Category — Mass & Liturgy

Stephanie Cranford, soprano, Robin Williams, piano, and Theodoric Nowak, reader, perform at St. Teresa’s Parish, St. John’s, Newfoundland.

I think the Pope has been reading my blog! Or not Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you and your loved ones!

Some commentators point out that the shepherds, the simple souls, were the first to come to Jesus in the manger and to encounter the Redeemer of the world. The wise men from the East, representing those with social standing and fame, arrived much later. The commentators go on to say: this is quite natural. The shepherds lived nearby. They only needed to “come over” (cf. Lk 2:15), as we do when we go to visit our neighbours. The wise men, however, lived far away. They had to undertake a long and arduous journey in order to arrive in Bethlehem. And they needed guidance and direction. Today too there are simple and lowly souls who live very close to the Lord. They are, so to speak, his neighbours and they can easily go to see him. But most of us in the world today live far from Jesus Christ, the incarnate God who came to dwell amongst us. We live our lives by philosophies, amid worldly affairs and occupations that totally absorb us and are a great distance from the manger. In all kinds of ways, God has to prod us and reach out to us again and again, so that we can manage to escape from the muddle of our thoughts and activities and discover the way that leads to him. But a path exists for all of us. The Lord provides everyone with tailor-made signals. He calls each one of us, so that we too can say: “Come on, ‘let us go over’ to Bethlehem to the God who has come to meet us. Yes indeed, God has set out towards us. Left to ourselves we could not reach him. The path is too much for our strength. But God has come down. He comes towards us. He has travelled the longer part of the journey. Now he invites us: come and see how much I love you. Come and see that I am here. Transeamus usque Bethlehem, the Latin Bible says. Let us go there! Let us surpass ourselves! Let us journey towards God in all sorts of ways: along our interior path towards him, but also along very concrete paths the Liturgy of the Church, the service of our neighbour, in whom Christ awaits us. - Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 Christmas Homily

The greatest gift, not just of a particular day, but of a lifetime, is to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. As Archbishop Burke observed, “the Body and Blood of Christ is a gift of God’s love to us. It is the greatest gift, a gift beyond our ability to describe … A gift is freely given out of love and that is what God is doing for us every time we are able to participate in Mass and approach to receive Holy Communion.”

On the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, the priest of Corpus Christi Parish in St. John’s, Newfoundland, recalled the reverence with which St. Justin, Martyr directed Christians of the early Church to receive Our Lord:

“Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is about to receive the king. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying after it, Amen. Give heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee gold dust, wouldest thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss? How much more cautiously then wilt thou observe that not a crumb falls from thee, of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?”

St. Justin’s image of the hands of a communicant as a throne for the King finds modern parallel in the memoirs of Francis Xavier Cardinal Thuan Van Nguyen. Persecuted for his loyalty to the Catholic Church, the Bishop spent more than 13 years of extreme sufferings in Communist prisons in Vietnam. During that time it was the Eucharist, reverently celebrated in the most horrendous of conditions, which sustained and strengthened him:

“When I was arrested, I had to leave immediately with empty hands. The next day, I was permitted to write to my people in order to ask for the most necessary things: clothes, toothpaste…I wrote, ‘Please send me a little wine as medicine for my stomachache.’ The faithful understood right away.

They sent me a small bottle of wine for Mass with a label that read, ‘medicine for stomachaches.’ They also sent some hosts, which they hid in a flashlight for protection against the humidity. The police asked me, ‘You have stomachaches? Yes. Here’s some medicine for you.’

I will never be able to express my great joy! Every day, with three drops of wine and a drop of water in the palm of my hand, I would celebrate Mass. This was my altar, and this was my cathedral! It was true medicine for soul and body, ‘Medicine of immortality, remedy so as not to die but to have life always in Jesus’, as St. Ignatius of Antioch says. Each time I celebrate the Mass, I had the opportunity to extend my hands and nail myself to the cross with Jesus, to drink with him the bitter chalice. Each day in reciting the words of consecration, I confirmed with all my heart and soul a new pact, and eternal pact between Jesus and me through his blood mixed with mine. Those were the most beautiful Masses of my life!”

In the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the Church states that sacred vessels “should be made from materials that are solid and that in the particular region are regarded as noble. The conference of bishops will be the judge in this matter. But preference is to be given to materials that do not break easily or become unusable.” (290) Through the Holy Eucharist, Cardinal Thuan Van Nguyen came to embody the sacred vessels of which he was deprived. In his weakness, Our Lord made him solid, noble and unbreakable. Despite his persecution, he was filled with life and love. This is the same grace that was offered to the early Church and is available to every one of us each time we attend Mass. Let us prepare ourselves to receive Jesus worthily and respectfully, becoming living tabernacles for Our Lord and King. It is through the Eucharist that we will find the strength to persevere.

SOURCES:

St. Justin, Martyr, “Ordo Romanus I” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.html).

“Francis Xavier Cardinal Thuan Van Nguyen: By His Own Accounts” in Vietnamese, compiled by Rev. Msgr. Tran Van Kha (California: Co So Hy Vong Publishers) at  p. 131.

If the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court is successful, half of the Catholics who have ever served on the Supreme Court will be serving simultaneously. Writing recently for First Things, Jordan Ballor noted that this zenith in Catholic representation contrasts the Protestant nadir – the retirement of David Souter will mean that John Paul Stevens will be the lone Protestant on the bench. Ballor raises this point to ask whether the shift in legal influence reflects an underlying deficiency in American Protestantism. Despite the considerable influence of Protestantism on the development of the western common law, contemporary Protestant conceptions of justice have severed theology and law, created a division between word and deed. He argues that Natural Law, which flourished in the first two centuries following the Reformation, has subsequently come to be perceived as the strict domain of Catholic moral and legal theorists. As a result, he laments that even when “Protestants are in the game, whether morally, legally, or politically, they are largely playing from behind. And Protestants will continue to do so until they begin again to draw from the same well of wisdom that once nourished centuries of Protestant moral, legal, and political thought: the natural law tradition.”

However, Catholics would be amiss in thinking that, unlike Protestants, they have got it right. Sotomayor’s nomination is a segue to Ballor’s exposition, but he realizes that “Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court is not […] an indictment of contemporary Protestant approaches to the law.” Not only is Sotomayor not known as an adherent to the Catholic-developed natural law tradition, she may oppose the Church’s clearly defined teaching on the inviolability of life from the time of conception. During a meeting with Sotomayor, Senator Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, purportedly asked the judicial nominee if the preborn have any rights. “I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it,” DeMint said in a statement. Unsurprisingly, reports have since appeared which claim to link Sotomayor with pro-abortion briefs. It would have been astounding if Obama’s nominee had been pro-life (one wouldn’t expect a Republican Administration nominee to be pro-abortion). When Obama was elected, the nomination of pro-abortion candidates was a fait accomplis. Catholics should now focus their attention not on Sotomayor’s limited words and alleged views, but remedying the underlying problems which they manifest: the Church’s failure to effectively disseminate its teachings at a foundational level.

If the reports prove accurate and Sotomayor is pro-abortion, she is only one of a myriad of such Catholics who have gained prominence under Obama. Other pro-abortion Catholics serving under the President include:

- Vice President Joe Biden, who incorrectly asserted in 2007 that his pro-abortion position is allowed by Church teaching, a remark that incited a barrage of rebukes from dozens of U.S. bishops.

- Obama appointed former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). While a state representative, Sebelius fought against laws that would provide parental notification of minors’ abortions, greater abortion waiting periods, and informed consent. As governor, Sebelius issued two vetoes against abortion facility regulation legislation, and one against a bill requiring explicit medical reasons for a late-term abortion.

- Obama appointed Leon Panetta as the head of the CIA. A practicing Catholic, Panetta amassed a strong pro-abortion as a California congressman. He co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act in 1990 and during his run as Clinton’s Chief of Staff supported the president’s veto of the partial-birth abortion ban.

The appointment of pro-abortion politicians to influential positions was the inevitable consequence of Obama’s election. However, when those appointed are self-purported Catholics, the non-Catholic public is left with uncertainty as to where the Church stands on abortion and how strongly it holds its ground. Poorly-catechised Catholics are left with the illusion that Catholicism and abortion are compatible. The Church needs to address the misperceptions which arise. Failure to evangelize from the pulpit is causing the doctrines of secularization and moral relativism to flourish.

It is a strong indictment of the Church when a practicing Catholic, particularly one so well educated, could even assert that she has never thought about the rights of the pre-born. True, there are many teachings of the Church which Catholics need to hear during Sunday homilies, but the protection of the pre-born has taken on special significance for the faithful. The Church has supported and entrenched the view that life begins at conception and must be defended. That Sotomayor can seriously claim that she has never thought about the rights of these children is evidence enough that many homilists have been negligent in their duty to teach and lead the faithful.

SOURCES:

Jordan Ballor, “Sotomayor, Catholic Supremacy, and Protestant Approaches to Law” First Things (Jun 11, 2009 )
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/6/sotomayor-roman-catholic-supre

Kathleen Gilbert, “Obama Selects Yet another Pro-Abortion “Catholic” for Leading Office” LifeSiteNews (January 6, 2009)
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09010603.html.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles. I entered the main doors, walked up a flight of stairs, down a hallway, and into the main part of the Church. I looked around for a second, desiring to kneel in the direction of the Eucharist reposed in the tabernacle. I turned to the left, then to the right. Dismayed as to where the tabernacle was located, I just kneeled reverently, knowing that it had to be somewhere within the Church.

At the time, I was perturbed. I was shocked to walk into a Catholic Cathedral and to discover that the tabernacle was so inconspicuously places that I couldn’t even find it. As it turns out, the designers of the Cathedral decided that they would keep the tabernacle in a separate chapel enclosed within one of the massive pillars on the side of the church. I wouldn’t have known it was there if I hadn’t asked. When I did walk inside the chapel, I discovered that it could only accommodate a handful of worshipers. The decor was drab and the room was Claustrophobic. “Does not Our Lord deserves better?”, I thought to myself.  ”Shouldn’t the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of our faith, be front and center in our Churches?” I felt cheated that I was unable to genuflect toward the Eucharist and pay proper reverence. As I left the Cathedral I was convinced that there was something wrong with the placement of the tabernacle.

Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, commented on the role of genuflection and the proper placement of the tabernacle during a keynote talk at Westminster Cathedral in 2006:

“As for those who may ignore the significance of this gesture [ie. genuflection], it may be well to remember that we are not pure spirits like the angels. A Protestant once was visiting a Catholic church in the company of a Catholic friend. They passed across the tabernacle area. The Protestant asked the Catholic what that box was and why a little lamp was burning near it. The Catholic explained that Jesus the Lord is present there. The Protestant then put the vital question: “If you believe that your Lord and God is here present, then why don’t you genuflect, even prostrate and crawl?” The superficial Catholic got the message. He genuflected. Everyone can thus see why the tabernacle of the Most Blessed Sacrament is located in a central or at least prominent place in our churches. It is the centre of our attention and prayer. The October 2005 Synod of Bishops emphasised this point (cf Prop., 6, 28, 34). In some of our churches some misguided person has relegated the tabernacle to an obscure section of the church. Sometimes it is even so difficult for a visitor to locate where the tabernacle is, that the visitor can say with truth with St Mary Magdalene: “They have taken my Lord, and I do not know where they laid him” (Jn 20:13).”

Cardinal Arinze’s statement that the tabernacle should be at “a central or at least prominent place in our churches” is not merely his personal opinion. His clearly based his statement on the Code of Canon Law, 1983:

“The tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in a church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer.” - Canon 938 §2

However, much to my surprise, it is worth noting that Canon 938 does not prohibit the use of Blessed Sacrament Chapels. Nor does it contradict Eucharisticum Mysterium, which states:

“The place in a church or oratory where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle should be truly prominent. It ought to be suitable for private prayer so that the faithful may easily and fruitfully, by private devotion also, continue to honor Our Lord in this sacrament. It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures” - “Sacred Congregation for Rites, Eucharisticum Mysterium, (1967) no. 53:

As Monsignor Peter J. Elliott points out, the Church not only permits Blessed Sacrament chapels, but even prefers then in certain circumstance:

“[…] as indicated in Eucharisticum Mysterium, no. 53, and its adapted repetition in 1973, there are situations when a Blessed Sacrament chapel is appropriate, for example, in a cathedral or major church frequented by crowds of tourists or pilgrims, such as the Roman basilicas, or where a safe place is required for perpetual adoration. The chapel may also be appropriate in the rare case where the tabernacle would seem very distant and inaccessible if placed at the back of a deep sanctuary. Moreover, the Ceremonial of Bishops, no. 49, citing a very ancient tradition, recommends a chapel for cathedrals.”

However, it is important to remember that Canon law always establishes what is licit and legal, but does not necessarily resolve what is best in any particular situation. It is important to remember St. Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 1:8-9 (RSV):

“Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient […]”.

The aim of our Church leaders must not be mere compliance with the law, for the law is laid down to constrain the disobedient. Their aim of all faithful leaders must be “love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.” (1 Timothy 1:5) The question is therefore not whether the placement of the tabernacle is licit, or even whether the tabernacle is in “a distinguished place … conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer.” The question is whether it is conspicuous so as to draw the faithful into the presence of God, adorned to instill reverence and awe, and conducive to inspired adoration of the One True God who is the center time, space and existence.

I am convinced that by this standard the Eucharistic Chapel at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels is horribly wanting. Our Lord does deserve better.

SOURCES:

Cardinal Arinze, “Keynote talk at Westminster Cathedral ‘Hearts and Minds’ event”, (London: Apr 3, 2006)

<http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_7__article_3628.htm>.

Monsignor Peter J. Elliott, “Where Should We Put the Tabernacle? A conspicuously located tabernacle is mandated by the liturgical norms and Canon Law” Vol 3 Adoremus No. 9 (Online Edition: Dec 1997/Jan 1998)

<http://www.adoremus.org/98-01_elliott.htm>.

If you didn’t know any better, you might be tempted to think it was a Catholic rapture: parishioners vanishing from Mass en masse. Each year it begins around May and its effects are evident come June. As the temperature outside increases, the number of congregants on succeeding Sundays steadily dwindles.  However, what’s actually happening is more of an exodus. As fall approaches you begin to see faces you haven’t seen in months.  By October the diaspora is almost over.  The weather is cooler and most parishioners having ceased their weekend forays to their cottages and cabins.

I used to think this exodus was a local phenomenon.  The city in which I work and go to mass, St. John’s, Newfoundland, has a population of little over 100,000 people. The greater St. John’s area, including surrounding communities, brings the population closer to 200,000.  That’s not a huge population, but it’s definitely urban. When you consider that the entire province has a population of only around 500,000 people and a land area that would rank fourth in size behind Alaska, Texas and California if it were on of the American states, you should not be surprised to know that Newfoundland is a cabin-lovers haven.  Land is affordable and almost everybody has some kind of get-away. Whether it is a “gravel-pit camper” or a decked-out cottage, most people have a home away from home.

Almost everybody, but not me. Removed from cabin-culture, it can be excused that I had always assumed that the St. John’s exodus was accompanied by an equal and corresponding surge in attendance in rural parishes. However, my naivety disappeared a few months ago. One of my friends was planning to visit her parents’ cabin over the weekend and explained to me that she wanted to go to an early Saturday evening Mass, as she wouldn’t be able to get to mass while she was there. “Well, where’s your mother going to go to Mass?” I asked. “Oh,” she replied, “my mother doesn’t go to Mass when she’s at the cabin”

Then only a few weeks ago I came to realize that this summer absence from Mass reached beyond Newfoundland. In the airport in St. Paul-Minneapolis, I picked up a t-shirt for my roommate: “The Ten Commandments, Minnesota style”. On the back, “Keep the Sabbath holy” was converted to “Go to church – even when yer up nort.”

This problem is apparently so wide-spread that even Pope Benedict had something to say about it during his most recent general audience at St. Peter’s Square. The pope remarked:

“While at work, with its frenetic rhythms, and during vacation, we have to reserve moments for God. [We have to] open our lives up to him, directing a thought to him, a reflection, a brief prayer.

“And above all, we mustn’t forget that Sunday is the day of Our Lord, the day of the liturgy, [the day] to perceive in the beauty of our churches, in the sacred music and in the Word of God, the same beauty of our God, allowing him to enter into our being.”

“Only in this way,” the Pontiff concluded, “is our life made great; it is truly made a life.”

The faithful must remember that Sunday is a holy day of obligation. Mass attendance is not optional:

Canon 1247

On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.

As you and your family prepare for your summer vacations, please don’t forget to heed the pope’s words. Rest in the Eucharist and your vacation time will be both more replenishing and rejuvenating.

Source:

Pope Bendict, “General Audience” (St. Peter’s Square: June 3, 2009) <available online: http://www.zenit.org/article-26080?l=english>.

The April 2009 edition of First Things magizine contains a book review of the late Richard John Neuhaus’ Ministering to Ministry: Freedom for Ministry. As described by Timothy George, “Neuhaus believed that the minister serves not only the local congregation but also the Church that is the Body of Christ, extended throughout time as well as space.” No where ought the transcendent nature of ministry be more obvious than in the liturgy, where the Catechism assures us that “to the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ.” (CCC 1370)

Sadly, I speculate that few priests speaking of ‘community’ consider the term in the richness which the liturgy effectuates. A few weeks ago I had the privilege to attend a funeral Mass, wonderfully celebrated and - I have no doubt - inspiring to all in attendance. Surprisingly, the entire congregation knelt from the Sanctus to the Great Amen, a practice all but unheard of in my Archdiocese. As I was leaving I cheerfully, albeit retrospectively cheekily, asked one of the concelebrants whether he was taking note of the kneeling. I attend his parish on occasion and its practice is to remain standing throughout the entire consecration. Understandably perturbed by my off-handed question, he rather abruptly informed me that I was aware that the proper liturgical norm is to adopt the posture of the congregation.

Neither was I aware nor am I convinced. “Liturgical diversity can be a source of enrichment, but it can also provoke tensions, mutual misunderstandings, and even schisms. In this matter it is clear that diversity must not damage unity. It must express only fidelity to the common faith, to the sacramental signs that the Church has received from Christ, and to hierarchical communion. Cultural adaptation also requires a conversion of heart and even, where necessary, a breaking with ancestral customs incompatible with the Catholic faith.” (CCC 1206) Is hierarchical communion present when two parishes within the same Archdiocese hold two liturgical practices for the proper posture of reverence during the consecration of the bread and wine, the time when the source and summit of our faith become manifest and present among us? In a liturgy which spans both time and space one’s emphasis on the local community must surely be exaggerated if it perceives a need for “cultural adaptation” and distinction for two Roman rite parishes within a 20 minute drive of each other.

Cathechism aside, his retort seems nothing short of illogical. Presuming - and I stand to be corrected - that the Church in Atlantic Canada proscribed kneeing as the proper posture from the Sanctus to the Memorial Acclamation (http://wcr.ab.ca/news/2008/1215/kneel121508.shtml), then how would such a discrepancy in parish practices have arisen? Thomists know that the creation of something new requires a first mover. If the posture proscribed in the G.I.R.M was that of kneeling, citing the practice of the community is a lame way to vindicate and perpetuate the initial disunity caused by some liturgical deviant long since forgotten.

As for decision to kneel before the Lord during the consecration, I believe I find myself in good company, joining Our Lady at the foot of the cross.

(Addendum: The “standing” parish is without kneelers. See Cardinal Arinze’s comments… “…. suppose it is open-air or it rained and it is muddy — you could not kneel there. But in the normal church it is possible to kneel … Where a particular person cannot kneel — you have arthritis or you are a mother holding a baby — that is understood.” - http://www.adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html)