The Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ - July 1

Some friends on a "social networking" site have decided to do another "topic" for posting on our blogs. This one is on:

"The Most Precious Blood of Jesus." 

Blood of Jesus, Precious Blood,

Praise to Thee for all Thou art;

Fount of grace, the Godhead's shrine,

Source of glory, Blood Divine.

Blood that angel hosts adore, 

Would that men would love Thee more,

Blood of Jesus, Sacred Blood,

Praise and thanks for all Thou art,

Home where all find peace and rest,

Be Thou known and loved and blest!

(Source: Saint Michael and the Angels, p. 10)

July 1st is the "Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ" in the usus antiquior. This means that if you were to go to a Mass in the  Extraordinary Form on July 1st, the Mass would be a Double First Class Feast and the priest would most likely be wearing RED Vestments, according to the Missale Romanum (Roman Missal) of 1962. What is somewhat ironic is the fact that the faithful do not actually receive the Blood of Christ, physically, at Masses celebrated in the usus antiquior. (Generally) 

When the Missale Romanum was re-issued following the changes instituted by Vatican II (1960's & 1970's) , the reception of Communion, sub utraque specie (under both species) became standard practice. Interestingly enough, in the new Missal and Calendar, the feast of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ was no longer present, and therefore omitted as a Feast. 

So the question becomes, Why have we removed the importance of the Precious Blood from our "collective conscience" and yet, place an importance on the Precious Blood in a physical way? Are the two mutually exclusive? Is the answer not that, the Precious Blood should be viewed as the symbol and physical presence of the debt paid by Christ for our sins? We have benefited so much from the Blood that Christ shed, that little else that is present to us on earth gives us so much freedom and grace.

The Blood of Christ is the saving life-source our redemption. It was shed out of NECESSITY, and as It flowed with the water from the side of Christ, our physiological needs were met as well as our Spiritual needs. Just as we need both water and blood internally, in a physiological sense, to survive, we likewise need the Water of Baptism and the Precious Blood of Christ, in a Spiritual Sense, to survive in eternal life with Him in Heaven. 

As Father Faber, author of Precious Blood, once wrote:

There is not a corner of God's creation, which is not more or less benefited by the Precious Blood.

The Introit of the Mass of the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ says:

Redemísti nos, Dómine, in sánguine tuo, ex omni tribu, et lingua, et pópulo, et natióne: et fecísti nos Deo nostro regnum. Ps. lxxxviii. 2. Misericórdias Dómini in aetérnum cantábo: in generatiónem et generatiónem annuntiábo veritátem tuam in ore meo. v. Glória Patri.

Thou hast redeemed us, O Lord, in Thy blood, out of every tribe and tongue, and people and nation, and hast made us to our God a kingdom. Ps. The mercies of the Lord I will sing for ever: I will show forth Thy truth with my mouth to generation and generation. v. Glory be.

Therefore, let us be mindful of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us show proper respect for It at Mass. If we receive, let us receive reverently, as we do the Bodily Eucharist of Christ. If we choose not to receive sub utraque specie let us still make some reverent sign of Adoration when we pass before It. For by His Most Precious Blood, He purchased for us everlasting life, because It takes away the sins of the world. It is therefore worthy to be praised and worshiped. 

(Source: St. Andrew Missal Project)

***UPDATE***:

For clarification purposes... and because of a comment from Mindyleigh, I have decided to post some relevant GIRM and Norms paragraphs for reference, regarding Communion under both species,

sub utraque specie:

Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America:
(Source: USCCB)

11. Since, however, by reason of the sign value, sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church.

17. From the first days of the Church's celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord's command to "take and eat . . . take and drink." The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.

18. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a "custom" of the Church. This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.

20. The Council's decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop's discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:

Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father's kingdom.

The General Instruction further states that "at the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly."

21. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church's immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience "a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet."

24. The General Instruction then indicates that:

the diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . . The diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason.

General Instruction of the Roman Missal
(Source: Chapter 4)

Communion under Both Kinds

281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father's Kingdom.

282. Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it are as fully aware as possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as set forth by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation.

They are to teach, furthermore, that the Church, in her stewardship of the Sacraments, has the power to set forth or alter whatever provisions, apart from the substance of the Sacraments, that she judges to be most conducive to the veneration of the Sacraments and the well-being of the recipients, in view of changing conditions, times, and places. At the same time, the faithful should be encouraged to seek to participate more eagerly in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.

283. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for

1. Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
2. The deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
3. Members of communities at the conventual Mass or "community" Mass, along with seminarians, and all who are engaged in a retreat or are taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.

The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite's becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.

In all that pertains to Communion under both kinds, the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America are to be followed (see nos. 27-54).

284. When Communion is distributed under both kinds,

The chalice is usually administered by a deacon or, when no deacon is present, by a priest, or even by a duly instituted acolyte or another extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, or by a member of the faithful who in case of necessity has been entrusted with this duty for a single occasion;

Whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ is consumed at the altar by the priest or the deacon or the duly instituted acolyte who ministered the chalice. The same then purifies, wipes, and arranges the sacred vessels in the usual way.
Any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should be granted their wish. 

285. For Communion under both kinds the following should be prepared:

If Communion from the chalice is carried out by communicants' drinking directly from the chalice, a chalice of a sufficiently large size or several chalices are prepared. Care should, however, be taken in planning lest beyond what is needed of the Blood of Christ remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration.

If Communion is carried out by intinction, the hosts should be neither too thin nor too small, but rather a little thicker than usual, so that after being dipped partly into the Blood of Christ they can still easily be distributed to each communicant.

286. If Communion of the Blood of Christ is carried out by communicants' drinking from the chalice, each communicant, after receiving the Body of Christ, moves and stands facing the minister of the chalice. The minister says, Sanguis Christi (The Blood of Christ), the communicant responds, Amen, and the minister hands over the chalice, which the communicant raises to his or her mouth. Each communicant drinks a little from the chalice, hands it back to the minister, and then withdraws; the minister wipes the rim of the chalice with the purificator.

287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.

First Communion

A group of children in our Parish will be receiving their First Communion on Sunday. Please keep them in your prayers. I am sure this will be the case in many churches in the next few weeks and months - so let us pray...

Hopefully this means more Warriors of God... and not lukewarm, "open minded" spiritualists. We cannot allow our faith to be watered down any more.

In that line of thinking... this photo makes me happy every time I see it:

The Importance of the Tabernacle, Rubrics and other Rituals - Bp. Jenky of Peoria

I must give a sword-tip to Father Z. on this story:

The following is a story from the Catholic Post which is the Catholic newspaper from the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois. The story explains a recent directive from Bishop Jenky regarding the placement of the Tabernacle in all Churches in the Diocese.

The following is the article from the Post [Emphasis and Comments]:

Saying that placing the Blessed Sacrament at the physical center of the church puts Christ at the center of our spiritual lives as well, Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, CSC, is asking that the tabernacle be located “in the direct center at the back of the sanctuary” in all churches and chapels in the Diocese of Peoria.
The bishop’s letter was issued on Holy Thursday, the day when Catholics around the world gather for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper and celebrate the institution of the Eucharist.
"A gift in the bishop’s letter is that he is giving people five years,” said Msgr. Stanley Deptula, director of the diocesan Office of Divine Worship. “Some of those parishes, for architectural, financial and catechetical reasons, will need to take some time to revisit the Eucharist. . . . They have five years to pray over this moment of renewal.”
Following is the full text of Bishop Jenky's directive:
------
April 1, 2010
+Holy Thursday
Dear Priests, Deacons, Religious and Faithful of the Diocese of Peoria,
The Mass, of course, is our most important act of worship -- the very source and summit of all we do as a Church. A profound reverence for the Reserved Sacrament is also intrinsically related to the Eucharistic liturgy.
The Reserved Sacrament must therefore be treated with the greatest possible respect, because at all times the Blessed Sacrament within that tabernacle, as in the Eucharistic Liturgy, is to be given that worship called latria, which is the adoration given to Almighty God. This intentional honor is incomparably greater than the reverence we give to sacramentals, sacred images, the Baptistry, the Holy Oils, or the Paschal Candle. The Sacrament is reserved not only so that the Eucharist can be brought to the dying and to those unable to attend Mass, but also as the heart and locus of a parish’s prayer and devotion. [The reservation of the Eucharist isn't a "garage" for "leftover" Host. It is the "heart and locus" of the Parish's prayer and devotion... in other words the essence or purpose of the Parish.]
There is a kind of bundle of rituals in our Catholic tradition with which we surround the Tabernacle. As we enter or leave the church, we bless ourselves with holy water, we genuflect towards the Tabernacle [This is important... we must know why we do what we do... when and if we do it.], we prepare for Mass or give thanks after Mass, consciously in the presence of the Most Blessed Sacrament. At prayers and devotions, during the Liturgy of the Hours, in any private prayer which takes place in a Catholic Church, we truly pray before the Risen Christ substantially and really present in the Sacrament reserved in the Tabernacle.
These core Catholic convictions and their architectural ramifications have recently been reaffirmed by many Bishops in the United States. As bishop of this Diocese, I am also convinced that where we place the Tabernacle -- and how we ritually reverence the Reserved Sacrament -- is as important for the continuing Eucharistic catechesis as is all our preaching and teaching. [What he means here is: the placement of the Tabernacle and how we treat it says something about us as individuals, a parish, and what we believe in teach in relation to the True Presence in the Eucharist. Actions speak louder than words.] With Jesus truly present in the Blessed Sacrament at the physical center of our places of worship, how can He not also more firmly become the center of our spiritual lives as well?
After consultation with my Presbyteral Council, [In other words this isn't simply the Charism or Catechsis of one man and his idea.] I am therefore asking that those few parish churches and chapels where the tabernacle is not in the direct center at the back of the sanctuary, that these spaces be redesigned in such a way that the Reserved Sacrament would be placed at the center. In some cases, this change can be easily achieved, but given financial and design restraints, plans for redesign may be submitted to the Office of Divine Worship at any time during the next five years. Monastic communities whose chapels are open to the faithful as
semi-public oratories may also request a dispensation from this general regulation according to the norms of their particular liturgical tradition. There may also be some very tiny chapels where a change could be impossible. These requests should be submitted in writing to my office.
I would also like to remind everyone in our Diocese that at Mass, in accord with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the Tabernacle should only be reverenced at the beginning and end of the liturgy or when the Sacrament is being taken from or returned to the Tabernacle. At all other moments and movements in the liturgy it is the Altar of Sacrifice that is to be reverenced.
It is my conviction that Eucharistic Liturgy and Eucharistic devotion are never in competition but rather inform and strengthen our shared worship and reverence. May all in our Diocese grow in greater love and appreciation of the gift of the Eucharist.


Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, C.S.C.
BISHOP OF PEORIA

This concept, this letter, this idea is very important to think about. Where else should the Tabernacle be? What does it matter where it is or how we treat it?

Let me explain my theory of the "House of Cards" as it relates to customs/traditions/rituals/beliefs/rubrics in our faith and the importance of following them. I will do this by showing how ignoring a small thing in one area can lead to big implications somewhere else.

What is the  first thing you see when you walk into a Church where the Tabernacle is not in the center? Maybe the Crucifix. So then where do you genuflect? Towards the Crucifix or towards the Tabernacle? Why do you genuflect? Let's say the Tabernacle is off to the side, and you genuflect anyways towards the Cross or the Altar? What does this say about your belief in the True Presence and the Eucharist? Now, what do you do before the reception of Communion? Do you bow or kneel? Why do you do this? What about AT reception? Do you take in your hand or mouth? Kneeling or standing? Again, why do you do what you do?

So you see, our posture in one instance bleeds into another. Sure moving the Tabernacle towards the center of the Church doesn't fix this automatically but it offers the opportunity at proper Catechesis. It allows the priest to explain WHY we do what we do, and what our focus should be - The True Presence of Christ.

This is true for other things as well. There MUST be a CONTINUITY in what we do in relation to the Rubrics of the Mass and the Catechism of our Liturgical Faith. We cannot pick and choose what we believe or do, simply because some appeal to us while others don't. On top of that, we must be INTENTIONAL  about why and what we do in relation to the important rituals and functions of our Faith. Bishop Jenky calls these things "Architectural Ramifications."

Body v. Bread

So Brian's post below made me think about the idea of the Real Presence of Christ, or TRUE PRESENCE as it is rightly called. It is a topic that I have posted about before, and one that I think needs more focus in Catholic circles outside of the Blog-world.

If you confine your reading and learning about the faith to solely Catholic blogs, you will find most traditional or orthodox Catholics truly believe in the True Presence. Outside of such cirlces the story is quite different. You may encounter many that SAY they believe in it, but like most things in life actions speak louder than words.

Now before I go on I must state that this is not a post about the way in which one MUST act, or some sort of test to determine a persons belief, it is instead a series of observations to illustrate a point. The point is that many Catholics do not act in a manner consistent with the belief in the True Presence. [I cannot judge what they truly believe, I can only make statements in regards to their actions.]

Much of the problem comes from the little things. Things like Brian mentioned, that when viewed in isolation aren't that big of a "problem" but when taken as a whole, are all bricks in a wall placed between us the people and the True Presence and the true belief in that presence. Again, certain things taken on their own really can be equivocated, explained, or rationalized, but taken in combination with other things it is difficult to know exactly who believes what about the True Presence.

Now, like many other posts, this one can easily come off as a 'Holier than thou' post. It isn't meant to be, in fact much of what I now believe and do in relation to the Eucharist comes from others and teachings that caused me pause and contemplation on what and how I believed in relation to the Eucharist. So, in that same same light I hope to help others examine their idea of the True Presence. [Again, there aren't "right" answers to many of these questions... and if there are, there may be more than one; it is meant as an exercise in contemplation not and indictment.]

One problem is simply the words we use to explain and describe certain things. Do we call them Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, or for brevity, do we shorten it to the improper: "Euchrastic Minister?" Even Wikipedia gets this right (Eucharistic Minister) yet most church bulletins get it wrong.

Here is the teachings of the Church on this issue, taken from Redemptionis Sacramentum: On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist:

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.[257]

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

[159.] It is never allowed for the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to delegate anyone else to administer the Eucharist, as for example a parent or spouse or child of the sick person who is the communicant.

[160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.

Now I know this is a lot of technical liturgical speak, but it is important. In fact, later in that same document, the gravity of importance placed on the Eucharist is explained as such:

Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

So it would appear that it is our duty individually and collectively to ensure proper reverence of the Eucharist. Does this answer Brian's question below? I think it does, but why then do we pause? The answer might be charity, it might be fear, and it might be the worry of spirtual pride or liturgical legalsim of which so many of us fear that we descend into. Yet, if we aren't looking out for the reverence and integrity of the Eucharist, are we not looking out for the integrity and reverence of the same Christ, our Lord? [Think about the qualifier word there: SAME].

If we are unwilling to change the words we use and the actions we take concerning the Eucharist, are we not negating the the belief of the True Presence? If the Eucharist is truly Christ, in our hearts and in our minds, should we not do everything in our power to respectfully honor and worship our Lord? There is a protocol for queens, kings, Popes, and presidents that we all administer reverence to, why not the Christ?

***UPDATE***:
Dan over at Gun Lovin' Alaskan Catholic Club has linked back to this post and offers up some of his own thoughts that further drive this message home! Plus... he has a post title that perfectly addresses the problem:
"Sorry kids, it isn't candy!"


-Posted by: Joe

'True Presence' in the Eucharist

What would you do if God came to your door?
How would you dress?
What posture would you take?

How do you act in the presence of Christ at Mass?
How do you act in the presence of the Eucharist?

Some complain that kneeling for Communion is "hard" - I do not agree. [I don't mean for those with disability, I mean in general.]
Some say that it is "icky" or "gross" - again, I do not agree.

Do you kneel for the Lord?
If not while you take him, at least after doing so, as some sign of humility?

How can we convince the world that CHRIST is truly present at Mass if we as Catholics do not ourselves believe?
How can we SHOW others that we believe?

So easy... a child can do it.

-Posted by: Joe

The Spirit of Liturgical Reform - Part II: Spirit of the Liturgy

This post is Part II of a series of posts that I am doing about a talk Msgr. Marini gave at the Clergy Conference in Rome. Read part one here. The original talk was posted on the New Liturgical Movement which you can read here. Some of the other parts of the talk were handled much more adeptly by Father Z. which you can read here - Liturgical Form and here - Active Participation. I decided to tackle the more basic aspects of the talk.

This particular portion of the talk focused on then Cardinal Ratzinger's book: The Spirit of the Liturgy. It is the overview of the Liturgy itself. In my original post I discussed how both the Holy Father and Msgr. Marini stress the importance of CONTINUITY. This begins to dive deeper into how the Liturgy exists in time and place and the importance of the Liturgy as it is intended to exist. 

My emphasis will be bold-underlined and my comments will be in red:

1. The Sacred Liturgy, God’s great gift to the Church.


We are all well aware how the second Vatican Council dedicated the entirety of its first document to the liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium. It was labeled as the Constitution on the sacred liturgy.


I wish to underline the term sacred in its application to the liturgy, because of its importance. As a matter of fact, the council Fathers intended in this way to reinforce the sacred character of the liturgy. [Sacred is important here. Obviously Msgr. Marini wants to call to our attention how important the council Fathers felt that calling the Liturgy Sacred was.]


What, then, do we mean by the sacred liturgy? The East would in this case speak of the divine dimension in the Liturgy, or, to be more precise, of that dimension which is not left to the arbitrary will of man, because it is a gift which comes from on high. [In other words the East views the Liturgy stemming FROM GOD TO man.] It refers, in other words, to the mystery of salvation in Christ, entrusted to the Church in order to make it available in every moment and in every place by means of the objective nature of the liturgical and sacramental rites. [Objective here means unalterable or truth. If Christ is Truth, then the Liturgy is an objective expression of the Mystery of Salvation that Truth gives to man.] This is a reality surpassing us, which is to be received as gift, and which must be allowed to transform us.[Here nothing is said of us giving to God, but instead we are to receive.] Indeed, the second Vatican Council affirms: “...every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others...” (Sacrosanctum concilium, n.7)


From this perspective it is not difficult to realise how far distant some modes of conduct are from the authentic spirit of the liturgy. [This statement expresses the idea that there are some modes of conduct which are in fact incompatible with the Liturgy. To use a term from my last post, there is NO CONTINUITY.] In fact, some individuals have managed to upset the liturgy of the church in various ways under the pretext of a wrongly devised creativity.  [Although in my last post I argued for continuity and understanding that both the new and old form of the Mass are valid and beautiful this sentence explains that not "anything" goes. There are in fact certain things which so disrupt the continuity of the Liturgy as to be wrong. This is usually done through creativity.] This was done on the grounds of adapting to the local situation and the needs of the community, thus appropriating the right to remove from, add to, or modify the liturgical rite in pursuit of subjective and emotional ends. For this, we priests are largely responsible. [Although he places blame on the priests, many congregations are to blame as well. Many times when reform to the proper liturgical practices were proposed in "creative" dioceses the people fought against the reform in an effort to retain their "emotionally comfortable" forms of worship.]


For this reason, already back in 2001, the former Cardinal Ratzinger asserted: “There is need of, at the very least, of a new liturgical awareness that might put a stop to the tendency to treat the liturgy as if it were an object open to manipulation. [READ: The Liturgy is NOT OPEN TO MANIPULATION.] We have reached the point where liturgical groups stitch together the Sunday liturgy on their own authority. The result is certainly the imaginative product of a group of able and skilled individuals. [This is important, especially for the Rad-Trads out there: the people who make these creative decisions are NOT bad people or even unskilled in what they do. It is their product which is wrong, not necessarily their hearts.] But in this way the space where one may encounter the “totally other” is reduced, in which the holy offers Himself as gift; what I come upon is only the skill of a group of people. It is then that we realise that we are looking for something else. It is too little, and at the same time, something different. The most important thing today is to acquire anew a respect for the liturgy, and an awareness that it is not open to manipulation. [Simply put, CONTINUITY.] To learn once again to recognise in its nature a living creation that grows and has been given as gift, through which we participate in the heavenly liturgy. To renounce seeking in it our own self-realisation in order to see a gift instead. [The Liturgy is ABOUT GOD, not about us.] This, I believe, is of primary importance: to overcome the temptation of a despotic behaviour, which conceives the liturgy as an object, the property of man, and to re-awaken the interior sense of the holy.” [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] (from ‘God and the World’; translation from the Italian)


To affirm, therefore, that the liturgy is sacred presupposes the fact that the liturgy does not exist subject to the sporadic modifications and arbitrary inventions of one individual or group. [Our job as individuals and lay people is to attend Liturgy and accept the gift, not to CREATE with the Liturgy.] The liturgy is not a closed circle in which we decide to meet, perhaps to encourage one another, to feel we are the protagonists of some feast. The liturgy is God’s summons to his people to be in His presence; it is the advent of God among us; it is God encountering us in this world.


A certain adaptation to particular local situations is foreseen and rightly so. The Missal itself indicates where adaptations may be made in some of its sections, yet only in these and not arbitrarily in others. [Local customs and adaptations are allowed and EVEN ENCOURAGE but in their RIGHTFUL PLACE.] The reason for this is important and it is good to reassert it: the liturgy is a gift which precedes us, a precious treasure which has been delivered by the age-old prayer of the Church, the place in which the faith has found its form in time and its expression in prayer. [GOD knows what he wants and what we need better than we do. We should accept this graciously and humbly.] It is not made available to us in order to be subjected to our personal interpretation; [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] rather, the liturgy is made available so as to be fully at the disposal of all, yesterday just as today and also tomorrow. “Our time, too,” wrote Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, “calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist.” (n. 52) [Continuity of the past, present, and future. Pope Benedict uses the term: "Once-FOR-All"]


In the brilliant Encyclical Mediator Dei, which is so often quoted in the constitution on the sacred Liturgy, Pope Pius XII defines the liturgy as “...the public worship... the worship rendered by the Mystical Body of Christ in the entirety of its Head and members.” (n. 20) As if to say, among other things, that in the liturgy, the Church “officially” identifies herself in the mystery of her union with Christ as spouse, and where she “officially” reveals herself. What casual folly it is indeed, to claim for ourselves the right to change in a subjective way the holy signs which time has sifted, through which the Church speaks about herself, her identity and her faith! [The Mass is not OUR expression to God. We must realize this. IT IS NOT OURS! The Mass is a gift and revelation to us.]


The people of God has a right that can never be ignored, in virtue of which, all must be allowed to approach what is not merely the poor fruit of human effort, but the work of God, and precisely because it is God’s work, a saving font of new life. [The Mass could not and cannot act in its Mystery if it were ours to manipulate. Instead, Salvation form in the Mass exists because it is wholly God.]


I wish to prolong my reflection a moment longer on this point, which, I can testify, is very dear to the Holy Father, by sharing with you a passage from Sacramentum Caritatis, the Apostolic Exhortation of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, written after the Synod on the Holy Eucharist. “Emphasising the importance of the ars celebrandi,” the Holy Father writes, “also leads to an appreciation of the value of the liturgical norms... The eucharistic celebration is enhanced when priests and liturgical leaders are committed to making known the current liturgical texts and norms... Perhaps we take it for granted that our ecclesial communities already know and appreciate these resources, but this is not always the case. These texts contain riches which have preserved and expressed the faith and experience of the People of God over its two-thousand-year history.” (n. 40) [Continuity and norms ENHANCE the Liturgy. It is the Continuity which creates the sharing and unification of the Body of Christ through time. Continuity leads to universality which is the essence of our faith. Universality can only be achieved through texts and forms.]

It is sometimes argued that the usus antiquior or Tridentine Rite is archaic and not relevant to modern people. Yet, this argue can not hold water when viewed from the proper perspective from which we should look at the Liturgy. There is little that I need to say that hasn't been said by Msgr. Marini. The Liturgy must be understood as a GIFT from GOD which should exist in its SACRED form. We as people should not take it upon ourselves to try and interpret or manipulate it to appease our desires or emotions. Instead we should accept the Mass as God's gift to His bride as a pure expression of His love and desire for the Salvation of man. It is a "once-for-all" Mystery that was given to us in order to grant us everlasting life with Him.

-Posted by: Joe