Truth and Clarity Depends on Refinement and Order

When a person has what the poet's wisdom commends as a 'shaggy heart,' or when the block is muddy or made of impure wax, or oversoft or hard, the people with soft wax are quick to learn, but forgetful, those with hard wax the reverse. Where it is shaggy or rough, a gritty kind of stuff containing a lot of earth or dirt, the impressions obtained are indistinct; so are they too when the stuff is hard, for they have no depth. Impressions in soft wax also are indistinct, because they melt together and soon become blurred. And if, besides this, they overlap through being crowded together into some wretched little narrow mind, they are still more indistinct. All these types, then, are likely to judge falsely. When they see or hear or think of something, they cannot quickly assign thing to their several imprints. Because they are so slow and sort things into the wrong places, they constantly see and hear and thing amiss, and we say they are mistaken about things and are stupid.

Theaetetus, 194 E - 195 A.

Σωκράτης

ὅταν τοίνυν λάσιόν του τὸ κέαρ ᾖ, ὃ δὴ ἐπῄνεσεν ὁ πάσσοφος ποιητής, ἢ ὅτανκοπρῶδες καὶ μὴ καθαροῦ τοῦ κηροῦ, ἢ ὑγρὸν σφόδρα ἢ σκληρόν, ὧν μὲνὑγρὸν εὐμαθεῖς μέν, ἐπιλήσμονες δὲ γίγνονται, ὧν δὲ σκληρόν, τἀναντία. οἱδὲ δὴ λάσιον καὶ τραχὺ λιθῶδές τι ἢ γῆς ἢ κόπρου συμμιγείσης ἔμπλεωνἔχοντες ἀσαφῆ τὰ ἐκμαγεῖα ἴσχουσιν. ἀσαφῆ δὲ καὶ οἱ τὰ σκληρά: βάθος γὰροὐκ ἔνι. ἀσαφῆ δὲ καὶ οἱ τὰ ὑγρά: ὑπὸ γὰρ τοῦ συγχεῖσθαι ταχὺ γίγνεται ἀμυδρά. ἐὰνδὲ πρὸς πᾶσι τούτοις ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλων συμπεπτωκότα ᾖ ὑπὸ στενοχωρίας, ἐάντου σμικρὸν ᾖ τὸ ψυχάριον, ἔτι ἀσαφέστερα ἐκείνων. πάντες οὖν οὗτοιγίγνονται οἷοι δοξάζειν ψευδῆ. ὅταν γάρ τι ὁρῶσιν ἢ ἀκούωσιν ἢ ἐπινοῶσιν,ἕκαστα ἀπονέμειν ταχὺ ἑκάστοις οὐ δυνάμενοι βραδεῖς τέ εἰσι καὶἀλλοτριονομοῦντες παρορῶσί τε καὶ παρακούουσι καὶ παρανοοῦσι πλεῖστα,καὶ καλοῦνται αὖ οὗτοι ἐψευσμένοι τε δὴ τῶν ὄντων καὶ ἀμαθεῖς.

...[T]he real reformer is not the man who sees that a reform is needed; nor is he the man who, in season and out of season, preaches the necessity of that reform; the true reformer is the man who achieves it.
Saint Thomas Aquinas was wonderfully equipped to solve [the] problem [of the proper place and relationship of faith and reason], because it was a problem of order. Now anyone who is at all familiar with his work knows full well that he simply could not help putting everything in its proper place. Each thing in its own place, a place for each thing. Now, in everyday life, the problem of putting a thing in its proper place is a comparatively simple one. It seldom amounts to more that putting it always in the same place and remembering where it is. Not so in philosophy, where there is but one conceivable proper place for any given thing. Unless you find it, that thing is lost, not in the usual sense that it is not to be found where you expected it to be, but in the much more radical sense that it is no longer to be found anywhere. Out of its proper place, the thing simply cannot exist at all. For indeed, the place of each thing is determined there by its own essence, and unless you know first what the thing is you shall never be able to define its relations to what it is not.

Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages, Etienne Gilson, New York: Scribner, 1938.

Cf. Cicero's Sermon Six Parts

Cf. Why Priest Should Not Preach

Cf. The Homiletic Directory

On Avarice and Liberality

Today's Ordinary Form Gospel ("the parable of the rich fool") is about the vice of avarice. Christ condemns the sin of greed.

Liberality is the contrary virtue.

Cf. Summa Theologica II-II, q. 117

(Looking over my notes taken during my daily seminary reading of Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theolgica in Latin [a project I never completed, probably because I did not trust the last sections {not written by Thomas}]. Those notes are mainly unclear chicken scratch, but with some sections which are very clear: e.g. on the virtues and vices of Thomas).

N.B. Never tire of the Summa Theologica, in Latin! It is the preaching manual par excellence!

The solution, as always, is in Thomas!

P.S. Every seminarian should read and understand both of Saint Thomas' Summae, unabridged and in Latin, as a foundation for thinking and teaching the Catholic religion. That would be an very adequate schema for the six year formation program. Begin, in the two initial philosophy years with the Summa Contra Gentiles, of course, supplementing that course with the questions which are important in our own day: relativism, atheism, Islam, gender-confusion, etc.

N.B. The Prologue (Intention) of the Summa Theologica.

Because the Master of Catholic Truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle: “As Unto Little Ones in Christ, I Gave You Milk to Drink, Not Meat”—1 Cor. iii. 1, 2), we purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian Religion, in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners. We have considered that students in this Science have not seldom been hampered by what they have found written by other authors, partly on account of the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and arguments; partly also because those things that are needful for them to know are not taught according to the order of the subject-matter, but according as the plan of the book might require, or the occasion of the argument offer; partly, too, because frequent repetition brought weariness and confusion to the minds of the readers. Endeavoring to avoid these and other like faults, we shall try, by God’s help, to set forth whatever is included in this Sacred Science as briefly and clearly as the matter itself may allow.

The Intention of the Summa Contra Gentiles (Book I, Chapter 2)

[1] Among all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is more perfect, more noble, more useful, and more full of joy. 

It is more perfect because, in so far as a man gives himself to the pursuit of wisdom, so far does he even now have some share in true beatitude. And so a wise man has said: “Blessed is the man that shall continue in wisdom” (Sirach 14:22).

It is more noble because through this pursuit man especially approaches to a likeness to God Who “made all things in wisdom” (Ps. 103:24). And since likeness is the cause of love, the pursuit of wisdom especially joins man to God in friendship. That is why it is said of wisdom that “she is an infinite treasure to men! which they that use become the friends of God” (Wis. 7:14).

It is more useful because through wisdom we arrive at the kingdom of immortality. For “the desire of wisdom leads to the everlasting kingdom” (Wis. 6:21).

It is more full of joy because “her conversation has no bitterness, nor her company any tediousness, but joy and gladness” (Wis. 7:16).

[2] And so, in the name of the divine Mercy, I have the confidence to embark upon the work of a wise man, even though this may surpass my powers, and I have set myself the task of making known, as far as my limited powers will allow, the truth that the Catholic faith professes, and of setting aside the errors that are opposed to it. To use the words of Hilary: “I am aware that I owe this to God as the chief duty of my life, that my every word and sense may speak of Him” [De Trinitate I, 37].

[3] To proceed against individual errors, however, is a difficult business, and this for two reasons. In the first place, it is difficult because the sacrilegious remarks of individual men who have erred are not so well known to us so that we may use what they say as the basis of proceeding to a refutation of their errors. This is, indeed, the method that the ancient Doctors of the Church used in the refutation of the errors of the Gentiles. For they could know the positions taken by the Gentiles since they themselves had been Gentiles, or at least had lived among the Gentiles and had been instructed in their teaching. 

In the second place, it is difficult because some of them, such as the Mohammedans and the pagans, do not agree with us in accepting the authority of any Scripture, by which they may be convinced of their error. Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But the Muslims and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other. We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent. However, it is true, in divine matters the natural reason has its failings.

[4] Now, while we are investigating some given truth, we shall also show what errors are set aside by it; and we shall likewise show how the truth that we come to know by demonstration is in accord with the Christian religion.

Cf. wmbriggsreadingofscg

Koran Raises Barbarians to Morality --Gilson

"Aquinas Confounding Averroës"

"As most of the philosophers, [Averroës] wanted social order, that he himself might philosophize in peace, and he knew full well that men could not possibly be civilized by merely being taught some abstract code of social ethics. In other words, Averroës did not consider religion as merely a rough approximation to philosophic truth. It was for him much more. It had a definite social function that could not be fulfilled by anything else, not even philosophy. Such is the exact meaning of the texts where he praises the Koran as a truly 'miraculous' book. I see no reason not to take that word seriously. The more convinced Averroës was of the absolute superiority of philosophical knowledge, the more baffling must have been to him the existence of such a book, a book both wholly unphilosophical and much more effective than philosophy itself in raising barbarians to the level of morality.

"...The prophets have no proofs of the existence of God, yet they know there is one, and when they say it, everybody believes it. They never ask themselves whether man has a soul or not. They know it. Moreover, as soon as they start preaching that man has indeed a soul, and that man's happiness ultimately hangs on his respect for such virtues as justice and charity, the wildest barbarians begin to listen, and behold something like real civilization actually sets in...[A veritable miracle!]."

Ettiene Gilson, University of Virginia Richard Lectures 1937 Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages, New York: Scribner, 1938, 50-51.

In the above passage Gilson is actually merely presenting Averroës' opinion, as found in the Commentator's book The Agreement of Religion and Philosophy.

Trans-Genderism is an Attack on Feminism and Children

I am against trans-genderism, first, because it is an extreme manifestation of self-hatred. To be opposed to people's confusion about their own nature and to their damaging of themselves (especially the young) is a basic requirement of love. Love includes the capacity to say no! Second, it's abusive of women and of children (always the most vulnerable in the area of sex). here's why.

First, to teach young children gender-confusion ideology is child molestation and one of the reasons the government has no business teaching our children about sex. Some things are shameful even to mention to the innocent. And to speak of these matters without any sense of morality is complete distortion. For, to talk about human behavior you must speak of "right and wrong," and the conversation must be guided by the ten commandments. Second, sex abuse is typically a male (anti-feminist) vice, i.e. it violates women (see The Federalist article below).

Trans Bathroom Bills Prove Feminism Has Failed My Daughter

The very instincts my daughter’s feminist mentors have been telling her to pay attention to are now considered ‘bigoted’ as soon as she hits the bathroom.

APRIL 21, 2016 By Kira Davis

Isn’t it funny how we’re all supposed to be disgusted when men try to force abortion laws on us because “our body, our right,” but when they force their way into our bathrooms it’s just fine? This is just another example of men telling women what we are and aren’t willing to accept.

Let’s get this straight: we’re not having this conversation about women in the men’s bathrooms, because that’s not how it’s ever going to go down. Also, while most men aren’t sexual predators, most sexual predators are men, so it’s natural this conversation would center around male actions. As it stands, not only are men to tell us women what a real woman is by suggesting it’s all in your head and not your totality of experience, now they’re trying to tell us to dull all our natural instincts for self-preservation. We’ve been hearing over and over about the “rape culture” of American campuses and American attitudes in general. Activists run seminars and awareness campaigns teaching women how to stay alert, protect themselves, identify danger. They chastise police, schools, and businesses for enabling a culture that shames a woman for coming forward with rape allegations.

Then they turn around and ask my little girl to ignore all the things they just told her to pay attention to. If a strange man (not a man dressing and living as a woman, but an actual male DUDE man, which these bathroom bills allow for) walks into a place where she is accustomed to some measure of privacy, a place where she physically removes her clothing and is exposed in some manner (stall or no stall), she is supposed to ignore that voice screaming in her head if he feels dangerous. Not only that, she’s not even allowed to tell anyone she’s nervous.

The police can’t help her, her teachers can’t help her, and if I’m not there 24/7 (and I haven’t been since she was living inside my womb) I can’t help her either. So the very instincts her feminist mentors have been telling her to pay attention to are now considered “bigoted” as soon as she hits the bathroom?

Thanks, But No Thanks, Feminist Men

To make matters worse, it is men telling her that she shouldn’t be “hysterical” about it. I’m looking at you, Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam. Because concerned women are always just hysterical, aren’t they? Like rape victims—hysterical broads with no self-control.

We women don’t need men telling us how to live or when and where our safety should be a priority. I thought my mother’s generation spilled a lot of sweat and tears for that very freedom. Now suddenly all that is discounted?

No. It is irresponsible to teach my daughter to dull her natural instincts of self-preservation to accommodate a poorly planned idea that is only relevant for a tiny sliver of the population. This is a man’s world, but the gift we women have been given to navigate it is what we call “intuition.” If men can’t tell us what to do with the babies in our bodies, they sure as hell shouldn’t be able to tell me what to do with the baby outside of my body. Personally, I don’t want my baby at increased risk to predators so a few people can feel like they did something good.

I guess that’s the price we pay for living in the patriarchy. Men will only let us make so many decisions for ourselves before they start telling us what’s good for us again.

Kira Davis is a freelance writer, blogger and mother of two. She is the president of Phantom Sway, a production company based in Los Angeles. Kira has interviewed President Obama and appeared on various media outlets including Fox News, the Dana Loesch Show, the Glenn Beck Show and the Dr.Phil Show. Kira is a dog person but she owns a cat anyway.

"Homosexualism!" Name it!

That's the spell under which we presently find ourselves, the same as possessed Sodom and Gomorrah before they were destroyed by God => the present site of the Dead Sea.

It's not "gay" nor is it therefore "LGBT". It is queer (i.e. contrary to nature). And the political correctness and promotion and defense of this farce is a terrible scandal in which God is mocking us for rejecting Him in Whom we should have believed. Cf. Romans 1.

It's called homosexualism, a serious heresy. You cannot be both Christian and an homosexualist!

P.S. If I were not Catholic, I would become Catholic in reaction to this irrational movement.

Saint James Medieval Melodies

The Catholic Climate Eradicated Slavery

Servus Aethiopum
baptised 350,000 souls

At the beginning of the Dark Ages the great pagan cosmopolitan society now grown Christian was as much a slave state as old South Carolina. By the fourteenth century it was almost as much a state of peasant proprietors as modern France. No laws had been passed against slavery ; no dogmas even had condemned it by definition ; no war had been waged against it, no new race or ruling caste had repudiated it ; but it was gone. This startling and silent transformation is perhaps the best measure of the pressure of popular life in the Middle Ages, of how fast it was making new things in its spiritual factory. Like every-thing else in the medieval revolution, from its cathedrals to its ballads, it was as anonymous as it was enormous. It is admitted that the conscious and active emancipators everywhere were the parish priests and the religious brotherhoods ; but no name among them has survived and no man of them has reaped his reward in this world. Countless Clarksons and innumerable Wilber-forces, without political machinery or public fame, worked at death-beds and confessionals in all the villages of Europe ; and the vast system of slavery vanished...The Catholic type of Christianity was not merely an element, it was a climate ; and in that climate the slave would not grow.

G.K. Chesterton, A Short History of England, 108, quoted in part in A Saint in the Slave Trade: Peter Claver, SJ (1581-1654), Arnold Lunn, London: The Catholic Book Club, 1947, 56-57.

P.S. "Father [Claver's]...life's work was...the instruction, the conversion and the care of the Negroes..." A Saint in the Slave Trade, 92.

P.S.S. Would that abortion and homosexualism should be eradicated the same way, by the tireless work of holy parish priests!

"A religious who would advance in virtue must study to know himself: knowing himself, he will despise himself; but not knowing himself, he becomes proud. He must speak little with men, and much with God. When he speaks, let him always speak well of others, and as far as possible, ill of himself. He ought, like Melchisedech, to be without father, mother, or relatives; because he must look upon them as not belonging to him: God alone must hold the place of all to him. Let him not regard matters of curiosity, or hearken to useless news, which only cause distractions." A Saint in the Slave Trade, 38 (A quote from Saint Alonso Rodriguez).

Cf. Aethiopum Servus

"God made them male and female," not Governor McCory!

Jul 21, 2016

Governor Pat McCrory released the following statement on the NBA's decision about the 2017 All-Star Game:

“The sports and entertainment elite, Attorney General Roy Cooper and the liberal media have for months misrepresented our laws and maligned the people of North Carolina simply because most people believe boys and girls should be able to use school bathrooms, locker rooms and showers without the opposite sex present. Twenty-one other states have joined North Carolina to challenge the federal overreach by the Obama administration mandating their bathroom policies in all businesses and schools instead of allowing accommodations for unique circumstances. Left-wing special interest groups have no moral authority to try and intimidate the large majority of American parents who agree in common-sense bathroom and shower privacy for our children. American families should be on notice that the selective corporate elite are imposing their political will on communities in which they do business, thus bypassing the democratic and legal process.”

Meanwhile, the whole USA is going fag. Gaydom is ruling the day!

"If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you." John 15:18

Santiago de Compostela

Saint James Matamoros, who saved Spain from the Moors.

Rienzi Overture, Richard Wagner

Afternoon music.

Wagner in the Morning

Schumann Evening Piano

The Urgent Present Question of Revelation

"In rereading the 1955 thesis Bonaventure's Understanding of Revelation and the Theology of History I got the impression that its answers are well-founded, although it has been superseded in many of its details, and that it still has something to say today. Above all I realized that the question of the essence of Revelation and the fact of posing it again, which is the theme of the book, still have urgency today, perhaps even more so than in the past."

Pope Benedict XVI preface to the 2009 publication of that previously unpublished thesis.

It is largely a question of God and truth and man's knowledge thereof.

The investigated topics in that hitherto unpublished first part of the thesis include:

• the difference between a concept and a thing
• manifestatio
• theologia naturalis
• speaking of God
• expressio
• faith and history
• nature/law/grace
• faith and church/revelation and tradition
• revelatio
• theology as expression of faith
• traditio
• doctrine
• veritas et virtus
• fides et virtus
• intellect and will: carriers of the virtue of faith
• fides informis/fides obiectiva
• doctrine in the theology of history
• Christ-centered
• logic and history
• logic and theology
• unicity and duration of history
• nature and supernature/grace
• definition of and proper order between wisdom, theology and philosophy
• desiderium naturale

The second part of that thesis (which ended up being the approved 1959 published version of the thesis) is the theology of history of Bonaventure. There the topics include:

• historical academic schema
• the ages of history
• ordo ultimus and ordo futurus
• pax et revelatio
• sapientia multiformis, allegorical understanding of Sacred Scripture
• sapientia omniformis, creation and revelation
• sapientia nulliformis, mysticism and revelation

The authors treated prominently throughout the entire work, in examining the historical development and definition of the Bonaventuran concepts are:

• Bonaventure (1221-1274), 2, 3
• Saint Augustine (354-430), 2, 3, 4, 5
• Boethius (480-525)
• Pseudo-Dionysius (late 5th - early 6th century)
• Hugo of Saint Victor (1096-1141)
• Joachim of Fiore (1135-1202)
• Alexander of Hales (1185-1245)
• Saint Thomas Aquinas, 2, 3 

Español
Herder Verlag

Modesty is the Mother of Justice

Justice is the virgin daughter of modesty; and dishonesty is opposed both by modesty and justice.

παρθένος γὰρ Αἰδοῦς Δίκη λέγεταί τε καὶ ὄντως εἴρηται,ψεῦδος δὲ αἰδοῖ καὶ δίκῃ νεμεσητὸν κατὰ φύσιν

Plato, Laws XII 943 E

Cardinal Müller Rumored for Mainz, Schönborn CDF

Our friends at Eponymous Flower have reported thus.

Monday, July 18, 2016

Newspaper: Cardinal Müller to be Archbishop of Mainz

Media report: In a counter-move  the Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schönborn (71) is supposed to switch to the Vatican and take over the management of the CDF

That would be a very logical move since Schönborn would be less inclined and less apt to ferret out the heresies of Pope Francis.

I am happy for Müller (68) if this is indeed the case, for he will have been relieved of a very perplexing task indeed, that of, sorry to say, calling out the heresies of the Holy See itself!

Good news for the present Prefect, bad news for the Church!

Crucifixion of the Just Man in Plato

Here is the saying, and if it should be presented in terms which are too harsh, do not think that they are my words, but the words of those who esteem injustice instead of justice. They would say thus: that the just man, because of his demeanor, will be scourged, racked, thrown in chains, his eyes will be burnt out, and, ultimately, after having suffered all these evils, he will be impaled on a cross. Then finally he will understand that man should pursue not justice but the appearance thereof.  Republic, II 361 E - 362 A

The supreme injustice is to seem just without being so.  Republic II 361 A

We could say that the latter quote is the theme of Pope Francis' papacy, in his hyper-critical attitude toward clergy and pious Catholics (viz. anti-clericalism).

Lilia Rosa, Decor Carmeli, Requiescat in Pace

Text and translations

Latin text 1. Rosa vernans caritatis, lilium virginitatis, stella fulgens, Maria, vas sanctitatis, Ora pro nobis Dominum. 2. Gemma lucens puritatis, lumine divinitatis, nobis adsis, Maria, thus suavitatis, Ora pro nobis Dominum. 3. Cuius partus singularis, vincula mortalitatis, nobis scindit, Maria, lux libertatis, Ora pro nobis Dominum.

English translation 1. Rose blossoming love, Lily of virginity, Bright star, Mary, Vessel of holiness, Pray to the Lord for us. 2. A shining jewel of purity, Light of the Godhead, Be with us, Mary, Sweet incense, Pray to the Lord for us. 3. Whose only child severed for us the bonds of mortality, Mary, light of freedom, Pray to the Lord for us.

P.S. My mother, Lilia Rosa, was a third order Carmelite. On the front cover of the Traditional Carmelite Missal there is text which reads.

Aut pati aut mori ["To suffer or to die {for You Oh Lord"}Saint Teresa of Avila]

Pati et contemni pro te ["To suffer and be despised for you {Oh Lord"}Saint John of the Cross]

Decor Carmeli [{Queen} Beauty of Carmel]

Floribus eius nec rosae nec lilia desunt [Nor roses {martyrs} nor lilies {virgins} are wanting among it's {Carmel's} flowers {saints}].

Decor Carmeli

I will say her anniversary Requiem Mass at a local Carmel, 24 August, which is also the anniversary of the Discalced Carmelite reform by Saint Teresa of Avila (1562), a solemn feast in the Carmelite order.

Original text and translations

 Latin text

O Maria, vernans rosa,
Porta coeli speciosa,
Clarior sideribus,
Me guberna, me supporta,
Me defende, me conforta
Ne vincar ab hostibus.

Tu lux pulchra, tu medela,
Tu pax vera, tu tutela,
Inimici frange tela
Succurre cadentibus.

Amen.

 English translation

O Mary, rose of spring,

fair gate to Heaven,

brighter than the stars!

Support and direct me,

sustain and protect me,

lest the foe vanquish me.

You beautiful light, you healer,

you bringer of true peace, you protector.

Defeat my enemies.

Grant me your help.

Amen.

Text and translations

Latin text 2:1  Ego flos campi et lilium convallium. 2:2  Sicut lilium inter spinas sic amica mea inter filias. 2:3a  Sicut malus inter ligna silvarum, sic dilectus meus inter filios. 2:3b  Sub umbra illius quem desideraveram sedi, et fructus ejus dulcis gutturi meo. 2:4  Introduxit me Rex in cellam vinariam ordinavit in me charitatem. 2:5  Fulcite me floribus, stipate me malis quia amore langueo. 4:15  fons hortorum puteus aquarum viventium quae fluunt impetu de Libano

English translation 2:1  I am the flower of the field, and the lily of the valleys. 2:2  As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters. 2:3a  As the apple tree among the trees of the woods, so is my beloved among the sons. 2:3b  I sat down under his shadow, whom I desired: and his fruit was sweet to my palate. 2:4  He brought me into the cellar of wine, he set in order charity in me. 2:5  Stay me up with flowers, compass me about with apples: because I languish with love. 4:15  The fountain of gardens: the well of living waters, which run with a strong stream from Libanus.

P.S.S. There is at least one other connection with Our Lady of Mount Carmel. On the 16th of July 1962 (the four-hundredth year since the founding of the Carmelite Reform) Lilia Rosa lay dying at Margaret Hague Hospital in Jersey City after the birth of her firstborn son (first of 13 children). She had contracted meninjitis. Our Blessed Mother appeared to my mother and told her that if she promised to name her firstborn daughter after her she would survive. Six years later she gave birth to my oldest sister, Maria del Carmen, her sixth child.

Stella Maris Church/Carmelite Monastery Haifa, The Mount of Saint Elias (Mount Carmel), Lebanon


Saint Paul Melkite Basilica, Harissa Lebanon

Current Mass Legislation Says Versus Deum is the Proper Posture, Thus Ad Orientem (versus apsidem) Must be Allowed

Online Edition - Vol. VI, No. 9: Dec 2000 - Jan 2001

Letter on the Position of the Priest during the Eucharistic Liturgy  

Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments responded on September 25, 2000, to a European cardinal's question about the position of the priest during the liturgy of the Eucharist. Adoremus' translation of the original letter, written in Italian, appears below. Responses such as this are later published in Notitiae, the official publication of the Congregation of Divine Worship.

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Prot. No 2036/00/L

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in no. 299 of the Instituto Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which, during the Eucharistic liturgy, the position of the priest versus apsidem [facing towards the apse] is to be excluded.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:

Negative, and in accordance with the following explanation.

The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account.

It is in the first place to be borne in mind that the word expedit does not constitute an obligation, but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum [detached from the wall] and to the celebration versus populum [toward the people]. The clause ubi possibile sit [where it is possible] refers to different elements, as, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc. It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier (Cf. the editorial in Notitiae 29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.

However, whatever may be the position of the celebrating priest, it is clear that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered to the one and triune God, and that the principal, eternal, and high priest is Jesus Christ, who acts through the ministry of the priest who visibly presides as His instrument. The liturgical assembly participates in the celebration in virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful which requires the ministry of the ordained priest to be exercised in the Eucharistic Synaxis. The physical position, especially with respect to the communication among the various members of the assembly, must be distinguished from the interior spiritual orientation of all. It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is [toward] the community. If the priest celebrates versus populum, which is a legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Jesus Christum [toward God through Jesus Christ], as representative of the entire Church. The Church as well, which takes concrete form in the assembly which participates, is entirely turned versus Deum [towards God] as its first spiritual movement.

It appears that the ancient tradition, though not without exception, was that the celebrant and the praying community were turned versus orientem [toward the East], the direction from which the Light which is Christ comes. It is not unusual for ancient churches to be "oriented" so that the priest and the people were turned versus orientem during public prayer.

It may be that when there were problems of space, or of some other kind, the apse represented the East symbolically. Today the expression versus orientem often means versus apsidem, and in speaking of versus populum it is not the west but rather the community present that is meant.

In the ancient architecture of churches, the place of the Bishop or the celebrating priest was in the center of the apse where, seated and turned toward the community, the proclamation of the readings was listened to. Now this presidential place was not ascribed to the human person of the bishop or the priest, nor to his intellectual gifts and not even to his personal holiness, but to his role as an instrument of the invisible Pontiff, who is the Lord Jesus.

When it is a question of ancient churches, or of great artistic value, it is appropriate, moreover, to keep in mind civil legislation regarding changes or renovations. Adding another altar may not always be a worthy solution.

There is no need to give excessive importance to elements that have changed throughout the centuries. What always remains is the event celebrated in the liturgy: this is manifested through rites, signs, symbols and words that express various aspects of the mystery without, however, exhausting it, because it transcends them. Taking a rigid position and absolutizing it could become a rejection of some aspect of the truth which merits respect and acceptance.

Vatican City, 25 September 2000.

Signed: Jorge Arturo Cardinal Medina Estévez, Cardinal Prefect
Archbishop Francesco Pio Tamburrino, Archbishop Secretary

Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, 299
Altare exstruatur se pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit. Altare eum autem occupet locum, ut revera centrum sit ad quod totius cogregationis fidelium attentio sponte convertatur. De more sit fixum et dedicatum.

Raphael's Theological Virtues and Cardinal Virtues

Listz-Beethoven: Catholic Genius!

"I will hear in heaven."

Beethoven's last words!

If you like the 1st Symphony listen to all nine.

I like listening to them in succession 1 to 9, though they were not all composed in order.

Or, if you prefer the original symphonic versions.

It's nice to listen to compare.

The Sapientia Omniformis (The Wisdom of Every Form) of Creation: Saint Bonaventure

Sapientia omniformis is the name Saint Bonaventure gives to the wisdom which is revealed in creation, as explained by Father Joseph Ratzinger.

It is in the sapientia omniformis that the letter of creation becomes understandable and speaks to us of the glory of the Creator...[W]e are threatened with the danger of remaining with the letter and of thus overlooking the true sign-value of things. Because of our situation in salvation history, this danger has become particularly acute. Indeed, wisdom raises its captivating and inviting voice in all things. But "we do not find her (wisdom), just as the unlettered layman is not interested in the contents of the book that he hold in his hands. So it is with us. The language of the universe has become like Greek, Hebrew, or some barbarous language; it has become fundamentally unknown."

So there is a striking parallel between the revelation of Scripture and that of creation. In both cases, the revelation is hidden behind the letters that veil it; in both cases, the unveiling of the revelation is the task of the Spirit who transcends the level of the literal in a living, existential movement which penetrates into the realm of the intellectual-spiritual. It is from this danger that the two basic religious errors arise. As regards the understanding of creation, the philosopher who forgets or even denies the possibility or reducing things to their true meaning represents that which the Jew represents relative to Scripture. It is the viewpoint of Bonaventure...that the contemplative power in man has been extinguished in the present historical situation so that the understanding of the book of creation will be inaugurated only with the healing and helping revelation of grace.

This conviction of the sign-character of the entire creation is the root of the Bonaventurian symbolism of creation...[T]he Itinerarium mentis in Deum...attempts to construct a "ladder" to the Creator from all the things of this world. "He who does not allow himself to be illumined by the glory of created things, is blind; he who does not awaken to their call is deaf; he who does not praise God for all His works is mute; he who does not discover the First Principle from all these signs is a fool. Therefore, open your eyes, call upon your spiritual ears; loosen your lips and apply your heart so that you may see, hear, praise, love, serve, glorify, and honor your God in all creatures, lest the entire universe raise itself against you. For therefore the earth will rise up to struggle with those who do not understand (Wisdom 5:21); but it (the earth) will be the foundation of glory for the wise who can say with the Prophet: 'For you have made me glad, O Lord, by your works; of the deeds of your hands I joyfully sing. How great are your deeds, O Lord. In Wisdom you have made them all; the earth is full of your creations' (Ps. 91:5, 103:24)." This text shows more clearly than any analysis we might attempt how far Bonaventure has abandoned anything that might be called merely a Greek 'physical-theology' such as that which is often attributed to the unbiblical renewal of the Catholic theologia naturalis. Bonaventure's hymn of praise to the creator-God lives entirely from the spirit of the psalms. He does not deny the inheritance coming from Greece, but this heritage here enters fully into the service of the Christian faith.

Joseph Ratzinger, The Theology of History in Saint Bonaventure, Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1989, 84-86.

Vespers in Church in Latin is Required by Vatican II: The Traditionalists are the Only Ones that Get it.

Sacrosanctum Concilium 99..."It is...fitting that whenever possible the office be sung, both in choir and in common."

100. "Pastors of souls should see to it that the principle hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and on the more solemn feasts. The laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually."

101. (1) "In accordance with the age-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office..."

It goes on, of course, (by way of exception) to permit the vernacular, but the Latin is the norm.

There are practically no churches in the world (never mind Cathedrals) which are fulfilling Vatican II in this respect, in the Ordinary Form (in Latin!).

If you find a church that has it: e.g. Holy Innocents, NYC, it is in the extraordinary form.

Thanks be to God and to the Traditionalists for faithfully implementing Vatican II, where our bishops and priests are sluggish!

Instead of trashing the tradition Pope Francis and Cardinal Nichols, and company, should get busy implementing Vatican II in the ongoing Reform of the Reform, in accord, not with personal preferences, but with the liturgical norms of the Church.

N.B. In this regard, when will the Graduale be taken off the index of forbidden books of seminary and priestly worship? never mind of Catholic parish celebrations? There are many bishops very much in line with Pope Francis who categorically forbid the use of Latin chant at Mass or otherwise, while the 2005 GIRM is filled with references to this normative liturgical music. That, at this juncture, is simply infidelity to the Catholic liturgy: e.g. Archbishop Cupich Installation Mass, though many languages were used, not one word in Latin! Typical of cathedral liturgies.

Novus Ordo Mass Ad Orientem: Legitimate and Very Helpful Reform of the Reform!

Pope Francis Ad Orientem (Novus Ordo, of course!)

Why Cardinal Sarah is Right! Every priest should want and do all in his power to face the Lord and the Lord alone at Mass!

***On April 10, 2000 the Holy See issued a clarification on the matter, stating: "Both positions are in accord with liturgical law; both are to be considered correct…a priest's choice of position to offer Holy Mass, whether facing the apse or facing the people may never be used to call into question his adherence to Catholic Doctrine."

***On September 25th of 2000, in another decree, the Holy See rejected the idea that the priest has a "general obligation" to offer Mass facing the people.

Below, two exemplary pastors instructing their flock regarding the Ad Orientem logic in the Roman Ritual. All three churches under their care are thriving (like so many others) in the intelligent and faithful Reform of the Reform.


Turning towards the Lord Celebrating Mass facing the altar 

Dear parishioners,

As you know, Holy Mass at our two churches is offered both facing the people and facing the altar. Beginning in Lent, I intend to begin offering my own daily Masses at both churches facing the altar rather than facing the people. Please permit me to offer the reasons why.

For many, the immediate impression is that the priest "has his back to the people." This can seem quite odd and standoffish at first, so it takes a deeper analysis to understand what is happening. It is more correct to say that the priest is "facing the altar" or "turning towards the Lord." The intention is not to spurn the congregation, but to lead them towards God in worship. Besides, the people in the forward pews always have their "backs toward" the ones behind them! But we just don't look at it in these negative terms.

Please know that the Church fully permits either orientation in the instructions for Mass. Were this not the case we would never do it here. In fact, in four places the rubrics of the Roman Missal even instruct the priest to "turn toward the people." The presumption is that he was not already facing the people.

Another consideration is that the readings and homily are done facing the people. Those words are addressed to the congregation. But the Eucharistic Prayer is addressed to God Almighty, and so it is fitting to turn towards the Tabernacle for this part of the Mass.

This direction is sometimes called "ad orientem," or "facing East." Churches have traditionally been oriented towards the East, the direction of the rising sun and, for us in the West, the direction of Jerusalem. Our own St Elizabeth's is built that way, and so was the old St Anthony's prior to it's renovation. But even were this not the case, we still refer to the priest facing the altar as "liturgical East." Genesis 2:8 reveals that the Garden of Eden was "in the East," and thus facing East during Mass is a way to symbolize the direction of our goal which is Paradise.

The priest offering the Holy Sacrifice oriented with the people and in the same direction vividly shows that he is leading them towards the Lord, as a captain in a well-fought fight.

Why then is Mass now offered almost everywhere facing the people? From antiquity Mass was always offered facing the altar (ad orientem). This is the traditional stance. Following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) the Church began to allow Mass facing the people, and the idea gained almost universal currency. It is how just about all of us have experienced Mass for 50 years. But it must be stated clearly that the documents of Vatican II itself contain no such directive. Granted, the Pope did authorize the practice, but after the Council ended.

On April 10, 2000 the Holy See issued a clarification on the matter, stating: "Both positions are in accord with liturgical law; both are to be considered correct…a priest's choice of position to offer Holy Mass, whether facing the apse or facing the people may never be used to call into question his adherence to Catholic Doctrine." And on September 9th of 2000, in another decree, the Holy See rejected the idea that the priest has a "general obligation" to offer Mass facing the people.

You should also know that Pope Benedict, prior to being elected, wrote forcefully in favor of offering Mass ad orientem. In his book, "The Spirit of the Liturgy" he stated, "A common turning toward the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential…looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord…What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward, expressed in a common direction for prayer."

My friends, it is not my intention to criticize those who prefer Mass facing the people or even to impugn this common practice approved by Holy Mother Church. Rather, I wish to ask you to prayerfully consider the arguments I have made with an open mind and heart. I hope you will come to see the beauty of this practice and the theological purpose of my decision; and I invite you to contact me should you have further questions. 

Omnes cum Petro ad Iesum per Mariam,

The Very Reverend Father de Rosa, V.F.

Pastor

Saint Elizabeth/Saint Anthony

Colonial Beach/King George, Virginia


Turning towards the Lord, Part II - Celebrating Mass facing the altar
July 17, 2016 bulletin announcement

Dear parishioners,

Last weekend I announced at St. Elizabeth’s that Fr. Kenna and I have decided to offer Mass facing the altar rather than the usual stance of facing the people. Please permit me to offer the reasons why.

For many, the immediate impression is that the priest "has his back to the people." This can seem quite odd and standoffish at first, so it takes a deeper analysis to understand what is happening. It is more correct to say that the priest is "facing the altar;" or "turning towards the Lord." The intention is not to spurn the congregation, but to lead them towards God in worship. Besides, the people in the forward pews always have their "backs toward;" the ones behind them!

Please know that the Church fully permits either orientation in the instructions for Mass. In fact, in four places the rubrics of the Roman Missal even instruct the priest to "turn toward the people." The presumption is that he was not already facing the people.

Another consideration is that the readings and homily are done facing the people. Those words are addressed to the congregation. But the Eucharistic Prayer is addressed to God Almighty, and so it is fitting to turn towards the Tabernacle for this part of the Mass.

This direction is sometimes called "ad orientem," or "facing East." Churches have traditionally been oriented towards the East, the direction of the rising sun and, for us in the West, the direction of Jerusalem. Our own St Elizabeth's is built that way, and so was the old St Anthony's prior to it's renovation. But even were this not the case, we still refer to the priest facing the altar as "liturgical East." Genesis 2:8 reveals that the Garden of Eden was "in the East," and thus facing East during Mass is a way to symbolize the direction of our goal which is Paradise.

The priest offering the Holy Sacrifice oriented with the people and in the same direction vividly shows that he is leading them towards the Lord, as a captain in a well-fought fight.

Why then is Mass now offered almost everywhere facing the people? From antiquity Mass was always offered facing the altar (ad orientem). This is the traditional stance. Following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) the Church began to allow Mass facing the people, and the idea gained almost universal currency. Vatican II, however, contained no such directive.

On April 10, 2000 the Holy See issued a clarification on the matter, stating: "Both positions are in accord with liturgical law; both are to be considered correct…a priest's choice of position to offer Holy Mass, whether facing the apse or facing the people may never be used to call into question his adherence to Catholic Doctrine." And on September 9 th of 2000, in another decree, the Holy See rejected the idea that the priest has a "general obligation" to offer Mass facing the people.

You should also know that Pope Benedict, prior to being elected, wrote in favor of offering Mass ad orientem. In his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, he stated, "A common turning toward the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential…looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord…What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward, expressed in a common direction for prayer."

On June 12, 2015 the Pope Francis’ hand picked top authority on Sacraments and Liturgy (“The Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship”), Robert Cardinal Sarah, published an article in the official Vatican newspaper (the Osservatore Romano) on this question. In it he stated: “…It is in full conformity with liturgical law and the conciliar Constitution [i.e., of Vatican II] – indeed, it is entirely fitting – for everyone, priest and congregation, to turn together to the East during the penitential rite, the singing of the Gloria, the orations, and the Eucharistic prayer…”

On July 5, 2016 the same Cardinal called on all priests, “to implement this practice whenever possible, with prudence and pastoral competence, knowing that it is for the good of the Church and the people of God…perhaps begin this by the first Sunday of Advent.”

On July 12, 2016 the Vatican Press Office issued a clarification stating that, “new liturgical directives are not expected from next Advent.” Nor did the Cardinal assert that, but some were confused that his request was a new requirement or law for all priests. Thus, priests still remain free to offer Mass either facing the people or facing the altar (ad orientem or versus Deum).

We will institute this practice right away at our parish, unless further directives are issued. I hope you will come to see the beauty of this practice and the theological purpose of the decision; and I invite you to contact me should you have further questions.

-Father de Rosa

14 Jun 2010

Klaus Gamber on the Orientation of the Roman Liturgy

Posted by Stuart Chessman

Fr. Greg Markey, Pastor of St. Mary Church, Norwalk, CT wrote the following column for the parish bulletin and the parish website http://www.stmarynorwalk.net/

Msgr. Klaus Gamber (1919–1987) was a German liturgist who enthusiastically supported the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, but then later became one of the chief critics of how it was implemented. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger called Gamber, “the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking at the center of the Church.”

Many priests and faithful are under the impression that Vatican II called for an end to offering Holy Mass towards the tabernacle, ad orientem, and for the priest to now face the people, versum populum. However, no such statement can be found in the Council documents. Gamber saw this new altar arrangement as an aberration in the organic development of the liturgy, and one of his major contributions before his death was to examine whether there was any historical foundation for this new development.

In his book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the introduction to the book), Gamber explains that scholars have shown that, “…the custom of praying in the direction of sunrise is an ancient one, practiced by Jews and pagans alike. The custom was adopted early on by the Christians. For example, to face East in prayer was a common practice for Tertullian, as early as 197. In his Apologeticum he speaks about Christians ‘praying in the direction of the rising sun’. The sun served as a symbol for the Lord having ascended to heaven and of His return from there” (see Acts 1:11).

Furthermore Gamber states: “We can say and convincingly demonstrate that neither in the Eastern nor the Western Church was there ever a celebration versum populum – rather, there was only the practice of turning towards the East while praying. Martin Luther was the first person to demand that the priest at the altar face the people.”

Some today negatively explain the ad orientem position as the “the priest with his back to the people”. However, the real symbolism here is the priest leading the people in the worship of God, offering to the Father the Perfect Sacrifice, the immolated Lamb, on behalf of the people.

What’s more, rather than being a circle closed in on itself, the ad orientem position represents an opening with an active and forward movement. As Gamber wrote, “Facing the East was to indicate the direction and destination of this procession: the lost paradise to be found in the East (Genesis 2:8). The celebrant and his assistants formed the vanguard of the procession to the East…When we expect the arrival of an important person, the group of waiting people will form into the shape of a semi-circle to receive the expected person into their midst.” Is this not what we are doing at Holy Mass? The priest leading us towards heaven as we await the arrival of the Lamb?

While offering the Mass versum populum is almost the universal practice in the Ordinary Form, both positions, ad orientem and versum populum, are permitted by the law of the Church. The Congregation for Divine Worship stated on April 10, 2000: “Both positions are in accord with liturgical law; both are to be considered correct…a priest’s choice of position to offer Holy Mass, whether facing the apse or facing the people may never be used to call into question his adherence to Catholic Doctrine.” Furthermore, later that year, on September 25, 2000, the Congregation for Divine Worship rejected the position that there is a general obligation in the Ordinary Form of the Mass for the priest to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass versum populum.

Inspired by Gamber’s research, Cardinal Ratzinger has promoted the value of once again offering Mass ad orientem. In 2000 Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “A common turning to the east during the Eucharist Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue but of common worship, of setting off toward the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward, expressed in a common direction for prayer.”

Now as the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has begun to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form ad orientem at times. Evidently he sees our current atmosphere as the proper time to reorient ourselves with this common practice of our 2000 year history: “Historical research has made the controversy less partisan, and among the faithful there is an increasing sense of the problems inherent in an arrangement that hardly shows the liturgy to be open to the things that are above and to the world to come.”

Some claim that Msgr. Klaus Gamber writings are the inspiration to Pope Benedict XVI’s liturgical reform. Surely the Holy Father was moved when after Msgr. Gamber died in 1987, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, “The death of this eminent man and priest should spur us on; his work should give us a new impetus.”

Inspired by these writings and the example of the Holy Father, it is my hope to introduce the ad orientem altar position in the Ordinary Form in certain Masses. Please pray for the Holy Father, that he would lead us in an authentic liturgical renewal, as he often writes, in “continuity” with the Traditions that we have receive from the saints who have gone before us.

The Infamous Vatican Press Office Blunder

Full text: Cardinal Sarah at Sacra Liturgia conference

by The Catholic Herald

posted Tuesday, 12 Jul 2016

Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments (CNS)

The cardinal speech entitled, Towards an Authentic Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, was delivered in London on July 5

Your Excellencies, dear Fathers, deacons and dear religious men and women, dear brothers and sisters in Christ.

In the first place I wish to express my thanks to His Eminence, Vincent Cardinal Nichols, for his welcome to the Archdiocese of Westminster and for his kind words of greeting. So too I wish to thank His Excellency, Bishop Dominique Rey, Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, for his invitation to be present with you at this, the third international “Sacra Liturgia” conference, and to present the opening address this evening. Your Excellency, I congratulate you on this international initiative to promote the study of the importance of liturgical formation and celebration in the life and mission of the Church.

I am very happy to be here with you all today. I thank each of you for your presence which reflects your appreciation of the importance of what the then Cardinal Ratzinger once called “the question of the liturgy” today, at the beginning of the twenty-first century. This is a great sign of hope for the Church.

INTRODUCTION

In his message dated 18th February 2014 to the symposium celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Holy Father, Pope Francis, observed that the marking of fifty years since the promulgation of the Constitution should push us “to revive the commitment to accept and implement [the] teaching [of Sacrosanctum Concilium] in an ever fuller way.” The Holy Father continued:

It is necessary to unite a renewed willingness to go forward along the path indicated by the Council Fathers, as there remains much to be done for a correct and complete assimilation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on the part of the baptized and ecclesial communities. I refer, in particular, to the commitment to a solid and organic liturgical initiation and formation, both of lay faithful as well as clergy and consecrated persons.

The Holy Father is correct. We have much to do if we are to realise the vision of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council for the liturgical life of the Church. We have very much to do if today, some fifty years after the Council concluded, we are to achieve “a correct and complete assimilation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.”

In this address I wish to place before you some considerations on how the Western Church might move towards a more faithful implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. In doing so I propose to ask “What did the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council intend in the liturgical reform?” Then I would like to consider how their intentions were implemented following the Council. Finally, I would like to put before you some suggestions for the liturgical life of the Church today, so that our liturgical practice might more faithfully reflect the intentions of the Council Fathers.

1. WHAT IS THE SACRED LITURGY?

But first we must consider a preliminary question. That is the question: “What is the Sacred Liturgy?” Because if we do not understand the nature of Catholic liturgy, as distinct from the rites of other Christian communities and of other religions, we cannot hope to understand the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, or to move towards a more faithful implementation of it.

In his Motu Proprio Tra le sollecitudini (22 November 1903) Pope Saint Pius X, taught that “the holy mysteries” and “the public and solemn prayer of the Church,” that is, the Sacred Liturgy, are the “foremost and indispensible fount” for acquiring “the true Christian spirit.” St Pius X therefore called for a real and fruitful participation in the Church’s liturgical rites by all. As we know, this teaching and this exhortation would be repeated by article 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Pope Pius XI raised his voice to the same end some twenty-five years later in his Apostolic Constitution Divini Cultus (20 December 1928), teaching that “the liturgy is indeed a sacred thing, since by it we are raised to God and united to Him, thereby professing our faith and our deep obligation to Him for the benefits we have received and the help of which we stand in constant need.”

Pope Pius XII devoted an Encyclical letter, Mediator Dei (20 November 1947) to the Sacred Liturgy, in which he taught that:

The Sacred Liturgy is…the public worship which our Redeemer as Head of the Church renders to the Father, as well as the worship which the community of the faithful renders to its Founder, and through Him to the heavenly Father. It is, in short, the worship rendered by the Mystical Body of Christ in the entirety of its Head and members. (n. 20)

The Pope taught that the “nature and the object of the sacred liturgy” is that “it aims at uniting our souls with Christ and sanctifying them through the divine Redeemer in order that Christ be honoured and, through Him and in Him, the most Holy Trinity.” (n. 171)

The Second Vatican Council taught that through the liturgy “the work of our redemption is accomplished” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2), and that the liturgy:

…is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.

From this it follows that 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; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree. (n. 7)

Following on from this, Sacrosanctum Concilium taught that the liturgy:

…is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord’s supper. (n. 10)

It would be possible to continue this exposition of the magisterium’s teaching on the nature of the Sacred Liturgy with the teaching of the post-conciliar popes and of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But for the moment let us stop at the Council. Because it is very clear, I think, that the Church teaches that Catholic liturgy is the singularly privileged locus of Christ’s saving action in our world today, by means of real participation in which we receive His grace and strength which is so necessary for our perseverance and growth in the Christian life. It is the divinely instituted place where we come to fulfil our duty of offering sacrifice to God, of offering the One True Sacrifice. It is where we realise our profound need to worship Almighty God. Catholic liturgy is something sacred, something which is holy by its very nature. Catholic liturgy is no ordinary human gathering.

I wish to underline a very important fact here: God, not man is at the centre of Catholic liturgy. We come to worship Him. The liturgy is not about you and I; it is not where we celebrate our own identity or achievements or exalt or promote our own culture and local religious customs. The liturgy is first and foremost about God and what He has done for us. In His Divine Providence Almighty God founded the Church and instituted the Sacred Liturgy by means of which we are able to offer Him true worship in accordance with the New Covenant established by Christ. In doing this, in entering into the demands of the sacred rites developed in the tradition of the Church, we are given our true identity and meaning as sons and daughters of the Father.

It is essential that we understand this specificity of Catholic worship, for in recent decades we have seen many liturgical celebrations where people, personalities and human achievements have been too prominent, almost to the exclusion of God. As Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote: “If the liturgy appears first of all as the workshop for our activity, then what is essential is being forgotten: God. For the liturgy is not about us, but about God. Forgetting about God is the most imminent danger of our age.” (Joseph Ratzinger, Theology of the Liturgy, Collected Works vol. 11, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2014, p. 593).

We must be utterly clear about the nature of Catholic worship if we are to read the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy correctly and if we are to implement it faithfully. For the Fathers of the Council were formed in the magisterial teachings of the twentieth century popes that I have cited. St John XXIII did not call an Ecumenical Council to undermine these teachings, which he himself promoted. The Council Fathers did not arrive in Rome in October 1962 with the intention of producing an anthropocentric liturgy. Rather, the Pope and the Council Fathers sought to find ways in which Christ’s faithful could draw ever more deeply from the “foremost and indispensible fount” so as to acquire “the true Christian spirit” for their own salvation and for that of all men and women of their day.

1. WHAT DID THE FATHERS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL INTEND?

We must explore the intentions of the Fathers of the Council in more detail, particularly if we seek to be more faithful to their intentions today. What did they intend to bring about through the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy?

Let us begin with the very first article of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which states:

This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. (n. 1)

Let us remember that when the Council opened liturgical reform had been a feature of the past decade and that the Fathers were very familiar with these reforms. They were not considering these questions theoretically, without any context. They expected to continue the work already begun and to consider the “altioria principia,” the higher or fundamental principles of liturgical reform, spoken of by St John XXIII in his Motu Proprio Rubricarum Instructum of 25th July 1960.

Hence, article one of the Constitution gives four reasons for undertaking a liturgical reform. The first, “to impart an ever increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful,” is the constant concern of the Church’s pastors in every age.

The second, “to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change,” may cause us to pause and reflect, particularly given the zeitgeist of the 1960s. But in truth, if it is read with that hermeneutic of continuity with which most certainly the Council Fathers intended it, this means that the Council desired liturgical development where possible so as to facilitate an increased vigour to Christian life. The Council Fathers did not want to change things simply for the sake of change!

So too, the third reason, “to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ,” might cause us to pause lest we think that the Fathers wished to instrumentalise the Sacred Liturgy and make of it an ecumenical tool, to render it simply a means to an end. But can this be the case? Certainly, after the Council, some may have tried to do this. But the Fathers themselves knew that this was not possible. Unity in worship before the altar of sacrifice is the desired end of ecumenical endeavour. The liturgy is not a means to promote good will or cooperation in apostolic works. No, here the Council Fathers are saying that they believe that liturgical reform can be part of a momentum which can help people to achieve that Catholic unity without which full communion in worship is not possible.

The same motivation is found in the fourth reason given for liturgical reform: “to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church.” Here, though, we move beyond our separated Christian brothers and sisters and consider “the whole of mankind.” The Church’s mission is to every man and woman! The Fathers of the Council believed this and hoped that more fruitful participation in the liturgy would facilitate a renewal in the Church’s missionary activity.

Let me give one example. For many years before the Council, in missionary countries and also in the more developed ones, there had been much discussion about the possibility of increasing the use of the vernacular languages in the liturgy, principally for the readings from Sacred Scripture, also for some of the other parts of the first part of the Mass (which we now call the “Liturgy of the Word”) and for liturgical singing. The Holy See had already given many permissions for the use of the vernacular in the administration of the sacraments. This is the context in which the Fathers of the Council spoke of the possible positive ecumenical or missionary effects of liturgical reform. It is true that the vernacular has a positive place in the liturgy. The Fathers were seeking this, not authorising the protestantization of the Sacred Liturgy or agreeing to it being subjected to a false inculturation.

I am an African. Let me say clearly: the liturgy is not the place to promote my culture. Rather, it is the place where my culture is baptised, where my culture is taken up into the divine. Through the Church’s liturgy (which missionaries have carried throughout the world) God speaks to us, He changes us and enables us to partake in His divine life. When someone becomes a Christian, when someone enters into full communion with the Catholic Church, they receive something more, something which changes them. Certainly, cultures and other Christians bring gifts with them into the Church—the liturgy of the Ordinariates of Anglicans now in full communion with the Catholic Church is a beautiful example of this. But they bring these gifts with humility, and the Church in her maternal wisdom makes use of them as she judges appropriate.

Nevertheless, it seems incumbent to be very clear on what we mean by inculturation. If we truly understand the meaning of the term as an insight into the mystery of Jesus Christ, then we have the key to inculturation, which is not a quest nor a claim for the legitimacy of Africanization nor Latin Americanization nor Asianization in substitution of a Westernization of Christianity. Inculturation is neither a canonization of a local culture nor a settling into this culture at the risk of making it absolute. Inculturation is an irruption and an epiphany of the Lord in the depths of our being. And the irruption of the Lord in our life causes a disruption, a detachment opening the way to a path according to new orientations that are creating elements of a new culture, vehicle of the Good News for man and his dignity as a Son of God. When the Gospel enters into our life, it disrupts it, it transforms it. It gives it a new direction, new moral and ethical orientations. It turns the heart of man towards God and neighbour to love and serve them absolutely and without design. When Jesus enters into a life, he transfigures it, he deifies it by the radiant light of His Face, just as St Paul was on the road to Damascus (see: Acts 9:5-6).

Just as by his Incarnation the Word of God became like men in all things, except sin (Heb 4:15), so the gospel assumes all human and cultural values, but refuses to take shape in the structures of sin. This means that the more individual and collective sins abound in a human or ecclesial community, the less room there exists for inculturation. On the contrary, the more a Christian community and shines with holiness and radiates evangelical values, the more it is likely to inculturate the Christian message. The inculturation of the faith is the challenge of sanctity. It verifies the degree of holiness, and the level of the Gospel’s penetration, and of the faith in Jesus Christ in a Christian community. Inculturation, therefore, is not religious folklore.

It is not essentially realized in the use of local languages, instruments and Latin American music, African dances or African or Asian rituals and symbols in the liturgy and the sacraments. Inculturation is God who descends into the life, into the moral behaviour, into the cultures and into the customs of men in order to free them from sin and in order to introduce them into the life of the Trinity. Certainly the Faith has in need of a culture so as to be communicated. This is why Saint John Paul II affirmed that a faith that does not become culture is a faith that is dying: “Properly applied, inculturation must be guided by two principles: “compatibility with the gospel and communion with the universal Church.” (Encyclical Letter, Redemptoris Missio, 7 December 1990, n. 54).

I have spent some time considering the first article of the Constitution because it is very important that we do read Sacrosanctum Concilium in its context, as a document which intended to promote legitimate development (such as the increased use of the vernacular) in continuity with the nature, teaching and mission of the Church in the modern world. We must not read into it things which it does not say. The Fathers did not intend a revolution, but an evolution, a moderate reform.

The intentions of the Council Fathers are very clear from other key passages. Article 14 is one of the most important of the whole Constitution:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people” (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy.

We hear the voice of the pre-conciliar popes here, seeking a real and fruitful participation in the liturgy, and in order to bring that about, the insistence that a thorough instruction or formation in the liturgy is urgently necessary. The Fathers show a realism here that was perhaps forgotten afterwards. Let us listen again to those words of the Council and ponder their importance: “it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this (active participation) unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it.”

At the beginning of article 21 we also hear the Fathers’ intentions very clearly: “In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the Sacred Liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself.” “Ut populus christianus in sacra Liturgia abundantiam gratiarum securius assequatur…” When we study Latin we learn that the word “ut” signifies a clear purpose that follows in the same clause. What did the Council Fathers intend? —that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the Sacred Liturgy. How did they propose to do this? —by undertaking with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself (“ipsius Liturgiae generalem instaurationem sedulo curare cupit”). Please note that the Fathers speak of a “restoration,” not a revolution!

One of the clearest and most beautiful expressions of the intentions of the Fathers of the Council is found at the beginning of the second chapter of the Constitution, which considers the mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist. In article 48 we read:

The Church…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.

My brothers and sisters, this is what the Council Fathers intended. Yes, certainly, they discussed and voted on specific ways of achieving their intentions. But let us be very clear: the ritual reforms proposed in the Constitution such as the restoration of the prayer of the faithful at Mass (n. 53), the extension of concelebration (n. 57) or some of its policies such as the simplification desired by articles 34 and 50, are all subordinate to the fundamental intentions of the Council Fathers I have just outlined. They are means to an end, and it is the end which we must achieve.

If we are to move towards a more authentic implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, it is these goals, these ends, which we must keep before us first and foremost. It may be that, if we study them with fresh eyes and with the benefit of the experience of the past five decades, we shall see some specific ritual reforms and certain liturgical policies in a different light. If, today, so as to “impart an ever increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful” and “help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church,” some of these need to be reconsidered, let us ask the Lord to give us the love and the humility and wisdom so to do.

1. WHAT HAS HAPPENED FOLLOWING THE PROMULGATION OF SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM?

I raise this possibility of looking again at the Constitution and at the reform which followed its promulgation because I do not think that we can honestly read even the first article of Sacrosanctum Concilium today and be content that we have achieved its aims. My brothers and sisters, where are the faithful of whom the Council Fathers spoke? Many of the faithful are now unfaithful: they do not come to the liturgy at all. To use the words of St John Paul II: “Forgetfulness of God led to the abandonment of man. It is therefore no wonder that in this context a vast field has opened for the unrestrained development of nihilism in philosophy, of relativism in values and morality, and of pragmatism – and even a cynical hedonism – in daily life. European culture gives the impression of ‘silent apostasy’ on the part of people who have all that they need and who live as if God does not exist” (Apostolic Exhortation, Ecclesia in Europa, 28 June 2003, 9). Where is the unity the Council hoped to achieve? We have not yet reached it. Have we made real progress in calling the whole of mankind into the household of the Church? I do not think so. And yet we have done very much to the liturgy!

In my 47 years of life as a priest and after more than 36 years of episcopal ministry I can attest that many Catholic communities and individuals live and pray the liturgy as reformed following the Council with fervour and joy, deriving from it many, if not all, of the goods that the Council Fathers desired. This is a great fruit of the Council. But from my experience I also know—now also through my service as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments—that there are many distortions of the liturgy throughout the Church today, and there are many situations that could be improved so that the aims of the Council can be achieved. Before I reflect on some possible improvements, let us consider what happened following the promulgation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

In the sixteenth century the Pope entrusted the liturgical reform desired by the Council of Trent to a special commission which worked to prepare revised editions of the liturgical books which were eventually promulgated by the Pope. This is a perfectly normal procedure and it was the one adopted by Blessed Paul VI in 1964 when he established the Consilium ad exsequendam constitutionem de sacra liturgia. We know much about this commission because of the published memoirs of its secretary, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini (The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975, Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1990).

The work of this commission to implement the Constitution was certainly subject to influences, ideologies and new proposals that were not present in Sacrosanctum Concilium. For example, it is true that the Council did not propose the introduction of new Eucharistic prayers, but that this idea came up and was accepted, and that new prayers were authoritatively promulgated by the Pope. It is true, also, as Archbishop Bugnini himself makes clear, that some prayers and rites were constructed or revised according to the spirit of the times, particularly according to ecumenical sensitivities. Whether or not too much was done, or whether what was done truly helped to achieve the aims of the Constitution, or whether they in fact hindered them, are questions we need to study. I am very happy that today scholars are considering these matters in depth. Nevertheless it is an important fact that Blessed Paul VI judged the reforms proposed by the commission to be suitable and that he promulgated them. With his Apostolic authority he established them as normative and ensured their liceity and validity.

But while the official work of reform was taking place some very serious misinterpretations of the liturgy emerged and took root in different places throughout the world. These abuses of the Sacred Liturgy grew up because of an erroneous understanding of the Council, resulting in liturgical celebrations that were subjective and which were more focused on the individual community’s desires than on the sacrificial worship of Almighty God. My predecessor as Prefect of the Congregation, Francis Cardinal Arinze, once called this sort of thing “the do-it- yourself Mass.” St John Paul even found it necessary to write the following in his Encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003):

The Magisterium’s commitment to proclaiming the Eucharistic mystery has been matched by interior growth within the Christian community. Certainly the liturgical reform inaugurated by the Council has greatly contributed to a more conscious, active and fruitful participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar on the part of the faithful. In many places, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is also an important daily practice and becomes an inexhaustible source of holiness. The devout participation of the faithful in the Eucharistic procession on the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ is a grace from the Lord which yearly brings joy to those who take part in it.

Other positive signs of Eucharistic faith and love might also be mentioned.

Unfortunately, alongside these lights, there are also shadows. In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation.

It is my hope that the present Encyclical Letter will effectively help to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice, so that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery (n. 10).

As well as abusive practices, there was adverse reaction to the officially promulgated reforms. Some people found that they had gone too far too quickly, or even suspected the official reforms of being doctrinally suspect. One remembers the controversy that emerged in 1969 with the letter sent to Paul VI by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci expressing very serious concerns, after which the Pope judged it appropriate to make certain doctrinal precisions. These questions, too, need to be studied carefully.

But there was also a pastoral reality here: whether for good reasons or not, some people could or would not participate in the reformed rites. They stayed away, or only participated in the unreformed liturgy where they could find it, even when its celebration was not authorised. In this way the liturgy became an expression of divisions within the Church, rather than one of Catholic unity. The Council did not intend that the liturgy divide us one from another! St John Paul II worked to heal this division, aided by Cardinal Ratzinger who, as Pope Benedict XVI, sought to facilitate the necessary internal reconciliation in the Church by establishing in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (7 July 2007) that the more ancient form of the Roman rite is to be available without restriction to those individuals and groups who wish to draw from its riches. In God’s Providence it is now possible to celebrate our Catholic unity whilst respecting, and even rejoicing in, a legitimate diversity of ritual practice.

Finally, I would like to note that amidst the work of reform and translation that took place after the Council (and we know that some of this work was done too quickly, meaning that today we have to revise the translations to render them more faithful to the original Latin), there was perhaps not enough attention paid to what the Council Fathers said was essential if the fruitful participation in the liturgy that they desired would be achieved: that the clergy “become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it.” We know that a building with weak foundations is at risk of damage or even of collapse.

We may have built a very new, modern liturgy in the vernacular, but if we have not laid the correct foundations—if our seminarians and clergy are not “thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy” as the Council required—then they themselves cannot form the people entrusted to their care. We need to take the words of the Council itself very seriously: it would be “futile” to hope for a liturgical renewal without a thorough liturgical formation. Without this essential formation clergy could even damage peoples’ faith in the Eucharistic mystery.

I do not wish to be thought of as being unduly pessimistic, and I say again: there are many, many faithful lay men and women, many clergy and religious for whom the liturgy as reformed after the Council is a source of much spiritual and apostolic fruit, and for that I thank Almighty God. But, even from my brief analysis just now, I think you will agree that we can do better so that the Sacred Liturgy truly becomes the source and summit of the life and mission of the Church now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, as the Fathers of the Council so earnestly desired.

Anyway, this is what Pope Francis asks us to do: “It is necessary, he said, to unite a renewed willingness to go forward along the path indicated by the Council Fathers, as there remains much to be done for a correct and complete assimilation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on the part of the baptised and ecclesial communities. I refer, in particular, to the commitments to a solid and organic liturgical initiation and formation, both of lay faithful as well as clergy and consecrated persons”.

1. HOW SHOULD WE MOVE TOWARDS A MORE AUTHENTIC IMPLEMENTATION OF SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM TODAY?

In the light of the fundamental desires of the Council Fathers and of the different situations that we have seen arise following the Council, I would like to present some practical considerations on how we can implement Sacrosanctum Concilium more faithfully today. Even though I serve as the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, I do so in all humility as a priest and a bishop in the hope that they will promote mature reflection and scholarship and good liturgical practice throughout the Church.

It will come as no surprise if I say that first of all we must examine the quality and depth of our liturgical formation, of how we imbue our clergy, religious and lay faithful with the spirit and power of the liturgy. Too often we assume that our candidates for ordination to the priesthood or the permanent diaconate “know” enough about the liturgy. But the Council was not insisting on knowledge here, though, of course, the Constitution stressed the importance of liturgical studies (see: nn. 15-17). No, the liturgical formation that is primary and essential is more one of immersion in the liturgy, in the deep mystery of God our loving Father. It is a question of living the liturgy in all its richness, so that having drunk deeply from its fount we always have a thirst for its delights, its order and beauty, its silence and contemplation, its exultation and adoration, its ability to connect us intimately with He who is at work in and through the Church’s sacred rites.

That is why those “in formation” for pastoral ministry should live the liturgy as fully as is possible in their seminaries or houses of formation. Candidates for the permanent diaconate should have an immersion in an intense liturgical life over a prolonged period also. And, I would add, that the full and rich celebration of the more ancient use of the Roman rite, the usus antiquior, should be an important part of liturgical formation for clergy, for how can we begin to comprehend or celebrate the reformed rites with a hermeneutic of continuity if we have never experienced the beauty of the liturgical tradition which the Fathers of the Council themselves knew and which has produced so many saints over the centuries? A wise openness to the mystery of the Church and her rich, centuries-old tradition, and a humble docility to what the Holy Spirit says to the Churches today are real signs that we belong to Jesus Christ: And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” (Mt 13:52).

If we attend to this, if our new priests and deacons truly thirst for the liturgy, they will themselves be able to form those entrusted to their care—even if the liturgical circumstances and possibilities of their ecclesial mission are more modest than those of the seminary or of a cathedral. I am aware of many priests in such circumstances who form their people in the spirit and power of the liturgy, and whose parishes are examples of great liturgical beauty. We should remember that dignified simplicity is not the same as reductive minimalism or a negligent and vulgar style. As our Holy Father, Pope Francis, teaches in his Apostolic Exhortation the beauty of the liturgy, which is both a celebration of the task of evangelization and the source of her renewed self-giving.” (n. 24)

Secondly, I think that it is very important that we are clear about the nature of liturgical participation, of the participatio actuosa for which the Council called. There has been a lot of confusion here over recent decades. Article 48 of the Constitution states: “The Church…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.” The Council sees participation as primarily internal, coming about “through a good understanding of the rites and prayers.” The inner life, the life immersed in God and intimately inhabited by God is the indispensable condition for a successful and fruitful participation in the Holy Mysteries that we celebrate in the liturgy. The Eucharistic celebration must be essentially lived internally. It is within us that God wants to meet us. The Fathers called for the faithful to sing, to respond to the priest, to assume liturgical ministries that are rightfully theirs, certainly, but it insists that all should be “conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration.”

If we understand the priority of internalising our liturgical participation we will avoid the noisy and dangerous liturgical activism that has been too prominent in recent decades. We do not go to the liturgy so as to perform, to do things for others to see: we go to be connected with Christ’s action through an internalisation of the external liturgical rites, prayers, signs and symbols. It may be that we priests whose vocation is to minister liturgically need to remember this more than others! But we also need to form others, particularly our children and young people, in the true meaning of liturgical participation, in the true way to pray the liturgy.

Thirdly, I have spoken of the fact that some of the reforms introduced following the Council may have been put together according to the spirit of the times and that there has been an increasing amount of critical study by faithful sons and daughters of the Church asking whether what was in fact produced truly implemented the aims of the Constitution, or whether in reality they went beyond them. This discussion sometimes takes place under the title of a “reform of the reform,” and I am aware that Father Thomas Kocik presented a learned study on this question at the Sacra Liturgia conference in New York one year ago.

I do not think that we can dismiss the possibility or the desirability of an official reform of the liturgical reform, because its proponents make some important claims in their attempt to be faithful to the Council’s insistence in article 23 of the Constitution “that sound tradition…be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress.” It must begin with a careful theological, historical, pastoral study and “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”

Indeed, I can say that when I was received in audience by the Holy Father last April, Pope Francis asked me to study the question of a reform of a reform and the way in which the two forms of the Roman rite could enrich each other. This will be a long and delicate work and I ask for your patience and prayers. But if we are to implement Sacrosanctum Concilium more faithfully, if we are to achieve what the Council desired, this is a serious question which must be carefully studied and acted on with the necessary clarity and prudence in prayer and total submission to God.

We priests, we bishops bear a great responsibility. How our good example builds up good liturgical practice; how our carelessness, our routine or wrongdoing harms the Church and her Sacred Liturgy!

We priests must be worshippers first and foremost. Our people can see the difference between a priest who celebrates with faith and one who celebrates in a hurry, frequently looking at his watch, almost so as to say that he wants to get back to his pastoral work or to other engagements or to go to view his television as quickly as possible! Fathers, we can do no more important thing than celebrate the sacred mysteries: let us beware of the temptation of liturgical sloth or lukewarmness, because it is a temptation of the devil.

We must remember that we are not the authors of the liturgy, we are its humble ministers, subject to its discipline and laws. We are also responsible to form those who assist us in liturgical ministries in both the spirit and power of the liturgy and indeed its regulations. Sometimes I have seen priests step aside to allow extraordinary ministers distribute Holy Communion: this is wrong, it is a denial of the priestly ministry as well as a clericalisation of the laity. When this happens it is a sign that formation has gone very wrong, and that it needs to be corrected. (see: Mt 14:18-21). “Then, taking the five loaves… gave them to his disciples to set before the people… Those who ate of the loaves were five thousand men (Mk 6:30-44; Mt 14:18-21).

I have also seen priests, and bishops, vested to celebrate Holy Mass, take out telephones and cameras and use them in the Sacred Liturgy. This is a terrible indictment of what they believe to be the mission they assume when they put on the liturgical vestments, which clothe and transform us as an alter Christus—and much more, as ipse Christus, as Christ himself. To do this is a sacrilege. No bishop, priest or deacon vested for liturgical ministry or present in the sanctuary should be taking photographs, even at large-scale concelebrated Masses. That priests sadly often do this at such Masses, or talk with each other and sit casually, is a sign, I think, that we need urgently to rethink the appropriateness of these immense concelebrations, especially if they lead priests into this sort of scandalous behaviour that is so unworthy of the mystery being celebrated, or if the sheer size of these concelebrations leads to a risk of the profanation of the Blessed Eucharist.

It is equally a scandal and profanation for the lay faithful to take photographs during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. They should participate through prayer and not by spending their time taking photos!

I want to make an appeal to all priests. You may have read my article in L’Osservatore Romano one year ago (12 June 2015) or my interview with the journal Famille Chrétienne in May of this year. On both occasions I said that I believe that it is very important that we return as soon as possible to a common orientation, of priests and the faithful turned together in the same direction—Eastwards or at least towards the apse—to the Lord who comes, in those parts of the liturgical rites when we are addressing God. This practice is permitted by current liturgical legislation. It is perfectly legitimate in the modern rite. Indeed, I think it is a very important step in ensuring that in our celebrations the Lord is truly at the centre.

And so, dear Fathers, I humbly and fraternally ask you to implement this practice wherever possible, with prudence and with the necessary catechesis, certainly, but also with a pastor’s confidence that this is something good for the Church, something good for our people. Your own pastoral judgement will determine how and when this is possible, but perhaps beginning this on the first Sunday of Advent this year, when we attend ‘the Lord who will come’ and ‘who will not delay’ (see: Introit, Mass of Wednesday of the first week of Advent) may be a very good time to do this. Dear Fathers, we should listen again to the lament of God proclaimed by the prophet Jeremiah: “they have turned their backs to me and not their faces” (2:27). Let us turn again towards the Lord! Since the day of his Baptism, the Christian knows only one direction: the Orient. “You entered to confront your enemy, for you intended to renounce him to his face. You turned toward the East (ad Orientem), for one who renounces the devil turns towards Christ and fixes his gaze directly on Him” (From the beginning of the Treatise on the Mysteries by Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan).

I very humbly and fraternally would like to appeal also to my brother bishops: please lead your priests and people towards the Lord in this way, particularly at large celebrations in your dioceses and in your cathedral. Please form your seminarians in the reality that we are not called to the priesthood to be at the centre of liturgical worship ourselves, but to lead Christ’s faithful to him as fellow worshippers united in the one same act of adoration. Please facilitate this simple but profound reform in your dioceses, your cathedrals, your parishes and your seminaries.

We bishops have a great responsibility, and one day we shall have to answer to the Lord for our stewardship. We are the owners of nothing! Nothing belongs to us! As St Paul teaches, we are merely “the servants of Christ and the stewards of the mysteries of God. Now it is of course required of stewards that they be found trustworthy” (1 Cor. 4:1-2). We are responsible to ensure that the sacred realities of the liturgy are respected in our dioceses and that our priests and deacons not only observe the liturgical laws, but know the spirit and power of the liturgy from which they emerge. I was very encouraged to read the presentation on “The Bishop: Governor, Promoter and Guardian of the Liturgical Life of the Diocese” made to the 2013 Sacra Liturgia conference in Rome by Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland in Oregon in the USA, and I fraternally encourage my brother bishops to study his considerations carefully.

All liturgical ministers should make a examination of conscience periodically. For this I recommend part II of the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis of Benedict XVI (22 February 2007), “The Eucharist, a Mystery to be Celebrated.” It is almost ten years since this Exhortation was published as the collegial fruit of the 2005 Synod of Bishops. How much progress have we made in that time? What more do we need to do? We must ask ourselves these questions before the Lord, each of us according to our responsibility, and then do what we can and what we must to achieve the vision outlined by Pope Benedict.

At this point I repeat what I have said elsewhere, that Pope Francis has asked me to continue the extraordinary liturgical work Pope Benedict began (see: Message to Sacra Liturgia USA 2015, New York City). Just because we have a new pope does not mean that his predecessor’s vision is now invalid. On the contrary, as we know, our Holy Father Pope Francis has the greatest respect for the liturgical vision and measures Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI implemented in utter fidelity to the intentions and aims of the Council Fathers.

Before I conclude, please permit me to mention some other small ways which can also contribute to a more faithful implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. One is that we must sing the liturgy, we must sing the liturgical texts, respecting the liturgical traditions of the Church and rejoicing in the treasury of sacred music that is ours, most especially that music proper to the Roman rite, Gregorian chant. We must sing sacred liturgical music not merely religious music, or worse, profane songs.

We must get the right balance between the vernacular languages and the use of Latin in the liturgy. The Council never intended to insinuate that the Roman rite be exclusively celebrated in the vernacular. But it did intend to allow its increased use, particularly for the readings.

Today it should be possible, especially with modern means of printing, to facilitate comprehension by all when Latin is used, perhaps for the liturgy of the Eucharist, and of course this is particularly appropriate at international gatherings where the local vernacular is not understood by many. And naturally, when the vernacular is used, it must be a faithful translation of the original Latin, as Pope Francis recently affirmed to me.

We must ensure that adoration is at the heart of our liturgical celebrations. The heart of our liturgy is the adoration of God. Too often we do not move from celebration to adoration, but if we do not do that I worry that we may not have always participated in the liturgy fully, internally. Two bodily dispositions are helpful, indeed indispensible here. The first is silence. If I am never silent, if the liturgy gives me no space for silent prayer and contemplation, how can I adore Christ, how can I connect with him in my heart and soul? Silence is very important, and not only before and after the liturgy. It is the foundation of any deep spiritual life.

So too kneeling at the consecration (unless I am sick) is essential. In the West this is an act of bodily adoration that humbles us before our Lord and God. It is itself an act of prayer. Where kneeling and genuflection have disappeared from the liturgy, they need to be restored, in particular for our reception of our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion. Dear Fathers, where possible and with the pastoral prudence of which I spoke earlier, form your people in this beautiful act of worship and love. Let us kneel in adoration and love before the Eucharistic Lord once again! “Man is not fully man unless he falls on his knees before God to adore Him, to contemplate his dazzling sanctity and let himself be remodelled in his image and likeness” (R. Sarah, On the Road to Ninive, Paulines Publications Africa 2012, p.199).

In speaking of the reception of Holy Communion kneeling I would like to recall the 2002 letter of the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments which clarifies that “any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture [is] a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful” (Letter, 1 July 2002, Notitiae, n. 436, Nov-Dec 2002, p. 583).

Correctly vesting all the liturgical ministers in the sanctuary, including lectors, is also very important if such ministries are to be considered authentic and if they are to be exercised with the decorum due to the Sacred Liturgy—also if the ministers themselves are to show the correct reverence for God and for the mysteries they minister.

These are some suggestions: I am sure that many others could be made. I put them before you as possible ways of moving towards “the right way of celebrating the liturgy inwardly and outwardly,” which was of course the desire expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger at the beginning of his great work, The Spirit of the Liturgy. (Joseph Ratzinger, Theology of the Liturgy, Collected Works vol. 11, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2014, p. 4). I encourage you to do all that you can to realise this goal, which is utterly consistent with that of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

CONCLUSION

I began this address with a consideration of the teachings of the twentieth century popes on the Sacred Liturgy. The first of them, St Pius X, had the personal motto: instaurare omia in Christo—to restore all things in Christ. I suggest that we take these words and make them our own standard as we seek to work towards a more faithful implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, for if when we come to the Sacred Liturgy we enter into the mentality of Christ, if we put on Christ as we put on our baptismal robe or the vestments proper to our liturgical ministry, we cannot go far astray.

It is sadly true that in the decades since the Second Vatican Council, “alongside [the] lights, there are also shadows” in the Church’s liturgical life, as Saint John Paul II said in Ecclesia de Eucharistia (n.10). And it is our duty to address the causes of this. But it is a source of great hope and joy that today, as the twenty-first century proceeds, many faithful Catholics are convinced of the importance of the liturgy in the life of the Church and dedicate themselves to the liturgical apostolate, to what may be broadly called a new liturgical movement.

My brothers and sisters, I thank you for your commitment to the Sacred Liturgy. I encourage you and bless you in all your endeavours, great or small, to bring about “the right way of celebrating the liturgy inwardly and outwardly.” Persevere in this apostolate: the Church and the world needs you!

I ask you for your prayers for my particular ministry. Thank you. May God bless you.

This article was reproduced with the permission of Sacra Liturgia UK