looking to the Rite of St Pius V, is the liturgical expression there of the Mass as Sacrifice. Assuming we are used to praying the Roman Canon as the First Eucharistic Prayer of the revised Missal and don’t cold-shoulder it as too complex for modem congregations or too different from its fellows, then the most striking textual difference between the Mass of St Pius V and the Mass of Paul VI will be the Offertory prayers of the former with their reiterated concern with the Sacrifice being offered or about to be offered.

Though disliked by people with tidy Germanic minds, the anticipation of the Anaphora, the Prayer of Oblation, in the preparation and presentation of the Gifts is a frequent feature of historic Liturgy. It is even more pronounced in the Byzantine rite, where the opening ceremonies of preparation include the piercing with a lance-shaped knife of the bread set aside for the Eucharist, as a reminder of the lance that pierced the Savior’s side. Furthermore, in that Liturgy, as the dedicated bread and wine are transferred to the altar at the Great Entrance the choir sings, “Let us who here mystically represent the Cherubim in singing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-giving Trinity, now lay aside every earthly care so that we may welcome the King of the universe who comes escorted by invisible armies of angels”, even though that “King” only “comes” in the sense that the dedicated gifts are now brought in so that they may be offered in the Holy Sacrifice, there to be converted into His real Presence and received as the fruit of His Sacrifice. To the worshipping mind of a Byzantine Christian they are, however already images of the Lord’s Body and Blood, and proleptically, the King does come with them, since he will come in them at the consecration. Liturgical time is not just ordinary time – which is one of the arguments of Dr Catherine Pickstock of Emmanuel College, Cambridge in her defense of the of the older Roman rite in After Writing: the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy.

So, at the Pian Offertory, which is much fuller than the one I personally am familiar with in the Dominican Use, the celebrant prays that the Father may accept this “immaculatam hostiam”, (“unblemished sacrificial offering”). He calls the wine offered “calicem salutaris”, (the “saving chalice”). In what might be termed the ‘epiclesis of the offertory’ he asks the sanctifying Spirit (“Veni sanctificator”) to come and bless the sacrificial gifts, “prepared for the glory of thy holy name”. And in the concluding prayer, “Suscipe sancta Trinitas”, he entreats the triune Lord to bring it about that “hanc oblationenem” (“this offering”) may bring honor to the Mother of God and the saints as well as salvation to ourselves.

At the risk of sounding like Msgr. Ronald Knox addressing schoolgirls in The Mass in Slow Motion, it’s as though the Church can’t wait to get to the Prayer of Oblation, and above all, to the Consecration, the moment when her gifts, which represent herself, will be transformed into Christ’s Gift which does not simply represent Him but embodies Him in His Sacrifice for her. So it’s the Bride impatient to get to the Nuptials on the Cross, to the Paschal Mystery, the thought of which is so fascinating that it draws to itself by anticipation what is in a preliminary way being done. The loss of these prayers undermines the way we should habituate ourselves to inhabit Eucharistic time, and, as I say, it also weakens the sense of the Mass as Sacrifice.

I add in parenthesis that common orientation of priest and people is, to put it mildly, highly congruent with the sacrifice pervaded attitude of the Antiquus Ordo, even though Mass facing or, at side altars, half-facing, the people was not, historically speaking, entirely unknown. Among the Catholic Liturgies, common orientation is normal. As one interpreter of the Ethiopian Liturgy (a lecturer in the major seminary of the Eparchy of Adigrat), has written:

Facing the East means that the main actor at the celebration is Christ the High Priest and that the life we receive is the Trinitarian life… In the ‘anamnesis’ of the Anaphora of the Apostles [one of the Ethiopian Eucharistic Prayers] the priest, representing the entire congregation, says: ‘We thank you Lord because you made us worthy of the privilege of standing before you and offering you this priestly service’. It is logical, therefore, that the one who receives faces the one who gives; the one who asks faces the one asked.

I give the theme of the Sacrifice pride of place in what we can learn from the Rite of St Pius V because the entire content of Catholic Eucharistic theology is best surveyed from the vantage-point of the Mass as Sacrifice. Holy Communion, for instance, is best presented not simply as just any personal encounter with our Lord in the sacrament but a meeting with Him there as the slain and glorified Lamb who died for me and has opened a new and living way into the presence of the Father, into the holy of holies. Of course, we can bring all our aspirations, concerns, anxieties to Him in the moment of Holy Communion but these thoughts should always be related to that center, which also explains why thanksgiving after Communion is desirable, and what it is we can give thanks for, weekly or even daily. I envy the Welsh for the way their language, or so I understand, calls the Mass “Yr Offeren” (“The Oblation”).

The Mass of Pius V: the ‘Apologies’

Another point to which I would draw attention, and is especially relevant to priests, is the role of the so-called ‘Apologies’ in the Rite of St. Pius V. The ‘Apologies’, I gather, is the name liturgical historians give to the semi-secret prayers, added when the Roman rite went north of the Alps into the Frankish kingdom, in which the priest expresses his own unworthiness and that, most likely, of his congregation when it comes to the celebration of these rites. Although three such “Apologies” have survived the recent liturgical reform – before Communion, where there is a choice of two, and at the ablutions where there is one – they are far more persistent in the older rite, notably in the prayers at the foot of the altar; at the moment of going up to the altar in the prayer “Aufer a nobis”; again, when bowing to the altar and kissing it after that prayer is said; in the offertory prayers, and in the combined duo of prayers before the priest’s Communion and the further prayer, “Corpus tuum”, omitted from the Novus Ordo, at the ablutions. Granted the danger of over-familiarity with this sacrament which some of us are obliged to celebrate daily, and all of us are recommended to celebrate daily, and the ever-present possibility, therefore, of banalization and trivialization, I think we should find these prayers helpful, indeed salutary.

To say as much might seem to give vent to a purely pragmatic or, at best, pastoral, consideration, rather than one that has much to do with dogmatic theology. But the ‘Apologies’ seek to bring home to us our real supernatural situation at the Eucharistic Liturgy. They do so by emphasizing that the contrast of sin and grace can never be expressed too acutely. In the Ethiopian Rite, the reply of the people to the deacon’s invitation to exchange the kiss of peace – possibly, in our modern liturgical experience in the West, the most ‘horizontal’ or even secular moment we know in church – is: “0 Christ our God, make us worthy to greet one another with a holy kiss, and to partake without condemnation of your holy, immortal, and heavenly Gift …. ” That is an equivalent to the priestly ‘Apologies’ in the Usus Antiquior. In the kiss as, even more so, in Holy Communion, we have to beware making do with being human, all too human, rather than seeing everything in the perspective of Redemption. It is, of course, because the modern Western kiss is experienced as an exit from this perspective, and, so, a disincentive to preparation for Holy Communion, that a recent Synod of Bishops asked Pope Benedict to consider moving it from the position it has had at Rome for the last fifteen hundred years: in the mediaeval rites, the Rite of St Pius V, and the Novus Ordo.

The problem with the kiss is, however, its choreography not its location. The beauty of the traditional Roman location is it allows it to become apparent that the peace radiates out from the Presence on the altar, something especially clear in the Dominican Use where the celebrant kisses the chalice before declaring the peace, thus showing from where the peace comes. The twelfth century theologian, Peter of Troyes, says that the fruit of the “true, proper and sacramental” body of Christ in the Eucharist is the “caro mystica”, (the “mystical flesh”), of a Church rendered one social body by this sacrament which has it in its power to create supernatural peace and concord.

The Mass of St Pius V: reverence

The third most obvious thing that strikes me about the Mass of St Pius V is how opportune its expressions of reverence are for the doctrine of the Real Presence. If we were looking for an historic Liturgy which is strong on the theological theme of the Eucharist as foundation of the Church’s communion, or the doctrinal motif of the Eucharist as foretaste of the Age to Come, we might not look in this direction. We might prefer to look east instead. The Liturgy Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, whose practical provisions are concerned exclusively with the Mass of the Roman rite, has a theoretical preamble which speaks of the Eucharist in all the Liturgies of the Church, and perhaps this is why ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’ was stronger on the eschatological dimension of worship than had been ‘Mediator Dei’. But for an apprehension of the Presence, as well as of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, it is to the Mass of St Pius V that I should turn.

I am not thinking only of the consistently heightened language in which the oblata are spoken of, even, as we saw, during the Offertory rite. It is also a matter of a vocabulary of gesture. The multiple signs of the Cross over Host and Chalice, whether, before the consecration, hallowing them or, after it, indicating their holiness (if made with dignity and not in the way that led Victorian visitors to Italian churches to think the priest had a problem with blue bottles), are a lesson in themselves. The same could be said about the repeated genuflections and, likewise, the rubrics concerning the care to be taken about the particles of the Host (which we should observe without, however, falling into scrupulosity in such matters). These gestures of reverence punctuating the Canon, and, especially, accompanying the words of consecration, “built”, as Dom Cassian Folsom has put it, “a protective wall around this sacred moment of the Mass and in that way reinforced Catholic Eucharistic theology”. It was anthropologically naive to think their removal would have no effect at all on popular or even clerical attitudes.

That concerns the making of the sacrament. But then there is also the question of its reception. The mode of receiving Communion in this rite is a magnificent expression of our Eucharistic theology, especially if the houseling cloths are used simultaneously to cover the hands and to indicate that this is sacred food which is approaching. The altar is a tomb for the dead Christ and a throne for the risen Savior but it is also a table of which communion rails are the extension.

We can surely learn from the older Mass how to have a more reverential reception in the reformed rite. If kneeling for Communion is not possible, then we should introduce the prior gesture of obeisance called for by the official documents. If Communion on the tongue is not possible, we should explain to people that, when, in the ancient Church, Communion was received on the hand, it was always in the right hand, the hand of dignity, which was treated as a kind of Communion paten from which the host was transferred directly into the mouth, something that can most easily, as well as fittingly, be done if at the same time one makes what Fortescue and O’Connell call “a moderate bow”. That would be learning from the spirit of the Antiquus Ordo though not its letter, but at least it would be better than nothing.

I should like to know by what means in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century the chalice was administered in this rite to the faithful over large areas of central Europe. It is good theology to say that, while nothing is added to perfection of sacramental effect for the communicant when the chalice is offered, something is gained in terms of the perfection of the sign. The situations envisaged for the administration of the chalice in ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’, such as the Mass of profession of a monastic making solemn vows or the Mass following baptism of a catechumen, could presumably be accommodated easily enough in the Mass of St Pius V. It may not be widely known that from 1564 onwards the Pores allowed various metropolitans in the Holy Roman Empire to license the administration of the chalice to all the faithful. That continued in some places for as long as sixty years, so obviously as a ritual act it took place within the Mass of St Pius V. Patently, that is not something required by the rite, but neither can it be described as altogether alien to it, historically speaking. The minister at the Solemn Mass would be, presumably, the deacon, and otherwise the celebrant. The equivalent at the Novus Ordo would be administration by priest, deacon or a properly commissioned acolyte, suitably vested. Granted that the whole Christ is received sub specie panis, it’s not clear to me how the case for extraordinary ministers of the chalice can adequately be made.

I hope these possibly rather scrappy and dislocated ruminations may be of some use along the lines of Pope Benedict’s desire for a recovery of a more authentic liturgical life by the simultaneous exploitation (in the best sense of the word) of the varied liturgical riches of the Church. We can do something for the ordinary parish Masses by learning from the spirit of the older rite, though until we have a more adequate reform, integrating the best of the pre-modem West as well as, no doubt, more of that sporadic borrowing from the East which has been a feature of the liturgical history of Western Catholicism, we are stymied in doing as much as we might wish.

The Servant of God, Pope Pius XII: “Heroic in Virtue”…and soon to be called “Venerable”

Saturday, December 19th, 2009

Finally, through our Holy Father and the Congregation of the Causes of Saints, the greatest calumny of the 20th Century is being formally exposed by the Church!  JUSTICE!

The Servant of God, Pius XII

The Servant of God, Pius XII

The Pope today authorized the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to promulgate the decrees recognizing the heroic virtues of the Servants of God Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli) and John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła). The recognition of a miracle is the only step needed for a beatification.

For more information on Pope Pius XII, go to:

 http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html

 

Carmelite Monastery Chapel in Lincoln, Nebraska

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

Last Tuesday, I had the privilege to make a return visit to the Carmelite Monastery of Jesus, Mary and Joseph in Valparaiso, Nebraska.  This Carmel, like our Carmel in Alexandria, South Dakota, also traces its foundation to Mexico and its journey to the United States following the persecutions.  Once in Las Vegas, the bishop of Lincoln invited them to his diocese, and the rest is history.  Construction on the monastery began in 2000, and they are at capacity (they have already branched off in a new foundation in Elysburg, PA).  Part of their growth is attributed to the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form and
the Divine Office in the ancient Carmelite Rite.

For more information, contact:

CARMEL OF JESUS, MARY and JOSEPH
Mother Teresa of Jesus, O.C.D., Prioress
9300 Agnew Road
Valparaiso, NE 68065

Sunday, October 11th: 47th Anniversary of the Opening of the Second Vatican Council

Saturday, October 10th, 2009
Blessed John XXIII

Blessed John XXIII

Blessed John XXIII decided to convene the 2nd Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, the traditional feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Pope John XXIII was attuned to the symbolic connections made through feast days.

A key motivation for calling the ecumenical council was John’s overwhelming desire to extend “an invitation to the faithful of the separated communities to participate with us in this quest for unity and grace?” Beginning the Council on this feast day expressed John’s desire to connect with the Orthodox Church, one of the “separated communities,” for whom the feast was especially significant. The readings for the Mass of the Holy Spirit celebrating the opening of the council were chanted in both Latin and Greek, signifying the unity of both East and West.

Pope John died in June of 1963 and was beatified on September 3, 2000.  At that time, Pope John Paul II established October 11 as Blessed John’s feastday, the most significant day of his entire life.   On this special day, let us pray for Church unity and peace, all through the intercession of Mary, the Mother of God and of the Church.

New edition of CATHOLIC newspaper has arrived!

Saturday, September 5th, 2009

Catholic Sept 2009

In the back of the church this weekend you will find several copies of the very informative and inspirational newspaper, Catholic, published quarterly by the Transalpine Redemptorists in the Orkney Islands of Scotland.  This issue is dedicated to the Year of the Priesthood. 

With the Catholic is a copy of the latest work the Transalpine Redemptorists have printed: Gerardo.  It is the life of St Gerard Majella, C.SS.R., one of the Patron Saints of Expecting Mothers.

St Gerardo 01

I gave each Seventh Grader at our parochial school a copy of Catholic (which included a copy of Gerardo) and have asked them to write a short report on one of the articles.

Three of the brothers from this wonderful community study for the priesthood at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska.  I have invited them to come out to Salem next month and visit our parochial school, and speak at our weekend Masses, on the work this community is doing for the Church, and to introduce our parish to the Archconfraternity  of the Holy Souls in Purgatory.  For more information on the Transalpine Redemptorists, go to http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/.  For more information on the Archconfraternity of the Holy Souls in Purgatory, go to http://www.archconfraternity.com/.