Yesterday (March 13) Benedict XVI released a 131 page apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist, Sacramentum Caritatis (“The Sacrament of Charity”). The document is the fruit of the Holy Father’s reflections on what was suggested by the bishops at the 2005 world Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist.

But will politicians and other public persons listen to the truth? The Holy Father states that reception of Holy Communion is not merely a private matter. It is a public witness that must be consistent with the profession of the whole truth of Christ:

Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defense from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature (83).

The Holy Father’s statement is consistent with his memo, promulgated while he was still prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, concerning “worthiness to receive Holy Communion.” Unfortunately, this memo was largely ignored by prelates and politicians during the 2004 election year. We shall see if these standards are upheld in 2008. At least one priest has decided enough is enough.

The post B-16 Drops the Bomb. . . Again first appeared on AirMaria.com.

Praise God, we have a Pope, not a politician!

Pope Benedict XVI is voicing his support for Mexican Bishops who are threatening excommunication of “leftist parliamentarians who last month voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City.?? [Reuters’ words in quotations.] [Note: It’s amazing that whenever the Church follows its own teachings and applies them, it’s big news.]

It appears our Pope is not walking away from the fight against godless Catholics and their mass media allies. If we all pitch in and say one Ave Maria, perhaps the Holy Father will head north and fly over Washington D.C. on route back to Rome.

Click here to read this encouraging Reuters news story.

The post B-16 Drops Bomb in Flight to Brazil first appeared on AirMaria.com.

A Letter to Our Holy Father

On June 3, 2006, His Eminence, Telesphore Cardinal Toppo of Ranchi, India was received in private audience by our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. During the audience, Cardinal Toppo formally presented to His Holiness a petition on behalf of approximately forty cardinals and bishops for the solemn papal definition of Our Lady’s doctrinal role as the Spiritual Mother of all Peoples under its three essential aspects as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate.

This monumental presentation to our Holy Father was the fruit of a 2005 international Marian symposium on Marian Coredemption which was conducted at Fatima and co-sponsored by six cardinals: their Eminences, Edouard Cardinal Gagnon of Canada; Telesphore Cardinal Toppo of India; Luis Cardinal Aponte Martínez of Puerto Rico; Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil of India; Ernesto Cardinal Corripio Ahumada of Mexico; and Ricardo Cardinal Vidal of the Philippines. The participating cardinals and bishops from all parts of the world discussed Our Lady’s privileges as the Co-redemptrix of humanity with and under Jesus Christ, our divine Redeemer, and her subsequent roles as Mediatrix of all graces and universal Advocate for humanity. The symposium led to the formulation and signing of a formal petition by the cardinals and bishops present to our Holy Father for the proposed fifth Marian dogma of Our Lady’s role as Spiritual Mother of all humanity and its three unique maternal functions.

The formal petition presented to Pope Benedict XVI in the name of these cardinals and bishops also specified that the solemn papal definition of Our Lady’s spiritual motherhood would constitute a significant contribution to the Church’s mission of ecumenism. The proposed papal definition would clearly specify on the highest level of Church authority, and with the greatest theological precision, that the human participation of Mary Most Holy in the work of Redemption is completely subordinate and dependent upon the role of Jesus Christ, who alone as our divine and human Redeemer could satisfy God’s infinite justice and remove the true burden of sin. This solemn declaration and clarification would end any mistaken notion that the title, “Co-redemptrix,?? which popes, saints, and Church writers have used for Our Lady for over 600 years, places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ, but would rather explain that it denotes her unique cooperation with Jesus in the work of Redemption.

Most recently, our beloved Holy Father beautifully articulated the Church doctrine of Our Lady’s Coredemption in his 2007 Post-Synodal Exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis. Here Pope Benedict quotes the Second Vatican Council’s principal teaching on Marian Coredemption (Lumen Gentium, 58), and confirms that Our Mother was “completely involved in the redemptive mission of Jesus??:

Mary is the great Believer who places herself confidently in God’s hands, abandoning herself to his will. (102) This mystery deepens as she becomes completely involved in the redemptive mission of Jesus. In the words of the Second Vatican Council, “the blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son until she stood at the Cross, in keeping with the divine plan (cf. Jn 19:25), suffering deeply with her only-begotten Son, associating herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of the victim who was born of her. Finally, she was given by the same Christ Jesus, dying on the Cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: “Woman, behold your Son.???? (103) From the Annunciation to the Cross, Mary is the one who received the Word, made flesh within her and then silenced in death. It is she, lastly, who took into her arms the lifeless body of the one who truly loved his own “to the end?? (Jn 13:1).

?? She is the Immaculata, who receives God’s gift unconditionally and is thus associated with his work of salvation (SC, 33).

Now, my friends in Jesus and Mary, it is our turn to manifest our love for our Mother and our desire to see her solemnly crowned on earth for what she is already crowned in heaven.

Following the example of these heroic Marian cardinals and bishops, let us manifest our minds and hearts to our Holy Father for the solemn papal definition of Our Lady’s spiritual motherhood as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate. Please send a brief personal note to Pope Benedict, expressing your own heartfelt desire for the fifth Marian Dogma of Mary as the Spiritual Mother of all peoples. Your personal petition can be in any form that you would like to express, from your heart, concerning your desire to have our Holy Father solemnly proclaim Our Lady as the world’s Spiritual Mother. The Holy Father’s postal address is:

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City
(Europe)

For those who do not feel comfortable writing their own brief note to Pope Benedict, they may use a lay version of the petition that the Fatima symposium cardinals and bishops presented to the Holy Father (which can be found at the end of this article). You may also obtain this petition form by downloading it from the home page of either http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/ or http://www.voxpopuli.org/.

During this upcoming Marian month of May, please consider dedicating the month, out of love for our common Mother, to the spreading of this movement for petitioning our Holy Father for the fifth Marian dogma to your friends, parishes, your prayer groups, or at any appropriate Eucharistic or Marian celebration.

My friends, our Holy Father is truly the Vicar of Jesus on earth. Open your hearts to him as a spiritual child. Let him know that you continue to pray and long for the Dogma of Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. If you previously signed a petition to Pope John Paul II, you can tell him that, too, but that you also want him to know personally that your desire for our Mother’s roles to be solemnly proclaimed remains present in your heart and in your prayers.

Without the papal definition of Mary as the Spiritual Mother of all Peoples, the Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate, the historic and universal Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary which was prophesied at Fatima, will not, we believe, take place. The Heavenly Father wills that his Immaculate Virgin Daughter be properly recognized by humanity for the role, which she played with Jesus in the Redemption??then, and only then, will the full bountiful graces of an “era of peace?? be granted to the world.

Moral degeneration, natural disaster, and regional war and terrorism increase in our world experience by the year. We need a new Pentecost. We need a new heavenly release of grace and peace. We need the peace that only God can provide for our world through our Lady. We need the Dogma.

Please take just a few minutes during the month of May which honors our Most Blessed Mother and send a petition, personal or form, to our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and with the utmost filial respect and love ask him to prayerfully consider proclaiming the fifth Marian Dogma for the sublime benefit of the Church and of the world, which remains in a state of serious crisis.

Spread the word of this international petition effort for Our Lady as the Holy Spirit leads you.

Thank you for your potential “fiat?? to Our Mother, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. May She forever keep you and yours tightly wrapped in her Immaculate mantle of grace, redemption, and peace.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Dr. Mark Miravalle
Professor of Theology and Mariology
Franciscan University of Steubenville
April 25, 2007
Feast of St. Mark

——————————————————————————————————–

To His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City State
(Europe)

The post News: A May Gift for Our Mother first appeared on AirMaria.com.

‘? are agitated. Watch out for flying liturgical pottery and levitating felt banners.

We would expect to have all the well-worn clichés about how the Pope wants to turn back the clock dragged out of the modernist arsenal. Of course, the National Catholic Reporter has not disappointed us.

In her July 10 column, From Where I Stand, Sister Joan Chittister, deigns to enlighten us about how the poor Holy Father has blundered again. And, of course, she has the appropriate credentials to do so, having gained notoriety over the years for her support of abortion rights, the ordination of women to the priesthood, and her general defiance of the Vatican.

Sister Joan begins with the obligatory defense of inclusive language, and the usual demeaning of the Church’s unbroken tradition concerning the persons of Blessed Trinity. For Sister Joan, to insist that there is a real difference between a father and a mother is dissent from the deposit of the feminist, and that won??t be tolerated.

Perhaps Sister Joan needs to be reminded that most women have no problem with the fatherhood of God, or with strong men. In fact, most are tired of emasculated men who allow themselves to have their lives run by women. The idea is simple: Fatherhood equals strength and compassion. Kind of like the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, the author of the motu proprio. He tells the truth out of love for the Bride (the Church) and for his children (all souls). Honest, telling the truth is a good thing. It is not a monstrous crime of the patriarchy.

Two Liturgical World Views?

On the contrary, says Sister Joan. According to her, the motu proprio will not “make reconciliation easier with women, who are now pointedly left out of the Eucharistic celebration entirely.”? Oh, really? Women have no place in the Tridentine liturgy? The motu proprio degrades lay participation in the Mass and reserves it to a “male cast”? of priests?

Yes, says Sister Joan. According to Sister, the Tridentine Rite conveys a “theology of transcendence”? as opposed to the “Vatican II liturgy”? which proposes a “theology of transformation.”? Sister says that the traditional rite is “certainly not a celebration of the entire community,” but merely “a priestly act, a private devotion of both priest and people.” It “makes the congregation, the laity, observers of the rite rather than participants in it.”

Sister also says that new liturgy has corrected all the old stuffiness:

The Vatican II liturgy, on the other hand, steeps a person in community, in social concern, in the hard, cold, clear reality of the present. The people and priest pray the Mass together, in common language, with a common theme. They interact with one another. They sing “a new church into being,?? non-sexist, inclusive, centered together in the Jesus who walked the dusty roads of Galilee curing the sick, raising the dead, talking to women and inviting the Christian community to do the same.

Two Aspects of the Priesthood of Christ

Since Sister is such an advocate of the “Vatican II liturgy”?–as well she should be–we would expect her words about how the traditional liturgy privatizes prayer, and excludes women and lay people, how it embodies a mistaken theology of transcendence to the prejudice of a theology of transformation, to be straight out of the Council documents. No? Let’s see.

A good place to start is to look at a basic distinction made by the Council between priest and laity, a distinction which Sister says is overblown in the traditional liturgy, to the point that the laity don’t count at all.

In fact, the Second Vatican Council teaches that both priest and laity possess the priestly office, though the priesthood of the ordained minister and the priesthood of the laity are clearly distinct. Here is what the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium says about these two aspects of the priesthood:

Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity (10).

So both the priesthood of the ordained minister and that of the baptized lay person are at the same time interrelated and yet different in both degree and essence. The ministerial priest teaches, rules and alone makes present the sacrifice, and in the person of Christ offers it to the Father. But the faithful (both men and women), “in virtue of their royal priesthood,??? join in the sacrifice by their reception of the Eucharist and the offering of their whole lives in union with the offering of Christ.

This idea is reinforced in several other places in Lumen Gentium. In Chapter 2, “The People of God”? we read the following:

The faithful indeed, by virtue of their royal priesthood, participate in the offering of the Eucharist. They exercise that priesthood, too, by the reception of the sacraments, prayer and thanksgiving, the witness of a holy life, abnegation and active charity (10).

Further in Chapter 4, “The Laity,??? we read:

To those whom he intimately joins to his life and mission he also gives a share in his priestly office, to offer spiritual worship for the glory of the Father and the salvation of man. . . For all their works, prayers and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body, if they are accomplished in the Spirit–indeed even the hardships of life if patiently borne–all these become “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”? (cf. Pet. 2:5). In the celebration of the Eucharist these may most fittingly be offered to the Father along with the body of the Lord (34).

But is this what Sister is advocating when she claims that in the “Vatican II liturgy”? the “people and priest pray the Mass together?”? Is the doctrine of the two aspects of the priesthood in Lumen Gentium a new invention, a reform of outmoded attitudes? And does the so called Tridentine Mass undermine royal priesthood of the faithful?

Liturgical Social Engineering

In fact, throughout the whole of Sister Joan Chittister’s article, she makes no mention of the baptismal priesthood, the sacrificial character of the Mass, nor does she seem even to be aware that the Mass has anything to do with eternal salvation. For her the mutual participation of both priest and laity in the Mass is an exercise of inclusivity: “They interact with one another. They sing “a new church into being,’ non-sexist, inclusive.”?

In traditional feminist fashion, Sister politicizes the liturgy in view of a special social agenda. This is an effective method of changing the way Catholics think, since the basic principle of liturgical life is lex orandi, lex credendi, “as the Church prays, so she believes.”? If Sister can just convince us that Vatican II makes the liturgy all about interaction and inclusivity, then we will all be duly prepared to receive from her hand the sacrament of social engineering.

That Sister makes a point of saying the traditional liturgy “privatizes the spiritual life”? is telling. It seems this is her belief, not because the traditional liturgy fails to unite priest and laity in the exercise of their respective aspects of the priestly office, but because it fails to become a tool in the hands of the feminist for social change. Only in her version of the “Vatican II liturgy,”? which, as we shall see, is not the liturgy mandated by the Second Vatican Council, can the lex orandi, lex credendi be subverted to her personal agenda.

Counciliar Invention?

Furthermore, the idea of priest and laity, joined in the sacrificial offering of the Mass, was not invented by the Second Vatican Council. The statement in Section 10 of Lumen Gentium, “But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist,”? references a section of Pius XI’s encyclical from 1928, Miserentissimus Redemptor, on reparation to the Sacred Heart:

Wherefore with this most august Eucharistic Sacrifice there ought to be joined an oblation both of the ministers and of all the faithful, so that they also may “present themselves living sacrifices, holy, pleasing unto God” (Rom. 12:1). Nay more, St. Cyprian does not hesitate to affirm that “the Lord’s sacrifice is not celebrated with legitimate sanctification, unless our oblation and sacrifice correspond to His passion” (Eph. 63). . . Nor do those only enjoy a participation in this mystic priesthood and in the office of satisfying and sacrificing, whom our Pontiff Christ Jesus uses as His ministers to offer up the clean oblation to God’s Name in every place from the rising of the sun to the going down (Mal. 1:11), but the whole Christian people rightly called by the Prince of the Apostles “a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9), ought to offer for sins both for itself and for all mankind (Cf. Heb. 5:3), in much the same manner as every priest and pontiff “taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God” (Heb. 5:1), (AAS 20 (1928) p.171. Cf. LG 10, note 3).

So the dynamic unity of priest and laity in the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass is nothing new, certainly nothing novel to the Second Vatican Council. Further, it is clear enough that Sister Joan Chittister is not actually supporting this teaching at all when she says that in the “Vatican II liturgy”? the “people and priest pray the Mass together.”? On the contrary, Sister is interested in using the liturgy for social change, something she will never find supported by the principles of Vatican II, governing the revision of the liturgy.

But what about the motu proprio and the permission for a wider use of the traditional liturgy, the Mass according to the Missal of John XXIII? Does the traditional Mass somehow undermine the participation of the laity in the Mass? Or what was the real purpose of Vatican II–according to the documents, not according to the “spirits”? of Vatican II–when it mandated the revision of the liturgy in view of “active participation??? in the liturgy.

Active Participation

The key to answering these questions is the concept of “active participation.”? The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium of the Second Vatican Council, links active participation to the baptismal priesthood:

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

Later in the same document the Council implies that the active roles in the liturgy are meant to promote active participation, and do not in themselves constitute it (30). In fact, the document of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Eucharisticum Mysterium, says that it is necessary for the faithful to understand the place they occupy in the “liturgical community”? in order for them to actively participate consciously and fruitfully. In the same section, in order to assure that this aim is accomplished, the Congregation mandates a full catechetical explanation of the royal priesthood of all the faithful (11).

Unfortunately the spirits of Vatican II rarely make the connection between active participation and the royal priesthood of the faithful. Most Catholics have to be taught to believe what that active participation means, as Sister says:

The people and priest pray the Mass together, in common language, with a common theme. They interact with one another. They sing “a new church into being,’ non-sexist, inclusive, centered together in the Jesus who walked the dusty roads of Galilee curing the sick, raising the dead, talking to women and inviting the Christian community to do the same.

They have not been told the truth about what the Council actually taught. Years ago, the author of the motu proprio, Cardinal Ratzinger as he was then called, answered questions about the liturgy:

. . .”?The Council rightly reminded us that that liturgy also means actio, something done, and it demanded that the faithful be guaranteed an actuosa participatio, and active participation.”? . . .

. . .”?The concept is no doubt correct. But the way it has been applied following the Council has exhibited a fatal narrowing of perspective. The impression arose that there was only “active participation?? when there was discernible external activity–speaking, singing, preaching, reading, shaking hands. It was forgotten that the Council also included silence under actuosa participatio, for silence facilitates a really deep, personal participation, allowing us to listen inwardly to the Lord’s word. Many liturgies lack all trace of this silence”? (Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985. 127).

But this is not only a question of whether liturgical action should be understood as to include both external activity and silence. In Latin both activa and actuosa mean “active;”? however, there is an important difference. Actuosa is more nuanced than activa, because it indicates both a greater intensity of activity and moral participation. The Council uses the term actuosa relative to active participation in the liturgy. Thus, when the Council uses the term “active participation”? it is talking about the royal priesthood of the faithful, by which all the baptized unite their whole lives in a contemplative manner to the sacrifice of Christ (Cf. Martin Edwards, “The Active Participation of the Faithful According to the Recent Magisterium,”? Ministerial and Common Priesthood in the Eucharistic Celebration: The Proceedings of the Fourth International Colloquium of Historical, Canonical and Theological Studies on the Roman Catholic Liturgy. London: CIEL UK, 1999. 122-126. Edwards quotes Cardinal Ratzinger as indicating that this term includes the notion of “a truly deep, personal participation,”? 125).

Ecclesiastical Ghettoism?

With the release of motu proprio, permission has been granted for Mass to be said either according to the Missal of Paul VI or the Missal of John XXIII, the former being the “ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer),”? and the latter being the extraordinary expression of the same (SP, art. 1). The question to be considered at this point is whether a broader use of the Missal of John XXIII will somehow undermine the active participation of lay faithful in the Mass, as Sister asserts. She fears that this permission will so narrow the Church’s view, that the move will result in “ecclesiastical ghettoism.”?

If one considers what active participation in the liturgy is, and how one engages in it, then it is not hard to see how Sisters “fears”? are baseless. But, then again, as shown above, for her active participation is not at all what the Council says it is.

As noted above, the Council meant to foster active participation by permitting the use of the vernacular, by providing dialogue for the faithful in response to the prayers of the Mass, and by providing opportunities for the faithful to participate in the action of the liturgy, such as in the offertory procession. However, the Council never said that any of this constitutes active participation. All the action is only meant to foster active participation, which again is the exercise of the baptismal priesthood.

When this is considered without prejudice, then it is not hard to see why those who are attracted to the Traditional Mass are in every way finding the means to enter into this active participation. It may not be for everyone, but it would be foolish to suggest that the traditional Roman Rite is somehow handicapped relative to the participation of the faithful in the sacrifice of Christ.

The paradoxical thing is that it is precisely the attitude of Sister Joan that continues to make the Traditional Mass more appealing, not only to people who remember it as the Mass of their youth, but also to young people who are experiencing it for the first time. Hardly ecclesiastical ghettoism, when the Traditional rite is found attractive by many of those who are eager to believe and live the Faith of the Church. On the other hand, these same people, convicted as they are by the Faith or intuitively attracted to it, instinctively know that “singing a new church into being”? is Modernist mumbo jumbo.

Unfortunately, more and more of those who have been attracted to the Traditional Mass are actually finding sanctuary there because they have been convinced that the Second Vatican Council was very much mistaken. They believe that the modernist indoctrination, exemplified by Sister’s liturgical theology, is the direct fruit of the Council’s teaching. Of course, it is not. But the misrepresentation has to end if the Novus Ordo is to be understood and celebrated correctly. The motu proprio will certainly be helpful in this regard.

The Novus Ordo can certainly be celebrated reverently and in a way that is consistent with the tradition. The changes mandated by the Council can foster active participation, and in fact do foster it, when the Missal of Paul VI is actually followed. (Say the black, do the red). One of the best ways for someone to sense a worthy and fruitful celebration of the new Mass is to have some awareness of the tradition as it has been embodied in the Traditional Roman Rite. The idea that the Mass of Vatican II is a part of a new liturgical and theological universe will be revealed as the bosh it is, as more and more people become familiar with the Traditional Rite.

Transcendence or Transformation?

A fair minded reading of the actual Council documents provides an easy refutation of that idea that the Traditional Mass excludes the laity from the liturgical life of the Church, but what about Sister’s assertion that it is anti-woman?

Remember the way Sister attached a “theology of transcendence”? to the Traditional Mass, and a “theology of transformation”? to the “Vatican II liturgy?”? If you are confused, read “transcendence”? as God-centered and “transformation”? as man (politically correct term: human person) centered. Transcendent liturgy is about adoration and praise of God. Transformative liturgy is about social engineering. That should clear everything up.

If you were confused don??t feel bad. The language is misleading. Don??t all of us who go to Mass want to be transformed in some way? Don??t we all want the Mass to lead to that transformation? Transcendence is only opposed to transformation if one has a view only to this world.

In fact, transcendence is anathema to the radical feminist, because it points to the Fatherhood and to the power of God. The traditional liturgy only alienates women if they have a problem with God the Father. That would only be the case, if they fail to accept that the transcendent God has willed to be present among us through His own humility, condescension and love.

Yes, humility and obedience are part and parcel of the royal priesthood–of all the faithful. The ordained minister, in respect to his own spiritual life has to practice it as well. In the end it is only sacrificial love, based on humility and obedience in imitation of Christ, which opens us up to the power of God and to the true needs of our neighbor.

To oppose transcendence and transformation in liturgical life is a perverse and false dichotomy. Christ makes all the baptized members of God’s family. The Church is the Bride of Christ, and we are being brought little by little, if we cooperate, into a union with God, that is best described as “spousal.”?

In his apostolic letter on the Dignity and Vocation of Women Mulieris Dignitatem, John Paul II linked the royal priesthood of the faithful to woman, because she is the sign by which we identify Christ’s spousal relationship with the Church. This he does in the context of commenting on Ephesians chapter 5 and Revelations 12, where he links the vocation of woman to Mary and the concept of spouse:

If the human being is entrusted by God to women in a particular way, does not this mean that Christ looks to them for the accomplishment of the “royal priesthood” (1 Pt 2:9), which is the treasure he has given to every individual? Christ, as the supreme and only priest of the New and Eternal Covenant, and as the Bridegroom of the Church, does not cease to submit this same inheritance to the Father through the Spirit, so that God may be “everything to everyone” (1 Cor. 15:28). Then the truth that “the greatest of these is love” (cf. 1 Cor. 13:13) will have its definitive fulfillment (30).

In the same encyclical the Pope says that the “very heart of the Paschal Mystery”? reveals “the spousal love of God.”? “The Eucharist is the Sacrament of our Redemption. It is the Sacrament of the Bridegroom and of the Bride.”? The Holy Father states clearly that in reserving priestly service to men, Jesus wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is “feminine” and what is “masculine”? (26). He did not, however, wish to exclude women from liturgical life, any more than He wished to exclude His very own Mother.

In other words, our active participation in the Mass, especially by way of Holy Communion, is exemplified by spousal-maternal love, realized most perfectly in the Blessed Virgin, and this love is the necessary coefficient to the ministerial priesthood. Can any of this be rationally construed as anti-woman? I am sorry for sister, and women like her, who seem to hate their own femininity, a gift of God, a sign and a service to the whole Church.

Liturgy in Heaven and on Earth

Sister Joan Chittister is not the least bit ashamed to prefer a more “earthbound”? liturgy to a heavenly one. And it is easy to understand why. In any case, this is another false dichotomy.

If one has no view to heaven, then one might as well be a pantheist. The liturgy as we know it, is in fact earthbound, in case you haven??t noticed. Just talk to a mother who has to wrangle with her two-year old in the church crying room, in case you have any doubt. However, it is liturgy precisely because the Sacrifice and Sacrament give us divine life and hope for eternity.

After forty years of liturgical pottery and felt banners, the smells and bells are just what the doctor ordered. The motu proprio is a good thing. It is even more necessary in the face of such persistent spirits of confusion.

UPDATE: pdf link to article

A quick fix for those who wanted to print or email the file.

?

The post Exorcising the Spirits of Confusion: Summorum Pontificum and the End of Liturgical Freelancing; UPDATE first appeared on AirMaria.com.

Ave Maria!

The AirMaria Crew (minus our Roving Reporter, friar Roderic) recently went to Cleveland, Ohio, for the Catholic Marketing Network’s Trade Show.

Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. was the principal celebrant for the Holy Mass on Thursday morning, and afterwards we caught up with him, to do a series of several parts, on the recent documents released by Pope Benedict XVI. Fr. Fessio is a close friend of the Holy Father and in this short series he explains these documents with insights from this unique perspective.

This first episode is an explanation of the very recent Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio”? Summorum Pontificum which our Holy Father, Pope Benedict released on 07/07/07 concerning the use of the Roman Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962.

We are very blessed to have Fr. Fessio agree to do this series for AirMaria and we hope you will not only enjoy it, but will gain a higher appreciation for how our Holy Father is guiding his flock with wisdom and prudence.

Ave Maria!

The post Video: Extra #1 – Fr Joseph Fessio, S.J.: Recent Vatican Documents #1: Motu Proprio first appeared on AirMaria.com.

Ave Maria!

In this segment of our mini series on Recent Vatican Documents Fr. Fessio discusses the Cover Letter to the “Motu Proprio” Summorum Pontificum. In this letter pope Benedict XVI addresses confusing and speculative reports in the media prior to the release of the Motu Proprio and strong reaction to these reports both positive and negative. The pope says the two fears that sparked most of the opposition are that allowing the old rite would:

1. be a detraction from the authority of the Second Vatican Council and its liturgical reform, and

2. lead to disarray and division in parish communities.

Come listen to Fr. Fessio as he covers the thoughts of the Holy Father in regard to these fears based on the Cover Letter but also based on his own familiarity with the pope’s position on the liturgy. In the process he covers the true nature of the reform of Vatican II, the bad interpretations of that reform (and resulting damage) and where the Holy Father wants the reform of the reform to go in relation to the old liturgy. Fr. Fessio also adds many of his own insights.

Ave Maria!

The post Video: Extra #2 – Fr Joseph Fessio, S.J.: Recent Vatican Docs #2: Cover Letter first appeared on AirMaria.com.

Ave Maria!

This second to last part of our series by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., on recent Vatican documents covers the document issued July 9th, two days after the Motu Proprio, by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith entitled “Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Document on the Church” i.e. Lumen Gentium

This document was issued by the Congregation to clarify some points of confusion since the close of the Second Vatican Council.

Questions addressed in this talk are:

• Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic Doctrine on the Church?”
• What is the meaning of the word ‘subsists’ in the statement the “Church … subsists in the Catholic Church” LG 8
• Why the word subsist was used instead of ‘is’.
• Why does the council use the word ‘churches’ for the separated Eastern Orthodox?
• Why does the Council not use the word Church for the Protestant communities?

In answer to the first question Fr. Fessio quotes Pope Paul VI, who after the Council says, “What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down the centuries, we also teach.”

AMEN!

Ave Maria!

The post Fr. Fessio – Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Document first appeared on AirMaria.com.

A liturgical new revolution.? The sixties in reverse.

Finally the 50 year lesson is being learned.

The next generation of choir directors have been charged by the Pope with the task of reintroducing beautiful music into church. If they succeed, then at long last the pews may begin to fill up again.

Groovy man.

The post Real Flower Power! first appeared on AirMaria.com.

The old guard is not happy.

The post Further Signs of the Liturgical Rennaisance first appeared on AirMaria.com.

In May of 2005 our Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner moderated at the Fatima Symposium on Marian Coredemption in which a number of prelates participated and delivered papers in support of the Fifth Marian Dogma. The Cardinal Cosponsors have just made a press release concerning a letter (Zenit) “sent to the world’s bishops and cardinals asking them to sign a petition that asks Benedict XVI to proclaim Mary as the Spiritual Mother of Humanity.”

The blogs are abuzz. The Catholic Cavemen note that the signatories are all from Asia or Latin America:

Did anyone else notice that all of the Cardinals listed were from Asia or Latin America? The only one listed from Europe/North America, is dead.

How prophetic.

On the otherhand, Schütz is not sure its a good idea for ecumenism. The usual objection:

Red rag to a bull, I reckon. Papal Marian definitions are not the way to advance ecumenism.

Catholic Answers has taken a poll. Democracy does not look good for the Dogma. Oh, wait. . . the Church is not a democracy. I know, I know, sensus fidelium. Wait again. . . perhaps the ayes will have it in the end. The votum has been distributed to all the bishops.

In any case, don’t forget that the sense of the faithful on the matter has a very significant affirmative voice. From a 2002 interview with Mark Miravalle:

How many Catholic faithful have petitioned for this dogma, and do you see any relevance for the proclamation of this Marian dogma with the present world situation?

Miravalle: In the last 10 years, about 7 million petitions from over 150 countries have been sent to the Holy See, along with the endorsements of 550 bishops and over 40 cardinals. This constitutes the largest petition drive per annum in the history of the Church.

I think it is interesting that the only arguments offered against the dogma are patently Protestant arguments. I would like to see someone argue from the Catholic theological tradition, not merely from an apologetical one, but a theological one, why this is a bad idea. I thought true ecumenism was oriented toward Our Lord’s wish that they all may be one. Seems that more often than not, Catholics try to achieve this by thinking like Protestants.

Here’s a test. Why don’t some of you who really think like Catholics, but who do not believe the dogma opportune, try to institute in your parishes a devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows? Start praying together the chaplet of the Seven Sorrows of Our Lady, with accompanying devotional meditations emphasizing the Coredemption. That way you can acknowledge the full truth about Our Lady, and pray for God’s will in the matter.

Mark Miravalle’s site on the subject of the Cardinals’ letter.

The post Fatima Symposium on Marian Coredemption Bears Fruit first appeared on AirMaria.com.