For the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy
Vol. XXII, No. 1
What’s News Pope Benedict Celebrates 65th Anniversary of Priestly Ordination
Please see POPE on next page
INSIDE The Sacramental Validity of Today’s Marriages by Benedict Nguyen...................3 Saint Mary Magdalen: Apostle of the Apostles
by Archbishop Arthur Roche ......4
The Ministry of Deaconess? Thoughts by Pope Francis and the International Theological Commission......6 What’s behind Cardinal Sarah’s Ad Orientem Call? by Christopher Carstens.............8 News/Views.........................2 The Rite Questions...........10 Donors & Memorials.......11
n June 28 this year, Pope Benedict celebrated his 65th anniversary of priestly ordination. Hosted by Pope Francis, the celebration welcomed thirty cardinals as well as other guests. After music from the Sistine Chapel Choir, Pope Francis, Cardinal Gerhard Müller of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Angelo Sodano of the College of Cardinals spoke in honor of the Pope Emeritus. Pope Francis asked, “What is the underlying note that runs through this long history [of your priesthood] and that from that first beginning up to today dominates it ever more? …You underscore [in your book of reflections on the priesthood] how, at the hour of Simon’s definitive call, Jesus, looking at him, basically asks him only one thing: ‘Do you love me?’ How beautiful and true this is! …This is the note that dominates a whole life spent in priestly service and true theology that you have not accidentally described as ‘the search for the Beloved.’” At the celebration’s end, Pope Benedict thanked those present by
As this work of Philippe de Champaigne fittingly illustrates, St. Augustine speaks of the exterior sacrifice which is pressed into the service of an interior sacrifice, that of the heart.
Sacrifice as Deificaton: Reflections on the Augustinian Foundations of Ratzinger’s Sacrificial Theology By David L. Augustine __________________
hat does it mean to offer sacrifice? What is its aim and end? These are questions about which there is a great deal of misunderstanding. As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has recently observed, “[t]he common view is that sacrifice has something to do with destruction,” that is, it has to do with the destruction of some material thing withdrawn from man’s use so as to bear witness to God’s sovereignty.1 Though not without a grain of truth, this view is partial and obscures the real impetus of the notion. Moreover, when Ratzinger goes on to conclude that the essence of sacrifice is deification, the partial notion may leave the reader scratching his head: where did Ratzinger get this counter-intuitive idea? I will explore this rich notion of sacrifice—richer than the “common view” of which Cardinal Ratzinger speaks—by first outlining Ratzinger’s theology of sacrifice found in his seminal work The Spirit of the Liturgy. Then I will draw out the concept of sacrifice from its traditional roots in St. Augustine’s The City of God. Lastly, I will briefly show the light this revised notion of sacrifice sheds on the most important concrete instantiations of sacrifice in the Christian economy, namely: Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross; the Eucharistic sacrifice; and, lastly, the Christian sacrifice of self. Ratzinger, Augustine, and the Fire of Love In the course of The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ratzinger inevitably confronts one of the key questions that lies at the center of human existence: “What,” he asks, “is worship? What happens when we worship?”2 It is in this context that Ratzinger introduces the subject of sacrifice. He begins by outlining the destructive formulation noted above, asking how God can be honored by man surrendering something for the purpose of destruction. One answer to this question “is that the destruction [i.e. of the sacrificial gift] always conceals within itself
the act of acknowledging God’s sovereignty over all things.”3 Though Ratzinger does not say as much, this statement is a likely reference to the position of Cardinal John De Lugo (1583-1660), for whom sacrifice as worship of God required that our life be destroyed (as represented in the gift offered) as a protestation of God’s sovereignty.4 Against this conception, Ratzinger counters that the kind of surrender God wants is something altogether different. He wants to be honored, not by surrender unto destruction, but by surrender that terminates in the union of man with God. True sacrificial surrender, he writes, consists “in the union of man and creation with God.”5 Sacrifice thus has to do with a new “way of being” toward God, a way called love.6 This is the reason, Ratzinger avers, “St. Augustine could say that the true ‘sacrifice’ is the civitas Dei, that is, love-transformed mankind, the divinization of creation and the surrender of all things to God.”7 Thus, on Ratzinger’s account, the goal of sacrifice is simply the honoring of God by the man transformed through union with God, re-ordered to God by means of divine charity. In this passage, Ratzinger is working quickly, like a math student who gets the right answer without showing his work. Nevertheless, his allusion to St. Augustine tells us where he is coming from. Though not explicitly cited, it is clear that Ratzinger is referring to Augustine’s The City of God, x.6, one of the great loci classici of sacrificial discussions in the Christian West. Let us turn to this important passage of Augustine. Augustine begins his discussion in x.5 by making a distinction between the exterior sacrifice (offered in the public cult) and the interior sacrifice (the offering of oneself to God in the human heart). The relationship between them is one of sign to thing signified.8 It is this latter sacrifice—the interior sacrifice—that is the primary locus of Augustine’s discussion in x.6. The exterior sacrifice, also present here, is that of a work pressed into the service of this interior sacrifice. In x.6, Augustine begins his argument by affirming that Please see SACRIFICE on page 4
Adoremus Bulletin, July 2016
NEWS & VIEWS texts of the Roman Missal. In an accompanying commentary by the Archbishop Secretary for the Congregation, Arthur Roche writes of Mary Magdalene’s significance, and why the change in celebrating her day from memorial to feast is so appropriate today. Please see page 4 in this issue of Adoremus for the complete text of his article.
Pope Francis on Invalid Marriages
Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, met recently with Bishop Arthur Serratelli, Chairman of the International Commssion on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) at the ICEL Secretariat in Washington, D.C.
Cardinal Sarah meets with ICEL Staff On May 18, Bishop Arthur Serratelli, Chairman of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, welcomed Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, to the ICEL Secretariat in Washington, D.C. Appointed Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship by Pope Francis in November 2014, Cardinal Sarah heads the Vatican office that gives approval (recognitio) to liturgical texts of the Roman Rite prepared by ICEL and submitted by conferences of bishops. Since 2010, when the recognitio of the third English-language edition of the Roman Missal was approved, two important texts—Marriage and Confirmation—have also received the approval of the Holy See and are to be implemented in several ICEL conferences this year.
In addition, ICEL has submitted draft texts to the conferences of bishops for dedication of a Church, exorcism, and a supplement containing new saints for the Liturgy of the Hours. During the visit to the ICEL Secretariat, Monsignor Andrew Wadsworth, Executive Director of ICEL, was able to show Cardinal Sarah three additional texts— Baptism for Children, Christian Initiation of Adults, and a fourth fascicle of texts for the Liturgy of the Hours. These books were submitted to the conferences of bishops and the Congregation for study and comment just prior to the Cardinal’s visit. In speaking about the work of ICEL and the acceptance of the Roman Missal in the member and associate-member conferences of bishops, Cardinal Sarah said that he holds up ICEL and the process used for the English-language Roman Missal as a model for other vernacular languages to follow.
Mary Magdalene Elevated to Feast
Pope Benedict XVI celebrated 65 years of priesthood on June 29.
Continued from POPE, page 1 recalling the word Efharisomen, “thanksgiving,” that was inscribed on his ordination card by a classmate. “‘Efharisomen’ sends us to that reality of gratitude, to that new dimension that Christ has given. He has transformed the Cross, suffering, and all the evil of the world into ‘thanksgiving.’ And thus, he has transformed life and the world fundamentally and has given us and gives us every day the bread of true life, which surpasses the world, thanks to the strength of his love. At the end, we want to insert ourselves in this ‘thanksgiving’ of the Lord and thus really receive the novelty of life and help in the transubstantiation of the world: that it be not a world of death but of life; a world in which love has conquered death.” Editor’s note: All papal remarks in this article were translated by Zenit news service, Rome.
On June 3, 2016, the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments conveyed Pope Francis’ decision to elevate the observance of St. Mary Magdalene from a memorial to a feast. This change will be effective on the saint’s feast day this year, July 22. The decree notes that since “in our time the Church is called to reflect in a more profound way on the dignity of Woman, on the New Evangelization, and on the greatness of the Mystery of Divine Mercy, it seemed right that the example of Saint Mary Magdalene might also fittingly be proposed to the faithful. In fact this woman, known as the one who loved Christ and who was greatly loved by Christ, and was called a ‘witness of Divine Mercy’ by Saint Gregory the Great and an ‘apostle of the apostles’ by Saint Thomas Aquinas, can now rightly be taken by the faithful as a model of women’s role in the Church.” Like other feasts, the Gloria will now be sung or said at Masses on St. Mary Magdalene’s feast day. Also, a proper preface in Latin is given by the Congregation, and bishops’ conferences will translate it into their respective vernacular languages to be included in the
Pope Francis, speaking at a June 16 pastoral congress of the Diocese of Rome, suggested that “a great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.” The next day, the official transcript of the text was changed to “a portion of our sacramental marriages are null.” The Holy Father’s initial statement, followed by its revision in the Vatican’s official transcript, caused another storm of commentary. Inspired by this papal comment, Adoremus inquires why marriages, whether a great majority or a portion, might be invalid. A sacramental marriage is a permanent bond, one abiding “in good times and in bad.” If one or both of the parties enter a marriage without knowing of its permanence or, knowing it, do not agree to it, is the bond therefore invalid? Responding to a question about current challenges facing marriage, Pope Francis recalled hearing “a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that had finished his university studies, and said ‘I want to become a priest, but only for 10 years.’ It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life. It’s provisional, and because of this a portion [changed from “the great majority”] of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say ‘yes, for the rest of my life!’ but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.” The character of permanence in the marriage question is central today, not only in light of general confusion in the secular culture about marriage, but also as the Church in the English-speaking parts of the world begins to use the second edition of the Order of Celebrating Matrimony. How should would-be spouses understand the question, “Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live?” Canon Lawyer Benedict Nguyen answers this question beginning on page 3, “The Sacramental Validity of Today’s Marriages.”
Podcast Dedicated to Sharing Liturgy with World A new podcast, “The Liturgy Guys,” may be the first of its kind entirely devoted to the sacred liturgy. As an initiative of the Liturgical Institute at the University of Saint Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, IL, the podcast features Christopher Carstens (Adoremus editor in chief) and Dr. Denis McNamara, both LI faculty members. Every week, they sit down with series host Jess Weiler to talk about the Catholic liturgy. At the end of each discussion within an episode, these liturgy experts answer questions submitted by listeners. The podcasts seek to share the treasures of liturgy with English-speaking Catholics all over the world. “The Liturgy Guys provides a way to reach a new generation of people interested in understanding who God is and how best to worship him,” says Denis McNamara. “We try to be lighthearted even as we bring substantial content to the discussion of the liturgy.” The Liturgy Guys podcast is available from LiturgyGuys.com, iTunes, Google Play, and other podcast sources.
Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy
Membership Requests and Change Of Address: email@example.com
Adoremus Bulletin (ISSN 1088-8233) is published six times a year by Adoremus— Society for The Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy, in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Adoremus is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation of the State of California. Nonprofit periodicals postage paid at various US mailing offices. Change service requested. Adoremus—Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy was established in June 1995 to promote authentic reform of the Liturgy of the Roman Rite in accordance with the Second Vatican Council’s decree on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. Adoremus Bulletin is sent on request to members of Adoremus. Suggested donation: $40 per year, US; $45 foreign.
Website: www.adoremus.org Letters to the Editor Executive committee P.O. Box 385 The Rev. Jerry Pokorsky * La Crosse, WI 54602-0385 Helen Hull Hitchcock firstname.lastname@example.org The Rev. Joseph Fessio, SJ Contents copyright © 2016 by ADOREMUS. All rights reserved.
Adoremus Bulletin, July 2016
Let us Adore: Yesterday, Today, and Forever Adoremus continues 21 year tradition with a renewed spirit By Christopher Carstens, Editor _________________________
“The Latin word for adoration is ad-oratio— mouth to mouth contact, a kiss, an embrace, and hence, ultimately love.”
—Pope Benedict XVI, Homily of Sunday, 21 August 2005, World Youth Day in Cologne
doremus: the Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy reached the spirited age of 21 years on June 29. Formed by Father Jerry Pokorsky, Father Joseph Fessio, and Helen Hull Hitchcok in 1995, Adoremus has sought, as its mission statement says, “to rediscover and restore the beauty, the holiness, and the power of the Church’s rich liturgical tradition while remaining faithful to an organic, living process of renewal.” Much has happened in the world, in the Church, and in her liturgy over the past 21 years. In 1995, Liturgiam Authenticam did not exist. The third edition of the Roman Missal was not realistically imagined. Joseph Ratzinger was “only” Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (back before he was better known as Pope Benedict XVI). Vocations to the priesthood were declining. Only 30 years had passed since the Second Vatican Council. Today, we benefit from 27 years of a saintly pope, John Paul II. Joseph Ratzinger is better known as Pope Benedict XVI. The Third edition of the Roman Missal has been in use for five years and, thanks to new principles of liturgical translation, other ritual texts are in preparation. A young presbyterate— without recollection of the days prior to the Council (either good or bad)— desires orthodox, faithful, and pastorally-fruitful celebrations. Whether or not Adoremus’s success can be considered a bellwether of these blessings, it has undeniably reflected them in its work. Still, despite the good fruits yielded by 21 years of labor, the Garden of God (Rev. 2:7) is not yet here. Other trends in the culture, in the Church, and in the liturgy need addressing in a new way, even if these issues themselves are not new. Regular participation in Mass continues to decline, as it does in other liturgical and sacramental rites. The sacrament of marriage is attacked, belittled, and misunderstood. Both pastors and the faithful remain to become
As this painting, “The Adoration of the Magi” by Italian painter Sebastiano Ricci suggests, the act of adoration is a coming face to face, even mouth to mouth, with God.
“thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 14) and are consequently not transformed in their earthly lives to the measure possible by the liturgy. Today’s Adoremus will continue its initial mission, address the needs of current liturgical renewal, and promote a heavenly liturgy in the years to come. Pope Benedict, in a homily during the 2005 Cologne World Youth Day, suggested that adoration implies coming “mouth to mouth” with God (ad-, to or toward, and oratio, from the Latin ora, a plural form of “mouth”). Because adoration is the principle goal of the liturgy—coming to intimacy and union with God, even “mouth to mouth” with
him—it is likewise the overarching goal of Adoremus. How are we helping to bring about this encounter? First, Adoremus helps the Church’s ministers manifest that luminous face of Christ in the Church’s liturgical rites. The rites-based approach to liturgical celebration and understanding allows a face-to-face encounter with Christ, for, as St. Leo the Great famously taught, “What was visible in our Savior has passed over into his sacraments.” Jesus seeks us and calls us to encounter him in the sacraments. Such an approach to liturgical renewal does not ignore rubrics, history, pastoral application, or other important aspects of the liturgy, but con-
tinues to incorporate these elements into their proper context. A ritual celebration is a work of art, and the Holy Spirit is “artisan of ‘God’s masterpieces,’ the sacraments of the New Covenant” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1091). Ritual celebrations require an ars celebrandi (see Benedict XVI’s Sacramentum Caritatis, for example), art and skill in executing. Preaching itself is a craft, an ars praedicandi, in which the Word of the Trinity is taken to heart and brings life to the faithful. An authentic liturgical celebration radiates the face of Jesus, amplifying the “words of his mouth” (Psalm 78:1). Adoremus wishes to be nothing other than a mouthpiece of Christ and the Church’s liturgy. And here follows Adoremus’ second emphasis moving forward. If the heart of the liturgy is the heart of the Redeemer—or, as Pope Benedict says in his reflection, if the liturgy seeks to confront the face and mouth of God—then true adoration calls our own hearts, faces, and mouths to turn toward him. C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce gives a suitable analogy here. Lewis’s narrator imagines a bus ride to heaven, whose inhabitants are populated by “Solid People,” while the visitors are soft, unsubstantial phantoms. Even the light of heaven is described as solid. To abide happily in heaven, one must become acclimated through training—askesis, the tradition calls it—learning to see and hear and sense with supernatural perception. Mystagogical catechesis helps us to sense the substance of sacramental signs by “proceeding from the visible to the invisible, from the sign to the thing signified, from the ‘sacraments’ to the ‘mystery’” (CCC 1075). Such training is initially a formation of the intellect, although ends by transforming the whole person. A “liturgical spirituality” is a training of the heart to pray, a cor ad cor loquitor, as Blessed John Henry Newman says. St. John Paul II called for such training in 2003: “At the beginning of this millennium, may a ‘liturgical spirituality’ be developed that makes people conscious that Christ is the first ‘liturgist’ who never ceases to act in
Please see ADORE on page 10
The Sacramental Validity of Today’s Marriages By Benedict Nguyen ________________
ope Francis’ recent claim that “a great majority of our sacramental marriages are null” (or later edited by the Vatican to read “some of our sacramental marriages are null”) drew a wide range of responses from both Catholic and secular commentators. The Pope’s comments and the resulting reactions to them show that any fruitful conversation about the validity of the sacrament of marriage and the pastoral care that flows from it must be grounded in a clear understanding of the elements needed for the validity of sacraments in general and how these elements apply to the sacrament of marriage in particular.
Elements for Sacramental Validity Basic catechesis on sacramental validity often reduces the elements necessary for a valid sacramental act to two—namely, that it is done with proper matter and proper form. In actuality, two additional requirements are
necessary—that the sacrament is administered and received by the proper persons; and that the minister of the sacrament has the proper intention to do as the Church does. For each sacrament, these four elements play out in unique ways proper to each. Some requirements for validity are based on divine or natural law, such as the reservation of Holy Orders only to baptized men (cf. CCC 1577) or marriage being solely between one man and one woman (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 1055). These requirements the Church does not have the authority to change or to act otherwise. In addition to these, there are also elements based on ecclesiastical law that can render a sacramental act invalid. In instituting the sacraments, Christ has also entrusted to his Church the authority over the sacraments and as such, the supreme authority of the Church is able to approve or define the requirements for their validity (canon 841). This approval however should always be done officially in order to be
binding (cf. can. 10) and can never be in contradiction to natural or divine law. Based on the lived experience of the Church and her prudence, these elements can be added or taken away via the proper authority in the Church as, for example, in the proper form of the sacrament of marriage. Since the time of the Council of Trent, the Church has required as proper form the act of marrying to be done in a specific way. Called the “canonical form of marriage,” these elements are now enshrined in canons 1108ff and liturgically fleshed out in the Rite of Marriage. Proper Persons & Sacramentality As applied to marriage, the proper persons who can marry validly are those who do not fall under the “diriment impediments” listed in canons 10831094 of the Code of Canon Law. Diriment impediments are those things that render a person incapable of establishing marriage. Some of these are considered to be of divine or natural law, such as when a person is “obliged
by the bond of a previous marriage” (can. 1085). These impediments apply to all persons who seek to marry validly. Other diriment impediments are ecclesiastical laws, such as when a person is not of canonical age (can. 1083). These impediments apply only to Catholics and those who are marrying Catholics (cf. cann. 11 and 1059). From this discussion, it must be clearly understood that before a marriage can be a sacrament, it must first be a valid natural marriage, that is, the parties must be capable (i.e. free from any diriment impediments) and consent properly to marriage (a Catholic has the additional requirement of marrying according to canonical form mentioned above). This natural marriage becomes one of the seven sacraments of the Church only if it is validly entered into by two capable persons who are baptized, thus satisfying the “proper person” requirement of sacramental validity. This requirement is necessary because Please see MARRIAGE on page 5
Adoremus Bulletin, July 2016
“A true sacrifice is every work which is done that we may be united to God in holy fellowship.” —St. Augustine
German theologian and Catholic mystic Matthias Scheeben (1835-1888) discerned two moments of the Temple sacrifice: the renunciatory moment signified by the slaughter of the animal and, more importantly, the moment of union with God signified by the perfective fire and smoke.
Continued from SACRIFICE on page 1 true sacrifice is every work which is done that we may be united to God in holy fellowship, and which has a reference to that supreme good and end in which alone we can be truly blessed.”9 In this passage, Augustine affirms that the goal of sacrifice—that which motivates its offering—is desire for union with God. As such, it is a work done with reference to our ultimate end, namely, beatitude. If a work is not directed to God for this end (i.e., is not referred to God so that we might be rightly ordered to him) thereby achieving blessedness, it is not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is, at bottom, a consecration, a process through which, true, a man dies to himself, but so that he may live before God.10 In this process, Augustine tells us, the body becomes a sacrifice “when we chasten it by temperance,” so that we can present our mem-
bers as “instruments of righteousness unto God.”11 Thus if the body, though “inferior” to the soul, can become a sacrifice when it is pressed into service to God, this is all the more true of the soul.12 And how does the soul become a sacrifice? For Augustine, it becomes a sacrifice “when it offers itself to God, in order that, being inflamed by igne amoris eius, the fire of his love, it may receive of his beauty and become pleasing to him, losing the shape of earthly desire, and being remoulded in the image of permanent loveliness.”13 Here we see Augustine’s stress on sacrifice as deification come to the fore. For, ultimately, what it means for a man to become a sacrifice before God is that he himself is refashioned in the divine image through ignis amoris, the fire of love; in the process, his soul becomes beautiful as it partakes of God’s beauty. Sacrifice here is a dynamic
movement where, true, a man dies to himself and to all selfishness as he chastens his body with its disordered passions through temperance; all the while, however, his soul is refashioned by divine charity, through which he is united with his end, the Good. In this way, Christ, through his sacrificial death, leads men to God through the conferral of grace, so as to make of men sons of God and members of his body, that they might live for God and, indeed, in God. It is in this context that Augustine’s text occurs, which Ratzinger alluded to above. Augustine sums up his idea as follows: “thus, the whole redeemed city, that is to say, the congregation or community of the saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice through the great High Priest, who offered Himself to God in his passion for us, that we might be members of this glorious head.”14 Or, again, he writes: “This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being many, are one body in Christ,”15 for, ultimately, it is in him and through his agency that we offer ourselves that we might be united to God through so great a Head. To sum up: for Ratzinger and, before him Augustine, a sacrifice is any work by which we are rightly ordered to and are united with God as our end, that we might live in blessed communion with him. As such, the aim of sacrifice is to honor God through the perfective transformation of one’s life, so reordered by grace. Moreover, if there be a destructive moment in this process— when, for example, a man dies to himself—this is always pressed into service to a higher end, namely: deification, union with God through the body of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Or, as St. Paul said of himself: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”16
Application to the Sacrifices of the New Covenant Focusing on this theory of sacrifice as a point of departure, I would now like to take the remainder of this essay to show how this idea of sacrifice allows us to rethink and broaden our understanding of sacrifice in the New Testament. Let us first turn to the sacrifice of Christ as it is developed, in particular, by the German dogmatician Matthias Scheeben (1835-1888). Over a century ago, Scheeben revisited Augustine’s concept of sacrifice17 and translated it into a theology of sacrifice that, taking its sensible baseline from Israel’s public temple worship, shifted the focus from the sacrificial slaughter as such to the relationship of the slaughter to the ritual burning of the gift in the altar fire. What this meant for Scheeben is that, broadly speaking, there are two moments in the rite of sacrifice, the renunciatory moment, but also the further moment of union with God, the first being ordered to the second. This second moment—the moment of union—was typified in Israel’s worship through the burning of the victim in the altar fire, an action that Scheeben viewed as not primarily destructive, but as perfective, the consumption through fire signifying God’s acceptance of the gift into his own communion of life.18 This being the case, the renunciation present in the slaughter is ordered to union with God, and it finds its sacrificial worth as an expression of the offerer’s desire to attain to said union.19 When Scheeben goes on to apply this two-part schema to Christ, he arrives at a conception of Christ’s redemptive activity which, in the 20th century at least, will be called the Paschal Mystery, that is, the unity of Cross and Resurrection in Christ’s one sacrifice. On this conception, if Christ’s death on the cross for the sins of the world corresponds to the renunciatory moment in sacrifice (the slaughter of animals in the Old Testament), then Christ’s resurrection and ascension correspond to the divine acceptance of the gift and its total entry into God (the consumpPlease turn to SACRIFICE on page 7
Saint Mary Magdalene: Apostle of the Apostles By Arthur Roche, Archbishop Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments ____________________________
y the express wish of the Holy Father, Pope Francis, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments published a new Decree on the Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, 3 June 2016, in which the celebration of Saint Mary Magdalene was elevated and inscribed in the General Roman Calendar with the rank of Feast. This decision, in the current ecclesial context, seeks to reflect more deeply upon the dignity of women, on the new evangelization and on the greatness of the mystery of God’s Mercy. Saint John Paul II paid great attention not only to the importance of women in the mission of Christ and the Church, but also and with special emphasis on the particular role of Mary of Magdala as the first witness who saw the risen Christ, and as the first messenger who announced the Lord’s resurrection to the Apostles (Mulieris dignitatem 16).
Maurus affirms on various occasions The importance of this continues today when he speaks of her (De vita Mariae in the Church, as is evident in the new Magdalenae, Prologus), as well as Saint evangelization, which seeks to welcome Anselm of Canterbury who says of her all men and women “of every race, peo“chosen because you are beloved and ple, language and nation” (Rev 5: 9), beloved because you are chosen of without any distinction, to announce to God” (Oratio LXXIII ad sanctam Marthem the Good News iam Magdalenam). of the Gospel of JeIt is true that ecclesus Christ while ac“Indeed, because sial tradition in the companying them on a woman offered West, especially their earthly pilgrimsince the time of age, and offering death to a man in Gregory the Great, them the wonders has identified Saint of God’s salvation. Paradise, a woman Mary Magdalene, Saint Mary Magdaannounces life to the and the woman lene is an example of who anointed a true and authentic men from the tomb.” Christ’s feet with evangelizer, that is an — St. Gregory the Great perfume in the evangelist who anhouse of Simon the nounces the central Pharisee, and the joyful message of sister of Lazarus Easter (cf. Collect for and Martha, as one and the same per22 July and the new Preface). son. This interpretation continued to It is precisely in the context of the influence western ecclesiastical authors, Jubilee of Mercy that our Holy Father Christian art and liturgical texts relaPope Francis has taken this decision, in tive to this Saint. The Bollandists [17th order to underline the relevance of this century French Jesuit scholars who woman “who so loved Christ and was specialized in the study of the saints] so greatly loved by Christ,” as Rabanus
made a detailed study of the problem of identifying these three women and prepared a path for the liturgical reform of the Roman Calendar. The outcome of this reform of the Second Vatican Council led to the texts of the Missale Romanum, the Liturgia Horarum and the Martyrologium referring to Mary of Magdala. What is certain is that Mary Magdalene was part of the group of Jesus’ disciples, she accompanied him to the foot of the Cross and, in the garden where she met him at the tomb, was the first “witness of Divine Mercy” (Gregory the Great, XL Hom. In Evangelia, lib. II Hom. 25,10). The Gospel of John tells us that Mary Magdalene wept because she could not find the body of the Lord (Jn 20:11); and that Jesus had mercy on her by letting himself be known as her Master, thus transforming her tears into paschal joy. Taking advantage of this opportune moment, I would like to underline two ideas inherent in the biblical and liturgical texts of this Feast which assist us to better grasp the importance of this holy woman for today. Please turn to APOSTLE on page 6
Adoremus Bulletin, July 2016
baptism is the “gateway to the sacraments” (can. 849). Since marriage was a natural institution before Christ our Lord took it and raised it to the dignity of a sacrament between baptized persons (can. 1055), the marriage of non-baptized persons or the marriage between one baptized person and a non-baptized person may be valid naturally but cannot be a sacrament. Between baptized spouses, however, the valid natural marriage cannot but be a sacrament (can. 1055 §2). Proper Intention While the four elements necessary for sacramental validity are common to all the sacraments, a common mistake is to assume that the requirements for validity for one sacrament are the same for other sacraments. While it is easy to see that proper matter and proper form differ from sacrament to sacrament, it is often misunderstood that sacramental intention does often differ from sacrament to sacrament. The intention to “do as the Church does” cannot simply be translated from one sacrament to another. In other words, the elements for a valid intention for one sacrament may differ from that required for another sacrament. When it comes to marriage, the various canonical requirements of matrimonial consent ensure that a person is “intending to do as the Church does.” It is important to realize that each element that could invalidate matrimonial consent—force, fear, ignorance, error, psychic (i.e. mental) incapacity, etc.—has specific nuances and requirements for it to be invalidating. Failure to understand these causes lead many to make hasty generalizations that most or many marriages “must be invalid” simply if one of these is present. While it is true that ignorance, error, or intention against elements of marriage can at times invalidate the consent necessary to establish marriage, there must be certain elements present in each of these in order to render matrimonial consent invalid. It is not just any sort of ignorance, error, or intention against elements of marriage that make for invalid consent but a very specific type of each.
simple elements—its permanence and its procreative end. The requirement of only these two specific elements show that marriage, being a natural institution, only requires a basic, general knowledge about it in order for the
“Contrary to this popular misconception, those who are simply in error about marriage, its permanence, its fecundity, its exclusivity, or its sacramental dignity can still marry validly.”
parties to enter into it validly. In fact, canon 1096 §2 goes on to say that ignorance of these two aspects of marriage is not presumed after puberty.
Error and Marrying Validly In the same way, it is a common mistake to assume that because of the poor level of catechesis or because of the “divorce culture” in which we live, many people have an erroneous understanding of marriage and therefore must be marrying invalidly. Contrary to this popular misconception, those who are simply in error about marriage, its permanence, its fecundity, its exclusivity, or its sacramental dignity can still marry validly. Canon 1099 explicitly says that this simple error does not nullify matrimonial consent. It further goes on to distinguish that such error about marriage only invalidates consent if the error “determines the will.” In other words, a person marries invalidly due to error about marriage only if the error is what causes a party to choose actively, and in this particular marriage relationship, something other than a true marriage. A person who believes in the possibility of divorce still marries validly unless he or she actively and explicitly chooses at the time of marrying for this particular marriage to be a dissoluble one, that is, if the error “determines the will.” A gen“The choice to exclude eral erroneous belief in divorce Ignorance and the good of children, or general erMarrying Validly permanence, exclusivity, ror about an asWhen it comes to igpect of marriage norance about maror the good of the is simply not riage, many assume enough to invalithat if a person marother spouse must date. Therefore, ries while ignorant it cannot simply be deliberately, of what marriage is be said that most or what the Church consciously, and marriages are teaches about marinvalid just beriage, the consent is inactively chosen at cause there is a valid. However, canon divorce culture the time of marrying 1096§1 of the Code of or because the Canon Law specifically in order for the level of catechesis lays out what type of marriage is ignorance it must be. consent to be invalid.” on poor. For matrimonial conIn his addresssent to be valid, the es to the Roman parties must “at least Rota in 1993 and not be ignorant that 2000, Pope St. John Paul II explicitly marriage is a permanent partnership underscored this notion that error between a man and a woman ordered only invalidates matrimonial consent to the procreation of offspring by if it “determines the will.” Pope Francis means of some sexual cooperation.” himself emphasized this same point Notice that the Church does not reabout the will in his address to the Roquire acceptance or even knowledge of man Rota this past January 2016: “A the full spectrum of her teachings on lack of formation in the faith and error marriage, its elements, proprieties, or with respect to the unity, indissolubilsacramentality to marry validly. Rathity and sacramental dignity of marer, under canon 1096 §1, a person is riage invalidate marital consent only “ignorant” of marriage, and thus marif they influence the person’s will (cf. ries invalidly, only if he or she does not CIC c. 1099). It is for this reason that know that marriage involves these two
Kristin Nador on Flickr (via Creative Commons)
Continued from MARRIAGE on page 3
Valid consent in the Catholic sacrament of marriage requires that both parties to the marriage “not be ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman.”
errors regarding the sacramentality of marriage must be evaluated very attentively.” Intention Against Elements of Marriage Like error, the intention against certain essential elements or properties of marriage (called “partial simulation”) only invalidates matrimonial consent under specific circumstances. A similar mistake is made here in hastily concluding that if a party uses contraception, believes in divorce, or commits adultery, he or she has not married validly. But this is not necessarily the case. An intention to exclude these from one’s matrimonial consent only invalidates if it is a positive act of the will, that is, if the exclusion of these is chosen actively and positively at the time of the act of marrying. For a person to give invalid consent, there cannot be a mere erroneous belief about marriage (as seen above) nor can there be a passive intention (e.g., simply just not thinking about, for example, whether to have children in this marriage), nor can it be a moral failing (e.g., even serious ones such as use of artificial contraception or adultery), nor can it be simply growing up in a divorce culture or believing in divorce. The choice to exclude the good of children, permanence, exclusivity, or the good of the other spouse must be deliberately, consciously, and actively chosen at the time of marrying in order for the consent to be invalid. Presumption of Validity Pastors and pastoral workers especially can render a great disservice to spouses and the sacrament of matrimony when certain broad assumptions are made concerning invalidity of marriage, particularly assuming the invalidity of a particular marriage. Church law vehemently guards against this stance,
requiring instead the presumption that average persons are indeed capable of marrying and that the consent of each party is to be presumed valid (can. 1101 §1). Canon 1060 goes on explicitly to require that marriage be given “the favor of law,” that is, the legal presumption of validity until proven invalid through an official ecclesiastical process to the level of “moral certainty” (can. 1608). In other words, the presumption of validity remains until it is proven not just to be “possibly invalid” or even “probably invalid,” but rather until it is “morally certain” to be invalid. Conclusion The Church’s sacramental law on marriage, carrying with it the wisdom of hundreds of years of real-life pastoral experience, has identified and continues to identify necessary nuances for the objective determination of the elements necessary for a valid act of marrying, particularly when it concerns issues of consent such as ignorance, error, or intention. These issues must be studied carefully, as Pope Francis underscored to the Roman Rota, and not just assumed, one way or another, or assumed to be similar to the other sacraments. Such vigilance and discretion guards against the temptation to pre-judge hastily the validity of marriage, whether one judges a particular marriage or groups of marriage. The vigorous adherence to these canonical elements also renders more fruitful the pastoral care of spouses and marriages. Benedict Nguyen is a canon and civil lawyer and serves as the Canonical Counsel & Theological Adviser for the Diocese of Corpus Christi (Texas). He also serves as an adjunct professor for the Avila Institute for Spiritual Formation.
Adoremus Bulletin, July 2016
Continued from APOSTLE from page 4
St. Paul, here depicted by El Greco (c. 1608-1614), spoke of “our sister Phoebe, servant [he diakonos] of the Church at Cenchreae” (cf. Rom 16:1-4).
The Ministry of Deaconess?
n a May 12 meeting with the International Union of Superiors General, Pope Francis was asked, “What prevents the Church from including women among permanent deacons, as was the case in the primitive Church? Why not constitute an official commission to study the matter?” His response grabbed the attention of many. He answered: “I remember that it was a theme I was quite interested in when I came to Rome for meetings. There was a good Syrian theologian there and one day I asked him about this, and he explained to me that in the early times of the Church there were some ‘deaconesses.’ But what were these deaconesses? Were they ordained or not? The Council of Chalcedon (451) speaks about this but it is somewhat obscure. What was the role of deaconesses in those times? It seems— I was told by this man, who is now dead but who was a good professor, wise and erudite—it seems that the role of the deaconesses was to help in the baptism of women, their immersion; they baptized them for the sake of decorum, and also to anoint the bodies of women, in baptism. And another curious thing: when there was a judgement on a marriage because a husband hit his wife and she went to the bishop to complain, deaconesses were responsible for inspecting the bruises left on the woman’s body from her husband’s blows, and for informing the bishop. There are various publications on the diaconate in the Church, but it is not clear how it was. I think I will ask the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to refer me to some studies on this theme, because I have answered you only on the basis of what I heard from this priest, who was an erudite and able researcher, on the permanent diaconate. In addition, I would like to constitute an official commission to study the question: I think it will be good for the Church to clarify this point, I agree, and I will speak so as to do something of this type.” That the Holy Father wishes to “constitute an official commission to study the question” signaled to many his openness to actually ordaining women to a form of diaconate. But he himself did not mean this. During his return flight of July 27 from his Apostolic Journey to Armenia, the Holy Father expressed “annoyance” at this interpretation. On his in-flight press-conference, he said “one can study if it is the doctrine of the Church, and if one might create this commission. They [news reports] said: ‘The Church opens the door to deaconesses.’ Really? I was a bit annoyed because this is not telling the truth of things. I spoke with the prefect of the [Congregation for the] Doctrine of the Faith, and he told me, ‘Look, there is a study which the International Theological Commission had made [...]. And I asked the [prefect] to please make a list. Give me a list of who I can take to create this commission. He sent me the list to create this commission, but I believe that the theme has been studied a lot, and I don’t think it will be difficult to shed light on this argument.”
The study which Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, mentions to the Holy Father is the 2002 “From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles,” a section of which is devoted to “The Ministry of Deaconesses,” reprinted below.
The International Theological Commission: From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles The Ministry of Deaconesses In the apostolic era different forms of diaconal assistance offered to the Apostles and communities by women seem to have been institutional. Thus Paul recommends to the community at Rome “our sister Phoebe, servant [he diakonos] of the Church at Cenchreae” (cf. Rom 16:1-4). Although the masculine form of diakonos is used here, it cannot therefore be concluded that the word is being used to designate the specific function of a “deacon;” firstly because in this context diakonos still signifies servant in a very general sense, and secondly because the word “servant” is not given a feminine suffix but preceded by a feminine article. What seems clear is that Phoebe exercised a recognized service in the community of Cenchreae, subordinate to the ministry of the Apostle. Elsewhere in Paul’s writings the authorities of the world are themselves called diakonos (Rom 13:4), and in Second Corinthians 11:14-15 he refers to diakonoi of the devil. Exegetes are divided on the subject of First Timothy 3:11. The mention of “women” following the reference to deacons may suggest women deacons (by parallel reference), or the deacons’ wives who had been mentioned earlier. In this epistle, the functions of the deacon are not described, but only the conditions for admitting them. It is said that women must not teach or rule over men (1 Tim 2:8-15). But the functions of governance and teaching were in any case reserved to the bishop (1 Tim 3:5) and to priests (1 Tim 5:17), and not to deacons. Widows constituted a recognized group in the community, from whom they received assistance in exchange for their commitment to continence and prayer. First Timothy 5:3-16 stresses the conditions under which they may be inscribed on the list of widows receiving relief from the community, and says nothing more about any functions they might have. Later on they were officially “instituted” but “not ordained”;58 they constituted an “order” in the Church,59 and would never have any other mission apart from good example and prayer. At the beginning of the second century a letter from Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, mentioned two women who were described by the Christians as ministrae, the probable equivalent of the Greek diakonoi (10, 96-97). It was not until the third century that the specific Christian terms diaconissa or diacona appeared.
On the one hand, she has the honor to be the first witness of the Lord’s resurrection (“prima testis” – Hymnus, Ad Laudes matutinas), the first who saw the empty tomb and the first to hear the truth about his resurrection. Christ showed special consideration and mercy to this woman who showed her love for Christ by seeking him in her anguish and suffering in the garden, or as Saint Anselm says in the prayer mentioned above with lacrimas humilitatis (“the tears of humility”). In this way it is possible to highlight the contrast between the woman present in the garden of paradise and the woman present in the garden of the resurrection. The first spread death where there was life; the second announced life from a sepulcher, the place of death. As Gregory the Great underlines: “Indeed because a woman offered death to a man in Paradise, a woman announces life to the men from the tomb” (XL Hom. In Evangelia, lib. II, Hom. 25). Yet, there is more, as we see precisely in the garden of the resurrection where the Lord says to Mary, Noli me tangere (“Do not cling to me” Jn 20:17). This is an invitation to enter into an experience of faith that goes beyond materialistic assumptions and the human grasping after the divine Mystery which is not simply addressed to Mary but to the entire Church. This is an ecclesial moment! This is an important lesson for every disciple of Jesus Christ to neither seek human securities nor the vainglory of this world, but in faith to seek the living and risen Christ! On the other hand, precisely because she was an eyewitness to the risen Christ, she was also the first one to bear witness to him before the Apostles. She fulfils the command of the Risen Lord: “‘Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples ‘I have seen the Lord’ and she told them that he had said these things to her” (Jn 20:17-18). Thus, as already indicated she becomes an evangelist, that is a messenger who announces the Good News of the Lord’s resurrection or, as Rabanus Maurus and Saint Thomas Aquinas say, she becomes the apostolorum apostola because she announces to the apostles what in turn they will announce to the whole world (Rabanus Maurus, De vita beatae Mariae Magdalenae, XXVII; Saint Thomas Aquinas, In Ioannem Evangelistam Expositio, c. XX, L. III, 6). It was with good reason that the Angelic Doctor applied this term to Mary of Magdala, for she is the witness to the risen Christ and announces the message of the Lord’s resurrection just like the rest of the Apostles. For this reason it is right that the liturgical celebration of this woman should have the same rank of Feast as that given to the celebration of the Apostles in the General Roman Calendar and that the special mission of this woman should be underlined, she who is an example and model for all women in the Church.
From the end of the third century onwards, in certain regions of the Church60 (and not all of them), a specific ecclesial ministry is attested to on the part of women called deaconesses.61 This was in Eastern Syria and Constantinople. Towards 240 there appeared a singular canonico-liturgical compilation, the Didascalia Apostolorum (DA), which was not official in character. It attributed to the bishop the features of an omnipotent biblical patriarch (cf. DA 2, 33-35, 3). He was at the head of a little community which he governed mainly with the help of deacons and deaconesses. This was the first time that deaconesses appeared in an ecclesiastical document. In a typology borrowed from Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop held the place of God the Father, the deacon the place of Christ, and the deaconess that of the Holy Spirit (the word for “Spirit” is feminine in Semitic languages), while the priests (who are seldom mentioned) represented the Apostles, and the widows, the altar (DA 2, 26, 4-7). There is no reference to the ordination of these ministers. The Didascalia laid stress on the charitable role of the deacon and the deaconess. The ministry of the diaconate should appear as “one single soul in two bodies.” Its model is the diakonia of Christ, who washed the feet of his disciples (DA 3, 13, 1-7). However, there was no strict parallelism between the two branches of the diaconate with regard to the functions they exercised. The deacons were chosen by the bishop to “concern themselves about many necessary things,” and the deaconesses only “for the service of women” (DA 3, 12, 1). The hope was expressed that “the number of deacons may be proportionate to that of the assembly of the people of the Church” (DA 3, 13, l).62 The Please turn to Deaconesses on page 9
Adoremus Bulletin, July 2016
Continued from SACRIFICE from page 4
tion by divine fire). “But we must insist on the fact,” Scheeben writes, that Christ’s “resurrection and ascension actually achieve in mystically real fashion what is symbolized in the sacrifice of animals by the burning of the victim’s flesh.”20 As such, Christ’s sacrifice terminates in his “Resurrection and glorification,” where, consumed “by the fire of the Godhead,” the slain Lamb is caused “to ascend to God in lovely fragrance as a holocaust [the Old Testament burnt offering], there to make it, as it were, dissolve and merge into God.”21 Thus the term of Christ’s sacrifice is the total deification, on the one hand, of his own humanity (lacking from the first in terms of its outward expression on account of his voluntarily assumed kenotic Incarnation), and, on the other, of the deification of the sons of Adam for whom he died so as to liberate them from their sins (impediments to deification). And, not coincidentally, when Scheeben seeks to elucidate the traditional ground of this transformative view of divine fire in resurrection, he does so with copious patristic references, chief among these, St. Augustine.22 If in the preceding Scheeben presented the acceptation and total deification of Christ’s sacrifice (and ours) as accomplished in its acceptation in Resurrection— what we might call deifying sacrifice as final eschatology—nevertheless he also doubles back and reapplies it to Christ’s activity in his kenotic state as well, above all in his Passion—what we might call deifying sacrifice as realized eschatology (the “now-but-notyet” of the Christian economy). Here, the altar fire is at work in a hidden fashion, proleptically or by way of anticipation, in Christ’s charity, through which he offered himself on the Cross. In this way, viewed from the inside out, Scheeben actually considers even Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross to be, not so much a sacrifice accomplished through Schlachtung, slaughter; instead, he considers the sacrifice on the Cross itself to be an Auflösung, a dissolution accomplished from within Christ’s sacrifice terminates in his “Resurrection and glorification,” Matthias Scheedben says, where, consumed “by the fire of the Godhead,” the slain Lamb is caused “to ascend to God in lovely through fire, that is, through the powfragrance as a holocaust.” er of Christ’s charity, and, indeed, “the fire of the eternal spirit.”23 Thus, for Scheeben, the Passion too is a kind a perfect burnt offering, comDavid L. Augustine is currently a doctoral candidate in Sacrifice, Cardinal Ratzinger explains in The of burnt offering, a gift transformed Spirit of the Liturgy, “is a concept that has pletely transformed and assimithe Systematic Theology program at Catholic University through divine fire. Moreover, with been buried under the debris of endless lated to God by the fire of glory. of America. He is the research assistant to Drs. Matthew misunderstandings. The common view is this image of the interior dynamism Or, in Scheeben’s words: “By the Levering and Reinhard Hütter. He is a recent graduate of of Christ’s charity leading him to sur- that sacrifice has something to do with de- immolation of their bodies and the Liturgical Institute at Mundelein Seminary, where he struction…. Belonging to God has nothing to render himself in order to bring men their earthly life, effected in all earned an MALS (Master of Arts Liturgical Studies). do with destruction or non-being: it is rather to God, we are once again very close the sufferings, mortifications, a way of being.” to Ratzinger’s and Augustine’s con1. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (San and toils of this life and crowned Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 27. ceptual formulations of sacrifice. God in death, by the immolation which takes place in Christ’s 2. Ibid. is glorified when men are rightly ordered to him, in this members in the spirit and power of Christ, the members 3. Ibid., 28. 4. See John de Lugo, De sacramento Eucharistiae, disp. 19, set. 1, n. 5. in Opera 4 life and in the consummation of the age to come. are made ready as a fragrant holocaust.... After the gen(Venetiis: Sumptibus Nicolai Pezzana, 1718), 330. For an English translation and What about the Eucharist? Where does the Eucharist eral resurrection the whole Christ, head and body, will discussion, see Maurice de la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, Book I: The Sacrifice of fit into this re-ordering of human beings to God? We Our Lord (New York & London: Sheed & Ward, 1940), 1n1. For a related discusbe a perfect holocaust offered to God for all eternity... sion, see Matthias Scheeben, Handbuch der Katholischen Dogmatik, vol. V/2, 2nd already saw, in St. Augustine, how the sacrifice of Christhrough the transforming fire of the Holy Spirit.”26 ed., ed. Carl Feckes, in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. VI/2, ed. Josef Höfer (Freiburg tians is their incorporation into and union with Christ’s im Breisgau: Herder, 1954), n. 1424. (All citations from Scheeben’s Handbuch folbody so as to become his living temple, living because low paragraph rather than page numbers). De Lugo’s view was widely dissemiConcluding Remarks nated in the theology manuals of the pre-conciliar era. Christ lives in them. But this too, in Augustine’s words, In Called to Communion, Ratzinger sums up his account 5. Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 28. “is the sacrifice which the Church continually celebrates of Christian priesthood by simply noting: “The ulti6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. in the sacrament of the altar”—that is, in the Eucharist, mate end of all New Testament liturgy and of all priestly 8. Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New York: Barnes & Noble, the sacrifice of the body of Christ—“in which she teachministry is to make the world as a whole a temple and 2006), x.5 (p. 370): “And the fact that the ancient church offered animal sacrifices, es that she herself is offered in the offering she makes which the people of God now-a-days reads of without imitating, proves nothing a sacrificial offering for God.”27 Through our survey of else than this, that those sacrifices signified the things which we do for the purpose to God.”24 The Eucharist is the body of Ratzinger’s reflections and their of drawing near to God, and inducing our neighbour to do the same. A sacrifice, Christ that we offer and to which we Augustinian foundations, we have therefore, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice.” 9. Ibid., x. 6 (p. 371), emphases added. are united in its offering and which, seen why this is the case, and, 10. Cf. Ibid. x. 6 (p. 371-72): “Thus man himself, consecrated in the name of God, especially in communion, further fortiindeed, how the terms “temple” and vowed to God, is a sacrifice in so far as he dies to the world that he may live fies our union with Christ’s body. For, to God.” and “sacrificial offering” are in 11. Ibid. x. 6 (p. 372). Augustine’s scriptural allusion in this passage is to Rom 6:19. as Scheeben puts it, it is this very flesh this passage practically synony12. Ibid. which “pour[s] forth the consuming mous. For the term of sacrifice is 13. Ibid. The Latin has been inserted from St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Bk. XXII, vol. 1, Bks I-XIII, ed. Emanuel Hoffman, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum fire of love into our souls.” Moreover, the surrender and, through surLatinorum, vol. 40 (Vindobonae: F. Tempsky, 1899), 454-55. “[i]t is from this flesh that we are to render, right ordering of creation 14. St. Augustine, The City of God, x. 6 (p. 372). draw the strength to offer up our souls to God for the purpose of union 15. Ibid., x. 6 (p. 373). 16. Gal 2:20, Revised Standard Version, 2nd Catholic edition, emphasis added. to God; and in union with that flesh, with God through the body of 17. Although he was also influenced by Thomas Aquinas, as he was too by the which reposes on the bosom of the the God-man, so that it might 17th century French priestly reform movement known collectively as the French School. Godhead, we are to lay our souls as a be deified and become his living 18. See esp. Handbuch V/2, nn. 1425, 1439-40. worthy and sweet-smelling sacrifice temple. In Ratzinger’s words: “the 19. Cf. Handbuch V/2, n. 1424: “Every act of submissiveness and renunciation has 25 before the throne of God.” goal of worship and the goal of creation as a whole are a sacrificial tendency precisely insofar as it aims, directly or indirectly, to introduce the offerer into a state wherein he lives wholly in God and for God and precisely As to the Christian sacrifice of self, this too is accomone and the same—divinization, a world of freedom and through this finds his own beatitude.” (All translations from Scheeben’s Dogmatics 28 plished, as we already saw in Augustine, when we are love.” Deification: this is the end of man as he becomes are my own.) The conceptual similarity here with Augustine and Ratzinger is rightly ordered, or, as the case may be, re-ordered to striking a living sacrifice, consumed by the deifying fire of the 20. Matthias Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. Cyril Vollert (New God. This re-ordering happens, on the one hand, when Holy Spirit, a gift imparted through the redeeming death York: Crossroad, 2006), 436. we chasten our body, with its sinful passions, through of the Savior, the God-man, Jesus Christ. These ideas, 21. Ibid. 22. See ibid., 436n6, and esp. 439n9. temperance, but above all, when the soul donates itself reappropriated so recently by Ratzinger, are, I submit, 23. Scheeben, Handbuch V/2, n. 1478. (The translation is my own.) to God, becoming transformed and ennobled with his fertile ground for further exploration so as to move dei24. Augustine, The City of God x. 6 (p. 373). beauty in the process. In this life, this transformation fication back to its rightful place, into the very center of 25. Scheeben, The Mysteries, 521. 26. Ibid., 439. takes the form of dying to self so as to rise to God, a Christian theology. After all, it is for this deification that 27. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church we were made: to glorify God through union with him, whole offering transformed through the fire of grace and Today, trans. Adrian Walker (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996), 127. 28. Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 28. charity. And when this life is done? Then we will become God living his life in us, and we, our lives in him.
“The Christian sacrifice of self is accomplished when we are rightly ordered, or, as the case may be, re-ordered to God.”
Adoremus Bulletin, July 2016
Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is “profoundly convinced that our bodies must participate in this conversion to God. The best way is certainly to celebrate—priests and faithful—turned together in the same direction: Toward the Lord who comes.”
What’s behind Cardinal Sarah’s Ad Orientem call? By Christopher Carstens, Editor _________________________ This article originally appeared in the June 12-25, 2016 issue of the National Catholic Register.
ardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, gave a recent interview to the French Catholic magazine Famille Chretienne. For many commentators and readers, the subject of the interview was his encouragement (again) for priest and people to face east, toward the orient—ad orientem in Latin—at certain parts of the Mass. Whatever opinion you may have on the direction of liturgical prayer, this repeated call from Pope Francis’ Prefect is undeniably attention grabbing. But there’s a more central message to the interview that risks being overshadowed in light of the ad orientem discussion: our cooperation in the work of God. To Famille Chretienne’s credit, its headline put it perfectly: “How to put God Back at the Center of the Liturgy.” Here, ultimately, lies the foundation and context of Cardinal Sarah’s remarks and the Church’s longstanding practice of ad orientem liturgical prayer. The liturgy is about God. Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, to which the Cardinal makes constant reference in the interview, calls it “an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ” (n.7). Liturgically speaking, Jesus is the principal actor, the “prime minister.” The work done in any liturgical celebration (the Greek ergon, meaning “work,” is the root of “liturgy”) is his; we participants are his co-workers, co-operators, and colaborers (collaborators). But Jesus is both fully God and man. Does it not stand to reason that his work is also divine and human? Indeed, it is. In his interview, Cardinal Sarah voices concern that the human element of the liturgy may eclipse the divine dimension. An imbalanced understanding between the divinity and humanity of Christ is not new. Fifth century Nesto-
rians emphasized the humanity of Jesus to the detriment of his divinity, while at the same time Monophysites championed the divinity of Christ such that he lost his humanity. The spirit of Nestorius and of the Monophysites still lives today. For his part, Cardinal Sarah sees today’s liturgy as particularly susceptible to the Nestorian influence of the mundane, rendering celebrations that are all too human: “The liturgy is the door to our union with God. If the Eucharistic celebrations are transformed into human self-celebrations, the peril is immense, because God disappears. One must begin by replacing God at the center of the liturgy. If man is at the center, the Church becomes a purely human society, a simple non-profit, like Pope Francis has said. If, on the contrary, God is at the heart of the liturgy, then the Church recovers its vigor and sap!” Similarly, he critiques in the interview (as he has done elsewhere) liturgies as entertainment, friendly meals, or fraternal moments. The liturgy is the great reordering principle—of the cosmos, of history, and of us. Its content is the sacrificial work of Christ the Priest who factually and definitively returns—literally, re-turns—all things to the Father. This second Adam’s “Not my will, but thine be done” from the tree reverses the “Not thy will, but mine be done” of the first Adam at that first tree. He is the pontifex maximus—the “greatest bridge builder”—between exit (exitus) and return (reditus), bridging the gap between heaven and earth. To understand anything besides this fact is to miss the heart of the liturgy. And here we come to a second main point of Cardinal Sarah’s interview. This great act of divine and human turning, of metanoia, of conversion, is so important because we the faithful are called to participate in it. Active participation, that “aim to be considered before all else” in the restoration and promotion of the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium 14), is participation in the reorienting action of Christ. “The orientation of the assembly toward the Lord” says Cardi-
nal Sarah, “is a simple and concrete means to encourage a true participation for all at the liturgy. …[I]t is to allow Christ to take us and associate us with his sacrifice…. The Eucharist makes us enter in the prayer of Jesus and in his sacrifice, because he alone knows how to adore in spirit and in truth.” Cardinal Ratzinger explained the essence of active participation in The Spirit of the Liturgy: “[I]f we want to discover the kind of doing that active participation involves, we need, first of all, to determine what this central actio is in which all the members of the community are supposed to participate” (Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001), 171). The action, as discussed above, is Christ’s divine and human work of reorientation, of moving from self-centeredness to God-centeredness. The people in the pews give themselves, united to Christ the Head, as offerings to the Father precisely so that they, too, may experience the fruit of Christ’s self-offering: resurrection and glorification. Now we can return (so to speak) to where we started and to what, for many, is the most noteworthy takeaway of the Cardinal’s interview. If the liturgy’s real substance is Jesus’ definitive return to the Father, and if the baptized are called (“commanded” might be the better word here) to join this saving work, then how might this internal and unseen reality be expressed and fostered externally? “To convert,” says Cardinal Sarah, that is, “to turn towards God” both spiritually and physically. He is invoking in this brief but powerful assertion what many 20th century liturgical movement figures identified as the “sacramental principle.” The sacramental principle is, first of all, a very human principle. Composites of soul and body, men and women express and encounter internal realities via external and bodily signs. Happiness is signified by a smile; peace symbolized by a handshake; love conveyed by roses; forgiveness expressed by the words “I’m sorry.” (Indeed, words are
so important that I could never make known my thoughts on Cardinal Sarah’s interview, nor could you ever know them, without my first signifying them in this text.) If they lack outward signs, unseen realities are almost un-real: the sensible expression actualizes (makes actual) insensible things. Sacraments are a type of “efficacious sign” and, like signs, they express and foster unseen truths. How, for example, do the unseen realities of the Sacrament of Baptism—death to the old self, rebirth to a new life, and cleansing from sin’s impurity (among others)—become real? Through outward signs of water being poured as the Trinity is being invoked. When these outward signs are missing (e.g., baptism using ice or naming the Trinity as “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier”), so is the inward reality these signs express missing. When this principle is applied to interpreting Cardinal Sarah’s interview, we understand that our internal conversion is, in part, effected by our bodily conversion: “I am profoundly convinced that our bodies must participate in this conversion. The best way is certainly to celebrate — priests
and faithful — turned together in the same direction: Toward the Lord who comes…. It’s to turn together toward the apse, which symbolizes the East, where the Cross of the risen Lord is enthroned. By this manner of celebrating, we experience, even in our bodies, the primacy of God and of adoration. We understand that the liturgy is first our participation at the perfect sacrifice of the Cross.” Specifically, “I [have] proposed that the priests and the faithful turn toward the East at least during the Penitential Rite, during the singing of the Gloria, during the Propers and during the Eucharistic Prayer.” The liturgy’s reality is the work of a divine person who, in his human and divine natures, has turned creation back to God. His action is carried on today in his Church and is effected in the most powerful way in the liturgy. Liturgical participants, both clergy and lay, signify this return through outward and bodily signs. Is the ad orientem posture at particular points in liturgical prayer a suitable sign for these spiritual realities? A particular direction for liturgical prayer will not, in itself, signal greater or lesser participation. Participants at an ad orientem celebration can still be passive spectators, while those at celebrations versus populum can become truly engaged. Still, nearly 2000 years of practice, most of it coming long before Cardinal Sarah’s interview, indicates that a common direction is theologically sound, liturgically “right and just,” and pastorally effective. For many, ad orientem signals a return to the days prior to Vatican II, good or bad, real or imagined; or a particular political ideology of the Church; or to a proper hermeneutic of reform; or a desired influence between old and new forms; or a rejection of the Council; or a type of Mediator Dei antiquarianism. These sentiments should not be quickly dismissed, for there may be elements of truth in each. Nevertheless, none of them reaches the heart of the matter. If ad orientem posture, properly understood and prudently implemented, can facilitate our conversion and put God at the center of our lives, then why not return to its use? Such liturgical considerations lie at the heart of Cardinal Sarah’s argument.
Adoremus Bulletin, July 2016
Cont. from Deaconesses on page 6
deacons administered the property of the community in the bishop’s name. Like the bishop, they were maintained at its expense. Deacons are called the ear and mouth of the bishop (DA 2, 44, 3-4). Men from among the faithful should go through the deacons to have access to the bishop, as women should go through the deaconesses (DA 3, 12, 1-4). One deacon supervised the entries into the meeting place, while another attended the bishop for the Eucharistic offering (DA 2, 57, 6). Deaconesses should carry out the anointing of women in the rite of baptism, instruct women neophytes, and visit the women faithful, especially the sick, in their homes. They were forbidden to confer baptism themselves, or to play a part in the Eucharistic offering (DA 3, 12, 1-4). The deaconesses had supplanted the widows. The bishop may still institute widows, but they should not either teach or administer baptism (to women), but only pray (DA 3, 5, 1-3, 6, 2). The Constitutiones Apostolorum, which appeared in Syria towards 380, used and interpolated the Didascalia, the Didache and the Traditio Apostolica. The Constitutiones were to have a lasting influence on the discipline governing ordinations in the East, even though they were never considered to be an official canonical collection. The compiler envisaged the imposition of hands with the epiklesis of the Holy Spirit not only for bishops, priests and deacons, but also for the deaconesses, sub-deacons and lectors (cf. CA 8, 1623).63 The concept of kleros was broadened to all those who exercised a liturgical ministry, who were maintained by The diaconal role, both in the early Church and today, is a special service from the Church to those in need. In this painting by Matteo Rosselli the Church, and who benefited from (1578 – 1650), St. Lawrence supports the sick and heals their wounds. the privileges in civil law allowed by the Empire to clerics, so that the deaconmonasteries of women, the deaconesses received a cheirotonia like the deacon esses for the first five centuries. The esses were counted as belonging to the wore the maforion, or veil of perfec(CA 8, 21), while the virgins and widStatuta Ecclesiae antiqua laid down clergy while the widows were excluded. tion. Until the sixth century they still ows could not be “ordained” (8, 24that the instruction of women catechuBishop and priests were paralleled with attended women in the baptismal pool 25). The Constitutiones insist that the mens and their preparation for baptism the high priest and the priests respecand for the anointing. Although they deaconesses should have no liturgical was to be entrusted to the widows and tively of the Old Covenant, while to did not serve at the altar, they could function (3, 9, 1-2), but should devote women religious “chosen ad ministhe Levites corresponded all the other distribute communion to sick women. themselves to their function in the terium baptizandarum mulierum”.71 ministries and states of life: “deacons, When the practice of anointing the community which was “service to the Certain councils of the fourth and fifth lectors, cantors, door-keepers, deaconwhole body at baptism was abandoned, women” (CA 3, 16, 1) and as intermecenturies reject every ministerium femiesses, widows, virgins and orphans” deaconesses were simply consecrated diaries between women and the bishop. nae72 and forbid any ordination of dea(CA 2, 26, 3; CA 8, 1, 21). The deavirgins who had taken the vow of chasIt is still stated that they represent the conesses.73 According to the Ambrosiacon was placed “at the service of the tity. They lived either in monasteries or Holy Spirit, but they “do nothing withster (composed at Rome at the end of bishop and the priests” and should not at home. The condition for admission out the deacon” (CA 2, 26, 6). They the fourth century), the female diaconimpinge on the functions of the latwas virginity or widowhood and their should stand at the women’s entrances ate was an adjunct of Montanist (“Catater.64 The deacon could proclaim the activity consisted of charitable and in the assemblies (2, 57, 10). Their phrygian”) heretics.74 In the sixth cenGospel and conduct the prayer of the health-related assistance to women. functions are summed up as follows: tury women admitted into the group assembly (CA 2, 57, 18), but only the At Constantinople the best-known “The deaconess does not bless, and she of widows were sometimes referred to bishop and the priests of the fourth-century deaconesses was does not fulfil any of as deaconesses. To prevent any confuexhorted (CA 2, 57, 7). “In the fourth Olympias, the superior of a monastery the things that priests sion the Council of Epaone forbade Deaconesses took up of women, who was a protégé of Saint and deacons do, but she “the consecrations of widows who call century the way of looks after the doors their functions through John Chrysostom and had put her themselves deaconesses”.75 The Secan epithesis cheirôn or property at the service of the Church. ond Council of Orleans (533) decided life of deaconesses and attends the priests imposition of hands She was “ordained” (cheirotonein) deaduring the baptism of to exclude from communion women that conferred the Holy was very similar to coness with three of her companions by women, for the sake of who had “received the blessing for the Spirit,65 as did the lecthe patriarch. Canon 15 of the Council decency” (CA 8, 28, 6). diaconate despite the canons forbidthat of nuns.” tors (CA 8, 20, 22). The of Chalcedon (451) seems to confirm This is echoed by the ding this and who had remarried”.76 bishop pronounced the fact that deaconesses really were almost contemporary Abbesses, or the wives of deacons, were the following prayer: “ordained” by the imposition of hands observation of Epiphanius of Salamis also called diaconissae, by analogy with “Eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus (cheirotonia). Their ministry was called in his Panarion, in around 375: “There presbyterissae or even episcopissae.77 Christ, creator of man and woman, leitourgia and after ordination they is certainly in the Church the order The present historical overview who filled Myriam, Deborah, Anne were not allowed to marry. of deaconesses, but this does not exshows that a ministry of deaconesses and Hulda with your spirit; who did In eighth-century Byzantium, the ist to exercise the functions of a priest, did indeed exist, and that this develnot deem it unworthy for your Son, bishop still imposed his hands on a nor are they to have any undertaking oped unevenly in the different parts the Only-Begotten, to be born of a deaconess, and conferred on her the committed to them, but for the deof the Church. It seems clear that this woman; who in the tent of witness and orarion or stole (both ends of which cency of the feminine sex at the time ministry was not perceived as simply in the temple did institute women as were worn at the front, one over the of baptism.”67A law of Theodosius of the feminine equivalent of the masguardians of your sacred doors, look 21 June 390, revoked on 23 August of other); he gave her the chalice, which culine diaconate. At the very least it now upon your servant before you, the same year, fixed the age for admisshe placed on the altar without giving was an ecclesial function, exercised by proposed for the diaconate: grant her sion to the ministry of deaconesses at communion to anyone. Deaconesses women, sometimes mentioned togeththe Holy Spirit and purify her of all 60. The Council of Chalcedon (can. 15) were ordained in the course of the Euer with that of sub-deacon in the lists of defilement of flesh and spirit so that reduced the age to 40, forbidding them charistic liturgy, in the sanctuary, like Church ministries.78 Was this ministry she may acquit herself worthily of the subsequent marriage.68 deacons.70 Despite the similarities beconferred by an imposition of hands office which has been entrusted to her, tween the rites of ordination, deaconEven in the fourth century the way of comparable to that by which the episfor your glory and to the praise of your esses did not have access to the altar or life of deaconesses was very similar to copate, the priesthood and the masChrist, through whom be glory and to any liturgical ministry. These ordinathat of nuns. At that time the woman culine diaconate were conferred? The adoration to you, in the Holy Spirit, tions were intended mainly for the suin charge of a monastic community of text of the Constitutiones Apostolorum world without end. Amen.”66 periors of monasteries of women. women was called a deaconess, as is would seem to suggest this, but it is It should be pointed out that in the The deaconesses were named betestified by Gregory of Nyssa among Please see Deaconesses on page 11 West there is no trace of any deaconothers.69 Ordained abbesses of the fore the sub-deacon who, in his turn,
Letters Attached is my donation for one year subscription to your wonderful Bulletin that I read for years in New Jersey. I picked up a copy (the September 2015 issue) recently from our new parish church in Ocala, Florida. Please send any back-issue that you have. – Frank Murphy Brooksville, FL Thank you for the great article on the Ghent Altarpiece in the March issue. Enjoyed the Marriage pieces, too, and wish we would hear more of this! – Patti Devlin Lafayette, CA I am so glad that you have been able to keep publishing since Helen’s untimely death. Please keep up the good work! – Carol Olmstead Glen Ellyn, IL The scholarly articles in your March edition were excellent! – Fr. John Kiley Woonsocket, RI Thank you for “The Master of Alkmaar” images on the cover of the May issue. Note that a humble Christ stands among the people in five of the seven panels. – James Tracy Saint Paul, MN
Adoremus Bulletin, July 2016
The Rite Questions
: Are the different Gregorian Mass settings—Lux et Origo (Mass I) at Easter, Orbis Factor (Mass XI) on Sundays and Solemnities in Ordinary Time, or De Angelis (Mass VIII)—specific for a given liturgical day or season, or can any Mass setting be used at any time?
: Many of the Mass Ordinaries found in the Kyriale Romanum have designations for use in specific seasons or on specific classes of feasts, but these are not obligatory, nor are we bound to use them only in the season for which they are recommended. These recommendations have a strong precedent in our tradition as well as in the typical editions, but these are not hard-and-fast designations. It seems that of the reasons the
Church has given these designations is to assist the faithful engaging more deeply in the unfolding of the liturgical year. After singing Missa Orbis Factor for a few years, it begins to “sound like” Ordinary Time. The same could be said of Lux et Origo during Eastertime, and Missa “Iubilate Deo” during the weekdays of Advent and Lent. I encourage parishes and choirs to take some time to learn these settings. Especially teach them to the young. They wear well over
: Is it permissible to skip the hymn in the Divine Office when reciting it in private, or with a small group? Even if it’s not sung, need it be recited?
: The General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours (GILH) does not indicate the option to omit the hymn. On the contrary, the GILH reminds us the Office—and not the Mass—is the traditional context for the Catholic hymn tradition: “A very ancient tradition gives hymns the place in the office that they still retain. By their mystical and poetic character they are specifically designed for God’s praise. But they also are an element for the people; in fact more often than the other parts of
the office the hymns bring out the proper theme of individual hours or feasts and incline and draw the spirit to a devout celebration. The beauty of their language often adds to this power. Furthermore, in the office hymns are the main poetic element created by the Church” (n.173). As a constituent part of the ritual for the hours, it ought not be omitted any more than any other part. Nor does the GILH suggest that public versus private celebration of the hour permits the hymn from being omitted:
Thank you so very much for the May edition of your paper. I have a granddaughter who has a master’s degree in art, and I’m sending Adoremus to her. I hope it inspires her. She has done some religious art in the past. – Joan Donohue Kennebunk, ME I am a long time subscriber to Adoremus and I just wanted to compliment Father Pokorsky on his article on Mother Angelica in the May issue. I recently finished Raymond Arroyo’s two biographies, which were fascinating. I loved his comparison of her persona to the “rough and tumble Galileans.” It brought a smile to my face since it was so very appropriate. Thank you for your ministry with this publication; I enjoy it very much and hope you can continue to work through the financial challenges that every such publication faces. It was particularly helpful when I sat on the Liturgy Committee at my former parish in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. While the secular world continues to encroach on all Christian values, it is so important to be a beacon in the dark, despite how lonely and difficult it might be. Please keep up the good work! – Nancy Kyle Tamaqua, PA
Continued from ADORE from page 3 the Church and in the world through the Paschal Mystery continuously celebrated, and who associates the Church with himself, in praise of the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit” (Spiritus et Sponsa 16). God’s greatest act of love for humanity was opening his heart—for the Father and for us—on the cross: our great act of love joins our hearts to his, especially in the liturgy. Another aspect of our liturgical training is mission, where the Church’s liturgy moves “into the streets” to
time and are worthy of a lifetime of singing. Also, don’t be discouraged about the Gregorian notation. Keep in mind that for the last thousand years, Christians have sung the Mass from memory and by rote before music notation was even invented! The regularity of the Mass Ordinary is part of the genius in the development of the liturgy. It may take months or years, but you can even memorize these and sing them like the early Christians. If the faithful are accustomed to hear these musical settings from their youth they would possess this expertise as a matter of habit. Answered by Adam Bartlett Editor, Illuminare Publications following the introduction to the hour, “an appropriate hymn is sung immediately. The purpose of the hymn is to set the tone for the hour or the feast and, especially in celebrations with a congregation, to form a simple and pleasant introduction to prayer” (n.42). Note that the Instruction emphasizes the special value for public celebrations but does not consider the hymn optional when praying privately. Neither does the GILH give the option to neglect the hymn when the psalmody is recited. On the contrary, “Even when the hours are recited, hymns can nourish prayer, provided they have doctrinal and literary excellence; but of their nature they are designed for singing and so, as far as possible, at a celebration in common they should be sung” (n.280). In short, not only does the GILH not permit omitting the hymn, but it provides ample reason to include it. Still, the hymns the GILH has in mind are not those found in our current English-language version of the Liturgy of the Hours. While the GILH does allow for local Bishops’ conferences to “introduce fresh compositions,” the first and normative choice is to “adapt the Latin hymns to suit the character of their own language” (n.178). The Divine Office’s traditional hymns are, as cited above, ancient, beautiful, powerful, and poetic. If hymns of such a caliber accompany the hour, it is understandable why the Church’s history and instructions recommend them so highly. In the retranslation of the current edition of the Liturgy of the Hours, it is possible the Bishops may include a greater variety of these ancient hymns in vernacular translation. Consider, for example, the hymn for Morning Prayer (see left) on the newly established Feast of Mary Magdalene, “The Golden Dawn is Breaking Fast” (Aurora surgit lucida), reprinted from the Lumen Christi Hymnal. If hymns of this quality appeared in the Liturgy of the Hours, why would the faithful want to omit such beauty from their expression of praise for God? Answered by Christopher Carstens, Editor
transform the world. While union with God is the central dimension of liturgy, it is not the only one. Citing St. Irenaeus, Pope Benedict reminds us in The Spirit of the Liturgy that “The glory of God is the living man.” The Pope continues, “it is the very life of man, man himself as living righteously, that is the true worship of God, but life only becomes real life when it receives its form from looking toward God” (p.18). In Pope Francis’ words: “Each Christian and every community must discern the path that the Lord points out, but all of us are asked to obey his call to go forth [Ite!] from our own
comfort zone in order to reach all the ‘peripheries’ in need of the light of the Gospel” (Evangelii Gaudium 20). Here the liturgy overflows into service, impelling us into the world in need of the light of Christ. In short, our own liturgical formation includes our head’s knowledge, our heart’s love, and our hands’ service. Is this not what we were made for—knowing, loving, and serving God? Adoremus touches each of these liturgical dimensions, helping form the faithful into the full stature of heaven’s “Solid People,” eating “solid food” (see Hebrews 12:12-14), with
“pleasing words in their mouths” (see Psalm 19:15). Adoration is “mouth to mouth contact” with God, “a kiss, an embrace, and hence, ultimately love.” Adoremus—by extension—engages this very encounter by fostering substantial and beautiful celebrations and forming participants to enter more fully into the mystery. A twenty-first birthday is a milestone that looks not only to the past but ahead to a future of even greater things. May God bless our mission, and may his praise be always in our mouths.
Adoremus Bulletin, July 2016
our donors for special gifts received in the past months. We are deeply grateful for your financial support of the work of Adoremus. Jubliee ($500+) Mr. & Mrs. Michael Fochtman Grand Rapids, Michigan Sustaining ($200+) The Ironwood Foundation North Andover, Massachusetts Hans Grote Camlachie, Ontario Fr. Thomas Hamilton Reno, Nevada Mr. & Mrs. William Schult Edgewood, Kentucky 5 Anonymous Patron ($100+) Noel Armstrong N. Chesterfield, Virginia Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Atwood Woodstock, Connecticut Mr. Herman Belz Rockville, Maryland Miss Mary Rose Brandt Silverton, Oregon Miss Mary Cameron Woodside, New York Mr. Richard Corriveau New Freedom, Pennsylvania Fr. Robert Greiner Baker City, Oregon Fr. Carl Hoegerl Brooklyn, New York Mr. & Mrs. Dick Imgrund Three Rivers, Michigan Mr. & Mrs. Buford Jones Riegelsville, Pennsylvania
Continued from Deaconesses page 9 practically the only witness to this, and its proper interpretation is the subject of much debate.79 Should the imposition of hands on deaconesses be considered the same as that on deacons, or is it rather on the same level as the imposition of hands on sub-deacons and lectors? It is difficult to tackle the question on the basis of historical data alone. In the following chapters some elements will be clarified, and some questions will remain open. In particular, one chapter will be devoted to examining more closely how the Church through her theology and Magisterium has become more conscious of the sacramental reality of Holy Orders and its three grades. But first it is appropriate to examine the causes which led to the disappearance of the permanent diaconate in the life of the Church.
58. Traditio Apostolica 10; SCh 11(2), 67. 59. Cf. Tertullian, To his wife 1, 7, 4; SCh 273; Exhortation to chastity 13, 4; SCh 319. 60. “It is at the Eastern limits of the Roman Empire that deaconesses finally make their appearance. The first document to refer to them, which is in some sort their birth certificate, is the Didascalia Apostolorum ... known since the publication in 1854 ... of its Syriac text.” A. G. Martimort, Les diaconesses: Essai histo-
Fr. Dennis Kleinmann Chantilly, Virginia Mrs. Margery Kohnke Madisonville, Louisiana Dr. Arthur Kunath Fort Thomas, Kentucky Mr. Charles Lewis Lansdale, Pennyslvania Mr. & Mrs. Peter Peters Chicago, Illinois Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Petersen Bristol, Wisconsin Mr. William Ross Lakeside, Texas Miss Therese Ruedig Libertyville, Illinois Fr. David Ryan Lake Zurich, Illinois Miss Estelle Scannella Hamilton Square, New Jersey Mr. & Mrs. James Schaaf Cupertino, California Mr. & Mrs. J.D. Schliekelman Blythe, California Elaine Schlueter St. Louis, Missouri Mr. James Tracy St. Paul, Minnesota Major Francis Wade San Antonio, Texas Fr. Richard Wagner Rayne, Louisiana Gen & Mrs. John Wakelin Poway, California Mr. Bernard Womack Waukegan, Illinois 2 Anonymous
rique (Rome, 1982), 31. 61. The most ample collection of all the testimony about this ecclesiastical ministry, accompanied by a theological interpretation, is that of John Pinius, De diaconissamm ordinatione, in Acta Sanctorum, 1 September (Antwerp, 1746), 1-27. Most of the Greek and Latin documents referred to by Pinius are reproduced by J. Mayer, Monumenta de viduis diaconissis virginibusque tractantia (Bonn, 1938). Cf. R. Gryson, Le ministere des femmes dans l’Eglise ancienne, Recherches et syntheses: Section d’histoire 4 (Gembloux, 1972). 62. This norm is repeated in the Constitutiones Apostolorum 3, 19, 1. On the origins of the professionalisation of the clergy, cf. Schollgen, Die Anfänge der Professionalisierung. 63. The compiler was attentive to the nuances of vocabulary. At CA 2, 11, 3 he says, “We do not allow the priests to ordain [cheirotonein] deacons, deaconesses, lectors, servants, cantors or door-keepers: that belongs to the bishops alone.” However, he reserves the term cheirotonia to the ordination of bishops, priests, deacons and sub-deacons (8, 4-5; 8, 16-17; 8, 21). He employs the expression epitithenai ten (tas) cheira(s) for deaconesses and lectors (8, 16, 2; 8, 17, 2). He does not seem to wish to give these expressions a different meaning, since all these impositions of hands are accompanied by an epiklesis of the Holy Spirit. For confessors, virgins, widows, and exorcists, he specifies that there is no cheirotonia (8, 23-26). The compiler additionally distinguishes between cheirotonia and cheirothesia, which is simply a gesture of blessing (cf. 8, 16, 3 and 8, 28, 2-3). Cheirothesia may be practiced by priests in the baptismal rite, the reintegration of penitents, or the blessing of catechumens (cf. 2, 32, 3; 2, 18, 7; 7, 39, 4). 64. Cf. CA 3, 20, 2; 8, 16, 5; 8, 28, 4; 8, 46, 10-11. 65. Can. 19 of the Council of Nicaea (325) could be
Dear Adoremus, you can count on me! I want to help your work with my financial support. My gift is enclosed.
$10,000+____ Duc in altum
Other: $________ ❑ I prefer my gift to be anonymous. ❑ I can contribute $_______ monthly. Please send envelopes for this purpose. Total amount enclosed: $ ___________ Name: _________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________ City: _________________________ State: ______ Zip: _________ ❑ P lease make my gift a Memorial for | to Honor |in Thanksgiving Name: ___________________________________________________ From:____________________________________________________ Occasion: Wedding – Wedding Anniversary – Birth – Birthday – Confirmation – Ordination (Please circle choice) Other: ___________________________________________________ ❑ P lease check here if new address, and indicate your old zip code: _____________ CREDIT CARD DONATIONS: Call 608.521.0385, or go to our website for online donations: adoremus.org CHECKS to be made payable to Adoremus. Send to Adoremus - PO Box 385, La Crosse, WI 54602-0385 NOTE: All contributions are tax-deductible in the United States.
IN HONOR OF Rev. James R. Haley Anonymous Our special thanks to our Friends, Members and to all our faithful monthly donors. May God bless each of you for your generosity. A Mass is said for all our donors each month. We appreciate your prayers, and we remember you in ours.
interpreted not as refusing the imposition of hands to all deaconesses in general, but as the simple statement that the deaconesses from the party of Paul of Samosata did not receive the imposition of hands, and “were anyway counted among the laity”, and that it was also necessary to re-ordain them, after having re-baptised them, like the other ministers of this dissident group who returned to the Catholic Church. Cf. G. Alberigo, Les conciles oecumeniques, vol. 2 Les decrets, bk. 1 (Paris, 1994), 54. 66. CA, 8, 20, 1-2; SCh 336; Metzger, 221-23. 67. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion haer. 79, 3, 6, ed. K. Holl, GCS 37 (1933), p. 478. 68. Cf. Alberigo, Decrets, bk. 1, 214. 69. Gregory of Nyssa, Life of St. Macrina 29, 1; SCh 178; Maraval, 236-37. 70 Byzantine Ritual of ordination of deaconesses: Euchologe du manuscrit grec Barberini 336, in Vatican Library, ff. 169R-17/v. Quoted by J.-M. Aubert, Des femmes diacres, Le Point Theologique 47 (Paris, 1987), 118-19. 71. Cf. can. 100 (Munier, 99). In addition, it is expressly forbidden to women, “even well-instructed and holy” ones, to teach men and to baptize (cf. can. 37, 41; Munier, 86). 72. Council of Nimes (394-396), can. 2. Cf. J. Gaudemet, Conciles gaulois du IVe siecle, SCh 241 (Paris, 1977), 127-29. 73. First Council of Orange (441), can. 26. 74. Cf. ed. H.I. Vogels, CSEL 81/3 (Vienna, 1969), 268. 75. Council of Epaone (517), can. 21 (C. de Clercq, Concilia Galliae 511-695, 250: 148A , 29). Blessings of women as deaconesses had become widespread because the ritual did not provide a blessing for widows, as was noted in the Second Council of Tours (567), can. 21 (ibid., 187). 76. Ibid., 101. 77. Cf. Second Council of Tours, can. 20 (ibid., 184).
78. Many commentators have followed the model of Ambrosiaster in his Commentary on 1 Tim 3:11 (CSEL 81, 3; G. L. Muller, ed., Der Empfanger des Weihesakraments: Quellen zur Lehre und Praxis der Kirche, nur Mannern das Weihesakrament zu spenden (Wurzburg, 1999), 89): “But the Cataphrygians, seizing this opportunity of falling into error, uphold in their foolish rashness, under the pretext that Paul addressed women after deacons, that it is also necessary to ordain deaconesses. They know however that the Apostles chose seven deacons (cf. Acts 6:1-6); is it to be supposed that no woman was found suitable at that point, when we read that there were holy women grouped around the eleven Apostles (cf. Acts 1:14)? ... And Paul orders women to keep silence in church (cf. 1 Cor 14:34-35).” See also John Chrysostom, In 1 Tim horn. 11; PG 62, 555; Epiphanius, Haer. 79, 3 (Muller, Quellen,88); Council of Orange (Muller, Quellen, 98); Council of Dovin (Armenia, 527): “Feminis non licet ministeria diaconissae praestare nisi ministerium baptismi” (Muller, Quellen, 105); Isidore of Seville, De Eccl. Off 2, 18, 11 (Muller, Quellen, 109); Decretum Gratiani, can. 15 (Muller, Quellen, 115); Magister Ruftnus, Summa Decretorum, can. 27, q. 1 (Muller, Quellen,320); Robert of Yorkshire, Liber poenitentialis, q. 6, 42 (Muller, Quellen, 322); Thomas Aquinas, In 1 Tim 3, 11 (Muller, Quellen, 333); etc. 79. Cf Vanzan, “Le diaconat permanent feminin: Ombres et lumieres”, in Documentation Catholique 2203 (1999): 440-46. The author refers to the discussions which have taken place between R. Gryson, A. G. Martimort, C. Vagaggini and C. Marucci. Cf. L. Scheffczyk, ed., Diakonat und Diakonissen (St. Ottilien, 2002), especially M. Hauke, “Die Geschichte der Diakonissen: Nachwort und Literaturnachtrag zur Neuauflage des Standardwerkes von Martimort über die Diakonissen”, 321-76.
What’s behind Cardinal Sarah’s Ad Orientem Call? Cardinal Sarah continues to call priests and people to pray in the same direction at certain points in the Mass. Editor Christopher Carstens looks at the Council’s liturgical principles underlying his recent remarks.
The Ministry of Deaconess? | Pope Francis and Cardinal Müller have been in conversation about a commission on women deacons, as well as the International Theological Commission’s 2002 study on the same subject.
The Sacramental Validity of Today’s Marriages | Are many of today’s sacramental marriages invalid? And how does a couple’s intention to enter a permanent bond affect validity? Canonist Benedict Nguyen clarifies.
Sacrifice as Deificaton | David Augustine gets to the heart of sacrifice, which has less to do with destruction and everything to do with divinization, the union of all things with God.
Adoremus at 21 | Adoration means coming “mouth to mouth” with God. Adoremus looks back to its 1995 inception and ahead to the ongoing liturgical encounter with Christ.
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
PO Box 385
La Crosse, WI 54602-0385
CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED
Please remember to check the ABOVE LABEL for the date of your last donation. If it has been a year or more, please send your donation now. Thank You!
The Temple is Still Under Construction By Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger _________________________ The Liturgical Situation Today: Excerpts from The Spirit of the Liturgy
an there really be special holy places and holy times in the world of Christian faith? Christian worship is surely a cosmic liturgy, which embraces both heaven and earth. The epistle to the Hebrews stresses that Christ suffered “outside the gate” and adds this exhortation: “therefore let us go forth to him outside the camp, bearing abuse for him” (13:12). Is the whole world not now his sanctuary? Is sanctity not to be practiced by living one’s daily life in the right way? Is our divine worship not a matter of being loving people in our daily life? Is that not how we become like God and so draw near to the true sacrifice? Can the sacral be anything other than imitating Christ in the simple patience of daily life? Can there be any other holy time than the time for practicing love of neighbor, whenever and wherever the circumstances of our life demand it? Whoever asks questions like these touches on a crucial dimension of the Christian understanding of worship, but overlooks something essential about the permanent limits of human existence in this world, overlooks the “not yet” that is part of Christian existence and talks as if the New Heaven and New Earth had already come. The Christ-event and the growth of the Church out of all the nations, the transition from Temple sacrifice to universal worship “in spirit and truth,” is the first important step across the frontier, a step toward the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testa-
Saint Joseph the Workman Cathedral, La Crosse, WI, under construction, 1960. “The new Temple,” Cardinal Ratzinger says,”not made by human hands, does exist, but it is also still under construction.”
ment. But it is obvious that hope has not yet fully attained its goal. The New Jerusalem needs no Temple because Almighty God and the Lamb are themselves its Temple. In this City, instead of sun and moon, it is the glory of God and its lamp, the Lamb, that shed their brilliance (cf. Rev 21:22f.). But this City is not yet here. That is why the Church Fathers described the various stages of fulfillment, not just as a contrast between Old and New Testaments, but as the three steps of shadow, image, and reality. In the Church of the New Testament the shadow has been scattered by the image: “[T]he night is far gone, the day is at hand” (Rom 13:12). But, as St. Gregory the Great puts it, it is still only the time of dawn, when darkness and light are intermingled. The sun is ris-
ing, but it has still not reached its zenith. Thus the time of the New Testament is a peculiar kind of “in-between,” a mixture of “already and not yet.” The empirical conditions of life in this world are still in force, but they have been burst open, and must be more and more burst open, in preparation for the final fulfillment already inaugurated in Christ. This idea of the New Testament as the between-time, as image between shadow and reality, gives liturgical theology its specific form. […] [I]n our own time, the time of the Church, we [are] in the middle stage of the movement of history. The curtain of the Temple has been torn. Heavens has been opened up by the union of the man Jesus, and thus of all human existence, with the living God. But this new
openness is only mediated by the signs of salvation. We need mediation. As yet we do not yet see the Lord “as he is.” […] Christian liturgy is a liturgy of promise fulfilled, of a quest, the religious quest of human history, reaching its goal. But it remains a liturgy of hope. It, too, bears within it the mark of impermanence. The new Temple, not made by human hands, does exist, but it is also still under construction. The great gesture of embrace emanating from the Crucified has not yet reached its goal; it has only just begun. Christian liturgy is liturgy on the way, a liturgy of pilgrimage toward the transfiguration of the world, which will only take place when God is “all in all.” (The Spirit of the Liturgy 53-54, 60, 50)