Benedict XVI back home – two interesting photos

A couple of days ago Benedict XVI, Bishop Emeritus of Rome, returned to the Vatican. His dower house, Mater Ecclesiae, has been made ready for him, and Pope Francis toddled down from the big house to welcome him. Some have suggested that it is awkward for Pope Francis to have his predecessor living in the garden. If so, he hides it supremely well.

Perhaps I am reading too much into the angle of the photo, but Benedict seems much gaunter in the face, and slimmer in the body. Age seems suddenly to have hit him. Is he well? If not, is this possibly one small reason why no live coverage of his return was allowed by the Vatican? It adds an ominous undertone to a lovely picture.

Another picture has emerged from the day. It shows Pope Francis and Benedict at prayer in the dower house chapel shortly after Benedict’s arrival.

After struggling still to absorb the remarkable sight of two live popes at prayer together, my eye wandered around the chapel. It’s lovely.

The chapel is utterly simple and un-ostentatious (it is not only Pope Francis who can be so, though he certainly is). Yet, for all its simplicity, it is utterly Catholic. To my poorly trained eye, it looks as one might have hoped for a chapel to look in the wake of Vatican II’s document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctun Concilium. The focus is exclusively on the altar, the place of the Sacrifice, symbol of the Cross and of Christ himself. It is a symbolism boldly affirmed by the imposing yet elegant crucifix above the altar. The altar faces East, the direction of the rising sun and the Returning Son, the ancient and now so tragically neglected direction of Christian prayer and worship. The altar is dressed simply but worthily. Christ abides in the small tabernacle directly behind the altar. The big six are there too, appropriately sized.  The Paschal Candle is the only other object to compete with the altar for attention. However, one might reasonably suspect there is an image or statue of our Lady in there as well. St Joseph too? The Sacred Heart? St Benedict?! Hopefully we will be allowed a few more glimpses into the dower chapel.

It strikes me that this chapel is undoubtedly fitted out according to Benedict’s desires, shows Benedict’s commitment to the liturgical vision of Vatican II. That is not quite the same as a commitment to the liturgy as it is most often celebrated around the world. Cloistered with the Cross though he now is, Benedict still witnesses to the liturgy the Church treasures and deserves, even if only God and the angels might see it day by day.

Still, now we too have had a brief and privileged glimpse. It is enough, let us pray, to remind the Church of Benedict’s parting call to rediscover the “true Council”. Just as the Council’s decrees began with the liturgy, so may the Church look again to the Council’s liturgical reforms as they actually decreed them, and confirm whether it is these reforms we were given. If so, let us rejoice. If not, let us waste no time in reclaiming them.

May the Lord protect and defend Pope Francis and Benedict; may they both bear much fruit to God’s glory and our good.

The Tablet, and the English bishops: whom do they serve?

Last week in The Tablet the Letters pages were opened to what we were meant to see as a flood of complaints about the statement made by my confrère, Fr Paul Gunter OSB, in his capacity as Secretary of the English Bishops’ Department of Christian Life & Worship. Quoted in the previous edition of The Tablet, he had clarified the status of Pope Francis’ setting aside Church law on reserving the mandatum on Maundy Thursday to males, explaining the reasons behind the law and also why Pope Francis’ actions do not licence clergy to a similar liberty. So he was doing his job.

The gushing stream of outrage from The Tablet’s correspondents was directed at Fr Paul, as if he were imposing his personal opinion on us all. The usual arguments of an emotive, “pastoral” nature were employed. Now Fr Paul is well able to defend himself, and his terse but apposite response has been printed in the latest edition. But I felt it necessary for several reasons, to write in support of Fr Paul for doing his job. My letter has not been printed. I am not surprised. Here is what I wrote:

It seems to be the spirit of the time to return to old simplicities, and many of your correspondents last week (Letters, 20 April) seemed intent on reviving the ancient simplicity of slaying the bearer of unwelcome tidings.

In addressing a clarification issued by my confrère, Fr Paul Gunter OSB, in his capacity as Secretary of the Bishops’ Department for Christian Life & Worship, they gave the impression that they saw Fr Gunter as peddling his own personal opinions. In fact he was doing his official duty in reminding the clergy of the pertinent facts and liturgical laws as they stand with regard to the optional rite of mandatum on Maundy Thursday. These are laws which Fr Gunter has not the power to change. Those who object to them would better serve their cause, and charity, by addressing their complaints to the Holy See.

One point raised against him merits particular attention. Fr Jim Lawlor asks Fr Gunter why “restorationists” allow themselves to see as exemplary the liturgical practice of Benedict XVI, yet refuse to allow Pope Francis’ liturgical praxis to be likewise exemplary.

Surely the answer is clear with but a moment’s reflection. Benedict XVI retrieved legitimate elements of Catholic liturgical tradition to enrich the celebration of the modern liturgy in accord with its proper laws and theology. Pope Francis’ mandatum contravened both current liturgical law and its theology. As pope, Francis has the power to dispense himself from such laws ad hoc. This dispensation does not extend to the rest of the Church.

It may be that Pope Francis will change the theology and rubrics of the mandatum. Until he does, however, priests are obliged to celebrate the Church’s liturgy in its integrity and not their personal versions of it. To the best of my memory neither Vatican II, nor the subsequent reform of the liturgy, gave priests a mandate to do whatever they want in the liturgy.

What is of particular interest to me is that only one letter has been included in the latest Tablet on the subject, Fr Paul’s own reply in his official capacity. To the casual reader the impression might be that a flood of outrage against Fr Paul was received at The Tablet but only a few dribbles in support of him. This is a classic propaganda technique. This impression seems confirmed in another regard, namely Cardinal Schönborn’s recent talk in London, which has been mischievously used by some to convey the impression he supports same-sex civil unions. In last week’s Tablet there was only one letter printed that countered this impression, and that too was a letter from an official of Cardinal Schönborn’s Vienna diocese. Yet I know that at least one other letter was sent in the same vein, by a layman prominent in the City, who wrote in a balanced and reasoned way. His letter was not published.

So, the orthodox line is reduced to representation only by officials; the liberal line (to give it a generous label) is open to clergy and laity in any quantity. So, you can see the propaganda technique here: only officials push the Church’s line – the clergy and laity want change! One thing gives me some cheer though: the vast majority of active young Catholics do not read this quasi-Anglican journal. This does not augur well for the future of The Tablet. Its only hope is to come out of the closet and proclaim its allegiance to Anglicanism, which it serves so well. This should preserve its life a few more years.

The English bishops, too, seem to be serving something/someone other than the Church. It is reported that the General Secretary of the bishops’ conference, speaking on behalf of its president Archbishop Nichols, has assured lawmakers that in the case of a mixed royal marriage the children do not need to be brought up Catholic. Royals are dispensed where commoners are not. There is a long history of making concessions to royalty, so there is no real surprise here. It is being painted as a “pastoral” approach. But it raises two points in my mind:

(1) Do the bishops believe that Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life”; and if so, do they agree with Pope Francis when he preached a few days ago that Jesus cannot be found outside the Church? If so, how can they in good conscience deny royal children born to a Catholic parent the right to find Jesus in his Body the Church? Surely the only truly “pastoral” approach is one that leads to Jesus where he is truly to be found. Unless, of course, you believe that all the churches are basically equal…

(2) As a strategic tactic it is appallingly inept. Just when lawmakers are openly proposing the removal of the infamous bar on heirs to the throne marrying Catholics, the bishops are surrendering the obligation for a Catholic spouse to raise children as Catholics precisely at the moment when there is absolutely no need to do so. In fact, the Church should be keeping up the pressure by insisting on the obligation for Catholic royals just as it insists on it for every other Catholic. The bishops seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Tablet, the English bishops – whom do they serve? Jesus and his Church? That seems an increasingly difficult position to argue.

Liturgical darkness and light

Yesterday the Holy Father received in audience Archbishop Piero Marini, the previous papal MC (Marini primo). In 2007 after 2 years as Benedict XVI’s MC, and 18 years before that as Blessed John Paul II’s, Marini primo was moved to a curial position, and in his place a young Genovese monisgnore was appointed, Guido Marini (Marini secundo).

Marini primo was apt to dress Benedict XVI like this:

Whereas Marini secundo was apt to dress the pontiff like this:

‘Nuff said….

Needless to say, this audience Pope Francis granted to Marini primo yesterday has set liturgical teeth on edge. Given Pope Francis’ rather Jesuit, graceless approach to matters liturgical, is Marini secundo about to be removed and his predecessor restored? Marini primo is not a bad man to the best of my knowledge, but his taste leaves a lot to be desired. Moreover, his appointment might be counterproductive in light of Pope Francis’ agenda for simplicity and poverty. Marini primo was fond of spending money to make innovative liturgical fashion statements; Marini secundo was happy to look first to the papal sacristy and see what was already in stock. Anyway, time will tell…

There are many around who resent money being spent on the liturgy, with the inevitable refrain that it would be better spent on the poor. Apart from being a simplistic argument, and one that is not easily reconcilable with our Lord’s own words (Matt 26:6-13 comes to mind), it is often found to be contingent on the way it is being spent. If for modern vestments or architecture, then it can be praised as modern, part of adapting Christianity to the contemporary society and taste &c, and any objections quickly forestalled; but if for traditional-style vestments, buildings or fitments, then it becomes costly indulgence in nostalgia, “dressing up” &c. Monasteries are not immune from it. It is a mindset wholly alien to a true Christian spirit, and one certainly incomprehensible to eastern Christians, not least those who live in much poorer countries than ours. They tend to sacrifice much for the sake of their liturgies.

So when one finds an ecclesiastical craftsman who fosters intelligent liturgical tradition without stooping to nostalgia or kitsch, he (or she) is to be encouraged in every way possible. One such can be found at the Australian St Bede Studio. This is not mass produced material, but hand-crafted beauty. During the papal visit for Sydney’s World Youth Day in 2008 (where has the time gone?) Michael at the Studio was commissioned to make vestments for Pope Benedict’s visit, and this was the stunning result:

It is a traditional vestment which does not slavishly ape any one period. It is a full cut chasuble of unostentatious beauty. Its use of the tau cross I find particularly attractive. The Studio makes vestments of many styles, always with an eye to beauty, good taste and quality. If I had the money I would stock our meagre sacristy with Michael’s work without a second’s hesitation!

Yes, Michael also has a blog which is very informative. Rather than being a mere vehicle to advertise his work, it offers restrained analysis and background on styles of vestments and the ways in which they employed. Recently he has been looking briefly at Pope Francis’ liturgical style. It is a blog you should visit if you value the liturgy and its worthy celebration. You will discover that Michael is a true and serious student of liturgy. Go there now! The Saint Bede Studio Blog

Of Guns and Priests

A busy Christmas and New Year, new tasks taken on including redesigning the abbey’s website (a work still in progress but light is at the end of the tunnel), and a speechless-making horror at the gun debate currently recently re-ignited in the States have kept me from here. Mea culpa. If the forecast levels of snow actually come to pass here tomorrow, there may be more time than I had bargained for.

In fact, I did touch on the topic shortly after Sandy Hook. Still, the gun debate is a live (as in grenade) topic in Catholic circles as much as secular ones. While there is always need to beware of simplistic arguments in any direction, it is hard to see how difficult it is for so many Americans, not least conservative Catholic ones, to see the need for gun control. Dubious arguments about other countries with gun controls and higher rates of death by firearm do nothing to allay the disquiet. No serious advocate of gun control would argue that there is more to the issue than merely restricting access to firearms. Culture plays a significant role in a nation’s level of crime. Brazil is not open to direct and unconditional comparison with the USA. It has levels of urban poverty, as well as police and political corruption, that are in a league beyond that of America.

Likewise, to follow another line of argument, until recently the Swiss had an almost full armed population, which arose form the population at large forming a standing reserve militia to be activated in case of invasion. Firearm homicides there were stunningly low. So, the argument goes, the issue cannot be guns. Well, the Swiss did not go toting them around like trophies or fashion accessories. There were not rapid-fire assault rifles. They were locked up and never removed from their housing except for their regular maintenance. They were in case of foreign invasion and nothing else. The American gun lobbyists’ rhetoric is aimed at their own government, not foreign invaders. While the Swiss have a stable democracy which they trust, Americans have nothing like the same trust in their democratic government. Their mistrust leads them to carry guns. The logical conclusion if that way of proceeding does not bear thinking of… or maybe it does, now more than ever.

Another argument recently reissued by the lobbyists is self-defence: we need guns to protect ourselves from criminals (and others?). Given all the mass shootings in the USA, how is it that none of these have been prevented by gun-toting citizens? And who needs a military assault rifle to protect their families? For pity’s sake… If a man has a knife, he might kill one or two people before he is overpowered. If Adam Lanza had gone to Sandy Hook Elementary School with a knife, he would not have been able to kill 28 people. Instead he accessed the arsenal in his mother’s home and armed himself with a Bushmaster rapid-fire rifle, among other weapons. Most knives are designed to cut food or other objects; all guns are designed to kill. Is that not obvious?

America has many problems, as do all nations, but one almost unique to them is the sin of idolatry of the gun. Because the right to bear arms is in their constitution, they will and must exercise that right. Guns are a symbol of their freedom. Little matter that the constitution was written more than two centuries ago, and the authors also wanted to be able to raise a militia in case the redcoats returned. In other words, the second amendment seems very much to have been a product of its time, a time long past. It is particularly disturbing to see priests loudly opposing gun control, posting pictures of all sorts of weaponry that again raises the question of the American idolization of guns.

It’s not America… but similar scenes there are highly likely.

One fact stands out clearly, the overwhelming majority of fatal mass shootings have occurred in the USA, where a large majority of citizens can buy and use an assault rifle. School shootings seem to be a particular speciality in the States.

This map shows school shootings throughout the world since 1996, and can be accessed in full interactive detail here. I, for one, am happy to be living in a country with gun controls. It is hard to see how Catholics can be pro-life and also pro-guns. Maybe I am slow…

On a happier note, there is news that the Vatican will issue a new manual for priests, on how to say Mass properly. Alleluia! At last we have a single resource that all priests can refer to in order to guarantee that Mass is celebrated according to the mind of the Church rather than the individual priest’s. I wonder at the adequacy in some places of the preparation for celebrating Mass and the sacraments. This manual will help to remedy any inadequacies, it is to be hoped. Publication is due this summer. You can read more over here.

Portsmouth Diocese Roman Missal Survey

A while back I remember a copy of survey questions, emanating from the diocesan bureaucracy, floating around our common room. It struck me, even without reading it through, as an exercise either in futility, at best, or potentially wilful pot-stirring at worst. After that I gave no more thought to it.

Alas, its results have been released under the name of Paul Inwood. The report makes some desultory attempts at being impartial and even-handed but largely fails in that endeavour. It tends to confirm both my initial musings. You can read it here.

Others better than I can dissect it if they choose to do so. One section will suffice here. The section on the “language of the texts” (pp.9-11) has the equivalent of 8 paragraphs describing (in obsessive detail) negative comments, and the equivalent of 2 paragraphs at the end with the positive comments. It is clear that the editorial preference of this report favours the negative. This is confirmed in the conclusion when Mr Inwood opines:

The final outcome, however, as evidenced from the overall reactions summarised above, is clearly weighted towards the negative, with narrative reactions indicating just how bleak the landscape is for many. The majority are disappointed and hurt, even angry, and remarks about the deleterious effect the texts have had on their prayer lives are both moving and disturbing. At a more prosaic level, it also appears from many comments that church attendance is haemorrhaging as a result of the introduction of the new translation.

That something so tendentious and self-serving could come from a paid diocesan employee is food for thought. His conclusions may well be a justifiable assessment of the survey, and that might be telling in some circumstances. But wait… some context is enlightening.

At the outset Mr Inwood admits that “a significant number” of responses came from outside the boundaries of the diocese of Portsmouth, including some from overseas or from temporary visitors. That alone should make us wonder how representative this survey actually is of the true balance of opinion in the diocese. What rather confirms that it is most definitely not a reliable gauge of opinion within the diocese is in the very final paragraph (p.18):

Although the final number of responses received is not enormous (a total of 307), they appear to be broadly typical of what has been heard in parishes all over the country. It is to be hoped that the Bishops will indeed not file them away but take appropriate action.

The total number of responses is 307, out of a diocese with an estimated Catholic population of 192,000: that is 0.16%   It is freely admitted that of this paltry total of 307 responses, a “significant number” are from those not part of the Church in this diocese. Mr Inwood offers no evidence at all for his claim that the survey accords with national opinion. A survey with a greater number of respondents, and executed far more rigorously, while admittedly from the USA, tells a far different story to this one. The American context may involve factors lacking here, catechesis perhaps, but its results tend to demand that Mr Inwood provide evidence for his peremptory assessment of the national Catholic mood.

Ironically, given its insurmountable inadequacies, what Mr Inwood hopes to avoid is precisely the fate that this survey deserves: to be filed away. It hardly justifies any action by the bishops against the new Missal, even if there were action able to be taken. Liturgy and doctrine are not products of popular surveys at any time, and that such a deficient survey can be touted as justification for action against the 2011 Missal is the stuff of cloud-cuckoo land.

Neither Bishop Philip, the diocese nor the wider Church are in any way well served by this flawed survey and report, and at a time of financial constraint for the ordinary person one might ask if it was a judicious use of the faithful’s money.

Advent blessings.

Christ the King

Beset with laziness, I am copping out and posting my homily for today’s feast of Christ the King. This evening I read the Pope’s homily for today, and his conclusion was not so remote from mine; so I will attach it as food for meditation.

————————–

On 11 December 1925 Pope Pius XI published an encyclical entitled, Quas primas, instituting the feast of Christ the King. Though it appeared only 87 years ago, already the feast might seem incongruous in a world in which monarchs are an endangered species. We could of course more completely spiritualize the feast, honouring our Saviour as king of every human heart, looking forward to that day when he will reign in every human heart. That is something we are right to hope for and await. However, on reading again the encyclical Quas primas, we might find that it has relevance still.

Pius XI in explaining why he was introducing this feast at that time notes that throughout the Church’s history its doctrines and dogmas have initially been promulgated through the written word, accessible only to a tiny minority in the Church, its bishops and theologians. That the mysteries of the Church’s faith might reach all the people She employed liturgical feasts. Unlike documents which were circulated among the few, a liturgical feast day was an annual public proclamation of a particular mystery or teaching, a proclamation made not just in word but in ritual action before the face of all the Church.

New feasts were introduced to meet particular demands of the time. Thus in the early Church the feast days of martyrs were celebrated to emphasize the mystery and value of martyrdom to the many persecuted Christians who battled the temptation to deny Christ. Later, when reverence for the Blessed Sacrament grew tepid, the feast of Corpus Christi was introduced to remind the Church of its supreme and essential value. Later still, the feast of the Sacred Heart was introduced when the cold and dehumanizing influence of Jansenism was strong, with its puritanical diminishing of the fundamental mystery of God’s self-sacrificial love for humanity in Christ.

So, too, Pius XI was addressing a need by instituting the feast of Christ the King. Under the title of anti-clericalism, he identified secularism’s attempt to neuter Christianity, not least in Communism’s assault on the Church and its clergy. Behind this was the relativism which held any religion to be as good or bad as another, a product of human society rather than an expression of objective truth. When religion is seen as a human social construct it takes very little time at all for secular governments to see it as yet another tool for social control. Marx saw religion as the opium of the people, and his followers held that its dosage should be modified, or eliminated entirely, as the state saw need. This was the global context Pius XI faced: a world of atheistic, secular materialism.

Well Communism might be a discredited and largely abandoned system now. The great totalitarian regimes of the last century have mostly fallen or are poised to topple. Each year sees more countries moving towards democracy. This is not 1925. Yet, atheistic secular materialism is as strong as ever, even in democracies.

The Church has always prized the common good, but it never equates the common good with the will, or whims, of the majority. Democracy is no better guard against human self-centredness than any other system. In a society in which religion is more and more marginalized, with freedom of religion interpreted as merely freedom to worship, the shared self-interest of the majority increasingly triumphs over the moral truths on which good society is built. Even to wear a cross to work can be labelled as an attempt to force one’s religion on others, and if no one religion is better than another, then this is a grave affront to democracy. The accusations are shriller still if we dare to uphold publicly the Christian teaching on sexual morality, the nature of marriage or the dignity of all human life. Democracy at its best allows the individual to flourish free from the demands of a powerful minority. At its worst, it replaces what is right with what is merely popular, and too often what is popular has little to do with the common good and more to do with common self-interest.

We heard again today Christ’s words, “My kingship is not of this world”. But Christ’s kingdom is in this world, seeded in the Church. As Pius XI reiterated, Christ’s dominion is over not just the Church but all the world, including every government and society, whether they acknowledge him or not. Authority does not derive from people but from God. Christ assured Pilate that what little power he had, had been given him by the Father. So this feast reminds us who live in an ostensibly democratic society that we must exercise the democratic powers we have been given to ensure that Christian truth is heard, in season and out. In fact it is our duty, not just to God but to our neighbour. To adapt St Thomas More’s words, we must be society’s good servants, yes; but God’s first.

———————–

And a snippet from the Pope’s homily today at the Mass he concelebrated with the 6 new cardinals he created yesterday. What he says to them applies also to us whatever our state in life.

To you, dear and venerable Brother Cardinals – I think in particular of those created yesterday – is is entrusted this demanding responsibility: to bear witness to the kingdom of God, to the truth. This means working to bring out ever more clearly the priority of God and his will over the interests of the world and its powers. Become imitators of Jesus, who, before Pilate, in the humiliating scene described by the Gospel, manifested his glory: that of loving to the utmost, giving his own life for those whom he loves. This is the revelation of the kingdom of Jesus. And for this reason, with one heart and one soul, let us pray: Adveniat regnum tuum – Thy kingdom come. Amen.

A changing church – part 1

Over at the New Liturgical Movement one can find a rich resource for charting the changes that liturgical reform has brought to church architecture and liturgical vestments. Very few churches go through life without being modified in some way to meet new circumstances, or as a result of war or disaster. Some changes are good; some are woeful. Even Douai Abbey‘s relatively young and humble abbey church has seen a good deal of change, nearly all of it before my arrival here. Nevertheless our photo archive affords a glimpse into the changes that have been made to our church in its near 80 years of existence. It fascinated me, and perhaps some others will find the photos of interest. They will enlarge on being clicked.

Construction circa 1929, seen from the top floor of the then monastery block, the Ark, later to become a dormitory for the school. The church was designed by Arnold Crush (1885-1936), a convert from Birmingham, and a pupil of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott.

The west end of the abbey church under construction, with what was originally intended as the chapter house on the right. In the event it was for a time the novitiate, and now houses the sacristy, some offices and some guest rooms.

The abbey church in the year of its opening, 1933. The original plan was not completed due to lack of funds. It was to be a very large church in red-brick Decorated Gothic.  What was built here was meant to be the lady chapel and chancel. A temporary west end was built, which became semi-permanent, remaining 60 years. This represents only one-third of Crush’s design, as much as was ever built.

The abbey church and its ‘temporary’ west end, seen through the monastery gates. The Ark, at this time the monastery, can be seen at far right.

The interior of the abbey church prior to some minor renovation in 1952. The choir stalls are still in use, the eagle-ambo long gone, and the cantors’ stools, relics from old Douai, now elsewhere in the monastery. The seating for the boys seems rather attractive to me; if only we still had those seats.

A postcard view of the abbey church prior to 1952. Its current Grade II* listing is in no small way due to the church being an early example of the innovation of structural stone-clad concrete.

A closer view of the pre-1952 altar, with its lovely sanctuary carpet. The postcard entitles it the Lady Altar, a nod to the fact that this area, though used as the choir and sanctuary, was intended as the Lady Chapel. Until 1978 this was the principal altar of the church.

In what is now the Blessed Sacrament Chapel was the St Benedict Chapel. The simple yet elegant altar remains to this day, with fine lettering by Christopher Derrick. The squat candlesticks we still use today on the main altar.

Between the St Benedict Chapel and the entrance to the choir was the altar of St Joseph. Now long gone, victim to the reforming zeal for one altar only in a church, the area today is behind the new Tickell organ and is a chair store. The triptych is now rather awkwardly placed in the sacristy for the house chapel.

A poor quality photo showing the church arrayed for a Requiem offered on the death of Pope Pius XI in 1939. Note the unbleached candles and the papal tiara (made of cardboard I believe!).

In time the church was equipped with the first of its organs. Here is a shot with a young Fr Romuald (+2012 – RIP) tickling the keys.

Part 2 to come in due course. Pax!

The Assumption of Mary in a Nutshell – insights from Fulton Sheen

Today the Church honours the Blessed Virgin’s birth to the fullness of eternal life, body and soul. What she is now, at the Last Day we shall be too if we choose it. While not explicitly taught in scripture, it is consistent with scripture (much like the dogma of the Trinity). The Venerable Fulton Sheen offers some insights on the fittingness of the dogma of the Assumption, not using scripture directly but employing an argument suffused with scripture. It is a better thumbnail explanation of the Assumption than most.

In Mary there is a triple transition. In the Annunciation we pass from the holiness of the Old Testament to the holiness of Christ. At Pentecost we pass from the holiness, of the Historical Christ to the holiness of the Mystical Christ or His Body, which is the Church. Mary here receives the Spirit for a second time. The first overshadowing was to give birth to the Head of the Church; this second overshadowing is to give birth to His Body as she is in the midst of the Apostles abiding in prayer. The third transition is the Assumption, as she becomes the first human person to realize the historical destiny of the faithful as members of Christ’s Mystical Body, beyond time, beyond death, and beyond judgment.

Mary is always in the vanguard of humanity. She is compared to Wisdom, presiding at Creation; she is announced as the Woman who will conquer Satan, as the Virgin who will conceive. She becomes the first person since the Fall to have a unique and unrepeatable kind of union with God; she mothers the infant Christ in Bethlehem; she mothers the Mystical Christ at Jerusalem; and now, by her Assumption, she goes ahead like her Son to prepare a place for us. She participates in the glory of Her Son, reigns with Him, presides at His Side over the destinies of the Church in time, and intercedes for us, to Him, as He, in His turn, intercedes to the Heavenly Father.

Adam came before Eve chronologically. The new Adam, Christ, comes after the new Eve, Mary, chronologically, although existentially He preceded her as the Creator a creature. By stressing for the moment only the time element, Mary always seems to be the Advent of what is in store for man. She anticipates Christ for nine months, as she bears Heaven within her; she anticipates His Passion at Cana, and His Church at Pentecost. Now, in the last great Doctrine of the Assumption, she anticipates heavenly glory, and the definition comes at a time when men think of it least.

From The World’s First Love (1952)

Gaudeamus!

Missal Moments VIII – restoring an enriching ambiguity

One change in the Missal that has seems to have escaped notice is the endings to the prayers of the proper of the Mass (ie the collect, the offertory, the post-communion).

Previously, these prayers ended “We make this prayer through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who…” etc, or “We make this prayer through Christ our Lord”. Now the respective endings are “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, you Son, who…” or “Through Christ our Lord”. The we make this prayer has been cut.

The simple reason is that this phrase is not in the original Latin of the Missal, nor has it ever been in the Latin of any Roman Missal to the best of my knowledge. It appeared in the post-conciliar English translation, no doubt to smooth the transition from the body of the prayer to its concluding formula. Interestingly, in more than one place I have heard priests recite the body from the new Missal, and then re-insert we make this prayer into the conclusion. It seems they cannot bring themselves to make the adjustment to the seemingly stark Latinate conclusion.

Now it is not something to lose sleep over, but I do think that literally translating the Latin concluding formula, Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, filium tuum, qui… etc, and so omitting the supplied transitional phrase, is vastly to be preferred. Why?

Whether it is intended or not, there is in the new, more literal formula a fruitful ambiguity. One half of it is made clear by the now-obsolete expanded conclusion: the prayers we make to God are through the Son. He is the Mediator between God and his people. Yet mediation is a two-way street: the graces God gives in answer to the prayers of his people are likewise mediated through Christ. The now-obsolete formula excluded this rich ambiguity, and to our impoverishment. The new Missal allows the ambiguity to be heard, and to our enrichment.

An example is always helpful – a random choice. Let us take the post-communion prayer for the 14th Sunday in Ordinary Time:

Grant, we pray, O Lord,
that, having been replenished by such great gifts,
we may gain the prize of salvation
and never cease to praise you.
Through Christ our Lord.

There is a manifold ambiguity here. Our asking is through Christ; but also God’s granting it is through Christ, and the gaining of salvation is through Christ, and our ceaseless praising is through Christ. The old formula would have killed the beautiful ambiguity by restricting Christ’s mediation to the making of the prayer alone.

Of course, ambiguity in this context is not a case of either/or, but of and/and. It reveals the many layers of theological and spiritual meaning in the Missal’s prayers. There must be a more apt word than ambiguity, but it is late and I cannot think of it!

Lest it seem that I am being a little too fanciful about the presence of positive ambiguity or levels of meaning in the Missal’s texts and prayers, we need only look to Eucharistic Prayer III for another example of the new Missal restoring the ambiguity, or many-layered meaning, of a text. In the old Missal we would have found near the beginning of the Prayer:

… so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made…

Now it reads:

… so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice…

The change, faithful to the Latin of course, is not merely a case of adding some poetic élan to the prayer. It is ambiguous: it could refer to geography; it could also refer to chronology – that is, to space or time. In fact, both are envisaged and intended: the pure sacrifice is offered across the world and throughout time. The previous translation, without good reason, restricted it to a geographical reference. We lost something there, and now it is restored. Deo gratias.

The Sacred Heart and the human capacity to love

One solemnity not rearranged to fall on a Sunday is that of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. This once very popular devotion has declined in the last 50 or so years. There are probably many reasons, but certainly the cause lies in part to the often saccharine nature of the devotions in its practice and iconography, and to a notion that this devotion was so late in developing as to represent a deformed branch of the Catholic tree, especially as one is apparently hard-pressed to find any warrant for the devotion in Scripture. And, as has been said more than once, why adore a heart?

Of course we are not adoring the physical heart-flesh of Jesus (although, think about it…); we adore what it represents, namely the sacred humanity of our saviour, Jesus Christ. We cannot adore Jesus in his divinity without at the same time adoring his humanity, because they are indivisibly one in his sacred Person. The concept needs to be absorbed: we can actually adore humanity. (But only Christ’s humanity – sinless as she was, the humanity of the Virgin Mary is not to be adored, only honoured.) It is this sacred, adorable humanity of Jesus which the Sacred Heart symbolises and reminds us of. In this human heart of Jesus we find the true nature of divine love, and so too human love, for it is to the one love that we are called. It is the love that is expressed in self-sacrifice, and there is no greater love than this, for it is the love God showed for us in Christ.

If you are so minded you can read last year’s post on the Sacred Heart, which offers a fuller examination of the significance and enduring relevance of the Sacred Heart. Here, let it suffice to conclude with this word: the Sacred Heart of Jesus shows us the near-inexhaustible capacity of the human heart to love. The Sacred Heart teaches that obedience to the Father’s will, however great the suffering this entails, gains for us a grace that, if we use it, can enable us to love even unto to death, as Jesus did, and ultimately to be exalted by that same love, as Jesus was that first Easter Sunday. It shows us that, with grace, no love is beyond those who obey the Father, in union with Christ, and thereby empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.