Wednesday Liturgy: Angelus Right After Mass

ROME, NOV. 28, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I have been assigned to celebrate Mass at a chapel where the custom, instituted by one of my predecessors, is to pray the Angelus immediately after the 7:30 a.m. Mass. Mass concludes with the blessing and dismissal, and is followed by the Angelus. Is this correct? I know that the Holy Father prayed the Angelus after Mass in St. Peter's Square, but there is something awkward about saying, "Mass is ended, go in peace," and then praying the Angelus. -- P.R., Abuja, Nigeria

A: Certainly Pope John Paul II would sometimes pray the Angelus at the end of Mass. But this was usually required by the tyranny of having to respect television transmission timetables. It was not so much a personal liturgical innovation.

The Regina Caeli is also frequently sung after the blessing at papal Masses during Easter. And the procession does not begin until it has concluded.

As our reader points out, there is some awkwardness in imparting the final blessing and the dismissal and then beginning to recite another act of piety, even one as worthy as the Angelus.

The final dismissal is a sign that the liturgical assembly, with its particular presence of Christ, is now concluded.

All the same, when we say "Go in peace" we usually do not expect the people to immediately head for the exits. There is no incongruity in asking the faithful to wait at least until the priest has processed out or until the end of any final hymn that might be sung. This is because these actions are in some way immediately connected to the Mass even though the liturgy is technically over.

Although the Mass is the greatest act of prayer, and devotions are not usually united to Mass, there is no contradiction in having private or community devotions immediately before or after the celebration. When Mass ends, those who wish may leave; others may remain to prolong their personal thanksgiving or recite other prayers.

Regarding the present question, if the people are devoted to the Angelus it is a good thing to maintain a healthy custom while respecting the pace of the liturgy.

I suggest that a small change could be made. While the people sing the concluding hymn, the priest could kiss the altar and return to the sacristy. Then, depending on the circumstances and location of the sacristy, he could remove at least the chasuble and return to pray the Angelus with those who wish to remain. The same basic method could also apply to other pious practices such as litanies and novenas.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: When Celebrating Mass Alone

ROME, NOV. 28, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Pursuant to our comments on a priest celebrating alone (see Nov. 14), one Australian correspondent asked: "You mentioned that when celebrating alone the priest should go up and kiss the altar before reciting the Entrance Antiphon, etc.

"This surprised me, because on the occasions when I have celebrated alone I have followed the rubrics of the Order of Mass Without a Congregation, in the Sacramentary, which states that the priest does not go up and kiss the altar until after the penitential rite. I was always interested in this difference from the Order of Mass With a Congregation because it was a remaining continuation of the practice in the former rite, and it seemed to make sense spiritually, too. Not that Mass is about my personal piety, of course.

"Looking up the rubrics in the latest Latin Missale Romanum I found that they do indeed specify, in what is now called the 'Ordo Missae, cuius unus tantum minister participat,' that one should go straight up and kiss the altar before reciting the Antiphon and making the sign of the cross.

"However, unless I were celebrating Mass in Latin, I would be using the English-language Sacramentary, and naturally following the rubrics in it, which specify kissing the altar after the penitential rite.

"This prompted me to look at the prescriptions of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal 3, which indeed specifies the newer practice of kissing the altar before the penitential rite. But GIRM 3 has not yet been promulgated in Australia, so I would hardly be expected to follow its prescriptions in this matter, even if I had been aware of them.

"So now I'm in a dilemma: Which rubrics should I follow: the new ones when celebrating in Latin and the old ones when celebrating in English? Or the new ones always, even though they are not yet in force in Australia?"

There are two points to be addressed. The first is that, effectively, in the new Latin Missal the movements and gestures of "Mass at which only one minister assists" have removed most of the distinctions between this form of Mass and a Mass with a congregation.

Apart from the different moment of kissing the altar, the rubrics stipulated that the priest remain at the left-hand side of the altar for the readings and move to the center for the presentation of gifts. He now celebrates all the rites at the center of the altar although with the option of using the ambo for the readings.

The logic behind these changes is that the model or paradigmatic form of Mass is a Mass with a congregation, and only those things change which in some way acknowledge the non-presence of the congregation.

When the new missal was presented, it was suggested that the differences found between both forms of celebrating in earlier editions of the reformed rite was perhaps due to an oversight.

The second point has to do with what rubrics should be followed. The new GIRM, having been approved by the Pope, does not require the promulgation of a bishops' conference to gain legal force. The bishops do not approve the text but rather its official translation for the particular country as well as any adaptations they may wish to submit to the Holy See.

At the same time, the changes do not usually become obligatory until after the Holy See approves the translation and the conference promulgates the new text.

Therefore, at the moment we could say that, in Australia, the norms contained in the Latin text of the new GIRM may be applied to a vernacular Mass but are not yet obligatory and either the old or the new rubrics may be followed. In the United States, however, and in any other country that has already promulgated an official translation, the new rubrics must be followed.

Other readers made the point that Mass is never really alone. As one priest from Chicago wrote: "Some priests would essentially agree that without at least one minister present, certain greetings, gestures and movement would be unnecessary, even illogical since no one would be present to respond.

"However, why not proceed with the Rite of Mass with One Minister Present in its entirety? After all:

"1) We are never truly alone when we celebrate Mass because the Church Triumphant and Suffering are always present, and are actively participating and answering;

"2) To eliminate them would be to overemphasize the 'functionistic' presence of the Church Militant as a 'necessity'' and thus inadvertently justify why [some] priests don't celebrate Mass daily;

"3) Keeping everything intact would be simpler than having to memorize what must be eliminated; unity of rubrics would be less complicating."

As the priest said, everything would be much simpler if we could always follow the rite as if a minister were present.

All the same, apart from the obvious matter of fidelity to Church norms, we would observe that insofar as the Mass is a ritual it is a human act performed on earth and as such, the ritual or external elements should reasonably respond to the concrete situation in which the celebration is carried out.

It is certainly true that the Church's other members are also attending the celebration. But the ritual acknowledges this presence in other ways, for example through the Sanctus, by asking for their intercession and by interceding for those who have died.

There may also be some advantages with following this rubric. The fact that a priest has to remember to make these changes when no assembly is present may actually benefit his celebration of Mass by helping him concentrate and avoid a routine and mechanistic celebration.

Likewise, it may actually intensify his awareness of the presence of the Church triumphant and suffering as well as the Mass' role as intercessory prayer for all, and not just for those physically present.

Noting the difference when celebrating alone may also benefit his way of celebrating for a congregation, since he may be less likely to take the assembly for granted and will value its role as a sign and manifestation of the Church.

In making these clarifications to the rubrics it is not my wish to offer any encouragement to the practice of solitary celebration, which has historically always been considered a liturgical anomaly.

Even though the present rubrics make it easier than before to be able to celebrate such a Mass, it would be liturgically and theologically incorrect, and perhaps even spiritually unhealthy, for a priest to prefer such a celebration if the possibility of celebrating with a server or for the faithful were available to him.

A slightly different case would be the priest whose only alternative to celebrating alone is to concelebrate. Some priests, while not objecting to concelebration as such, find that daily concelebration over a prolonged period is detrimental to their fervor.

Some find, for example, that being unable to recite the prayers according to their own natural rhythm, as well as being impeded from being able to choose a particular Mass formula or Eucharistic Prayer, over time leads them to be less attentive to the celebration.

This can occur especially in priestly residences where the daily celebration has little external solemnity. Since concelebration is never obligatory, a priest may sometimes legitimately opt to celebrate alone providing that there is no possibility of celebrating with at least one minister.

Father Cantalamessa on Christ as King

ROME, NOV. 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raneiro Cantalamessa, on this Sunday's liturgical readings.

* * *

34th Sunday in Ordinary Time: Solemnity of Christ the King
Daniel 7:13-14; Revelation 1:5-8; John 18:33b-37
"Behold, appearing on the clouds ..."

In today's Gospel, Pilate asks Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" and Jesus answers, "You say I am a king." A short while before this, Caiaphas had asked him the same question in another way: "Are you the Son of the blessed God?" and Jesus had replied affirmatively this time as well: "I am!"

Indeed, according to the Gospel of St. Mark, Jesus reinforced this answer, citing and applying to himself that which the prophet in the Book of Daniel had said of the Son of Man who comes on the clouds of heaven and receives the kingdom that will not end (First Reading). A glorious vision in which Christ appears in the story and above it, temporal and eternal.

Alongside this glorious image of Christ we find, in the readings for the solemnity, the image of Jesus humble and suffering, more concerned with making his disciples kings than with ruling them. In the passage taken from Revelation, Jesus is described as he "who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, who has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."

It has always proved difficult to hold these two prerogatives of Christ together -- majesty and humility -- deriving from his two natures, divine and human. The man of today has no problem seeing in Jesus the friend and brother of all, but he finds it hard to also proclaim him Lord and recognize Jesus' royal power over him.

If we look at the films about Jesus this difficulty is evident. In general the cinema has opted for Jesus the meek, persecuted, misunderstood, so close to man as to share his fate, his rebellions, his desire for a normal life. In this line are linked "Jesus Christ Superstar" and Martin Scorcese's more crude and sacreligious "The Last Temptation of Christ." Pier Paolo Pasolini, in "Vangelo secondo Matteo" (The Gospel According to Matthew), also gives us the Jesus who is the friend of the apostles and of men, close to us, even if he does not lack a certain dimension of mystery, expressed with much poetry, above all through some poignant moments of silence.

Only Franco Zeffirelli, in his "Jesus of Nazareth," made the effort to hold together the majesty and humility. Jesus appears in Zeffirelli's film as a man among men, affable and close, but, at the same time, as one who, with his miracles and his resurrection, places us before the mystery of his person, a person who transcends the merely human.

I do not wish to disqualify the attempts to repropose the Jesus event in accessible and popular terms. In his time Jesus was not offended if "the people" considered him one of the prophets. However, he asked the apostles, "But you, who do you say that I am?" making it clear that the answers proposed by the people were insufficient.

The Jesus that the Church presents to us today on the solemnity of Christ the King is the complete Jesus, most human and yet transcendent. In Paris the stick that was used to establish the length of the meter is preserved with special care so that this unity of measurement, introduced by the French Revolution, will not be altered with the passage of time. In the same way, in the community of believers which is the Church, the true image of Jesus of Nazareth is preserved. This image must serve as the criterion for measuring the legitimacy of every representation of him in literature, cinema and art.

It is not a fixed and inert image, kept under glass like the meter stick, but an image of a living Christ who grows in the comprehension of the Church, who will continually give rise to new questions and provocations of human culture and progress.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Focused Link: Raising Children of Character: 10 Principles

Parenting is arguably the hardest job there is and the one for which we get no training. Here are ten principles of parenting that can guide us in the demanding work of raising children of character.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/parenting/pa0117.htm

Wednesday Liturgy: Consecration at a Distance

ROME, NOV. 21, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: How far from the altar can the celebrant be for the consecration and how many altars can he preside over at once? The situation I witnessed was in a large conference hall where bread and wine were prepared at each table where eight people sat around and the priest was at another table at the end of the hall. I question the validity of consecration at any of the tables except where the priest was. If this is valid, then what is to keep a missionary or bishop from consecrating all the elements on all the altars at a given time across his parish or diocese? Some say valid location is based on intention, so you could have a very broad intention, yes? -- D.H., Salem, Missouri

A: There are several points that need to be addressed.

Needless to say, the situation described represents a very grave abuse of liturgical norms and shows disrespect toward the Eucharist and very poor theology. It would be too extensive to list all infractions of liturgical law. But then, it is unlikely that fidelity to liturgical law is of uppermost concern to the priest who performed this rite.

To take just one aspect, this function certainly went against the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," Nos. 38 and 77:

"The constant teaching of the Church on the nature of the Eucharist not only as a meal, but also and pre-eminently as a Sacrifice, is therefore rightly understood to be one of the principal keys to the full participation of all the faithful in so great a Sacrament. For when 'stripped of its sacrificial meaning, the mystery is understood as if its meaning and importance were simply that of a fraternal banquet.'[38]

"The celebration of Holy Mass is not to be inserted in any way into the setting of a common meal, nor joined with this kind of banquet. Mass is not to be celebrated without grave necessity on a dinner table nor in a dining room or banquet hall, nor in a room where food is present, nor in a place where the participants during the celebration itself are seated at tables. If out of grave necessity Mass must be celebrated in the same place where eating will later take place, there is to be a clear interval of time between the conclusion of Mass and the beginning of the meal, and ordinary food is not to be set before the faithful during the celebration of Mass."[77]

A far graver point regards the validity of the supposed consecration at the other tables. Here we must examine several points, since a definite answer is not easy.

According to the doctrine of Council of Trent, the sacramental intention must be to do as the Church does whenever it performs this rite. This means that the celebrant must at least intend to consecrate the bread and wine.

It does not mean that he intends to follow all Church norms in doing so. Provided that correct matter and form are united to the intention, the Church would normally recognize the validity of an abusive Eucharistic celebration where many norms were flouted.

At the same time, abuses can reach such a level that they would demonstrate that the celebrant no longer intends to do as the Church does. And hence the sacrament would be invalid even though correct matter and form is used.

Thus, for example, the Church has officially declared that it does not recognize the baptism of certain groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. Although they might use a correct baptismal formula, they do not believe in the Trinity -- and so it is not baptism as Christians understand it.

In the case at hand it could be argued that the level of abuse was such that the intention no longer corresponded to the Church's mind. The argument is possible but not absolutely certain.

The question of distance must also be addressed. As our reader points out, if intention alone is sufficient, what would prevent long-distance consecration? Here the words of consecration themselves should help us. There has to be some meaning to the words "Take this," and "This is my body (blood)." The word "this" is not the same as "that" or "over there."

Liturgical norms usually require that all that is to be consecrated be present before the priest on the altar and upon a corporal. On very exceptional circumstances, such as large papal Masses, ciboria with hosts have been held by priests and deacons who are around or immediately behind the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer. Thus some relationship between the altar and the hosts to be consecrated is always maintained even though on some occasions the physical distance might be relatively large.

On one or two occasions, when the number of people made it impossible for the priests around the altar to distribute Communion to everyone from the hosts consecrated at the Mass, hosts consecrated at another Mass and reserved at a nearby church were used to distribute Communion to those furthest away. Not even the Holy Father believed that he could consecrate at a distance.

This point would also make it more likely that the attempted consecration at other tables was invalid. Once more, the argument is not airtight, but it is probable. And so the priest should not have proceeded as he did, since we cannot play games with the validity of the sacraments.

Such a case should be reported to the bishop who is responsible for making sure that the priest in question fully understands the gravity of his action and for assuring that there will be no repetition.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Why No "Amen" at End of the Our Father

ROME, NOV. 21, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Several readers responded to our comments on the missing "Amen" at the end of the Our Father (Nov. 7).

One interesting comment hailed from an eminent Anglican who wrote: "Father McNamara … doesn't say -- and I had always thought -- that modern practice was, broadly, to add 'Amen' to prayers said by others -- signifying assent -- but not to prayers one said oneself. Thus, in the Roman rite, the prayer of preparation said by the priest immediately before Communion has no 'Amen' whereas the main orations (which the congregation hears) have an 'Amen' added. Mutatis mutandis, the 'Hail Mary's in the Angelus -- or when used in the Prayer of the Faithful -- tend not to have an 'Amen.' The great exception to this rule is that the Gloria and Credo are recited by all and have an Amen but, no doubt, that is in recognition of the ancient nature of the texts and their musical settings."

This comment regarding the nature of the "Amen" as a response to prayers said by others would offer a further explanation as to why it was omitted from the Our Father recited at Mass.

As our reader points out, it is a broad rule and there are several exceptions. For example, the "Amen" is omitted after the Our Father recited during Morning and Evening Prayer of the Divine Office. But it is included in the "Glory be to the Father" recited by all at the end of each psalm in the Office.

Likewise, the liturgical practice is not necessarily carried over into personal prayer and official collections of prayers, such as the Enchiridion of Indulgences, and the Compendium of the Catechism, almost always include the "Amen" at the end of the orations with no distinction made for private or group recitation.

A reader from Kansas asked: "I would also like to know why the last word of the Our Father is also omitted. That word is 'one,' i.e., 'deliver us from the evil one.'"

The Catechism makes clear in Nos. 2850-2854 that the petition to be freed from evil is not an abstraction but refers to a person, Satan, the evil one. The original Greek text, however, admits both translations ("from evil" or "from the evil one") and the present English translation respects the traditional rendition which is already found in the 1611 King James version.

Finally, a reader asked how to pronounce the word "Amen."

Many foreign words entering into English take on a life of their own and end up bearing little resemblance to the original pronunciation. As English rules of pronunciation are somewhat fluid, it is hard to say if there is really a correct way of pronouncing this word in English.

All told, the Hebrew word "amen" has survived fairly intact even though there are regional differences of pronunciation.

Beyond the United States most English speakers tend to say AH-men. In the United States the form AY-men is perhaps most common, but even there the form AH-men is almost invariably used when singing or reciting prayers in Latin. Some Eastern-rite chants sound closer to AH-min than to AH-men.

In the end, it is more important to assent heart and soul to the liturgical prayers than to accent them with perfect diction.

Father Cantalamessa on the End of the World

ROME, NOV. 17, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on the readings from this Sunday's liturgy.

* * *

33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time (b)
Daniel 12:1-3; Hebrews 10:11-14, 18; Mark 13:24-32

The Gospel of the second to last Sunday of the liturgical year is the classic text on the end of the world. There has always been someone who has taken it upon themselves to wave this page of the Gospel in the face of their contemporaries and provoke psychosis and fear. My advice is to be calm and to not let yourself be in the least bit troubled by these visions of catastrophe.

Just read the last line of the same Gospel passage: "But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." If neither the angels nor the Son (insofar as he is man and not insofar as he is God) know the day or hour of the end, is it possible that a member of some sect or some religious fanatic would know and be authorized to announce it? In the Gospel Jesus assures us of the fact of his return and the gathering his chosen ones from the "four winds"; the when and the how of his return (on the clouds between the darkening of the sun and the falling of the stars) is part of the figurative language of the literary genre of these discourses.

Another observation might help explain certain pages of the Gospel. When we talk about the end of the world on the basis of the understanding of time that we have today, we immediately think of the absolute end of the world, after which there can be nothing but eternity. But the Bible goes about its reasoning with relative and historical categories more than with absolute and metaphysical ones. Thus, when the Bible speaks of the end of the world, it intends quite often the concrete world, that which in fact exists for and is known by a certain group of people, their world. It is, in sum, the end of a world that is being treated not the end of the world, even if the two perspectives at times intertwine.

Jesus says: "This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place." Is he mistaken? No, it was the world that was known to his hearers that passed away, the Jewish world. It tragically passed away with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. When, in 410, the Vandals sacked Rome, many great figures of the time thought that it was the end of the world. They were not all that wrong; one world did end, the one created by Rome with its empire. In this sense, those who, with the destruction of the twin towers on September 11, 2001, thought of the end of the world, were not mistaken ...

None of this diminishes the seriousness of the Christian charge but only deepens it. It would be the greatest foolishness to console oneself by saying that no one knows when the end of the world will be and forgetting that, for any of us, it could be this very night. For this reason Jesus concludes today's Gospel with the recommendation that we "be vigilant because no one knows when the exact moment will be."

We must, I think, completely change the attitude with which we listen to these Gospels that speak of the end of the world and the return of Christ. We must no longer regard as a punishment and a veiled threat that which the Scriptures call "the blessed hope" of Christians, that is, the return of our Lord Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13). The mistaken idea we have of God must be corrected. The recurrent talk about the end of the world which is often engaged in by those with a distorted religious sentiment, has a devastating effect on many people. It reinforces the idea of a God who is always angry, ready to vent his wrath on the world. But this is not the God of the Bible which a psalm describes as "merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, who will not always accuse or keep his anger forever ... because he knows that we are made of dust" (Psalm 103:8-14).

Wednesday Liturgy: When Celebrating Mass Alone

ROME, NOV. 14, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I was recently speaking with some of my brother priests about the celebration of a private Mass when there is no server and no congregation, just the priest. There seemed to be no uniformity on how it is to be done, and the only thing we could find in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) is a few lines found in No. 254. It says, "Mass should not be celebrated without a minister or at least one of the faithful, except for a just and reasonable cause. In this case, the greetings, the introductory or explanatory remarks, and the blessing at the end of the Mass are omitted." I know this question really is of no interest to most people, but I think many priests (at least the ones I have talked to) would like some guidance on this topic. -- D.C., Sioux Falls, South Dakota

A: Our correspondent also laid out a scheme of what he believed should be omitted in this case. I will use the scheme although modifying some details.

Although this might appear to be a rather obscure point, nothing in liturgy is so obscure that liturgists cannot find points to disagree on -- and this is no exception. Therefore some of what I say is just my personal opinion based on what I believe to be an adequate interpretation of the law.

The most difficult aspect to interpret regards what is encompassed under the Latin term "Monitionis." The English translation of this term as "introductory or explanatory remarks" may give rise to a very broad interpretation.

Other languages have generally preferred to keep the technical term "monitions," which may be more restrictive. Either way, neither the original Latin rubric nor the translations are really that helpful in resolving our query. As far as I know there is no official interpretation from the Holy See.

Before entering into detail I wish to mention that some priests believe that this form of Mass with no faithful present is now forbidden. This is not the case. Indeed, present canon law, by requiring a just cause for celebrating alone, and no longer a grave cause as did the 1917 code, has actually made it easier to celebrate such a Mass even though it should always be seen as an exception and to be avoided whenever possible.

All the same, many priests have on some occasion been faced with the choice of celebrating alone, or not celebrating. Both canon law and the law of grace recommend celebrating Mass as the better thing to do.

The basic model to be followed would be the rite of Mass with only one minister present, omitting whatever would be directed toward this minister as well as the gestures of turning toward the minister for these greetings.

Therefore when a priest celebrates alone he does the following:

-- After kissing the altar he recites the entrance antiphon and makes the sign of the cross.

-- He omits the greeting at the beginning of Mass ("Dominus vobiscum") and the invitation at the beginning the penitential rite ("Fratres, agnoscamus ..."). The rest of the penitential rite is as normal.

-- He recites the invitation to the orations ("Oremus"), for these are not just invitations directed to the people but invitations in which he himself is included. The same criterion is obeyed for the introduction to the Our Father which is not omitted.

-- He includes the introduction to the readings and Gospel ("Lectio sancti …") but does omit the greeting of the people at the Gospel ("Dominus vobiscum"). He includes the conclusion to the readings and Gospel ("Verbum Domini"). These are also for his benefit and not just greetings to the people.

-- At the presentation of gifts he recites the prayers offering the bread and wine but omits the response "Blessed be God …." He also omits the "Pray Brethren" ("Orate, fratres") along with the response "May the Lord accept …."

-- Unlike the other "Dominus vobiscum," I believe that the one which forms part of the initial protocol of the preface dialogue should always be said. The norms are clear that the Eucharistic Prayer must always be said integrally and that it retains its plural form even when the priest is alone. As this dialogue is inseparable from the Eucharistic Prayer it should always be recited.

In support of this interpretation of the particular character of this "Dominus vobiscum" is the fact that even when Mass was generally celebrated toward the east, the rubrics did not ask the priest to turn toward the people at this moment as happened in almost every other case, but rather to look at the altar cross.

-- Although the Eucharistic Prayer must be said in its entirety, the memorial acclamation ("Mysterium fidei") does not form part of the prayer. Therefore both introduction and acclamation are omitted. This rubric is explicitly stated in some orders for concelebration when only priests are present at the Mass.

-- The giving of the peace ("Pax Domini sit semper ...") is omitted.

-- The moment of showing the host is easily confused. In fact we have two prayers which are placed one beside the other.

Here, the norm of No. 268 of the GIRM is followed: "If, however, the minister does not receive Communion, [or there is no minister] the priest, after genuflecting, takes the host and, facing the altar, says quietly the 'Domine, non sum dignus' (Lord, I am not worthy) and the 'Corpus Christi custodiat' (May the Body of Christ bring) and then receives the Body of Christ. Then he takes the chalice and says quietly, 'Sanguis Christi custodiat' (May the Blood of Christ bring), and then consumes the Blood of Christ."

-- After holy Communion the priest recites the Communion antiphon before purifying the sacred vessels.

-- After a period of silent thanksgiving the priest says "Let us pray" and recites the prayer after Communion.

-- Both the final blessing and the "Ite missa est" are omitted. Mass ends with the "Through Christ our Lord. Amen" of the closing prayer, followed by kissing the altar and either a bow toward the altar or a genuflection toward the tabernacle, as the case may be, before withdrawing.

These gestures are considered as sufficient forms of conclusion. There is no need to add other gestures not foreseen in the ritual such as making the sign of the cross.

Of course, this in no way excludes the recommendation that, immediately after Mass, the priest dedicates some moments to personal thanksgiving for the grace and privilege of having celebrated the Holy Sacrifice.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Pius V's 1570 Bull

ROME, NOV. 14, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Some readers wrote to corroborate our comments (Oct. 31) on the legal force of Pope St. Pius V's bull "Quo Primum."

A Cincinnati correspondent wrote: "The instruction printed in the Roman Missal of 1570 was for the benefit of the printers who worked the presses. This was to ensure that everything would be printed exactly as the Church intended without serious mistakes, intentional or otherwise."

This is true, above all, of the final part of the document containing some of the more severe expressions of excommunication and especially regarding printers who were outside of the Pope's civil jurisdiction. Those under his authority were subject above all to fines and loss of their printing license.

The earlier part of the bull refers to printers as well as to "every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence," who were henceforth obliged to follow the new missal and forbidden to change anything.

It is worth noting that the decree nowhere mentions that it has any binding force on future papal action.

Another correspondent writing from the Middle East offers the parallel case of the 1568 document "Quod a Nobis" which introduced the new Roman breviary two years before the new missal. This document contains many expressions similar to "Quo Primum" regarding, for instance, the perpetual force of law, the obligation of use in all places, and the total prohibition of adding or omitting anything.

Our reader then comments: "As you are undoubtedly aware, St. Pius X radically rearranged the ancient Roman Psalter and changed a few lessons for a few days, and provided contracted lessons, among other changes in 1913. Moreover, he forbade the use of the old Psalter. This clearly shows that he was not bound by the prescriptions issued in 'Quod a Nobis' and since these are similar to those of 'Quo Primum,' those must not be binding either.

"I have found using 'Quod a Nobis' more effective because the adherents to 'Quo Primum' argue that it is restricted to the Ordinary (either whole or from the Offertory to Last Gospel), or to the Temporale only (despite evidence in encyclicals like 'Grande Munus' to the contrary). Since the Psalter is the most fundamental part of the breviary, no such statement can be made with regard to 'Quod a Nobis.'"

Economics: Love of God, Production and Free Market: Christian Judgment on Neo-liberalism

Chipi's note: As someone doing his economic studies and well-versed with Catholic social doctrine, I found this article to be not too comprehensive in its analysis, but the outcome is still the same if I had a chance to write something similar.

*~*~*~*~*

By Rodney Moss

Neo-classical or neo-liberal economics upon which much free-market business practice is based differs rather radically from Catholic social thought.

Neo-liberal economics assumes that its economic theory is value-neutral and scientific in its analysis of concepts such as "production," "consumption," "money," "wealth," "capital" and "scarce" resources. Bannock, Baxter and Davis suggest that economics may be defined as "The study of production, distribution and consumption of wealth in human society."[1] Here the key ingredients in human economic activity would be individualism, hedonism and market competition. The human person is seen to be motivated by self-interest and wishes to maximize pleasure and avoid pain. There is no concern with the "common good."

Ideally the free market should, as Adam Smith suggested, work for the benefit of all members of society. Thus if each person follows their own self-interest in spite of not aiming to contribute to others, nevertheless, society as a whole will benefit. Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations"[2] calls this outcome "the invisible hand."

In this neo-liberal model, then, the common good is best served by the operation of the free-market system involving minimal government interference. Economic problems are best solved by promoting economic growth "generated by each individual's pursuit of self-interest in a free market regulated by the forces of market competition."[3] Development is seen in this model only in economic terms and is "economic centered," not "human centered."[4]

In contrast, then, what is the view of Catholic social thought on economics?

First, Catholic social thought does not view economics as concerned only with facts or being value-free/neutral as do the neo-classical/neo-liberal economists. Importantly, economic systems are seen as based on some set of values, whether that system be capitalist, socialist, Marxist or some other economic variant.

The importance of the dignity of the human person is central to Catholic social thought and to its view of economics and the economy. Economic choices, production and consumption involve human beings. Economics does not exist for its own sake: "The purpose of economics is the service of men, their material needs and those of their moral, spiritual and religious life. Economic activity is to be carried out according to its own method and laws but within the limits of morality."[5]

Economics and economic systems and activity cannot then be neutral or value-free, for they impact on human life and are also a product of human thought, creativity, choices and decisions. Like any other area of knowledge, economics has its particular laws and methods and a degree of autonomy but human beings are to have a priority and primary importance. In Catholic social thought economics is to be seen in the context of its contribution to the service of the human person as a whole being -- physical, spiritual, intellectual, moral and spiritual.

Secondly, in Catholic social thought, the scientific or qualitative aspects of economics are secondary to the human element. Therefore "[e]ven in social and economic life the dignity of the human person and the integrity of his vocation, along with the good of society as a whole, are to be recognized and furthered. Man is the author, the center and the end of all social and economic life."[6]

In other words, economics and economic life is to be at the service of human beings and not vice versa: "The ultimate and basic purpose of economic production does not consist merely in the increase of goods produced, nor in profit nor prestige; it is directed to the service of man, that is, in his totality, taking into account his material needs and the requirements of his intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious life ..."[7]

Because the human person is viewed as a whole being -- physical, spiritual, intellectual, moral and spiritual -- he/she is not viewed as an "economic being," nor as an individualistic, purely rational being whose goal is material pleasure. Our goal is transcendent unity with God. "The highest reason for human dignity is man's vocation to communion with God."[8]

Thirdly, Catholic social thought is not based on the belief that individual self-interest should be pursued and that somehow this will contribute to the good of society. This was the assumption of Adam Smith. However, Wilber notes that "Scholarly work in economics over the past fifteen years demonstrates that, under conditions of interdependence and imperfect information, rational self-interest frequently leads to socially irrational results."[9] We need a "moral culture" to inform economic life.

Fourthly, the common good is central to Catholic social thought and can never be regarded as a mere byproduct of individual self-interest. The common good, that which transcends particular interests and which is a good in which all can participate, is very different from a "mechanistic" and individualistic view of society dominant in classical and neo-liberal economic theory.

Finally, economic problems are not solved by growth alone. In "Centesimus Annus," No. 29, we read: "[D]evelopment must not be understood solely in economic terms, but in a way that is fully human. It is not only a question of raising all people to the level enjoyed by the richest countries, but rather of building up a more decent life through united labor, of concretely enhancing every individual's dignity and creativity, as well as his capacity to respond to his personal vocation, and thus to God's call."

--- --- ---

NOTES

[1] Bannock, G., Baxter, R.E., and Davies, E., 2003, "The Penguin Dictionary of Economics," London: Penquin Books, p. 114

[2] Originally published in 1776, this edition, 2003, p. 527

[3] Wilber, C.K. 1991. "Incentives and the Organization of Work. Moral Hazards and Trust," in Coleman, J.B., "One Hundred Years of Catholic Social Thought. Celebration and Challenge," New York: Orbis Books, p. 212

[4] Henriot, J.P., 1993, "Who Cares about Africa? Development Guidelines for the Church's Social Teaching," in Williams, O.F., and Houck, J.W., eds., "Catholic Social Thought and the New World Order. Building on One Hundred Years," Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, p. 212

[5] "Gaudium et Spes," No. 64

[6] Ibid., No. 63

[7] Ibid., No. 64

[8] Ibid., No. 19

[9] Wilber, ibid., p. 214

Hedonistic Culture and the New Empire of the Global Market

by Capuchin Father Gary Devery

In April 2001 Pope John Paul II addressed the seventh plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences on the subject of globalization: "Globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it. No system is an end in itself, and it is necessary to insist that globalization, like any other system, must be at the service of the human person; it must serve solidarity and the common good."[1]

The economic dimension of globalization is a morally neutral but powerful reality. It has power to contribute on a global level to the construction of a civilization of love or to establishing a global culture of death on a level humanity has not previously experienced. The global market has the potential to enfranchise or disenfranchise groups, peoples, and nations on a massive scale.

The overall positive or negative effect of globalization towards the common good of humanity will depend on what is the underlying anthropology giving rise to its moral component; it at this level that the Church has the most to offer.

The present Pope, while still a cardinal, addressing the College of Cardinals before they went into conclave highlighted the urgency of this matter. He noted that today "relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of 'doctrine,' seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the 'I' and its whims as the ultimate measure."[2]

The culture of hedonism is a consequence of relativism. The measure of the human person is the "I"; all values become relative and subjective. Forecasting this into a global market driven by an anthropology based solely on a "What is in it for me?" attitude could result in a tyrannical empire divided between the "haves" and the "have nots." The latter would be the necessary slaves to feed the hedonistic culture of the "haves."

Some would be sacrificed on the altar of hedonism for the medical or eugenic benefits they could provide to the "haves." The most economically vulnerable of society (the genetically impaired, the sick and crippled, the old and so forth) would be measured according to their productive worth and if their market value was deemed negative there would be no appeal to objective and universal values to cry out against their being "environmentally neutralized."

The steady contemplative gaze of the Church on the crucified Christ invites us to hope. The Church does not seek to be an alternative empire to a hedonistic-based empire of the global market. Rather, knowing and living the truth that Jesus Christ is the true measure of humanity, the Church seeks to be a moral leaven in the process of globalization. An aspect of the mission of the Church is to give substance and direction to globalization so that it can serve humanity and the progress of all peoples and nations based on an authentic anthropology.

In 1991 Pope John Paul II in "Centesimus Annus" noted that for the global market to serve the whole of the human family it requires dialogue on different levels that cannot be achieved by an individual state. It "ought to be accompanied by effective international agencies which will oversee and direct the economy to the common good. … In order to achieve this result, it is necessary that there be increased coordination among the more powerful countries, and that in international agencies the interests of the whole human family be equally represented."[3]

For the dialogue and coordination to be authentic it needs to take seriously the invitation recently made by Pope Benedict XVI in his lecture in the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, Germany, that in this process there needs to be a place for religion. Biblical faith turns the person away from the self-absorption of hedonism towards an authentic life of transcendence. The contribution of the Church is that our measure of humanity is the Son of God.

--- --- ---

[1] John Paul II, "Address to the Seventh Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences," 27 April 2001. Published in Globalization: Ethical and Institutional Concerns (Proceedings of the Seventh Plenary Session of he Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, 25-28 April 2001), Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Vatican City: 2001.

[2] Homily delivered Monday, April 18, 2005, by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger during the Mass "for the election of the Roman Pontiff" in St. Peter's Basilica, before the conclave.

[3] No. 58.

Father Cantalamessa on Marriage in Heaven

ROME, NOV. 10, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on the readings from this Sunday's liturgy.

* * *

There came a poor widow
32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time (b)
1 Kings 7:10-16; Hebrews 9:24-28; Mark 12:38-44

One day, Jesus was standing before the temple treasury, watching people deposit their offerings. He saw a poor widow come and put in all she had, two copper coins, which make a penny. He turned to his disciples and said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than the others. All have given from their excess, but she, in her poverty, put in all she had, all she had to live on."

We might call this Sunday the "Sunday of the widows." The story of a widow was also told in the first reading, the widow of Zarephath who gave up all she had left to eat (a handful of flour and a drop of oil) to prepare a meal for the prophet Elijah.

This is a good occasion in which to turn our attention toward both the widows and the widowers of today. If the Bible speaks so often of widows and never of widowers it is because in ancient society the woman who was left alone was at a greater disadvantage than the man who was left alone. Today there is no longer this difference. Actually, in general it now seems that women who are alone manage much better than men.

On this occasion I would like to treat a theme that is of definite interest not only to widows and widowers but also to all those who are married, especially during this month in which we remember the dead. Does the death of a husband or wife, which brings about the legal end of a marriage, also bring with it the total end of communion between the two persons? Does something of that bond which so strongly united two persons on earth remain in heaven, or will all be forgotten once we have crossed the threshold into eternal life?

One day, some Sadducees presented Jesus with the unlikely case of a woman who was successively the wife of seven brothers, asking him whose wife she would be after the resurrection. Jesus answered: "When they rise from the dead they will neither marry nor be given in marriage but will be like angels in heaven" (Mark 12:25).

Interpreting this saying of Jesus wrongly, some have claimed that marriage will have no follow-up in heaven. But with his reply Jesus is rejecting the caricature the Sadducees presented of heaven, as if it were going to be a simple continuation of the earthly relationship of the spouses. Jesus does not exclude the possibility that they might rediscover in God the bond that united them on earth.

According to this vision, marriage does not come to a complete end at death but is transfigured, spiritualized, freed from the limits that mark life on earth, as also the ties between parents and children or between friends will not be forgotten. In a preface for the dead the liturgy proclaims: "Life is transformed, not taken away." Even marriage, which is part of life, will be transfigured, not nullified.

But what about those who have had a negative experience of earthly marriage, an experience of misunderstanding and suffering? Should not this idea that the marital bond will not break at death be for them, rather than a consolation, a reason for fear? No, for in the passage from time to eternity the good remains and evil falls away. The love that united them, perhaps for only a brief time, remains; defects, misunderstandings, suffering that they inflicted on each other, will fall away.

Indeed, this very suffering, accepted with faith, will be transformed into glory. Many spouses will experience true love for each other only when they will be reunited "in God," and with this love there will be the joy and fullness of the union that they did not know on earth. In God all will be understood, all will be excused, all will be forgiven.

Some will ask of course about those who have been legitimately married to different people, widowers and widows who have remarried. (This was the case presented to Jesus of the seven brothers who successively had the same woman as their wife.) Even for them we must repeat the same thing: That which was truly love and self-surrender between each of the husbands or wives, being objectively a good coming from God, will not be dissolved. In heaven there will not be rivalry in love or jealousy. These things do not belong to true love but to the intrinsic limits of the creature.

Wednesday Liturgy: Why No "Amen" at End of the Our Father

ROME, NOV. 7, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Why has the "Amen" been dropped from the "Our Father" at the Holy Mass? (it is not in the missalette.) My understanding is that "Amen" means "I believe." I have come to believe that the additional prayers that were added to the Our Father in the Mass where the Amen is omitted, have now trained our faithful to omit it when we pray the rosary and the Chaplet of Mercy with our prayer group -- or anytime we pray the Our Father in a group. I have also noticed this at Communion services where only the Our Father is prayed -- the Amen is omitted -- and on the Catholic radio station in my area. I firmly believe that we are doing something seriously wrong. -- M.W., Forest Grove, Oregon

A: Our reader has made a very interesting point and illustrates an example of an unintended consequence of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council.

Before the reform the Our Father recited at Mass included the "Amen," a term which may be roughly translated "so be it." At solemn Masses the priest would sing the Pater Noster alone; at simple Masses he would recite it with the server but only the priest would say "Amen" in a low voice.

In 1958 the instruction "De Musica Sacra" laid down rules for the direct participation of the faithful, including permission for the assembly to recite or sing the Pater Noster in Latin with all saying "Amen" at the end.

The liturgical reform extensively reordered the Communion rites and this led, not so much to dropping the "Amen" after the Our Father but to its postponement.

One significant change was that a shortened version of the embolism: "Deliver us Lord from every evil …," formally a prayer said silently by the priest while breaking the host, was now to be said aloud, taking its cue from the last words of the Our Father.

At the end of this prayer, instead of "Amen" the people respond with the acclamation: "For the Kingdom, the power and the glory are yours, now and for ever."

This acclamation was a new addition to the Communion rites and was probably added for ecumenical reasons. This phrase, although not found in the Gospel text, has traditionally functioned as a final verse of the Our Father in both the Eastern and Protestant traditions. In some rites all recited this verse while in others, such as the Byzantine, the priest alone adds it after the choir finishes the Our Father.

After this acclamation we find the prayer for peace. This prayer was formally a private priestly prayer recited after the Agnus Dei and before the sign of peace, which was exchanged only at solemn Masses and among the clergy alone. It is now recited aloud by the priest and has consequently been changed from the singular to plural (no longer look not on "my" but on "our" sins).

Finally, after all this, we have the "Amen" said by all, which in a way concludes the Our Father and the prayers that follow.

From a strictly liturgical point of view, this postponement of the "Amen" obeys a certain logic. It is unlikely that the formulators of the rite fully grasped this change's capacity in forming the prayer habits of the faithful over time.

As our correspondent points out, many practicing Catholics habitually omit the final "Amen" from the Our Father, and this fact is probably attributable to the new liturgical practice.

That this "Amen" does form part of the Lord's Prayer in non-liturgical contexts is shown, for example, by its inclusion in the common prayers found in the new Compendium of the Catechism.

Since it is highly unlikely that the liturgical text is going to change, the only solution is to pay attention when we pray the Our Father during the rosary and similar situations and form a habit of saying the "Amen."

Catholic media, especially radio, can have a positive effect in this effort and should be politely encouraged to correct any oversights which have slipped in by force of habit.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Changing the "Pray Brethren …"

ROME, NOV. 7, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

After our brief comment on the possibility of using "Pray, my brothers and sisters" instead of "Pray, brethren" (Oct. 24) a reader from British Columbia made some reflections on aspects of so-called inclusive language.

Among other things she writes: "One of our priests insists on using 'my sisters and brothers' introducing the 'Orate, fratres' prayer. As a woman, I find it distracting, patronizing and condescending -- pure pap. Is it somehow supposed to compensate for other more obvious 'problems'? For example, consider that the Liturgy of the Word today -- the readings from Paul's Letter to the Ephesians and the Gospel of Luke -- use at least 30 to 40 masculine pronouns in giving instruction or the relating of Jesus' parables. Yet, in the past I had no trouble hearing the epistles or the Gospels and applying them to myself -- a woman.

"However, this new insistence on paying lip service to the feminine pronoun form and replacing what once was generic and inclusive in the English language is playing havoc with my whole appreciation of holy Mass in the vernacular! I almost feel like shouting out, 'Look, we have a Father in heaven! Jesus the Son of God came to us a male child, the Son of Man! The Holy Spirit is presented as 'he'! We have an entirely male priesthood! What's wrong with God's plan? Did God somehow make a mistake? Doesn't the imposition of a few feminine pronoun forms or artificially contrived inclusive terms work to bring about dissatisfaction with the way God has ordered things and willed the human race to re-create (procreate) itself? And for us -- the whole human race to be redeemed?"

While I believe that few people will become dissatisfied with God's plan because of the adoption of a few "inclusive" terms, our reader has touched a nerve regarding some aspects of the use of so-called inclusive language. That is, it often appears patronizing and thus is a source of distraction and annoyance to the very people it was meant to include.

I admit to being personally unconvinced by the arguments that English's use of male pronouns in a generic sense to reference mixed groups or humanity in general, somehow excludes a part of humanity, except in the minds of those who have decided that it does.

Nor, for that matter, is this use exclusive to the English language. All the Romance languages, for example, use the male form more or less as English does and for good grammatical reasons.

Recent efforts by some Spanish and Italian public figures to imitate the English penchant for inclusiveness have led to linguistic gyrations. They are constrained by grammar to begin their addresses with the equivalent of: "I call on all male citizens and all female citizens…," a mode of expression more likely to divide than to include.

One advantage of studying several languages is the discovery that assignment of grammatical gender is usually not based on logic. Romance languages, which, unlike English, assign grammatical gender to inanimate objects, frequently attribute opposite genders for the same thing in different languages. The same happens in forms of address; in Italian, for example, the courteous form of addressing a person uses a female form for both sexes.

The point I am trying to make is that such matters as the generic use of the male pronoun is merely a practical means of transmitting a simple message. And contorting the language to get around it can often lead to unnecessarily turgid prose.

In biblical and liturgical texts, as our reader points out, it can also lead to lack of clarity and even theologically erroneous expressions.

That said, it is also necessary to recognize that some aspects of language do change over time and may no longer convey the original intention.

Thus, not all expressions such as "brothers and sisters" instead of "brethren" are necessarily ideological uses of inclusive language. Rather, such uses might simply recognize the reality that in some parts of the English-speaking world the word "brethren" is now archaic and no longer conveys its original meaning.

The expression "brothers and sisters" in homilies might also serve to emphasize that we are addressing all present as members of the Church as God's family.

Pope John Paul II usually began his discourses with "Dear brothers and sisters" and our present Holy Father follows the same path. At a recent canonization I even heard Benedict XVI use a formula that addressed the people as brothers and sisters in Latin ("Fratres sororesque carissimi").

Father Cantalamessa on Priorities

ROME, NOV. 3, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on the readings from this Sunday's liturgy.

* * *

Love the Lord your God
31st Sunday in Ordinary Time (b)
Deuteronomy 6:2-6; Hebrews 7:23-28; Mark 12:28b-34

One day one of the scribes came to Jesus asking him which was the first commandment of the law and Jesus answered, citing the words of the law: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God. And you shall love the Lord your God, with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with your whole mind, and with your whole strength." But Jesus immediately added that there is a second commandment similar to this, and it is to "love your neighbor as yourself."

If we are to understand the meaning of the scribe's question and Jesus' response, we need to bear in mind the following. In the Judaism of Jesus' time there were two opposite tendencies.

On the one hand there was a tendency to endlessly multiply the commandments and precepts of the law, creating norms and obligations for every minimal detail of life. On the other hand there was the desire to look underneath this suffocating congeries of norms to find those things that really count for God, the spirit of all the commandments.

The scribe's question and Jesus' response are situated in this approach to the essentials of the law, in this desire not to get lost in the thousand other secondary precepts. It is precisely this lesson about method that above all we must learn from today's gospel. There are things in life that are important but not urgent (in the sense that nothing will happen if we let them slide); and vice versa, there are things that are urgent but not important. The danger is that we will systematically sacrifice the important things to pursue those that are urgent but often secondary.

How do we avoid this danger? A story will help us understand how. One day an old professor was asked to speak as an expert to some large North American corporations on personal time management. He decided to try an experiment. Standing before a group ready to take notes, he pulled out from under the table a large, empty glass vase. He placed a dozen tennis-ball-size rocks in the vase until it was full. When he was not able to add more rocks he asked those present: "Does the vase seem full to you?" and they all answered "Yes!" He waited a moment and then asked: "Are you sure?"

He again bent down and pulled a box full of pebbles from under the table and carefully poured the pebbles into the vase, moving the vase a little so that the pebbles could reach the rocks at the very bottom. He asked: "Is the vase full this time?"

His audience, having become more prudent, began to understand and said: "Perhaps not yet." "Very good!" the old professor replied. Again he bent down and this time picked up a bag of sand and poured it into the vase with care. The sand filled all the spaces between the rocks and the pebbles.

He then asked again: "Is the vase full now?" And they all answered without hesitation: "No!" "Indeed," the old professor said and, as they expected, took the pitcher of water from the table and poured it into the vase up to the brim.

At this point he looked up at his audience and asked: "What great truth does this experiment show us?" The bravest of the group, reflecting on the theme of the course -- time management -- replied: "This shows us that even when our schedule is full, with a little effort we can always add some other task, some other thing to do."

"No," the professor answered, "It's not that. The experiment shows us something else. If you don't put the big rocks in the vase first, then you will never be able to put them in afterward."

There was a moment of silence and everyone took in the evidence for this affirmation.

The professor continued: "What are the big rocks, the priorities, in your life? Health? Family? Friends? Defending a cause? Accomplishing something that is close to your heart?

"The important thing is to put these big rocks on your agenda first. If you give priority to a thousand other little things -- the pebbles, the sand -- your life will be filled with meaninglessness and you will never find time to dedicate yourself to the truly important things.

"So, never forget to pose this question to yourself: 'What are the important things in my life?' Put these things at the head of your agenda."

Then, with a friendly gesture the old professor bid farewell to his audience and left the room.

To the "big rocks" mentioned by the professor -- health, family, friends -- we need to add two others, which are the biggest of all, the two greatest commandments: love God and your neighbor.

Truly, loving God, more than a commandment, is a privilege, a concession. If one day we find him, we will not cease to thank God for commanding us to love him and we will not desire to do anything else but cultivate this love.

Focused Link: Bad Habits: Can we correct liturgical abuse in religious communities?

Excerpt from the article:
I have a dilemma and some questions I wish someone would help me with. This article does not attempt to answer questions so much as to pose them. Nonetheless, I will, toward the end of the article, suggest some tentative solutions. Let me explain the situation that I am in and why I set myself to the task of writing this essay.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0210.htm

Focused Link: The Population Boom

More people means more prosperity.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0040.htm

Focused Link: Something Beyond Nature

Two recent scientific experiments look like a real pain in the neck for materialists. Both experiments were simple, yet both had some thought-provoking results.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0085.htm

Focused Link: Latin's second coming

It would appear that Pope Benedict XVI intends to reinvigorate the beleaguered (Tridentine) Latin mass, which in the late ’60s was almost universally replaced by individual vernacular languages to encourage “active participation” for ordinary parishioners.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0219.htm

Focused Link: The truth about embryonic stem cell (ESC) therapies

The truth about the technical challenges and scientific hurdles for embryonic stem-cell (ESC) therapies is finally getting out.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0097.htm

Focused Link: Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason)

"The Teachings of Pope John Paul II: Summaries of Papal Documents" by John E. Fagan succinctly summarizes the Pope’s major documents with an emphasis on issues of interest to the laity. It is perfect as an introduction or as a quick reference guide to John Paul II's voluminous writings.

The full article:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0294.htm

Wednesday Liturgy: Pius V's 1570 Bull

ROME, OCT. 31, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: "Quo Primum" is a papal bull decreed by Pope St. Pius V on July 14, 1570, which set in stone for all time the exactness of the holy sacrifice of the Mass to be said in the mother tongue of the Church. To quote his instruction: "[I]t shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; ..." Another: "… which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein." Another: "In the case of those resident in other parts of the world it shall be excommunication 'latae sententiae' and all other penalties at Our discretion ..." Finally: "Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." In the light of the foregoing: 1) Can an ancient papal bull be amended, changed, modified, abrogated, etc., by future popes? If yes, then what are the conditions? 2) Is the Mass of Pope Paul VI licit and valid? -- A.D., Carindale, Australia

A: A papal bull (from "bolla," the leaden seal attached to the document) is a solemn instrument that popes use for various questions such as doctrinal decisions, canonizations, disciplinary questions, jubilees and the like. Only occasionally have they been used for the liturgy.

A bull's influence on later popes depends on the nature of its content and not the legal force of the document as such.

Thus a bull such as "Ineffabilis Deus" through which Blessed Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 is a definitive and irreformable act.

Other bulls may contain a mixture of doctrinal and disciplinary matters. An example would be Pius IV's 1564 document "Dominici Gregis Custodiae" containing the rules for forbidding books, among which was the norm that reading a translation of the Old Testament was restricted to learned and pious men with permission from the bishop.

Such norms are evidently tied to the circumstances of time and place and may be adjusted, attenuated or abrogated by future popes as situations change.

St. Pius V's bull "Quo Primum" is above all a legal document although it also contains some doctrinal elements. As such it is not intended to be definitive in the same way as a doctrinal definition would be and would not bind St. Pius V himself or future popes if they decided to further fine-tune the missal.

The saintly Pope's concern was to ensure as much unity as possible for the liturgy in a time when such unity was sorely needed. Even so, the same bull contains a clause exempting any Church which had its own ordo more than 200 years old. Many local Churches could have availed of this concession but most preferred to adopt the new missal for practical reasons.

Some religious orders and some dioceses such as Lyon in France and Milan in Italy did opt to legitimately maintain their own rite. Thus expressions such as "it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us" cannot be interpreted in an absolutely literal sense.

Likewise, legal expressions such as "which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein" cannot be literally interpreted as binding on possible later actions of Pope St. Pius V or upon his successors. The strictures fall only upon those who act without due authority.

If it were otherwise, then Pope St. Pius V would have excommunicated himself a couple of years after publishing "Quo Primum" when he added the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to the missal following the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, not to mention Pope Clement XI who canonized Pius V in 1712, thus altering the missal.

Among the many other Popes who would have thus incurred "the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" would have been St. Pius X for reforming the calendar, Pius XI who added the first new preface in centuries for the feast of Christ the King, Pius XII for completely revamping the rites of Holy Week as well as simplifying the rubrics, and Blessed John XXIII for adding St. Joseph's name to the Roman Canon.

Certainly, the reform undertaken under the Servant of God Pope Paul VI ranged more widely than anything done under earlier Popes since St. Pius V. But Paul VI acted with the same papal authority as all of them.

As the Roman proverb goes: "Popes die, the Pope never." Each individual pontiff -- saint or sinner though he be -- holds the same authority, granted by Christ, to bind and loose, forgive or retain, so that the Lord's flock may be fed through the centuries.

It is for this reason that, except in matters of faith and morals, a pope's disciplinary decrees in matters such as the non-essential elements of liturgical rites are never "set in stone" and can be changed by a subsequent Supreme Pontiff whenever he believes that the duty of feeding Christ's flock requires it.

Finally, the answer to the second question should be already clear, the so-called Mass of Paul VI is both valid and licit.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Divine Praises at Adoration

ROME, OCT. 31, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

After our comments on the Divine Praises before reposition (Oct. 17) several readers asked for clarification.

Two priests writing independently from England and another from Chicago made basically the same point. One wrote: "When I last looked, the 'new rite' for Benediction put the Divine Praises before the blessing (the Benediction) itself. You do not answer this, which is probably what your correspondent meant. I would certainly like to hear a reasoned view from you on this."

Our original correspondent gave a more detailed description in his question, which was edited for publishing. He referred to a quite uncommon practice of reciting the Divine Praises after the reposition of the Blessed Sacrament.

My Italian copy of the Rite of Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist places the Divine Praises after the Benediction as a possible acclamation. The rubric which accompanies the text in No. 237 says: "If considered opportune, following Eucharistic Benediction or before the reposition, the following acclamations may be recited according to custom."

As mentioned before, this is the practice in Rome for the Holy Father's Corpus Christi procession.

The English translation adopts a different policy, preferring not to have any official prayers after Benediction. The rite does, however, foresee that hymns or acclamations may be recited during the reposition.

It is worth pointing out that the original Latin text of the rite does not include the Divine Praises at all. In fact the Holy See gave wide leeway to the bishops' conferences to adapt the rites to particular circumstances and add recommended hymns and prayers according to local custom. For this reason the numerical references in the various languages also differ from the Latin text.

Since the Holy See deliberately opted for allowing wide scope for freedom of choice, it is fairly clear that including a prayer such as the Divine Praises in one or other part of the ritual is a case of recommending a custom without creating an obligation.

Thus, both in Italy and in England the Divine Praises may be recited after Benediction whenever customary. Or the reposition may be done in silence or accompanied by an appropriate hymn or other acclamations.

At the same time, it is certainly better to follow the indications of the official books for each nation. And while it is possible to continue an established custom, there is no good reason to introduce a custom contrary to the indications of the official ritual.

Likewise, the norms do not prescribe any set prayers for during the period of adoration but merely indicate that:

"During the exposition there should be prayers, songs, and readings to direct the attention of the faithful to the worship of Christ the Lord.

"To encourage a prayerful spirit, there should be readings from Sacred Scripture with a homily or brief exhortations to develop a better understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. It is also desirable for the people to respond to the word of God by singing and to spend some periods of time in sacred silence.

"Part of the liturgy of the hours, especially the principal hours may be celebrated before the Blessed Sacrament when there is a lengthy period of exposition" (English rite, Nos. 95-96).

Since there is great freedom in the selection of "prayers, songs and readings" there is no reason why the Divine Praises could not also be said either during the course of the adoration or immediately before intoning the "Tantum Ergo" or other hymn for Benediction, especially if there is no custom of reciting them afterward.

There are abundant publications available as aids for adoration. They usually contain appropriate selections of Scripture, writings of saints, hymns, prayers and litanies that may be profitably used during adoration either privately or for communal recitation.