Father Cantalamessa on Jesus' Prayer

ROME, JULY 27, 2007 (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.

* * *

Jesus at Prayer
17th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Genesis 18:20-21, 23-32; Colossians 2:12-14; Luke 11:1-13

Sunday's Gospel begins with these words: "Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, 'Lord, teach us to pray just as John taught his disciples.' He said to them, 'When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.'"

We can get an idea of what Jesus' countenance and his whole person looked like when he prayed by considering the fact that his disciples, just watching him pray, fell in love with prayer and asked the Master to teach them to pray. Jesus responds to them, as we have just now heard, by teaching them the Our Father.

Again in our commentary for this Sunday we will draw inspiration for our reflections on the Gospel from Benedict XVI's book on Jesus. "Without the rootedness in God," the Pope writes, "the person of Jesus remains elusive, unreal and inexplicable. This is the point on which my book is based: It considers Jesus from the perspective of his communion with the Father. This is the true center of his personality."

These claims are amply justified by the Gospels. Therefore, no one can deny that historically the Jesus of the Gospels lives and works in continual reference to the heavenly Father, that he prays and teaches how to pray, that he bases everything on faith in God. If this dimension is taken away from the Jesus of the Gospels, nothing is left of him.

From this historical evidence there follows a fundamental consequence and that is that it is not possible to know the true Jesus if we detach from faith, if we try to approach him as nonbelievers or declared atheists. I am not speaking at this point of faith in Christ, in his divinity (which comes later), but of faith in God, in the most common understanding of the term.

Many nonbelievers today write about Jesus, convinced that they are the ones who know the real Jesus, not the Church, not the believers. I do not have the intention of saying -- nor does the Pope, I believe -- that nonbelievers have no right to concern themselves with Jesus. Jesus is the "patrimony of humanity" and no one, not even the Church, has a monopoly on him. The fact that even nonbelievers write about Jesus and are passionate about him can only give us pleasure.

What I want to draw attention to are the consequences that follow from such a point of departure. If we detach from or deny faith in God, it is not only divinity that is eliminated or the so-called Christ of faith, but the historical Jesus is also completely eliminated, not even the man Jesus is left.

If God does not exist, Jesus is only one of the many deluded people who have prayed, worshipped, and spoken to their own shadow or the projection of their own essence, as Feuerbach would say. But how do we explain the fact that the life of this man "changed the world"? It would be like saying that truth and reason did not change the world but illusion and irrationality. How do we explain that after 2,000 years this man continues to affect us like no one else? Can all of that be the fruit of an equivocation, of an illusion?

There is but one way out of this dilemma and we must acknowledge the consistency of those (especially in the circle of the "Jesus Seminar" of California) who have taken that route. According to them, Jesus was not a Jewish believer; at bottom he was a philosopher of the Cynic type; he did not preach the kingdom of God, or an immanent end of the world; he only pronounced wise maxims in the style of a Zen master. His purpose was to restore in men their self-awareness, to convince them that they did not need him nor another god, because they themselves possessed a divine spark. These are the things, however, that the New Age movement has been preaching for decades.

The Pope understood it correctly: Without the rootedness in God, the figure of Jesus is elusive, unreal, and, I would add, contradictory. I do not think that this must be taken to mean that only those who interiorly adhere to Christianity can understand something about it; but it should put those on guard who think that only by being outside of it, outside the dogmas of the Church, can something objective be said about it.

Wednesday Liturgy: Gloria's "Sin" and Agnus Dei's "Sins"

ROME, JULY 24, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: A question has come up regarding the use of the word "sin" in the Gloria and "sins" in the Agnus Dei. Would you please explain the theological reason for this? -- S.G., Colorado Springs, Colorado

A: I would be at a loss to explain the theological reason for this difference for the simple reason that I don't believe there is much difference.

The difference is in the translation, not in the original Latin. The Latin in all three cases (counting the "This is the Lamb of God" that is said by the celebrant) uses the same plural form "peccata mundi."

There is a discussion among the experts as to the best translation of this formula. Some sustain that it is best translated as a simple plural "sins." Others render it as an abstract singular "sin," meaning the totality of sin in the world.

This difference is seen in some other versions. The Italian missal translates the expressions each time as sins, "i peccati," whereas the Spanish conveys it as sin, "el pecado."

The first translation is perhaps closer to the literal sense and, being more concrete, it tends to includes not only the sins but in some way also refers to the sinners.

The second translation might lay greater stress on the universal and even cosmological effects of redemption, in the sense that Christ's death and resurrection has also restored a certain sense of order to creation itself. It could be said that all things are recapitulated in Christ, to use an expression of St. Paul (Ephesians 1:10) which was later theologically developed by St. Ireneus of Lyon.

Both translations, however, essentially express the same underlying reality. It may be that the English translators Solomonically divided their options. But it might also mean no more than that different people were responsible for different parts of the missal and never got together to iron out the creases.

The most important thing is that Christ, the Lamb of God who died and rose for us, is the source of all salvation and has the power to effectively take away our sins, and all sin from the world. This power is exercised above all through the sacraments, especially the re-enactment of his paschal sacrifice that is the holy Mass.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: When Concelebrants Exit

ROME, JULY 24, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Our July 10 column on ending a concelebrated Mass brought to light a couple of related topics.

A reader in Kuwait asked: "In India, it has become a common practice that instead of kissing the altar before and after Mass, priests touch the altar by their hands (fingers) and then touch their face with the fingers. Is this permitted?"

I must confess ignorance as to whether it is explicitly permitted, but I can help to find the answer.

The general norms for adaptation allow bishops' conferences to propose changes to some rites and gestures of the Mass if a particular gesture common in Western culture is judged unsuitable or liable to misinterpretation in a different cultural context. Likewise the bishops could propose a different gesture which conveys the same meaning as the one replaced.

If two-thirds of the bishops vote in favor of the change, and it is later approved by the Holy See, it becomes particular liturgical law for the country in question.

In that case the change or adaptation must be incorporated in some way into the missal. This could be either as an addition to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), an appendix with local norms, or in the rubrics.

If there is no mention of any such change in the missal or in any published decrees of the bishops' conference, then one may presume that it is a case of private initiative on the part of priests.

The priests are always free to propose to the bishops any worthwhile adaptation. But in the meantime they should return to approved norms.

A reader from Kalisz, Poland, asked: "Paragraph No. 275 of the GIRM says that 'a bow of the head is made when the three divine Persons are named together and at the name of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saint in whose honor the Mass is being celebrated.' What about a case of a concelebrated Mass, when one of the concelebrants (or the main celebrant) recites his part and comes upon the name of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary or of the saint in whose honor the Mass is being celebrated -- do all the concelebrants (and the main celebrant) bow their head at that moment, even though they are not reciting that particular word? Or does this norm only apply to the priest who recites the particular word in a given moment?"

Only the priest who recites the text makes the bow at this moment. When a bow is foreseen in prayers said by all together, then all make the bow.

Father Cantalamessa on Friendship

ROME, JULY 20, 2007 (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.


* * *

The Friends of Jesus
18th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Genesis 18:1-10a; Colossians 1:24-28; Luke 10:38-42

"Jesus entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him. She had a sister named Mary who sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. Martha was burdened with much serving."

The village is Bethany and the house is that of Lazarus and his two sisters. Jesus loved to stop there and take some rest when he was traveling near Jerusalem.

Mary was stupefied that for once she had the master all to herself and could listen in silence to the words of eternal life that he spoke when he was taking his rest. So she sat there at his feet, as is still done today in the East. It is not difficult to imagine Martha's half-resentful, half-joking tone when, passing by them, she says to Jesus: "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me."

It was at this point that Jesus said something that by itself is a mini Gospel: "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her."

The tradition has seen in the sisters a symbol of the active and the contemplative life respectively; the liturgy with the choice of the first reading (Abraham who welcomes the three angels at the terebinth of Mamre) shows an example of hospitality in the episode.

I think, however, that the more evident theme is that of friendship. "Jesus loved Martha, together with her sister and Lazarus," we read in John's Gospel (11:5).

When they bring him the news of Lazarus' death he says to his disciples: "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep but I am going to wake him up" (John 11:11).

Faced with the sorrow of the two sisters he also breaks down and weeps, so much so that those who are present exclaim: "See how much he loved him!" (John 11:13).

It is wonderful and consoling to know that Jesus knew and cultivated that sentiment that is so beautiful and precious for us men -- friendship.

Of friendship we must say what St. Augustine said of time: "I know what time is but if someone asks me to explain it, I no longer know what it is." In other words, it is easier to intuit what friendship is that to explain it in words.

It is a mutual attraction and deep understanding between two people, but it does not have a sexual component as does conjugal love. It is a union of two souls, not two bodies. In this sense the ancients said that friendship is to have "one soul in two bodies." It can be a stronger bond than that of family. Family consists in having the same blood in one's veins. In friendship one has the same tastes, ideals, interests.

It is essential to friendship that it is founded on a common search for the good and the true. That which binds people who get together to do evil is not friendship but complicity, it is "an association that corrupts," as is said in judicial jargon.

Friendship is also different from love of neighbor. The latter must embrace everyone, even those who do not return it, even enemies, while friendship demands reciprocity, that is, that the other corresponds to your love.

Friendship is nourished by confidences, that is, by the fact that I confide in another that which is deepest and most personal in my thoughts and experiences.

Sometimes I say to young people: Do you want to find out who your true friends are and rank them? Try to remember what have been the most secret experiences of your life -- positive or negative -- and ask yourself to whom you confided them: those are your true friends. And if there is something in your life, so deep and you have revealed it to one person only, that person is your best friend.

The Bible is full of praise of friendship. "A faithful friend is a strong support; whoever finds one has found a treasure" (Sirach 6:14ff.). The proof of friendship is fidelity.

According to a popular saying, "When the money goes, friends go." True friendship does not fade at the friend's first problem. We know who our true friend is during the time of trial. History is full of great friendships that have been immortalized in literature. But the history of Christian sanctity also knows examples of famous friendships.

A delicate problem with friendship is whether it is possible once one is married. It is not said that one must completely cut off all the friendships one has cultivated before getting married but there must be a rearrangement if the newlyweds are not to experience difficulties and crises.

The surest friendships are those that a couple cultivates together. Among those friendships that are cultivated separately those with persons of the same sex create fewer problems than those with persons of the opposite sex.

Often in these cases the presumption that one is above all suspicion and danger is punished. Films with titles like "My Best Friend's Bride" [Ed.N. Father Cantalamessa refers to the Italian translation given to the title of the movie "My Best Friend's Wedding"] speak volumes about the problem, but apart from this extreme they also create serious practical problems. You cannot go out with friends every night leaving the other (usually the wife!) alone at home.

For consecrated persons, the more certain friendships are those that are shared with the whole community. In talking about Lazarus, Jesus does not say "my friend Lazarus" but "our friend Lazarus." Lazarus and the sisters became friends of the apostles too according to the well-known principle, "My friends' friends are my friends." This is how the great friendships were between some saints -- the one between Francis of Assisi and Clare, for example. Francis is the brother and father of all the sisters; Clare is the sister and mother of all the brothers.

Wednesday Liturgy: On Changing the Corporal

ROME, JULY 17, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Does the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) stipulate that the use of a new corporal on the altar at each Mass celebration is no longer needed? I see that a corporal is placed on the altar at some parishes for a week or more before changing it. I always thought the purpose of this cloth was to take proper care of any particles of Jesus' body that might fall from the hands or ciborium or paten. If this is the case, then I think proper care should be taken of the cloth and crumbs at the end of each Mass, and not have it lie there for a week, just accumulating more particles or crumbs. With all the care that a priest might take, the host particles on the white cloth is not always noted -- I have learned this from sacristan duties. -- E.M., Bridgewater, Virginia

A: The corporal is a square piece of linen or other fine fabric sometimes starched so as to be fairly firm. It is customarily folded into nine sections and hence stored flat. A larger corporal or more than one corporal may be required for concelebrations and other solemn celebrations.

Before use, the corporal is usually left on top of the chalice and, while no longer obligatory, it may be kept in a flat, square case called a burse.

Before the present reform, hosts were placed directly upon the corporal and although this is rarely the case today, as our reader points out, it may gather any fragments that fall from the host during the celebration although these mostly fall into either the ciborium or chalice.

The GIRM mentions the corporal in several places, first of all in describing the preparation of the gifts, in No. 73: "[T]he Lord's table, which is the center of the whole Liturgy of the Eucharist, is prepared by placing on it the corporal, purificator, Missal, and chalice."

No. 118 says that the corporal should be on the credence table before Mass. Other indications require that a chalice or ciborium should be placed on a corporal whenever it is left on the altar or credence table for purification.

With respect to our reader's queries, it would appear that in her parish they follow the bad habit of leaving the corporal unfolded upon the altar between Masses and even for days on end. The norms require that the corporal be unfolded during the presentation of gifts and properly folded again after Communion.

All the same, extra corporals may be placed on the altar before especially solemn Masses in which more sacred vessels are used than can fit on the corporal directly in front of the priest.

The GIRM does not require a new corporal for each Mass, it is sufficient for the corporal to be opened and folded with due care to avoid any mishaps. For this reason a corporal should be opened one section at a time while lying flat and never shook open.

A corporal is washed in the same manner as a purificator although less frequently. It is first soaked in water; this water is then poured either down a sacrarium or directly upon the earth. Afterward, the corporal may be washed in a normal fashion.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: When Words Over the Host Are Repeated

ROME, JULY 17, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

After our piece on repeating the words of consecration (July 3), some related questions came to light.

A reader from Los Angeles asked: "Our priest took the chalice in his hands and said the text of consecration of bread. But before the elevation, he realized his mistake, put down the chalice, and elevated the host. After that he took the chalice again in his hands and said the text of consecration of wine and elevated. At the end of Mass he told us (without apologizing) that this Mass was a valid Mass. Was it?"

From the information supplied, I would say that it was a valid Mass. The priest was clearly distracted. But the taking of the bread in his hands, while necessary for the authenticity of the rite by illustrating the meaning of the words "This is," is not usually considered as absolutely essential to validity.

Otherwise, it becomes harder to justify that the priest validly consecrates all the breads and all the wine in other chalices, without any physical contact.

A Toronto reader asked: "An 84-year-old priest who has suffered lung injury, often when saying Mass for an assembled congregation loses his breath. Is it licit for him to say some parts of the canon silently to himself whenever he loses his breath?"

I am sure that the faithful are understanding and edified by the fidelity of this priest in persevering in his mission as long as he is physically able.

Although the canon is a public prayer and should normally be spoken in a clear voice, in cases such as these, it is sufficient for the priest to be able to hear himself speak. It would be illicit, however, to only mentally recite the Eucharistic Prayer without using the voice, and the consecration would be invalid if carried out in this manner.

Modern microphones can also help to amplify even a feeble voice.

Article: Families Under Pressure: Disturbing Trends in Latest Statistics

By Father John Flynn, L.C.

ROME, JULY 16, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Marriage and family life continue to suffer the inroads of contemporary society. From England came the recent news that the number of women giving birth outside of marriage rose by 22% in the last 5 years.

According to a June 29 report published by the Daily Mail newspaper, in 2006 a total of 327,000 children were born out of wedlock, 59,000 more than in 2001. In terms of a proportion of overall births, in 2006 no less than 43.7% of babies had unmarried mothers.

The Daily Mail quoted Patricia Morgan, author of a number of studies on the family, who accused the British tax system favoring single parenthood. "Two out of three of the babies outside marriage will have been born to couples with one eye on the benefit authorities," she told the newspaper.

Her remarks were confirmed by a former Labour Party minister for welfare reform, Frank Field. He argued that the tax and benefits system "brutally discriminate," against two-parent families, reported the Times newspaper, June 14.

Currently a single mother working 16 hours a week, after tax credits, gains a total income of 487 pounds a week, explained Field. By contrast, a two-parent family earning the minimum wage has to work 116 hours to gain the same income, as the tax credits system does not make allowance for the second adult.

The negative effects on families of such a system was confirmed by data published earlier this year by the British Office for National Statistics (ONS). According to an April 11 report by the Independent newspaper 24% of children in Great Britain lived with just one parent in 2006. This compares with 22% in 2001.

These children are more likely to live in rented housing and in "non-decent" homes, according to the ONS.

The report by the ONS also found that since 1971 the proportion of all people living in traditional family households of couples with dependent children has fallen from 52% to 37% of the population. In addition, the proportion of people living in couples with no children rose from 19% to 25%.

Lower marriage rates

Data on the numbers of marriages had family groups warning that the institution was under serious threats, reported the Telegraph newspaper, Feb. 22. Figures from the ONS for 2005 revealed that the number of people choosing to marry fell in 2005 by 10%, leading to the lowest marriage rates since they were first calculated in 1862. There were 244,710 marriages in England and Wales in 2005, down from 273,070 in 2004.

Families in Ireland are also declining, according to statistics recently published by the Central Statistics Office. Information released from the 2006 census showed that the traditional family unit has declined in all of the nation's main cities since 2002, reported the Irish Times on June 1.

Moreover, unmarried cohabiting couples are the fastest growing type of family unit in Ireland. In 2002, the total number of cohabiting couples was 77,600. By 2006 this rose to 121,000, an increase from 8.4% of all family units in 2002 to 11.6% by last year. Lone parents, the vast majority of them women, accounted for 152,542 Irish households.

Commenting on the figures for the Iona Institute, John P. Byrne, author of a recent paper on tax and the family, said that the current tax regime penalizes single income married couples to the tune of up to €6,240 per annum.

"As a society, we need to examine how to make the economy more family-friendly," he added in the June 28 press statement released by the institute.

Meanwhile, data published by Italy's Central Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), revealed that from 1995 to 2005 the number of divorces sharply increased. According to a report by the Repubblica newspaper June 26, over the 10-year period divorces grew by 74%, reaching 47,036 in 2005.

The number of separations increased by 57.3% in the 10-year period, reaching 82,291 in 2005. Under Italian law separation is the preliminary stage in being able to obtain a divorce, although not all couples that register their separation then go on to divorce.

One of the few bits of comforting information on the family came from the United States, where the divorce rate is continuing to decline, reported the Associated Press on May 10. The divorce rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981. It has continued to drop and is now at 3.6 per thousand, the lowest rate since 1970.

Divorce data

Nevertheless, an analysis in the May 21 edition of the Wall Street Journal of the report published by the Associated Press showed that interpreting the data is not that simple. For a start the statistics deal with divorces as a proportion of the total population, but don't reveal what percentage of marriages end in divorce.

In addition, while divorces have declined, so too has the marriage rate per 1,000 people, by some 30% in the past 25 years. Therefore, with more couples cohabitating a part of the decline in divorce could be due to people living together so that the eventual separations are not counted as divorces. The matter is complicated by the fact that a decade ago the government stopped collecting more detailed statistics on marriage and divorce that would allow a clearer analysis of the situation.

Further data on divorce came from Canada, in the May edition of "Health Reports," published by the government body, Statistics Canada. The agency calculated that in Canada, an estimated 4 marriages in 10 will end before the couple celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary. The most recent data available from the Divorce Registry is for the year 2003. It showed that nearly 71,000 married couples divorced in 2003.

The report then went on to detail some of the deleterious effects of divorce. Detailed studies from the United States and Europe suggest that, compared with people who remain together, those who see their marriage breakup are at increased risk of mental health problems, in particular depression.

Financial difficulties often follow marital dissolution, added the report. This is especially the case for women, who according to data from a 10-year study from 1994/1995 to 2004/2005 in Canada, are nearly three times as likely as their men to experience a major decline in household income following divorce.

The Canada study also confirmed the overseas experience that shows a link between divorce and depression. This association is present even when other events that often accompany a break-up, such as a drop in income and a decline in social support are taken into account. The study showed that it was men who were more at risk of experiencing depression following divorce than were women.

Hearth of life

Family life continues to be a frequent theme in Benedict XVI's speeches. "The family was and is the school of faith, the training-ground for human and civil values, the hearth in which human life is born and is generously and responsibly welcomed," he noted in his May 13 speech opening the 5th General Conference of the Episcopate of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The Pope also observed that the family is suffering adversity due to the forces of secularism, ethical relativism, poverty and legislation weakening marriage. It is indispensable, he urged, for the Church to engage in vigorous pastoral care of families.

Moreover, the Pontiff continued, it is indispensable to promote family life through adequate public policies. "The family," he said, "constitutes part of the good of peoples and of the whole of humanity."

Father Cantalamessa on the Good Samaritan

ROME, JULY 13, 2007 (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.


* * *

The Good Samaritan
15th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Deuteronomy 30:10-14; Colossians 1:15-20; Luke 10:25-37

We have been commenting on some of the Sunday Gospels taking our inspiration from Benedict XVI's book "Jesus of Nazareth." A portion of the book treats the parable of the Good Samaritan. The parable cannot be understood if we do not take account of the question to which Jesus intended to respond: "Who is my neighbor?"

Jesus answers this question of a doctor of the law with a parable. In the music and literature of the world there are certain phrases that have become famous. Four notes in a certain sequence and every listener immediately exclaims: "Beethoven's Fifth: destiny is knocking at the door!" Many of Jesus' parables share this characteristic. "A man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho ... " and everyone immediately knows: the parable of the good Samaritan!

In the Judaism of the time there was discussion about who should be considered an Israelite's neighbor. In general it came to be understood that the category of "neighbor" included all one's fellow countrymen and Gentile coverts to Judaism. With his choice of persons (a Samaritan who comes to the aid of a Jew!) Jesus asserts that the category of neighbor is universal, not particular. Its horizon is humanity not the family, ethnic, or religious circle. Our enemy is also a neighbor! It is known that the Jews in fact "did not have good relations with the Samaritans" (cf. John 4:9).

The parable teaches that love of neighbor must not only be universal but also concrete and proactive. How does the Samaritan conduct himself in the parable? If the Samaritan had contented himself with saying to the unfortunate man lying there in his blood, "You unlucky soul! How did it happen? Buck up!" or something similar, and then went on his way, would not all that have been ironic and insulting? Instead he did something for the other: "He approached the victim, poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them. Then he lifted him up on his own animal, took him to an inn, and cared for him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction, 'Take care of him. If you spend more than what I have given you, I shall repay you on my way back'."

The true novelty in the parable of the Good Samaritan is not that Jesus demands a concrete, universal love. The novelty stands in something else, the Pope observes in his book. At the end of the parable Jesus asks the doctor of the law who was questioning him, "Which of these [the Levite, the priest, the Samaritan] seems to you to have been the neighbor of the one who was attacked by the brigands?"

Jesus brings about an unexpected reversal in the traditional concept of neighbor. The Samaritan is the neighbor and not the wounded man, as we would have expected. This means that we must not wait till our neighbor appears along our way, perhaps quite dramatically. It belongs to us to be ready to notice him, to find him. We are all called to be the neighbor! The problem of the doctor of the law is reversed. From an abstract and academic problem, it becomes a concrete and living problem. The question to ask is not "Who is my neighbor?" but "Whose neighbor can I be here and now?"

In his book the Pope proposes a contemporary application of the parable of the good Samaritan. He sees the entire continent of Africa symbolized in the unfortunate man who has been robbed, wounded, and left for dead on the side of the road, and he sees in us, members of the rich countries of the northern hemisphere, the two people who pass by if not precisely the brigands themselves.

I would like to suggest another possible application of the parable. I am convinced that if Jesus came to Israel today and a doctor of the law asked him again, "Who is my neighbor?" he would change the parable a bit and in the place of the Samaritan he would put a Palestinian! If a Palestinian were to ask him the same question, in the Samaritan's place we would find a Jew!

But it is too easy to limit the discussion to Africa and the Middle East. If one of us were to pose Jesus the question "Who is my neighbor?" what would he answer? He would certainly remind us that our neighbor is not only our fellow countrymen but also those outside our community, not only Christians but Muslims also, not only Catholics but Protestants also. But he would immediately add that this is not the most important thing. The most important thing is not to know who my neighbor is but to see whose neighbor I can be here and now, for whom I can be the Good Samaritan.

Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum"

JULY 7, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the Vatican translation of the letter Benedict XVI addressed to all the bishops of the world concerning his apostolic letter issued "motu proprio," "Summorum Pontificum," which was published today.


* * *

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO DATA"
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

My dear Brother Bishops,

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions -- the liturgical reform -- is being called into question. This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form -- the "Forma ordinaria" -- of the Eucharistic liturgy. The last version of the "Missale Romanum" prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a "Forma extraordinaria" of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a "Forma extraordinaria" of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the "legitimate aspirations" of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the "usus antiquior," will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but youare restricted in your own affections. In return widen your hearts also!" (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. "Sacrosanctum Concilium," 22: "Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum").

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28).

I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.

Given at Saint Peter's, 7 July 2007

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

© Copyright 2007 -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Papal Letter on 1962 Missal

VATICAN CITY, JULY 7, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a non-official English translation, issued by the Vatican Information Service, of Benedict XVI's apostolic letter "Summorum Pontificum," issued "motu proprio," on one's own initiative, concerning the use of the Roman Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962. The original text written in Latin can be found on the Vatican's Web site.


* * *

Apostolic Letter
In the form "motu proprio"

Benedict XVI

"Summorum Pontificum"

Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of Supreme Pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, "to the praise and glory of His name," and "to the benefit of all His Holy Church."

Since time immemorial it has been necessary -- as it is also for the future -- to maintain the principle according to which "each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic Tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith."[1]

Among the Pontiffs who showed that requisite concern, particularly outstanding is the name of St. Gregory the Great, who made every effort to ensure that the new peoples of Europe received both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture that had been accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He commanded that the form of the sacred liturgy as celebrated in Rome (concerning both the Sacrifice of Mass and the Divine Office) be conserved. He took great concern to ensure the dissemination of monks and nuns who, following the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the announcement of the Gospel, illustrated with their lives the wise provision of their rule that "nothing should be placed before the work of God." In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. It is known, in fact, that the Latin liturgy of the Church in its various forms, in each century of the Christian era, has been a spur to the spiritual life of many saints, has reinforced many peoples in the virtue of religion and fecundated their piety.

Many other Roman pontiffs, in the course of the centuries, showed particular solicitude in ensuring that the sacred liturgy accomplished this task more effectively. Outstanding among them is St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and "renewed in accordance with the norms of the fathers," and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

One of the liturgical books of the Roman rite is the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and, with the passing of the centuries, little by little took forms very similar to that it has had in recent times.

"It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and when necessary clarified. From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform."[2] Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X,[3] Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part.

In more recent times, the Second Vatican Council expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman Pontiffs have operated to ensure that "this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony."[4]

But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult "Quattuor Abhinc Anno," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the apostolic letter given as "motu proprio, "Ecclesia Dei," exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.

Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the cardinal fathers of the consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these apostolic letters we establish the following:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the "Lex orandi" (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same "Lex orandi," and must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's "Lex orandi" will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's "Lex credendi" (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents "Quattuor Abhinc Annis" and "Ecclesia Dei," are substituted as follows:

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his ordinary.

Art. 3. Communities of institutes of consecrated life and of societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire institute or society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the superiors major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.

Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may -- observing all the norms of law -- also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

Art. 5. §1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favoring the unity of the whole Church.

§2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Blessed John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.

§3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, i.e., pilgrimages.

§4 Priests who use the Missal of Blessed John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded.

§5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognized by the Apostolic See.

Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 §1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission Ecclesia Dei to obtain counsel and assistance.

Art. 9. §1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the sacraments of baptism, marriage, penance, and the anointing of the sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the sacrament of confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§ 2 Clerics ordained "in sacris constitutis" may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962.

Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with Canon 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, erected by John Paul II in 1988[5], continues to exercise its function. Said commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.

Art. 12. This commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.

We order that everything We have established with these apostolic letters issued as "motu proprio" be considered as "established and decreed," and to be observed from Sept. 14 of this year, feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, hatever there may be to the contrary.

From Rome, at St. Peter's, July 7, 2007, third year of Our Pontificate.

[1] General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002, No. 397.
[2] John Paul II, apostolic letter "Vicesimus Quintus Annus," Dec. 4, 1988, 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.
[3] Ibid.
[4] St. Pius X, apostolic letter issued "motu propio data," "Abhinc Duos Annos," Oct. 23, 1913: AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cf John Paul II, apostolic letter "Vicesimus Quintus Annus," No. 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.
[5] Cf John Paul II, apostolic letter issued "motu proprio data," "Ecclesia Dei," July 2, 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498.

Father Cantalamessa on the Kingdom of God

ROME, JULY 6, 2007 (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.


* * *

The Kingdom of God is at Hand!
14th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Isaiah 66:10-14c; Galatians 6:16-18; Luke 10:1-12, 17-20

Again we will comment on Sunday's Gospel with the help of Benedict XVI's book on Jesus. First, however, I would like to make an observation of a general nature. The criticism that has been made of the Pope's book by some is that it sticks to what the Gospels say without taking into account the findings of modern historical research which, according to them, would lead to very different conclusions.

What we have here is a widespread idea that is nourishing a whole literature like Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" and popularizing historical works based on the same presupposition.

I think that it is important to shed light on a fundamental equivocation in all of this. The idea of an historical investigation into Jesus that is unified, rectilinear, that moves unswervingly toward completely illuminating him, is a pure myth that some are trying to convince people of but which no serious historian today believes possible.

I quote one of the more well-known representatives of historical research on Jesus, the American Paula Fredriksen: "In recent scholarship, Jesus has been imagined and presented as a type of first-century shaman figure; as a Cynic-sort of wandering wise man; as a visionary radical and social reformer preaching egalitarian ethics to the destitute; as a Galilean regionalist alienated from the elitism of Judean religious conventions (like Temple and Torah); as a champion of national liberation and, on the contrary, as its opponent and critic -- on and on.

"All these figures are presented with rigorous academic argument and methodology; all are defended with appeals to the ancient data. Debate continues at a roiling pitch, and consensus -- even on issues so basic as what constitutes evidence and how to construe it -- seems a distant hope."

Often an appeal is made to new data and recent discoveries which would finally put historical research in an advantageous place with regard to the past. But the variety of the consequences that can be drawn from these new historical sources appears from the fact that they have given rise to two opposed and irreconcilable images of Christ that are still in play. On one hand, a Jesus who "is in all and for all Jewish"; on the other hand, a Jesus who is a child of the Helenized Galilee of his time, strongly influenced the philosophy of cynicism.

In light of this fact I ask: What was the Pope supposed to do, compose yet another historical reconstruction in which all the contrary objections debate and combat each other? What the Pope chose to do was to positively present the figure and teaching of Jesus as he is understood by the Church, taking his point of departure from the conviction that the Christ of the Gospels is, even from the historical point of view, the figure that is the most credible and certain.

After these clarifications, let us turn to this Sunday's Gospel. It is the episode of the sending out of 72 disciples on mission. After having told them how they are supposed to go out (two by two, like lambs, without money), Jesus explains to them what they must say: "Tell them: 'The kingdom of God is at hand.'"

We know that the phrase "The kingdom of God is at hand" is at the heart of Jesus' preaching and is the premise of each of his teachings. The kingdom of God is at hand, so love your enemies; the kingdom of God is at hand, so if your hand is a scandal to you, cut it off. It is better to enter the kingdom of God without a hand than to remain outside of it with both hands. Everything takes its meaning from the kingdom.

There has always been discussion about what, precisely, Jesus meant by the expression "kingdom of God." For some it would be a purely interior kingdom consisting in a life conformed to the law of God; for others, on the contrary, it would be a social and political kingdom to be realized by man, even by struggle and revolution if necessary.

The Pope reviews these various interpretations of the past and points to what they have in common: The center of interest moves from God to man; it is no longer a kingdom of God but a kingdom of man, who is its principal architect. This is an idea of a kingdom that, at the limit, is also compatible with atheism.

In Jesus' preaching the coming of the kingdom of God means that, sending his Son into the world, God has decided, so to speak, to personally take in hand the fortunes of the world, to compromise himself with it, to act in the world from the inside. It is easier to intuit what the kingdom of God means than to explain it because it is a reality that transcends every explanation.

The idea is still much diffused that Jesus expected the end of the world to be imminent and therefore the kingdom of God that he preached is not to be realized in this world but in the one we call the "hereafter."

In effect, the Gospels contain some affirmations that lend themselves to this interpretation. But if we look at the whole of Jesus' teaching this does not jibe. According to C.H. Dodd, Jesus' teaching is not an ethics for those who are expecting a rapid end to the world, but for those who have experienced the end of this world and the coming into it of the kingdom of God.

It is for those who know that "the old things are past" and that the world has become a "new creation," since God has descended as king. In other words, Jesus did not announce the end of "the" world but the end of "a" world, and in that the facts have not told against him.

But John the Baptist also preached this change, speaking of an imminent judgment of God. In what, then, consists the newness of Christ? The newness is entirely enclosed within an adverb of time: "now." With Jesus the kingdom of God is no longer only something "imminent." It is present. "The new and exclusive message of Jesus," the Pope writes, "consists in the fact that he says: God acts now -- this is the hour in which God, in a way that goes beyond all previous modalities, reveals himself in history as its Lord, as the living God."

From here flows that sense of urgency that is present in all of Jesus' parables, especially the so-called parables of the kingdom. The decisive moment of history has arrived, now is the moment to make the decision that saves; the feast is ready; to refuse to enter because you have just taken a wife or bought a pair of oxen or for some other reason, is to be excluded forever and see your place taken by others.

From this last reflection let us move to a practical and contemporary application of the message we have heard. What Jesus said to the people of his time is also valid for us today. That "now" and "today" will remain immutable until the end of the world (Hebrews 3:13).

That means that the person who today hears, perhaps by chance, Christ's word: "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; convert and believe in the Gospel" (Mark 1:15), finds himself faced with the same choice as those who heard it 2000 years ago in a Galilean village: Either believe and enter the kingdom or refuse to believe and remain outside.

Unfortunately, the first option -- believing -- seems to be the last concern of many who read the Gospel and write books about it. Rather than submitting themselves to Christ's judgment, many judge him.

Today more than ever Jesus is on trial. It is a kind of "universal judgment" turned upside down. Scholars run this risk above all. The scholar must "dominate" the object of the science that he cultivates and remain neutral before it; but how is one supposed to "dominate" or remain neutral before an object when it is Jesus Christ? In this case one must let himself instead be dominated by, and not be the dominator of his object.

The kingdom of God was so important for Jesus that he taught us to pray every day for its coming. We turn to God saying, "Thy kingdom come," but God also turns to us and says through Jesus: "The kingdom of God is at hand, do not wait, enter!"

Wednesday Liturgy: When Words Over the Host Are Repeated

ROME, JULY 3, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: My parish priest recited the words of consecrating the host twice: first over the host and then over the chalice. He did not appear to notice -- although a number of parishioners did. Certainly he did not go back and recite the correct prayer. Was the consecration of the chalice valid? Was the Mass valid? There was a deacon at that Mass, but he did not intervene. He was as startled as any of us and before we realized what had happened the priest was continuing with the next part of the Eucharistic Prayer. Should the deacon have intervened at once, even to the point of interrupting the Eucharistic Prayer? Should anyone have intervened at once, even if that means calling out from the pews? -- F.T., England

A: This question highlights the importance of us priests being attentive during the celebration, above all at the essential moments of Mass.

It is advisable not to trust too much to memory and to read these prayers directly from the missal. Many of us have perhaps fallen into some error by excessive trust in automatic pilot.

The question is rather delicate, but I will try to answer succinctly. The consecration of the host was valid. The consecration of the chalice was not, for the priest's intention to consecrate cannot supply for the lack of proper sacramental form.

As a consequence the Mass, which requires the consecration of both species, was not valid. Those who received the host at communion were in the same state as those who receive Communion outside of Mass.

What should the deacon or the faithful have done? As a priest is as human as everyone else, and can also get tired and distracted, they should comprehend that such mishaps may occur. The mishaps should, however, be remedied as soon as possible.

In the case at hand the deacon should have immediately, albeit quietly, interrupted the priest as soon as he realized that he was using the mistaken formula. If no deacon is present, then one of the faithful may approach the altar and inform him.

The priest, as soon as he has realized his mistake, should then recite the proper formula. If he had just initiated the second part of the Eucharistic Prayer he may repeat it. If the Eucharistic Prayer was already near the end or completed, then he should interrupt the Mass at that point, quietly recite the formula of consecration, and then continue the Mass from where he left off.

If he were informed of his error just after Mass ended, then he should immediately consecrate and consume the species of wine in order to complete the Sacrifice, even, if necessary, in the sacristy.

If he becomes aware of his error after some time has elapsed, then nothing remains to be done but seek forgiveness and commit himself to be more attentive in the future. If a stipend were attached to the celebration of the Mass in question, another Mass must be celebrated to fulfill the obligation.

A moment of slight priestly embarrassment is a small price to pay for assuring the validity of the celebration. Likewise, a priest's meekness and humility in recognizing his error will be a source of edification to the faithful and serve to temper any harsh judgments.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Why No Litanies at a Wedding

ROME, JULY 3, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Several readers commented on the prospects of using the litany of saints during a wedding (see June 19).

One priest wrote: "I just thought I would share with you an interesting use of the litany that I saw at a wedding Mass I attended while I was a seminarian. The litany was used as the gathering song during the entrance. I found it to be an interesting way to include the Litany of the Saints in the wedding Mass. I should add that the procession was an actual procession, and not just a fancy entrance of the bride."

This described use of the litany as a gathering or entrance song is quite appropriate.

Another reader informed me that a couple of bishops' conferences either have already approved or are in process of approving and submitting to the Holy See for confirmation, revised rituals for weddings which foresee the possibility of substituting the Litany of the Saints for the prayer of the faithful.

There were some other questions related to weddings. A reader from Ottawa asked: "After discussing wedding ideas with my significant other, I have realized that we together know about four priests! What is the appropriate role in the wedding service for 'extra' priests? Are they merely guests? Do they 'concelebrate' (an inaccurate term, but a better one eludes me) the marriage?"

There is no difficulty in priests concelebrating at a wedding Mass. Only one priest, however, usually the pastor or the priest duly delegated to receive the vows, may officiate at the specific matrimonial rites which may not be divided among several ministers. For serious reasons, however, another priest may preach the homily.

A correspondent from Vietnam mentioned a rather unusual novelty: "At our parish, sometimes two readers share the same reading in the Mass, especially in the wedding Mass where the bride and the bridegroom read the first reading, each takes over a half. I wonder if this practice is allowed."

As it is impossible for liturgical norms to cover all that the imagination can concoct, it is not explicitly forbidden. But it does go against sound liturgical practice. If both bride and groom wish to read, then one can do the reading and the other one the psalm. The lectionary for ritual Masses also allows the possibility of adding a second reading.

Finally, a reader from Michigan consulted: "In July a wedding is scheduled to take place in our parish at our usual 6 p.m. Mass. Some few parishioners are upset about this and claim that weddings must be done at a separate Mass. Would you please explain if this is permissible. I should tell you that we are in a semi-rural community and our pastor, as with so many priests, must take care of two parishes."

There is no rule that weddings should be celebrated at a separate Mass. And it is even recommendable that, at least occasionally, some sacraments, such as baptism and even matrimony, be celebrated within a Sunday Mass.

This serves to highlight the community sense of these sacraments. Marriage "in the Lord" is not just a private affair but a source of joy for the whole ecclesial community. Such a celebration should also help remind the couple that their commitment is not just to themselves but to God and the Church.

Since a wedding at a regular Sunday Mass can lead to some practical difficulties, the pastor needs to take the needs of regular churchgoers into account. By notifying well in advance, the pastor has assured that those who do not wish to attend have plenty of time to establish alternative plans.

There are also some specific norms regarding the situations when it is possible to celebrate the ritual Mass of Matrimony on a Sunday and in what circumstances the regular Sunday readings may be changed. If the readings and prayers are to be taken from the ritual Mass at a parish which habitually provides missalettes to the faithful, then sufficient booklets should be prepared for all who attend.

Article: Faith Under Attack

By Father John Flynn, L.C.


ROME, JULY 2, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Hostility toward Christianity is increasingly becoming a fact of life in many countries. Even in the most Catholic countries, religion has always encountered opposition, but as recent events demonstrate, believers are facing frequent episodes of animosity, both by individuals and institutions.

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, archbishop of the central Italian city of Bologna, strongly protested a blasphemous depiction of the Virgin Mary, part of a local art exhibition. On June 19 the cardinal presided over a Mass of reparation for the offense, celebrated in the Marian shrine of San Luca, reported the Catholic daily newspaper Avvenire the following day.

Although city authorities distanced themselves from the exhibition following the Church's protests, the artworks had been patronized by Bologna's local government.

Just a few days later came news from Spain, where the daily newspaper La Razón reported June 23 that legal investigations were under way concerning pornographic images of saints. Francisco Muñoz, a Socialist Party official in charge of cultural affairs in the western Spanish region of Extremadura, was denounced for his role in giving official patronage to books by photographer José Antonio M. Montoya.

The books contained blasphemous photos of a pornographic nature not only of a number of saints, but also of Jesus and Mary. The books were published by the local government authorities and one of them even contained a preface written by Montoya.

When the books were published earlier this year, Church authorities had made strong protests. A note issued March 15 by a committee of the Spanish episcopal conference demanded greater respect for the Catholic faith. The images contained in the books are not only an offense against believers, but disturb the conscience of every upright person, the statement argued.

Neo-pagans

Meanwhile, in France authorities have arrested three young men accused of being responsible for a series of profanations of churches in May, including one 16th-century chapel that was burned to the ground. According to a June 26 report published by the daily newspaper Le Monde, the men were arrested June 21 by police from the town of Quimper, in the Brittany region located in the northwest of the country.

The men inscribed the initials TABM in the places where they carried out their attacks, and at first it was thought to be a Satanic group. It later turned out the men belonged to the neo-pagan group of Celtic nature called "True Armorik Black Metal."

An offense of a different nature confronted the Church of England recently. Media company Sony included images of a violent gunfight in Manchester Cathedral as part of one its new games for PlayStation 3, reported the Times newspaper June 13. The dean of the cathedral, Rogers Govender, described the game as a "virtual desecration."

Following protests from the Anglican Church, supported in Parliament by then prime minister, Tony Blair, Sony apologized, reported the Times two days later. The company said they had not intended to cause offense, but at the same time gave no indication that they would either withdraw the game or accede to the request that they make a donation to the cathedral's work on educating young people against gun crime.

Paganism is also making a comeback in Greece, reported the British newspaper the Guardian on Feb. 1. The article recounted a recent pagan ceremony carried out by a self-styled priestess, Doreta Peppa, in the ruins of the Athenian temple dedicated to the ancient Greek god Zeus. According to the Guardian it was the first such ceremony since the Roman Empire outlawed pagan worship in the late fourth century.

According to the article last year the group Ellinais, of which Peppa is a member, obtained legal recognition as a cultural association. This was a notable achievement as in Greece all non-Christian religions, excepting Islam and Judaism, are prohibited. Members of the group hope to obtain official approval to carry out pagan ceremonies for baptism, marriage and funerals.

Pagans are also making progress in the United States, where Wiccans recently won a battle with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, reported the Associated Press on April 23. The Wiccan pentacle will now form part of the list of emblems allowed in national cemeteries and on government-issued headstones of fallen soldiers. The government agreed to add the symbol to its list to settle a lawsuit initiated by a group of families.

Christian discrimination

A further victory for pagans came in Scotland, where the University of Edinburgh gave permission to the Pagan Society to hold its annual conference on campus, reported the newspaper Scotland on Sunday, May 27.

The decision drew protests from the university's Christian Union, which had earlier seen one of its events banned by campus authorities because it warned of the dangers of homosexuality.

"It's OK for other religions, such as the pagans, to have their say at the university, but there appears to be a reluctance to allow Christians to do the same," commented Matthew Tindale, a Christian Union staff worker.

The article also cited Simon Dames, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, who declared he felt that allowing the pagan festival to go ahead while barring the union meeting was an example of "Christianphobia."

Christians are also alleging unfair discrimination in an English case now before the High Court, reported the BBC on June 22. Lydia Playfoot, a 16-year-old schoolgirl has accused Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, of discriminating against Christians by banning the wearing of purity rings.

She was told by school officials to remove her ring, which symbolizes chastity, or face expulsion. According to the BBC a group of girls at the school were wearing the rings as part of a movement that originated in the United States, called the "Silver Ring Thing."

The school argued that wearing the ring infringed rules governing what pupils can wear. Playfoot protested, pointing out that Sikh and Muslim pupils can wear bangles and head scarves in class. She also argued that other pupils regularly broke the rules with nose rings, tongue studs, badges and dyed hair.

When Playfoot refused to remove the ring she was taken out of lessons and made to study on her own. The only reason for banning the rings was because the school refused to "give respect to aspects of the Christian faith they are not familiar with," she told the BBC

European Union

On a wider level any hopes that the European Union would soften its opposition to Christianity were finally killed off recently. Germany took over the rotating European Union presidency in the first semester of this year and Chancellor Angela Merkel had declared she wanted to reopen the debate over whether the prologue to the proposed new constitution should mention the continent's Christian heritage, reported Deutsche Welle on March 24.

"I believe this treaty should be linked to Christianity and God because Christianity was decisive in the formation of Europe," she had said following a meeting with Benedict XVI last year.

Nevertheless, Merkel admitted afterward that there was no real hope of having any such mention in the new constitution, according to Deutsche Welle on May 15.

In Germany the Church is concerned about the future of Christianity, as evidenced in recent comments by Cardinal Karl Lehmann, president of the German episcopal conference. According to a June 22 report by Deutsche Welle, the cardinal warned that an overly zealous religious neutrality by the state could lead to all faiths being treated equally, regardless of the size of their flock and their history.

"The deep cultural connection between Christianity and our legal state, which goes back to the Middle Ages and before, cannot simply be ignored," Lehmann said in a speech given in the city of Karlsruhe. A connection increasingly under attack from growing anti-Christian forces.

Father Cantalamessa on Pope's Book

ROME, JUNE 28, 2007 (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.


* * *

"Let the Dead Bury the Dead"
13th Sunday in Ordinary Time
1 Kings 19:16b,19-21; Galatians 4:31-5:13-18; Luke 9:51-62

Benedict XVI's book "Jesus of Nazareth" appeared in April. I thought that I would take account of the Pope's reflections in my commentary on some of the next Sunday Gospels.

First of all, I'd like to remark on the content and purpose of the book. It treats of Jesus in the period from his baptism in the Jordan to the moment of his transfiguration, that is, from the beginning of his public ministry almost to its epilogue.

The Pope says that if God gives him sufficient strength and time to write it, a second volume will deal with the accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection along with the infancy narratives. These were not treated in the first volume.

The book presupposes historical-critical exegesis and uses its findings, but desires to go beyond this method, aiming at a properly theological interpretation, that is, one that is global, not narrow, and that takes seriously the witness of the Gospels and Scriptures as books inspired by God.

The purpose of the book is to show that the figure of Jesus that is arrived at in this way is "much more logical and, from the historical point of view, also more understandable than the reconstructions that we have seen in the last decades. I hold," the Pope adds, "that precisely this Jesus -- that of the Gospels -- is a historically sensible and convincing figure."

It is quite significant that the Pope's choice to attend to the Jesus of the Gospels finds a confirmation in the more recent and authoritative orientation of the same historical-critical approach, in, for example, the Scottish exegete James Dunn's monumental work "Christianity in the Making."

According to Dunn, "the synoptic Gospels bear testimony to a pattern and technique of oral transmission which has ensured a greater stability and continuity in the Jesus tradition that has thus far been generally appreciated."

But let us come to the Gospel reading for the 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time. It recounts three different meetings Jesus had on the same journey. We will focus on one of these meetings. "And to another Jesus said, 'Follow me.' But he replied, 'Lord, let me go first and bury my father.' But Jesus answered him, 'Let the dead bury their dead. But you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.'"

In his book, the Pope comments on the theme of family relations alluded to in the above Gospel passage in dialogue with the Jewish-American Rabbi Jacob Neusner. In his book "A Rabbi Talks with Jesus," Rabbi Neusner imagines himself as present in the crowds when Jesus speaks.

Rabbi Neusner explains why, despite his great admiration for the "Rabbi of Nazareth," he would not have been able to become his disciple. One of the reasons for this is Jesus' position on family relations. Rabbi Neusner says that on many occasions Jesus seems to invite transgression of the fourth commandment, which says that we must honor our father and mother. Jesus asks someone, as we just heard, to forget about burying his own father and elsewhere he says that whoever loves father and mother more than him is not worthy of him.

Often the response to these objections is to cite other words of Jesus that strongly affirm the permanent validity of family bonds: the indissolubility of marriage, the duty to help one's father and mother.

In his book, however, the Pope offers a more profound and illuminating answer to this objection, an objection that is not only Rabbi Neusner's, but also that of many Christian readers of the Gospel. He takes his point of departure from something else Jesus says. "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? ... Whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven is my brother, sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:48-50).

Jesus does not thereby abolish the natural family, but reveals a new family in which God is father, and men and women are all brothers and sisters thanks to a common faith in him, the Christ. Rabbi Neusner asks whether he has a right to do this. This spiritual family already existed: It was the people of Israel, united by observance of the Torah, that is, the Mosaic law.

A son was only permitted to leave his father's house to study the Torah. But Jesus does not say, "Whoever loves father or mother more than the Torah is not worthy of the Torah." He says, "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." He puts himself in the place of the Torah and this can only be done by someone who is greater than the Torah and greater than Moses, who promulgated it.

Benedict XVI thinks that the rabbi is right to conclude: "Only God can demand of me what Jesus asks." The Pope notes that the discussion about Jesus and family relations -- like that about Jesus and observance of the Sabbath -- thus brings us to the true heart of the matter, which is to know who Jesus is. If a Christian does not believe that Jesus acts with the authority itself of God and is himself God, then Rabbi Neusner, who refuses to follow Jesus, has a more coherent position than that particular Christian does. One cannot accept Jesus' teaching if one does not accept his person.

Let us take some practical instruction from this discussion. The "family of God," which is the Church, not only is not against the natural family, but is its guarantee and promoter. We see it today. It is a shame that some divergences of opinion in our society on questions linked to marriage and the family impede many from recognizing the providential work of the Church on behalf of the family. She is often without support in this decisive battle for the future of humanity.