More Blunt Talk regarding Summorum Pontificum

Once again Archbishop Ranjith has been blunt about those who have put roadblocks in the way of Pope Benedict's Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Posts and excellent commentary can be found on Rorate Caeli, Father Z and the New Liturgical Movement.

A few weeks ago Arcbbishop Ranjith speaking in Holland referred to this as the work of Satan. Expectation is ripe that we are not long from some kind of command from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei which has the Pope's authority to act competently in this matter.

Pope: those who teach the faith cannot behave like a clown playing a part

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – Those who teach the faith “cannot run the risk of appearing like a type of clown who is playing a part"

More good signs from Rome

Many of you are no doubt familiar with Sandro Magister's coverage of all good things Vaticano and may indeed have already read his latest.

For those of us interested in liturgy, Gregorian chant and the Traditional Latin Mass as well as the ongoing Reform of the Reform this is all important news.

A New Musical Season Opens at the Vatican – And Here's the Program

Pope Ratzinger seems to be stepping up the tempo. The curia will have a new office with authority in the field of sacred music. And the choir of the Sistine Chapel is getting a new director

by Sandro Magister

Read it here.

Bishops and the Devil!

Courtesy of Father Z!

“The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Liturgy of July 7^th 2007 is the fruit of a deep reflection by our Pope on the mission of the Church. It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Fathers says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.”...His Excellency Most Reverend Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

Hear about the Archbishop and more here!

Here you can find out what Bishop Trautman thinks... (assuming he does of course)

Now these are Singing Nuns! Another reason to thank Mother Angelica; God love you, Mother!

Irish beggars and Hindoos!

I guess George Brown must have really hated it when the Lebanese arrived in the "Belfast of North America."

Know your history!

Since I would not encourage you to give one penny to buy a copy of the left-liberal rag known as the Toronto Star...

Lynda Hurst
Feature writer

"... Irish beggars are to be met everywhere, and they are as ignorant and vicious as they are poor. They are lazy, improvident and unthankful; they fill our poorhouses and our prisons, and are as brutish in their superstition as Hindoos."

– Newspaper editor George Brown

Conservative Leader John Tory's provocative campaign call for public funding for all faith-based schools, or for none, has many Ontarians wondering how Roman Catholics came to have a separate system in the first place.

When and why did it happen?

Some may think the "right and privilege" began with the 1867 Constitution Act. But, in fact, separate schools pre-date Canada's Confederation. And they were neither a right nor a privilege, but a reflection of reality.

That reality was a grim one if you were Catholic in the Ontario of the 19th century, especially in York, as Toronto was then called.

Known as the "Belfast of North America," the city was populated mainly by Northern Irish and Scottish Protestants, who were appalled by the arrival of thousands of Irish Catholics forced out of Southern Ireland during the Great Famine of 1845 to 1849.

The quote at the beginning of the article, from the Globe newspaper, was typical of the unrelenting bigotry against the impoverished "Papist" immigrants, their large families and peasant ways, their "Mick superstitions" and, perhaps worst of all, lack of loyalty to the British Crown.

In 1844, Egerton Ryerson, an English-born Methodist, became chief superintendent of schools for Upper Canada (Ontario), charged with setting up a system of "common" or public schools. By public, read Protestant. A few Catholic schools run by the church and paid for by the community would be allowed on the side.

Ryerson promised that a public system would prevent a "pestilence of social insubordination and disorder" being spread by the "untaught and idle pauper immigration."

More to the point, it would also assimilate the Catholic minority into the prevailing Protestant culture.

Ryerson's plan was to split that minority. Those in the common schools would gradually be absorbed, while others, once they saw the poor quality of the education in their schools, would abandon them for the public system.

"That was his hope," says Michael Power, author of A Promise Fulfilled, a history of Catholic education in Ontario. "But that didn't happen."

The Catholic minority became more determined than ever to have their own schools.

While the first Catholic bishop of Toronto more or less went along with Ryerson's idea, the next one, Bishop Armand de Charbonnel, who arrived in 1850, was infuriated by the situation. He denounced the public/Protestant system as an "insult" to Catholics and began a 10-year battle for the same kind of separate schools in Ontario that were provided for the Protestant minority in Quebec.

In 1841, the Act of Union had combined Ontario and Quebec into the United Province of Canada, with one legislative assembly. Half the members were French-speaking Catholics.

Due solely to their support, two acts were passed, in 1855 and 1863, creating the basis for today's separate system.

They gave Ontario's religious minority the right to direct their property taxes to the separate schools and guaranteed Catholic trustees the same powers as their public system counterparts.

"It was a fair political trade-off," says Power. "The Protestant minority was recognized in Quebec, then the Catholic minority should also be in Ontario. They were the realities of the time."

The intent was to lessen widespread religious intolerance, he says, not to provide Catholic privilege here or Protestant privilege in Quebec. The issue remained incendiary, however, with Toronto's press never tiring of their crusade against Catholic school funding.

Canada, meanwhile, was moving step-by-step toward dominion status. In 1866, at the last conference before Confederation the following year, delegates from Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick met in London with British officials to draft the British North America Act (BNA).

A major bone of contention was education, with Catholic bishops lobbying for assurances that separate-school systems would be protected. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick opposed the idea, but a compromise was reached.

Section 93 of the BNA (subsequently known as the 1867 Constitution Act) would deal only with Ontario's and Quebec's religious minorities, and would be unrepealable. It gave them the constitutional right to separate school systems, though leaving it up to the provinces to work out the funding.

Quebec moved quickly, passing legislation in 1869 for corporate taxes to be divided between the public and separate systems, according to the number of children enrolled in each.

"Quebec was always generous to the religious minority," says Power. "There was no century of fuss in Quebec like in Ontario."

It was, indeed, a different story here. After Confederation, separate schools became a permanent feature of the educational landscape, but their funding would long remain a hugely contentious issue.

In 1936, Liberal Premier Mitch Hepburn, feeling disposed to do something, as he put it, for "those who eat fish on Friday," introduced a bill, similar to Quebec's, compelling corporations and public utilities to direct 40 per cent of their taxes to separate schools.

In a December by-election in East Hastings that year, anti-Catholic protests cost the Liberals a seat. The following year, Hepburn repealed the bill.

Only in 1964 did Catholic schools, at least up to Grade 10, become government-funded by then education minister Bill Davis. In 1984, when Davis was Premier, he controversially extended the funding to secondary schools.

Today, the Toronto Catholic District School Board alone has 168 elementary schools, 31 high schools and two combined primary and secondary schools.

With Canada's changing demographic face, a challenge was sooner or later inevitable. In 1996, a case before the Supreme Court argued that Catholic-only school funding contravened the 1982 Charter of Rights, which guarantees equal treatment for all, regardless of religion.

The court ruled against the application. It noted that the founders of the nation had used Section 93 of the 1867 Constitution act to make Confederation possible between two distinct groups, Protestants and Catholics.

Their specific rights were further underlined in Section 29 of the Charter, which states "nothing in this Charter abrogates...from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools."

That section, the court said, ensured "the complete and continuous enjoyment, by the religious minorities, of such rights as were originally granted."

In 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Commission decreed that Ontario's separate school system is discriminatory and called for the issue to be addressed within 90 days. Conservative Premier Mike Harris refused.

And now the issue is back once again.

"People have to read history," says Michael Power, "to understand why Ontario's Catholic schools have had the right to exist since before Confederation."

As for Quebec: In 1998, it decided to end the religious distinctions, but maintained two secular systems based on language; a public French one, a separate English one.

Religion, after all, hasn't been Canada's only historical dispute. Just, it seems, the longest-lasting one.

Vox Cantor of Springfield!

Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, P.S.S.

+ + +

Montreal, Aug. 27, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, the former president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, died in Montreal on August 25 at the age of 89.

Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, P.S.S.

In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem. Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cum Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.

Vatican issues 'recognitio' of Canadian Lectionary

Finally, it seems, Rome and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops have gotten past the impasse over the Canadian Lectionary. In 1992, the CCCB without approval of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued a new lectionary for Canada. The CCCB holds the worldwide rights to the New Revised Standard Version Bible liturgical lectionary. This translation has removed all archaic language and was overly gender-neutral and incluslivist beyond what was reasonable. It appears now that the CCCB has finally listened to Rome. It's about time!

Backgrounder on Canadian Lectionary

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has recently issued a decree known as a recognitio to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). This recognitio allows the Conference of Bishops to proceed with the publication of a revised Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities. It also concludes a long journey that began almost two decades ago.

In 1989, when the supply of lectionaries (based on the Jerusalem Bible text) was exhausted, the English Sector Commission for Liturgy of the CCCB was called upon to make a recommendation for the future. It rapidly concluded that the same service could not be given to the Church of the next generation by simply reprinting the existing books. Biblical scholarship had made considerable progress in the intervening period, and a whole new generation of translations had appeared. These had made great strides in more faithfully interpreting the original texts to English-speaking congregations. This was an important factor, but the Commission was also very much concerned to have the best possible text for liturgical proclamation, recognizing that a text designed to be proclaimed and heard demanded different qualities from one designed for private reading.

The Commission also wanted to be faithful to the wish of the Second Vatican Council that it would be preferable to have a version of Sacred Scripture which all Christians could use in common. To do this would be in keeping with the opening paragraph of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which saw as one of the principal goals of liturgical renewal “to nurture whatever can contribute to the unity of all who believe in Christ” (Vatican Council II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 1).

With these criteria in mind (suitability for public proclamation, fidelity to the original Scriptural text, possibility of ecumenical use), the Commission recommended the adoption of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible as the basis of the Canadian Lectionary. The Bishops of Canada voted in favour of this recommendation, and contractual agreements were made with the National Council of Churches in the USA which owns the copyright to the NRSV.

Thus began the long process of preparing a new lectionary for use in the public worship of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada. In 1992, the CCCB published the Sunday Lectionary based on the NRSV translation. The Lectionary for Weekdays followed in 1994. Subsequently the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments requested that the Canadian Conference undertake a further and more complete revision of the NRSV texts as used in its Lectionaries. The project also involved consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In May 2003, representatives from the CCCB and the Holy See met and agreed on a set of principles according to which the revision of the Lectionary would proceed. These principles, while giving preference to the NRSV text, made provision for changes deemed necessary for reasons of clarity of language and of conformity to the original Greek or Hebrew. When the original language was clearly intended to include both males and females, the translation was to be inclusive; when the original language was clearly meant to be gender specific, this was to be respected in the translation. The principles also addressed issues of oral quality and respect for the long-standing traditions of the Latin Church as well as the common prayer texts used by English-speaking Catholics. Once these principles were adopted, the work of revision began in earnest. It has now borne fruit in this new Lectionary which will become available for the proclamation of God’s Holy Word sometime in 2008.
24 August 2007

CCCB press release.
From the Adoremus Bulletin, July 2006.
From the Adoremus Bulletin, March 1996.
From AD2000, February 1995.

Before Lepanto came Otranto - Saint Antonio Primaldo

According to the Roman Martyrology, today, August 14, the Church remembers and venerates “... the approximately eight hundred martyrs of Otranto, in Puglia, pressured to renounce the faith after the crushing assault of the Ottoman soldiers. They were exhorted by blessed Antonio Primaldo, an elderly tailor, to persevere in Christ, and thus through decapitation they obtained the crown of martyrdom.”

Sandro Magister of Chiesa writes today about it and reprints and article from last year written by Alfredo Mantovano, a Catholic jurist, senator, and a son of the same land that produced those martyrs, born in southern Puglia, the region of Otranto.

I'll give you a little taste:

Eight hundred men, who five centuries ago suffered the treatment reserved in 2004 for the American antenna repairman Nick Berg, captured by Islamic terrorists in Iraq and killed to the cry of “Allah is great!” His executioner, after cutting his jugular, drew the blade around his neck until his head was detached, and then held this up as a trophy. Exactly as the Ottoman executioner did in 1480 to each of the eight hundred men from Otranto.

Now, read the rest of it here, be chilled and inspired all at the same time.

But in case you doubt the validity, here are their severed heads!

Catholic church important part of Canada's history

Canadian history and the Catholic Church are inexorably linked. While there is evidence that the Vikings landed in Newfoundland before 1000, and of course, their were indigenous peoples. Jacques Cartier first explored what came to be called the St. Lawrence River in 1534. The land of Canada was claimed in 1603 for God and France by Samuel de Champlain. New France, as Canada (meaning Village or Settlement in Iroquoian--Kanata) was then called quickly became inhabited with French, mainly then, from Brittany. Naturally, the Church came too.

A few decades later, St. Jean de Brebeuf and his companions who would later become known as the the North American Martyrs Isaac Jogues, Antoine Daniel, Gabriel Lalemant, Charles Garnier, Noel Chabanel (priests), and Rene Goupil and Jean Lalande (lay missionaries); along with their Huron (Wendat) family were savagely murdered by the barbaric Iroquois.

Eventually, of course, the British came; and following the War of Independence in the United States even more who proudly became known as the United Empire Loyalists came north. General James Wolfe's British army defeated General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm at Quebec City on the Plains of Abraham and history changed forever. But the British were fair. They did not subjugate the French of Quebec or what they called Lower Canada (Ontario was Upper Canada) but allowed the retention of their language, culture and system of law.
In the 1860's, conferences were held culminating at Government House in Charlottetown, where on July 1, 1867 Canada became a nation of the four colonies, Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The Articles of Confederation included something that is now again under pressure in Ontario and an anomaly to my American and other readers--the public funding of Catholic schools.

While it does seem to be an anomaly, it is our history. Lower Canada would only come in to "confederation" if its rights of religion, language, culture and law were safeguarded. George Etienne Cartier and others knew that in one nation they would always be a minority. Thus, their rights were guaranteed by Confederation and minority rights were enshrined. These minority rights also included the English Protestants in Quebec. Any public school system in Quebec would naturally be French and Catholic and the teachers nuns and priests. This was a fact of demographics. The English Protestants in Quebec were granted the right to "Separate Schools" that were "protestant." Of course, the quid pro quo of this extended throughout Canada and still remains in Ontario with the "separate" system being "Catholic." Therefore, today in Ontario we have four publicly-funded district school systems, Public (secular), French (secular), Catholic and French-language Catholic.

So where is this brief history session going?

Well, in October we have an election in Ontario. John Tory, the "leader" of the Progressive Conservatives (how's that for an oxymoron) in a blatant vote grab is proposing public-funding for "other" religions. (They would probably come administratively under the "public" boards, would use existing empty schools and must abide by provincial curriculum and certified teachers as the Catholic boards have always done.) On the surface this seems fair--certainly if Canada which is decidedly secular today it would not have a "Catholic" system--as it would acknowledge the changes in demographics and immigration since mainly 1970 and Pierre Elliot Trudeau's new Canada and "Just Society".

Yes, fair.

Except that what was not an issue now becomes an issue and gives the usual round of anti-Catholic bigots the opportunity to once again, bash the Catholic Church and publicly-funded Catholic education--as if Catholics don't pay taxes!

A cheap ploy on the part of John Tory, no doubt.

And a provocation to all the bigots--thanks, John!

Well yesterday, I was almost apoplectic when I found in my local community newspaper on my stoop, the following editorial. Now, I know it's only the Etobicoke Guardian--but it would be a great thing if its parent the Toronto Daily Star picked it up and ran it!

Catholic church important part of Canada's history

August 3, 2007 08:56 AM

This is what happens when a country fails to teach and remind its citizens of its history.

Canada, for those who don't know, was founded on two distinct cultural and religious divides: The Protestant, English-speaking and the Catholic, French speaking - each as an equal partner in the formation of a new nation.

From this unique history it shouldn't be surprising that one of the two - or both - of this exclusive club would at one time or another get some special treatment.

Catholic high schools in Ontario have been provincially funded since 1984, and the debate about the funding, although silent for a number of years, has been revisited after Conservative John Tory stepped up to say he would fund all religious schools if elected.

Since his announcement, opposition voices across the province have surfaced and had their prejudicial views printed regularly in various publications. Instead of attacking the actual funding of the Catholic schools, they attack the church's doctrine for what they perceive as discriminatory against women and gays - their attacks are out of ignorance.

A book was written four years ago: The New Anti Catholicism, The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Philip Jenkins and its premise is so true when applied to the GTA. Just imagine if any of the other religions in the province were to take the narrow-minded abuse absorbed by the Catholic Church.

There's a malicious faction out there that fails to recognize, either wilfully or through ignorance, the Catholic Church's significant historical presence in Canada and too many have difficulty accepting that it is the largest religion in Ontario and makes up 43 per cent of the nation's faith base.

This same group gives the impression to whoever will listen to them that public money goes flowing from provincial coffers into Catholic schools. Did they ever once think that Catholics also pay taxes? And since they are the majority, it's a pretty safe bet they're paying a substantial amount. In essence, Catholics are footing their own bill for education.

Here are some interesting numbers from the last census:

- Ontario's population: More than 12,000,000

- Catholic: Close to 4,000,000

- Protestant: Close to 4,000,000

- Muslim: 352,530

- Hindu: 217,555

- Jewish: 190,795

- Buddhist: 128,320

- Sikh: 104,785

The media in this province go out of their way to avoid offending all religions and races, but consistently forget about the Catholic Church. Whereas offences against Jews and Muslim are considered hate crimes, any knock against the church of Rome is considered fair game.

In this respect, the debate on funding religious schools should be kept to the balance sheet. The bigotry that overshadows it should be eliminated.

Raymond Arroyo in the Wall Street Journal

The Language of Tradition
The pope brings back the Latin Mass.
BY RAYMOND ARROYO
Friday, July 13, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

While drafting the decree that would return the old Latin mass to Catholic altars around the world, Pope Benedict XVI rightly predicted that reaction to his directive would range from "joyful acceptance to harsh opposition." But what he did not anticipate was the reaction of pundits and not a few clerics who have tried to dismiss the decree as a curiosity--a nonevent that is likely to have little effect beyond a few "ultraconservative" throwbacks. David Gibson, the author of "The Coming Catholic Church," says that the announcement is "much ado about nothing," and French Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard says that he doesn't "see a tsunami coming." But there is much more at play here than satiating the liturgical appetites of a few traditionalists.

The legislation (made public on Saturday) allows a pastor, on his own authority, to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, codified in the 16th century. Following the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the venerable Mass--in which cries of "sanctus, sanctus" rose like incense around the altar--fell out of practice. It was actively suppressed in some quarters--though never outlawed by the church. Pope John Paul II encouraged celebrations of the old rite in a declaration he issued in 1988, although the permission of the local bishop was required for a priest to offer it. This new legislation removes the middleman and puts the Latin Mass on a par with the widely celebrated vernacular Mass. In the words of the pope, these Masses constitute "two usages of the one Roman rite."

It is an open secret that many in the Roman Curia (including top Vatican officials) were opposed to the decree. Bishops in Germany, France and England grew angry over the prospect of reviving the old Mass. British Bishop Kieran Conry said that "any liberalization of the use of the [Latin] rite may prove seriously divisive. It could encourage those who want to turn back the clock throughout the church." According to several prelates I have spoken to, Bishop William Skylstad, the president of the American Bishops Conference, flatly told the pope that the U.S. bishops opposed any revival of the old rite. Why would the pope risk alienating so many of his own churchmen to appeal to a relatively small group of "disaffected" Catholics?

Reform of the liturgy has been a central concern for Pope Benedict for decades. Disgusted by some of the liturgical experimentation he witnessed in the past few decades, the pope suggested in a letter to the bishops (issued along with the decree) that these "arbitrary deformations of the liturgy" provoked his actions. There is little room for such tomfoolery in the old Mass, whose focus is on the Eucharist and not on the assembled or the celebrant.

During an interview I conducted with the pope in 2003, before his election, he said of the Latin Mass: "[What] was at one time holy for the church is always holy." He also spoke of the need to revive the "elements of Latin" to underscore the "universal dimension" of the Mass. Before Vatican II, a Mass celebrated in New York was identical to the Mass celebrated in Israel. That is not true today. For a faith that crosses borders and cultures, common language and practice in worship are essential signs of unity.

The pope's decree also underscores for Catholics the origins of the new Mass and the continuity of the two rites. Pope Benedict tells his bishops that as a result of his decree, "the celebration of [the vernacular Mass] will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage." By placing the two Masses in close proximity, the pope is hoping that the new Mass will take on the sensibilities of the old. The pope is betting that sacrality and reverence will win out over innovation and novelty, no matter which rite people choose.

There are inevitable problems: Many priests today simply don't know Latin. But they can learn it, or at least enough of it to get through the Mass. The movements of the traditional rite can also be gleaned from older clergy and from groups like the Fraternity of St. Peter that offer intensive instruction in the ritual. Just as the laity have grown accustomed to the incessant hand-holding and hand-shaking that make the Mass look like a hoe-down, they will learn to embrace the gestures of the old liturgy. Parishioners can actively follow the Mass using a Missal, which usually provides side-by-side translations. Listening with attention will be required. But who said worshiping God should be effortless?

Since Vatican II, generations of Catholics have participated in Masses and repeated actions that they have no historical appreciation or understanding of. This move by the pope will not only provoke a healthy conversation about why Catholics do what they do but ground them in the beauty and meaning of the liturgy, both new and old.

Mr. Arroyo is the author of "Mother Angelica" and news director of EWTN, a Catholic broadcasting network.

The Truth of Catholic Ecclesiology Answered!

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTSOF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

Introduction
The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).

The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS

First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council[1]. Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation"[3]. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention[4].

Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

Response: Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community"[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him"[7].

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?
Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"[11].

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"[12].

Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds"[13], they merit the title of "particular or local Churches"[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches[15].

"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"[16]. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches[17].

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history[18].

Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense[20].
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

William Cardinal Levada

Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.

Titular Archbishop of Sila

Secretary

[1] JOHN XXIII, Address of 11 October 1962: "…The Council…wishes to transmit Catholic doctrine, whole and entire, without alteration or deviation…But in the circumstances of our times it is necessary that Christian doctrine in its entirety, and with nothing taken away from it, is accepted with renewed enthusiasm, and serene and tranquil adherence… it is necessary that the very same doctrine be understood more widely and more profoundly as all those who sincerely adhere to the Christian, Catholic and Apostolic faith strongly desire …it is necessary that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which is owed the obedience of faith, be explored and expounded in the manner required by our times. The deposit of faith itself and the truths contained in our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are annunciated is another, provided that the same fundamental sense and meaning is maintained" : AAS 54 [1962] 791-792.
[2] Cf. PAUL VI, Address of 29 September 1963: AAS 55 [1963] 847-852.
[3] PAUL VI, Address of 21 November 1964: AAS 56 [1964] 1009-1010.
[4] The Council wished to express the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. This is clear from the discussions on the decree Unitatis redintegratio. The Schema of the Decree was proposed on the floor of the Council on 23.9.1964 with a Relatio (Act Syn III/II 296-344). The Secretariat for the Unity of Christians responded on 10.11.1964 to the suggestions sent by Bishops in the months that followed (Act Syn III/VII 11-49). Herewith are quoted four texts from this Expensio modorum concerning this first response.
A) [In Nr. 1 (Prooemium) Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 296, 3-6]
"Pag. 5, lin. 3-6: Videtur etiam Ecclesiam catholicam inter illas Communiones comprehendi, quod falsum esset.
R(espondetur): Hic tantum factum, prout ab omnibus conspicitur, describendum est. Postea clare affirmatur solam Ecclesiam catholicam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi" (Act Syn III/VII 12).
B) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 297-301]
"4 - Expressius dicatur unam solam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi; hanc esse Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam; omnes debere inquirere, ut eam cognoscant et ingrediantur ad salutem obtinendam...
R(espondetur): In toto textu sufficienter effertur, quod postulatur. Ex altera parte non est tacendum etiam in aliis communitatibus christianis inveniri veritates revelatas et elementa ecclesialia"(Act Syn III/VII 15). Cf. also ibid pt. 5.
C) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 296s]
"5 - Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam...
R(espondetur): Textus supponit doctrinam in constitutione ‘De Ecclesia’ expositam, ut pag. 5, lin. 24-25 affirmatur" (Act Syn III/VII 15). Thus the commission whose task it was to evaluate the responses to the Decree Unitatis redintegratio clearly expressed the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and its unicity, and understood this doctrine to be founded in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium.
D) [In Nr. 2 Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 297s]
"Pag. 6, lin. 1- 24: Clarius exprimatur unicitas Ecclesiae. Non sufficit inculcare, ut in textu fit, unitatem Ecclesiae.
R(espondetur): a) Ex toto textu clare apparet identificatio Ecclesiae Christi cum Ecclesia catholica, quamvis, ut oportet, efferantur elementa ecclesialia aliarum communitatum".
"Pag. 7, lin. 5: Ecclesia a successoribus Apostolorum cum Petri successore capite gubernata (cf. novum textum ad pag. 6, lin.33-34) explicite dicitur ‘unicus Dei grex’ et lin. 13 ‘una et unica Dei Ecclesia’ " (Act Syn III/VII).
The two expressions quoted are those of Unitatis redintegratio 2.5 e 3.1.
[5] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.1.
[6] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.2; 3.4; 3.5; 4.6.
[7] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen gentium, 8.2.
[8] Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1.1: AAS 65 [1973] 397; Declaration Dominus Iesus, 16.3: AAS 92 [2000-II] 757-758; Notification on the Book of Leonardo Boff, OFM, "Church: Charism and Power": AAS 77 [1985] 758-759.
[9] Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 11.3: AAS 87 [1995-II] 928.
[10] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.
[11] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.
[12] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.4.
[13] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.3; cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Communionis notio, 17.2: AAS, 85 [1993-II] 848.
[14] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1.
[15] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1; JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 56 f: AAS 87 [1995-II] 954 ff.
[16] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.1.
[17] Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Communionis notio, 17.3: AAS 85 [1993-II] 849.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.3.
[20] Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 17.2: AAS 92 [2000-II] 758.

Letter of the Holy Father to the Bishops of the world

Note: At this time, 6:06AM EDT the Motu Proprio is still not posted in English, only the letter. An "unofficial" translation of the Motu Proprio follows but all questions are addressed in the letter. Below is the Apostolic Letter to the Bishops from the Holy Father. After twice reading, I can only say that the Holy Father has profound judgement and wisdom. He is surely filled with the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Any emphasis in his letter is my own.

My dear Brother Bishops,

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question. This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the "legitimate aspirations" of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: "Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum").

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28).

I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.

Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007

Commentary

Father John Zuhlsdorf
The Hermeneutic of Continuity

APOSTOLIC LETTER
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

__________________


[ONLY LEGAL ARTICLES OFFICIALLY TRANSLATED]

Our predecessor John Paul II having already considered the insistent petitions of these faithful, having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters We establish the following:

Art. 1 The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the Lex orandi (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same Lex orandi, and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s Lex credendi (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents Quattuor abhinc annis and Ecclesia Dei, are substituted as follows:

Art. 2 In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

Art. 3 Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or “community” celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statutes.

Art. 4 Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may – observing all the norms of law – also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

Art. 5 § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

§ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.

§ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

§ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so [in good standing] and not juridically impeded.

§ 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6 In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

Art. 7 If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 § 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

Art. 8 A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” to obtain counsel and assistance.

Art. 9 § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§ 2 Clerics ordained “in sacris constitutis” may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

Art. 10 The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

Art. 11 The Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, erected by John Paul II in 1988, continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.

Art. 12 This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.

We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.

From Rome, at St. Peter's, 7 July 2007, third year of Our Pontificate.

A Bishop Speaks...

=
The Most Reverend Arthur Joseph Serratelli, S.T.D., S.S.L., D.D, is Bishop of the Diocese of Patterson, at New Jersey.

Methinks a Metropolitan See is not too distant in the future!

d

+++

d
In the 17th century, Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, rejected the philosophical traditions of Aristotle and the Scholastics. For Descartes, the very fact that we think is the proof that we exist. Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. He rejected the use of his senses as the basis for knowledge. In so doing, he wounded the unity between mind and body found in classical philosophy. Over the course of time, the wound has widened. The spiritual and the material have drifted apart. The sacred and the secular clearly divided.

Besides modern philosophy, other factors have contributed to the separation of the sacred from the secular. The scientific manipulation of human life in test tubes has lessened the respect for life itself. Life is no longer, for some, a sacred gift from God. Likewise, the divorce of human sexuality from procreation, coupled with the continual campaign to redefine marriage has helped to push God out of the intimacies of human life. Marriage is no longer recognized as a sacred institution given by God for a man and woman to join with Him in bringing new life into the world. The sacredness of even the natural order as coming from the hands of an all-wise God is thus lost.

The anti-authoritarian prejudice that we have inherited from the social revolution of the '60’s imprinted on many a deep mistrust not only of government but of Church. Some even reject the very idea of hierarchy (literally, “a sacred origin”) as a spiritual authority established by God. As a result, Church means, for some, simply the assembly of like-minded believers who organize themselves and make their own rules and dogmas. Thus, the Church’s role in the spiritual realm is greatly eclipsed.
\
On the first day of the new millennium, Prince Charles of England said, "In an age of secularism, I hope, with all my heart, in a new millennium we will rediscover a sense of the sacred in all that surrounds us." He said he hoped this would hold true whether in growing crops, raising livestock, building homes in the countryside, treating disease or educating the young. He recognized by his statement that we have lost a sense of the sacred.
g
Living in our world, we breathe the toxic air that surrounds us. Even within the most sacred precincts of the Church, we witness a loss of the sense of the sacred. With the enthusiasm that followed the Second Vatican Council, there was a well-intentioned effort to make the liturgy modern. It became commonplace to say that the liturgy had to be relevant to the worshipper. Old songs were jettisoned. The guitar replaced the organ. Some priests even began to walk down the road of liturgical innovation, only to discover it was a dead end. And all the while, the awareness of entering into something sacred that has been given to us from above and draws us out of ourselves and into the mystery of God was gone.

Teaching about the Mass began to emphasize the community. The Mass was seen as a community meal. It was something everyone did together. Lost was the notion of sacrifice. Lost the awesome mystery of the Eucharist as Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. The priest was no longer seen as specially consecrated. He was no different than the laity. With all of this, a profound loss of the sacred.

Not one factor can account for the decline in Mass attendance, Church marriages, baptisms and funerals in the last years. But most certainly, the loss of the sense of the sacred has had a major impact.

Walk into any church today before Mass and you will notice that the silence that should embrace those who stand in God’s House is gone. Even the Church is no longer a sacred place. Gathering for Mass sometimes becomes as noisy as gathering for any other social event. We may not have the ability to do much about the loss of the sacredness of life in the songs, videos and movies of our day. But, most assuredly, we can do much about helping one another recover the sacredness of God’s Presence in His Church.

d
On the first day of this millennium, the Prince of Wales struck a strong note of optimism for the recovery of the sacred. Paraphrasing Dante, he remarked: "The strongest desire of everything, and the one first implanted by nature, is to return to its source. And since God is the source of our souls and has made it alike unto Himself, therefore this soul desires above all things to return to Him." There is one place where we can begin to rediscover the sacred.

This is the first of a series of four articles that will explore the loss and the recovery of the sense of the sacred in Catholic life.

Mary and the Moslems by Bishop Fulton Sheen

e
The absolutely prophetic nature of this essay by the great communicator and servant in the Lord's vineyard, Bishop Fulton Sheen is profound and begs to be repeated again and again.

Remember when you are reading that Sheen wrote these words in 1950.

Emphasis throughout is mine: s

Mary and the Moslems

by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

J.M.J.

Moslemism is the only great post-Christian religion of the world. Because it had its origin in the seventh century under Mohammed, it was possible to unite within it some elements of Christianity and of Judaism.

Moslemism takes the doctrine of the unity of God, His Majesty, and His Creative Power, and uses it as a basis for the repudiation of Christ, the Son of God.

Misunderstanding the notion of the Trinity, Mohammed made Christ a prophet only.

The Catholic Church throughout Northern Africa was virtually destroyed by Moslem power and at the present time, the Moslems are beginning to rise again.

If Moslemism is a heresy, as Hilaire Belloc believes it to be, it is the only heresy that has never declined, either in numbers, or in the devotion of its followers.

The missionary effort of the Church toward this group has been, at least on the surface, a failure, for the Moslems are so far almost unconvertible. The reason is that for a follower of Mohammed to become a Christian is much like a Christian becoming a Jew. The Moslems believe that they have the final and definitive revelation of God to the world and that Christ was only a prophet announcing Mohammed, the last of God's real prophets.

Today, the hatred of the Moslem countries against the West is becoming hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return and, with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world power.

It is our firm belief that the fears some entertain concerning the Moslems are not to be realized, but that Moslemism, instead, will eventually be converted to Christianity — and in a way that even some of our missionaries never suspect.

It is our belief that this will happen not through the direct teaching of Christianity, but through a summoning of the Moslems to a veneration of the Mother of God.

This is the line of argument:

The Koran, which is the bible of the Moslems, has many passages concerning the Blessed Virgin. First, the Koran believes in her Immaculate Conception and in her Virgin Birth. The third chapter of the Koran places the history of Mary's family in a genealogy that goes back through Abraham, Noah, and Adam. When one compares the Koran's description of the birth of Mary with the apocryphal Gospel of the birth of Mary, one is tempted to believe that Mohammed very much depended upon the latter.

Both books describe the old age and the definite sterility of Anne, the mother of Mary. When, however, Anne conceives, the mother of Mary is made to say in the Koran: "O Lord, I vow and I consecrate to you what is already within me. Accept it
from me."

When Mary is born, her mother, Anne, says: "And I consecrate her with all of her posterity under thy protection, O Lord against Satan!

"The Koran has also verses on the Annunciation, Visitation, and nativity.

Angels are pictured as accompanying the Blessed Mother and saying, "O Mary, God has chosen you and purified you, and elected you above all the women of the earth."

In the nineteenth chapter of the Koran, there are forty-one verses on Jesus and
Mary. There is such a strong defense of the virginity of Mary here that the Koran, in the fourth book, attributes the condemnation of the Jews to their monstrous calumny against the Virgin Mary.

Mary, then, is for the Moslems the true 'Sayyida, or Lady. The only possible serious rival to her in their creed would be Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed himself.

However, after the death of Fatima, Mohammed wrote: "Thou shalt be the most
blessed of all the women in Paradise, after Mary."

In a variant of the text, Fatima is made to say, "I surpass all the women, except Mary."

This brings us to our second point, namely, why the Blessed Mother, in this twentieth century, should have revealed herself in the insignificant little village of Fatima, so that to all future generations she would be known as "Our Lady of Fatima.

"Nothing ever happens out of heaven except with a finesse of all details. I believe that the Blessed Virgin chose to be known as "Our Lady of Fatima" as a pledge and a sign of hope to the Moslem people, and as an assurance that they, who show her so much respect, will one day accept her Divine Son, too.

Evidence to support these views is found in the historical fact that the Moslems occupied Portugal for centuries. At the time when they were finally driven out, the last Moslem chief had a beautiful daughter by the name of Fatima.

A catholic boy fell in love with her, and for him she not only stayed behind when the Moslems left, but even embraced the Catholic faith. The young husband was so much in love with her that he changed the name of the town where he lived to Fatima. Thus, the very place where Our Lady appeared in 1917 bears a historical connection to Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed.

The final evidence of the relationship of Fatima to the Moslems is the enthusiastic reception that the Moslems in Africa and India and elsewhere gave to the Pilgrim statue of Our Lady of Fatima. Moslems attended the Catholic services in honor of Our Lady; they allowed religious processions and even prayers before their mosques; and in Mozambique the Moslems, who were unconverted, began to be Christian as soon as the statue of Our Lady of Fatima was erected.

Missionaries in the future will increasingly see that their apostolate among the Moslems will be successful in the measure that they preach Our Lady of Fatima. Because the Moslems have a devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and to develop that devotion with the full realization that Our Blessed Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her Divine Son.

As those who lose devotion to her lose belief in the Divinity of Christ, so those who
intensify devotion to her gradually acquire that belief.