My how the Liturgy of the Hours for today is difficult

OK, so...

Today is Corpus Christi... except, in the U.S., it's not. Fine. I think that moving the Solemnity so people don't have to attend Mass more than once a week is a bad idea, but I'm not in charge and - since I don't have access to a 1962 Breviary and thus cannot choose to use the old calendar for today - I am obediently praying the Liturgy of the Hours for St. Barnabas the Apostle.

One problem. St. Barnabas is on the calendar as a memorial. Both the Ordinary of the Liturgy of the Hours, i.e. the rubrics written in red, and the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours say that memorials are not celebrated during the daytime hours of terce, sext and none (or midmorning, midday, and midafternoon prayer, if you prefer). But St. Barnabas has proper readings for terce, sext and none. So what's a man to do? Does the fact that he has proper readings trump the general norms? I am leaning towards not using the readings in his proper since both the rubrics and the praenotanda seem to say that I shouldn't.

Does anyone out there have a 2009 Ordo for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite in the United States? What does it say?

Ash Wednesday

"For dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return" (Genesis 3:19).

"Repent, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15).

Martin Mosebach on the Pope and the SSPX

Martin Mosebach, author of The Heresy of Formlessness, has an article on the Pope's lifting of the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops in the German magazine Der Spiegel. An English translation of the article has been posted on the blog of the Society of St. Hugh of Cluny and can be found here.

Hat tip: Fr. Zuhlsdorf, who offers his own comments of the article here.

Some scattered thoughts on metaphysics and the liturgy

Properly speaking, "accidental" does not mean "that which is unimportant." "Accidental" means "that which exists in and through another." There are many accidents that are the furthest thing from unimportant. Indeed, anything that does not possess its perfection by its very nature--i.e. anything that is not God--is made perfect through certain superadded accidents.

Man, for example, is oriented towards his perfection by the virtues and achieves his perfection only through grace. Yet both the virtues and grace are accidental to man, since man is still man without them and since they only exist in and through a rational nature.¹ From this we can see that something can be accidental while still being of the gravest importance.

Which brings me to the topic of the liturgy. These days people are apt to dismiss any criticism of certain aspects of the liturgy--e.g. the type of music used, the design of the vestments worn by the priest, the orientation of the priest with respect to the people &c.--as being criticisms of what is accidental to the liturgy. "The essence of the liturgy," they will say, "is the same as it ever was."

This I will in no way deny. The essence of the liturgy is the same as it ever was: the outpouring of grace for the unification of man with God through the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, true God and true man, Whose sacrifice and glorified body are again made present to us on the altar when a validly ordained priest says the words of consecration over the proper matter with the proper intention.² The essence of a mass celebrated by priests in a gulag or concentration camp, with matter scrounged from whatever sources are available and words half-remembered, is the same as the essence of a Pontifical High Mass celebrated by the Pope himself.

But bearing that in mind, we must ask ourselves what accidents are appropriate to the liturgy. What accidents are conducive to inculcating in those present at the mass an attitude conducive to the contemplation and love of God? For contemplation and love, I would argue, are the true and definitive acts of active participation.

It would take a wiser and holier man than I to answer this question. But, in closing, I will note one simple fact. Many wiser and holier men than I have lived and discussed these matters. And in so doing they bequeathed to the Church Her patrimony of sacred music, sacred vestments, sacred rites and forms &c. Perhaps we should listen to what they have to say?

¹ I say "in and through a rational nature" rather than "in and through man" because the angels also achieve their final end, viz. God, only through grace.

² I am not quoting this definition of the essence of the liturgy from any one source, but rather formulating it based upon my own understanding. Thus I am open to an correction or modification that it may need.

Briefly on beauty

The beautiful is as much a mode of being as the one, the true and the good. If unity, truth and goodness are objective, then so to is beauty. To say otherwise would be relativism.

St. Casimir

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine or to express his passion for justice, his exercise of moderation, his gift of prudence, his fundamental spiritual courage and stability, especially in a most permissive age, when men tended to be headstrong and by their very natures inclined to sin. ~from the Office of Readings on the Commemoration of St. Casimir (emphasis added)

St. Casimir was the son of the King of Poland. He died in 1484. Apparently he lived in "a most permissive age." Don't we all? Perhaps the best thing to do is to follow St. Casimir's example and develop a strong devotion to the Holy Eucharist and the Virgin Mary.

Gracious God and Father, like St. Casimir, we too live in a most permissive age. Grant us that we may follow his example in resisting the spirit of the age and that we may instead be filled with the Holy Spirit. We ask this through Jesus Christ, Your Son, Who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen.

Human Flourishing and the Liturgy

The topic of this essay will be human flourishing and its relationship to the liturgy. It will be philosophical insofar as I will use certain insights gained from philosophy. It will be theological insofar as any discussion of the liturgy must take into account theology and Divine Revelation. I will begin by defining the term “human flourishing.” I will then examine it in terms of both philosophy and theology. Finally, I will try to use the concept of human flourishing to shed some light on the true purpose of the liturgy.

Let us first define what we mean when we speak of “human flourishing.” Something is said to flourish when it grows, thrives, and prospers. These words all imply life and action. But we do not say a thing flourishes when it performs just any action. Rather, we judge a thing's flourishing in terms of what it is, in terms of its form. Flourishing, then, is action in accord with a thing's form.

Now, the actions that are proper to a thing are actions that lead it to the attainment of its end. Formal cause is oriented towards final cause. Thus, we can say that a thing flourishes insofar as it is moved towards, and attains, its end. Applying this definition of flourishing to humanity, we come to see that “human flourishing” is another name for man's motion towards, and attainment of, his proper end.

However, this definition of human flourishing does us no good if we are unable to say what the proper end of man is. For the answer to this question I will turn to Aristotle, who tells us that happiness is what all men seek.[1] This answer certainly corresponds to reality. When you question any man on the reason for his actions, sooner or later he will tell you that his ultimate goal was to be happy.

Yet to say that human flourishing is equivalent to happiness has still shed very little light on the term. For when we question men on what happiness is, we find that we receive a variety of answers. After proving that happiness is not those things that it is most commonly thought to be, Aristotle spends the rest of the Nicomachean Ethics exploring what happiness is. He concludes that happiness is the activity of our highest part (the intellect), aiming at its highest object (the first cause).[2] In short, happiness is contemplating God.

Now, we can see that over the course of history men have used their reason to contemplate God under a variety of names: the Good, the One, the Prime Mover, Self-thinking Thought, etc. While we must admit that all these ideas of God have come with some admixture of error, we must also admit the truth of the words of St. Paul: “For the invisible things of [God], from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; [H]is eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”[3]

But with the coming of God's Revelation, especially the Incarnation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we see that perfect happiness is unattainable in this life. It is not just that it is difficult. It is not just that we are likely to make errors, even those of us who are great philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle. Even with the fullness of Divine Revelation, even with the Church and the Sacraments, it is impossible for us to attain perfect happiness in this life. We know this by the words of Revelation itself: “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face.”[4]

This is not to say that our activities as philosophers and theologians are useless. By the use of right reason applied to nature we can know true things about God as the first cause of all beings, as well as many of His attributes. By the use of right reason applied to Divine Revelation we can better understand many things that God has revealed about Himself throughout Salvation History. Both activities can be used to explain and defend the truth of our faith, and to help others accept the grace that God offers them. And both philosophy and theology, when done out of love for He Who is Truth, can be sources of grace, which can help us attain our final end.

Now let us take our understanding of human flourishing and apply it to the liturgy. While it is true that we are unable to achieve total and complete happiness in this life, we come the closest to this perfect happiness when we properly participate in the liturgy. The Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, called the liturgy “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed”.[5] It states, “In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle”.[6]

The Second Vatican Council also called for “the faithful [to] take part [in the liturgy] fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.”[7] It states, “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.”[8] Finally, it says, “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else”.[9]

The question that has caused much division in the intervening years since the council has been the definition of “full and active participation” in the liturgy. To answer this question we should turn to those philosophical and theological tools that we have in our possession. At the same time, we should turn towards the tradition of the Church and to the Second Vatican Council itself. I will now attempt to do so.

Happiness is the activity of our intellect contemplating the best and highest truth, God, the first cause of all creation. Insofar as a taste of happiness is attainable in this life, it is attainable through contemplating God, as far as we can know Him through reason and Divine Revelation. Through the liturgy, we attain the best taste of the Heaven, the best taste of happiness. It seems to me that the clearest answer to the question of what constitutes full and active participation in the sacred liturgy is one word: contemplation. In the liturgy we can contemplate Him not just as He is knowable through His creation. Not even just as He is knowable through what He has revealed to us through Sacred Scripture. In the liturgy we can contemplate Him as He stands before us, in His flesh and in His blood, though they are veiled under the appearance of simple bread and wine. And since love proceeds from knowledge, it follows that through the liturgy we can love Him more.

This also seems to be the understanding of active participation that has been handed down by tradition. For example, in his 1947 encyclical letter Mediator Dei Pope Pius XII stressed the fact that “the chief element of divine worship must be interior.”[10] He went on to state, “It is an error, consequently, and a mistake to think of the sacred liturgy as merely the outward or visible part of divine worship or as an ornamental ceremonial.”[11] Finally, he continues by saying “that God cannot be honored worthily unless the mind and heart turn to Him in quest of the perfect life”.[12]

This is not to say that outward participation has no place in the liturgy. Earlier in this same encyclical, Pope Pius XII states, “The worship rendered by the Church to God must be, in its entirety, interior as well as exterior. It is exterior because the nature of man as a composite of body and soul requires it to be so.”[13] But our internal participation in the liturgy is more important than our external participation, since the latter without the former is worthless and condemnable.[14]

Moreover, this interpretation seems to be born out by Sacrosanctum Concilium itself. To see this one need only read the opening paragraph of the document. There it states, “It is of the essence of the Church that she be… eager to act and yet intent on contemplation”.[15] Further on in this paragraph it continues by saying that “action [is directed and subordinated to] contemplation”.[16]

Again, my point is not that we should eliminate outward participation. But my point is that we must be careful not to make outward participation our dominant understanding of active participation. The most important thing is for each and every person at the Mass to be able to inwardly orient himself towards the contemplation and worship of God.

In his Christmas address to the Roman Curia, delivered on December 22, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI said that the years since the Second Vatican Council have seen two competing theories of interpretation. The first views the council as a breach with the Church’s tradition and interprets it as such, substituting what they think the council should have said for what its documents do say. The second interprets the council documents in light of the Church’s tradition, seeing the council as a continuation of the Church’s unfolding of the Deposit of Faith. Pope Benedict said that the first view was unacceptable, for it leaves us with two churches, one before the council and another after, rather than the single Church of Christ. Endorsing the second view, he called for the Church to understand the council within the continuity of its 2000-year history.[17]

This paper has been my attempt to follow the Pope’s call. As such, I have brought my knowledge and intelligence, however feeble they may be, to bear on an issue that is dear to my heart and important to the Church, the issue of the Divine Liturgy, of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In this, as in all things, I submit myself to the Holy Catholic Church, Mother and Teacher, and to the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

---

[1] Nicomachean Ethics, I, 4.

[2] Ibid., X, 7.

[3] Romans I, 20. (All Scripture quotations are from the Douay-Rheims.)

[4] I Corinthians XIII, 12.

[5] Vatican II, Sacrocsanctum Concilium, 10.

[6] Ibid., 8. The footnote to this passage references Apocalypse XXI, 2; Colossians III, 1; and Hebrews VIII, 2.

[7] Ibid., 11.

[8] Ibid., 14.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 24.

[11] Ibid., 25.

[12] Ibid.,26.

[13] Ibid., 23.

[14] Cf. Ibid. 24; Mark VII, 6; Isaias XXIX, 13.

[15] Vatican II, Sacrocsanctum Concilium, 1.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Benedict XVI, Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature.