Article: Don't Follow Your Dream

HARRISON SOLOW

Everywhere you turn today, our children are urged to "follow your dream."

It seems like a harmless, even inspiring bromide to motivate children to achievement. It isn't.

A lot of damage has been done to young minds by this particularly nauseating, rampant philosophy. There seems to be an air of entitlement in it, which encourages people to expect rewards for simply having a dream and not working toward it with blood, sweat and tears.

Somewhere along the line, responsibility has been discarded in favor of infantilism. Scream loud enough from the cradle or the American Idol stage and Mama/nanny/Simon Cowell will come running. And when in the latter case, this does not happen, many people are bewildered and angry.

Wanting something, they have been told, is the only requirement needed to get it. This is, of course, absolute nonsense.

The simple fact is that people who achieve excellence in their fields didn't just have a dream. They got up at 4 a.m. to practice on parallel bars or had to forgo other desirable activities and paths in order to get in six hours of violin practice a day, or stayed off the several million absurd writing advice blogs with their overheated little cliques that dispense useless regurgitated maxims and empty praise and decide to actually confront their thoughts on a page. Or they readBeowulf and Dante carefully and deeply when they didn't see any point, since all they were interested in was Sylvia Plath, because someone of more experience and wisdom told them to do so. I don't know whether we're overly lazy, stupid or childish these days. But the idea of preparing oneself for excellence has somehow disappeared.

Case in point: I was the writer in residence and an English professor at a British university for some years. In my second year there, one of my students actually lifted, word for word, two pages off a website and handed it in as his own work, and I ended up being the one reprimanded!

I had given him a zero for the paper, of course. But the university policy was that I wasn't allowed to give him a zero. Instead, the entire English faculty met to go over his paper and give him credit for all the things he didn't plagiarize. This, to me, is akin to a criminal breaking into your house and stealing your jewelry, silver and art, and when appearing in court for indictment after pleading guilty, being given credit by the judge for not stealing your television or computer.

I was both disillusioned and livid at this so, contrary to university policy at that time, I called "Trevor" into my office and asked him why he had done this despicable thing. He responded that he had always had a dream to have a degree. ("Have" not "earn"!)

I said to him, "Trevor, you will never have a degree if you keep on doing this. Oh, someone may hand one to you one day, but you will always know that it isn't yours. It will never be yours. It will always belong to all those from whom you stole it. Never you." And he started to cry. I was glad to see those tears, which were, in the end, the only entity in the university acknowledging responsibility for such an unworthy act.

My friend James Strauss, a talented novelist and writer for the television show House, among other things, found a similar situation in his recent (and brief) foray into teaching.

Don't follow your dream. Do what it takes to earn it. To achieve it. To be worthy of it.

"Our public almost never ever understands what it takes to put a production on, or the vital necessity of good writing," he wrote to me. "Everybody thinks they can 'at least' write. I taught a screenwriting class last year (I don't know why!) and I was amazed that almost all my students thought they had a screenplay in them. I thought about that, then assigned them an entire one-hour, 50-page screenplay by the next class (one week later). I said I would do the same. The following week we met (only 11 of the 16 showed) and there was one screenplay written. Mine. Not one page of any other work was available, although the excuses were endless and complex."

This is worrying. Even our universities are filled with people who have dreams but no plans, desires but no talent, talent but no work ethic, and because the few people who could make a difference in their lives will not step up to the plate and say, "You can't have this until you earn it," I am deeply concerned that there is no end in sight.

So, my advice to dreamers: Don't follow your dream. Do what it takes to earn it. To achieve it. To be worthy of it. Because if you don't, it will never, ever, really be yours.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Harrison Solow. "Don't Follow Your Dream." AOL News (November 5, 2010).

Excerpted by permission of the author, Harrison Solow.

THE AUTHOR

Harrison Solow is a writer, English professor, and winner of the Pushcart Prize for Literature in 2008. She has written, edited and executed more than 400 publications and projects. Her latest book is Felicity & Barbara Pym, a tale about reading, writing and true education. Read her blog on Red Room.

Copyright © 2011 Harrison Solow

Article: The Eucharist and Sanctity

FATHER JOHN A. HARDON, S.J.

The Eucharist as the Real Presence is the touchstone of sanctity.

As evidence of this fact we have the witness of the saints who, when they speak or write about the power of the Blessed Sacrament to sanctify, seem to be positively extreme in their claims about what the Real Presence can achieve in making a sinful person holy.

Notice we are concentrating on the Holy Eucharist as the Real Presence. We could also speak of the sanctifying power of the Mass and of Holy Communion, but that is not our focus of reflection here. Why not? Because it is the Real Presence in the Mass and in Communion that finally explains their efficacy, too. No Real Presence, no Mass; no Real Presence, no Communion. So that, in dwelling on the Real Presence, we are in effect talking about the Holy Eucharist - Presence, Sacrifice and Sacrament.

In order to appreciate the value of the Real Presence in the spiritual life, we must go back in spirit to the event described by St. John when our Lord, after He had worked the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, made the solemn promise of the Eucharist.

"I am the Bread of Life," Christ declared on that occasion. "He who comes to me will never be hungry. He who believes in me will never thirst. But, as I have told you, you can see me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me, I shall not turn him away because I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but to do the will of the one who sent me. Now the will of him who sent me is that I should lose nothing of all that he has given to me and that I should raise it up on the last day. Yes, it is my Father's will that whoever sees the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life and that I shall raise him up on the last day."

By now we have read and heard and meditated on these words many times, but they deserve further reflection because they contain so much mystery that after nineteen centuries of the Church's existence she has not begun to exhaust the richness of their meaning.

Every time we go back, every time we go back to Christ's words of revelation, we always discover something new. Always! The key word in Christ's discourse on the Eucharist is the wordbelieve. In fact, after He promised the Blessed Sacrament many of the Jews who heard Him did not believe. "This is intolerable language," they said. "How could anyone (meaning themselves) accept it?"

"After this," we are told, "many of his disciples left him and stopped going with him." And the evangelist further explains that, "Jesus knew from the outset those who did not believe and who it was that would betray him." We might add that when we are told that the Savior knew who did not believe, that was not only contemporary, but all future knowledge. He foresaw who would and who would not believe, and let us make sure that the evangelist's juxtaposition of those who did not believe and those who would betray Him is the relationship of cause and effect. All the traitors of Christ have been those who, having believed, stopped believing.

There are, at this point, three questions we should ask ourselves about the Holy Eucharist as Real Presence. And on the answer to these questions depends in large measure whether we shall only know about sanctity or also attain it, whether holiness will remain only an idea or whether we shall actually become holy. What a difference! The questions are these:

1. Why do we believe when we believe in the Real Presence?
   
   
2. Why should we believe it? And,
   
   
3. How should we put our belief into practice?

What Do We Believe?

Strange as it may sound, when we believe in the Real Presence, we believe in things twice unseen. We see only what looks like bread and wine, tastes and smells like bread and wine, and yet we are to believe that behind these physical appearances is a man.

The simplest way to express what Christ asks us to believe about the Real Presence is that the Eucharist is really He. The Real Presence is the real Jesus. We are to believe that the Eucharist began in the womb of the Virgin Mary; that the flesh which the Son of God received from His Mother at the Incarnation is the same flesh into which He changed bread at the Last Supper; that the blood He received from His Mother is the same blood into which He changed wine at the Last Supper. Had she not given Him His flesh and blood there could not be a Eucharist.

We are to believe that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ – simply, without qualification. It is God become man in the fullness of His divine nature, in the fullness of His human nature, in the fullness of His body and soul, in the fullness of everything that makes Jesus Jesus. He is in the Eucharist with His human mind and will united with the Divinity, with His hands and feet, His face and features, with His eyes and lips and ears and nostrils, with His affections and emotions and, with emphasis, with His living, pulsating, physical Sacred Heart. That is what our Catholic Faith demands of us that we believe. If we believe this, we are Catholic. If we do not, we are not, no matter what people may think we are.

Our faith is belief because we do not see what we believe. We accept on Christ's words that all of this is there, or rather, here in the Holy Eucharist. Faith must supply what, as the Tantum Ergo sings, "the senses do not perceive." And faith must reveal what the mind by itself cannot see. Let us never forget this phrase, first in Latin, lumen fidei, the light of faith. Faith reveals, faith discloses, faith enlightens, faith empowers the mind to see what the mind without faith cannot see.

Strange as it may sound, when we believe in the Real Presence, we believe in things twice unseen. We see only what looks like bread and wine, tastes and smells like bread and wine, and yet we are to believe that behind these physical appearances is a man. Faith number one. And we are further to believe that behind the unseen man is God. Faith number two.

Is it any wonder the Church calls the Eucharist, Mysterium Fidei, the Mystery of Faith? Those who accept the Real Presence accept by implication all the cardinal mysteries of Christianity. They believe in the Trinity, in the Father who sent the Son and in the Son who sent the Holy Spirit. They believe in the Incarnation, that the Son of God became man like one of us. They believe in Christ's divinity since no one but God could change bread and wine into His own body and blood. They believe in the Holy Catholic Church which Christ founded and in which through successive generations is communicated to bishops and priests the incredible power of making Christ continually present among us in the Blessed Sacrament. They believe, against all the betrayals by the Judases of history and all the skepticism of Christ's first disciples, in an unbroken chain of faith ever since Peter replied to Christ's question whether he and his companions also wanted to leave the Master. What a chance Christ took. "Lord," Peter looked around, "whom shall we go to?" (And he spoke for all of us.)" You have the message of eternal life, and we believe, we know, that you are the holy one of God."

There is a prayer in the Coptic Liturgy that I think perfectly answers the first question we are asking. "What do I believe when I believe in the Real Presence?" The prayer goes as follows, a little long, but worth it:

"I believe and I will confess to my last breath that this is the living bread which Your only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, took from our Lady and the Queen of Mankind, the holy, sinless Virgin Mary, Mother of God. He made it one with His Godhead without confusion or change. He witnessed before Pontius Pilate and was of His own free will condemned in our place to the holy tree. Truly I believe that His Godhead was not separated from His manhood for a moment, not even for the twinkle of an eye. He gave His body for the remission of our sins and for eternal life to those who partake of this body. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is in very truth that body. Amen."

That is your faith and mine.

Why Do We Believe?

Those who believe deeply in the Real Presence will benefit greatly from the Real Presence; those who believe weakly will also benefit accordingly.

Why do we believe that the selfsame body that Christ had in His visible stay on earth is the body, now glorified, we now worship and receive invisibly on earth today? You see, Christ is on earth! The final reason is, of course, because this is what He told us. What He said must be true because Christ who is God cannot lie.

But why do we believe in terms of the promises He made? What blessings and benefits did He assure those who believe in this Eucharistic Mystery? All the blessings that Christ promised to those who believe in the Holy Eucharist are summed up in His own masterful promise of life. Those who believe will receive life and the life that He promised was zoé – the kind of life that belongs to God, the kind of life that Father, Son and Holy Spirit shared and interchanged from all eternity. Those who believe will receive this life. Those who do not believe will die. What kind of life was Christ talking about? It must have been the supernatural life of grace in our souls, of partaking or participation in His own divine life.

Suppose we go on asking a series of questions where the answer can be yes or no:

• Is it possible for a person to be physically alive, but spiritually dead? Yes or no? . . . . . . YES.
  
  
• Is it possible for a person to be just barely alive? Yes or no? . . . . . . YES.
  
  
• Is it possible for a person to be more alive than just scarcely breathing supernaturally? Yes or no? . . . . . . YES
  
  
• Is it finally possible for a person to be very alive with divine grace, vitally alive, brimming, tingling, vibrating, bursting with God's life in his soul? Yes or no? . . . . . . An emphatic YES

This, in homely language, is what the Savior promised those who believed in His Real Presence. He assured them and, therefore, assures us, that we shall be not only alive, but filled with His life, full to brimming and flowing over with strength and power and wisdom and peace and all manner of holiness. This is what sanctity is all about. It is the muchness of the good things of God. It is the more and more and still more of the life of God in our souls. More still, He promises that, provided that we believe in Him in the Eucharist, He will sustain this life in our souls into eternity. In other words, being alive now we shall never die. And most marvelous, He will even make this life pour from our souls into our bodies risen from the grave on the last day and glorified by the vision of God. No wonder the Eucharist is called panis vitae, the Bread of Life. It is that, and let us remind ourselves, and here is the condition, one condition, that before we eat this bread with our lips, we take it by faith into our hearts. Indeed, unless we first have faith, we shall, as Paul tells us, "eat it to our malediction." Only believers can benefit from this Bread of Life, only believers can profit from the Blessed Sacrament, and only believers can grow in spirit by partaking of the Eucharist depending always on the measure of their faith. Those who believe deeply in the Real Presence will benefit greatly from the Real Presence; those who believe weakly will also benefit accordingly. The Eucharist is capable of working miracles in our lives. So it can – after all, the Eucharist is Jesus. He worked – change the tense – He works miracles, but as it depended then (remember, Christ could not work miracles in certain places for lack of faith), the same now. It depends on the depth and degree of our faith.

How To Believe?

Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity.

This must seem like an odd question: how are we to believe in the Real Presence? By believing, we might answer. How else do you believe? True enough. But more concretely, how are we to express our belief? We are to express our belief by doing on our part what Christ does on His part. He comes to us. So we must come to Him, and this is not locomotion through space. He comes down to us. We must come up to Him. He is present in the Eucharist in order to be near to us. We must be present – change the accent – we must be present to the Eucharist in order to be near to Him. He went to the superhuman length of becoming man, then changing bread and wine into Himself, then giving His Apostles the power to do the same, then giving them the power to pass on this power to others to do the same. And in virtue of that power, He is now here with us. He wants us, in turn, also now, here, to be with Him. And here nobody cheats. It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity.

What I am expressing is not a pious practice or a luxury of the spiritual life. I am talking about its essence. Those who believe what I am saying and act on their belief are in possession of the greatest treasure available to man in this valley of tears. As by now thousands of saintly men and women have testified from experience, this is somewhere near the key to holiness. For this reason, I strongly recommend that each of us make a resolution – no matter how much the decision may cost us – to make a holy hour before the Blessed Sacrament exposed or reserved at least once a month or, if possible, once a week, and if we have the grace and our vocation in life permits it, even several times a week. Think of the empty hours that people spend weekly before the television screen – an average I am told of some twenty hours per man, woman and child in America. God help America!

Someone may object, "But you are talking about mystics or saints, and I am neither. I am just an ordinary Catholic trying to save my soul." My reply: there can be no ordinary Catholics today, not with the revolution through which society is passing and the convulsion in the Church on every level. The Church today needs strong Catholics, wise Catholics, Catholics who are not swayed by public opinion or afraid to stand up for the truth. She needs Catholics who are willing to suffer for their convictions and, if need be, shed their blood for the Faith.

Where, we ask, can they obtain this strength and wisdom, this patience and conviction and this loyal love of God that is faithful unto death? They can obtain it from the one who said, "Have courage, I have overcome the world." He is not two thousand years away, or absent from the earth in a distant heaven that cannot be spanned. No, He is right here in the Eucharist. And He wants nothing more than that we also be with Him as much as we can. If we are, and the more we are – as the great Eucharistic saints tell us – He will not only make us holy, but He will use us as He used those in Palestine who, when He first made the promise of the Eucharist, did not walk away. He will use us as channels of His grace even to the ends of the earth and until the end of time.

Spiritual Life in the Modern World

IMPRIMI POTEST
Edward M. O'Flaherty, S.J.
Provincial, New England Province

NIHIL OBSTAT
Rev. Richard V Lawlor, S.J.

IMPRIMATUR:
Humberto Cardinal Medeiros
Archbishop of Boston

ISBN: 0967298962
(was 081986840x paper)

Library of Congress Card Number: 00102677

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father John A. Hardon. "The Eucharist and Sanctity." Excerpt from Spiritual Life in the Modern World (Inter Mirifica, 2000).

Reprinted with permission from Inter Mirifica.

THE AUTHOR

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (1914-2000) was a tireless apostle of the Catholic faith. The author of over twenty-five books including Spiritual Life in the Modern World, Catholic Prayer Book, The Catholic Catechism, Modern Catholic Dictionary,Pocket Catholic Dictionary, Pocket Catholi Catechism, Q & A Catholic Catechism, Treasury of Catholic Wisdom, Catholic Lifetime Reading Plan and many other Catholic books and hundreds of articles, Father Hardon was a close associate and advisor of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity. Order Father Hardon's home study courseshere.

Copyright © 2011 Inter Mirifica

Wednesday Liturgy: Kneeling at the Final Prayer

ROME, JUNE 28, 2011 (Zenit.or (http://www.zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: At the final prayer of Mass, my parish priest stands and the entire congregation immediately kneels as he asks us to "Bow your heads and pray." He then prays the prayer, gives the blessing, and dismisses us. Notices are given just before he prays. Then we all stand to sing the final hymn. Is it optional to kneel or stand for the final prayer of the Mass? -- R.D., Manchester, England

A: The usual procedure for the end of Mass is the following. After communion, the celebrant sits in silent thanksgiving while the rest of the faithful either sit or kneel as they prefer. A meditative song of thanksgiving may also take place during this time.

When thanksgiving is over, all stand and the priest sings or says the closing prayer of Mass to which the faithful respond Amen.

If there are any announcements to be made, they are delivered after this prayer. If necessary, the people may be invited to sit.

If the priest imparts the simple blessings ("The Lord be with you May almighty God bless you "), then the assembly remains standing for the blessing, dismissal and closing hymn.

If the prayer over the people or a solemn blessing is used, then the deacon, or in his absence the priest, says to the people: "Bow your heads and pray for God's blessing." The people remain with heads bowed while the priest, his hands extended over the assembly, sings or says the prayer.

After each formula the people respond Amen. Concluding the prayer, the priest says, "May almighty God bless you ...."

There is nothing in the rubrics to suggest that the people should kneel to receive the priest's blessing, although this might well be a legitimate custom in some places as a substitute for bowing.

The solemn blessings and prayer over the people are generally used on solemnities and other important occasions. They may also be used on Sundays especially during the major liturgical seasons such as Lent and Easter.

One of the novelties that people will find in the new translation of the Roman Missal is that, beginning with Lent 2012, the priest will have the option of proclaiming a different prayer over the people for each day of the penitential season. These traditional prayers had been present in the missal before the conciliar reform but were dropped from the missal issued by Pope Paul VI. They were restored in the third Latin typical edition in 2001.

The principal difference between the solemn blessing and the prayer over the people is that three prayers are usually used for the solemn blessing, while just one is used for the prayer over the people. Another difference is literary style. The blessing addresses the assembly and invokes God's favor upon it. The prayer over the people addresses God directly, asking for his grace.

For example, one blessing formula for Ascension proclaims: "You believe that Jesus has taken his seat in majesty at the right hand of the Father. May you have the joy of experiencing that he is also with you at the end of time, according to his promise."

One of the restored prayers over the people that will be heard next year is that of the First Sunday of Lent: "May bountiful blessing, O Lord, we pray, come down upon your people, that hope may grow in tribulation, virtue be strengthened in temptation, and eternal redemption be assured. Through Christ our Lord."

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Wearing the Rosary as a Necklace

ROME, JUNE 28, 2011 (Zenit.or (http://www.zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

In the wake of our comments on wearing the rosary as a necklace June 14 (http://www.zenit.org/article-32848?l=english), a reader who now serves as a lay missionary in Honduras offered the following observations:

"In my experience in El Salvador and Honduras it is not uncommon to see men and sometimes women wearing a rosary around their necks. The rosaries are often very inexpensive, of plastic or wood. The people who wear them are largely the poor, most of whom have a strong faith. Though it might be uncommon in the U.S. and Europe, I see it here more often.

"In some ways it's a way for the people -- mostly, but not exclusively, young -- to identify themselves as Catholics. Some lay pastoral workers wear them since they don't have a cross to wear around their necks.

"I have heard, though, that there are some gang members in cities in Honduras who wear the rosary as a sort of talisman, to protect them. I don't think it is a way to identify their gang membership but rather a way of seeking security in the very insecure world of the urban poor. That's another case altogether.

"But it is important to remember that here among the poor, the rosary around the neck, though it might seem to be a type of 'jewelry,' is an expression of faith.

"I don't know how often the young people pray the rosary, but among many of the people in the countryside here in western Honduras the rosary is often prayed -- often in family groups, in base communities, or even over the Catholic radio station. The rosary, prayed or worn around the neck, is common here."

I believe that this enlightening information completes and confirms the central thrust of the original reply: that this and similar practices can only be evaluated by taking local context into account.

Wednesday Liturgy: Mass With the Society of St. Pius X

ROME, JUNE 21, 2011 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org)).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I am going to be visiting some dear friends this summer. They recently began attending the Society of Pius X after a great deal of prayer and study, including consultations with a canon lawyer. I am still struggling with the answer to it all. Would you please help me to discern where the Church stands on this issue so that I can make the right decision about where I should attend Mass while I am visiting? -- A.Z., Regina, Saskatchewan

A: I believe it is necessary to distinguish between attending a Mass celebrated according to the norms of the 1962 Roman Missal (the extraordinary form) and attending a Mass celebrated according to this form by priests associated with the Society of St. Pius X. In the wake of Benedict XVI's apostolic letter "Summorum Pontificum," any Catholic can freely attend, and most priests may celebrate, Mass according to the 1962 missal. Thus it should become increasingly easier to find such a Mass.

Attending a Mass of the Society of St. Pius X is a different case. This society was founded in 1970 by French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. For doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons, the society has no canonical status in the Catholic Church. As the Holy Father said in his letter (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html) of March 10, 2009, concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers -- even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty -- do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

With respect to the status of the members of this society, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesiae Dei has issued several private replies to individuals which have later been published on the Internet. One of the most recent, from 2008, reflects earlier replies. Regarding the status of adherents to the society, it states:

"The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop.

"Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144).

"While it is true that participation in the Mass at chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute 'formal adherence to the schism' (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church. While we hope and pray for a reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" cannot recommend that members of the faithful frequent their chapels for the reasons which we have outlined above. We deeply regret this situation and pray that soon a reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Church may come about, but until such time the explanations which we have given remain in force."

Thus I think it is fairly clear. The mere fact of assisting at a Mass of this society is not a sin. It would only become so if a person attended this Mass with the deliberate intention of separating himself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him.

I would say, therefore, that a conscientious Catholic should not knowingly attend a Mass celebrated by a priest not in good standing with the Church. Doing so deprives participation at Mass of that fullness of communion with Christ and his Church which the Mass, by its very nature and in all its forms, is called to express.

Therefore, the first thing to do would be to investigate the availability of Mass (in the ordinary or extraordinary form) in another locale during your visit. If it is not available, then you could attend any Eastern Catholic celebration.

Only if there is objectively no alternative should one attend the Mass celebrated by a priest from the Society of St. Pius X. If one has to do so, then I would say that one may go in good conscience.

At the same time, it is our ardent prayer and desire, as it should be for all Catholics, that the doctrinal issues with the Society of St. Pius X will be resolved as soon as possible so that these priests may return to full communion and canonical good standing within the Church.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Wearing Stoles Over the Chasuble

ROME, JUNE 21, 2011 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org)).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Pursuant to our article on wearing the stole over the chasuble (see June 7 (http://www.zenit.org/article-32780?l=english), a reader from Nairobi, Kenya, asked: "Why should the color of an alb be white? Can the seasonal colors of Advent, Lent and ordinary time be used in making the alb?"

The short answer is no, at least as regards the Latin rite. Alb derives from the Latin word for white, and it has always been that color in our liturgy.

The alb derives from the white tunic worn as a basic garment by most men in Roman times. As the empire fell under barbarian influence, laymen abandoned the tunic in favor of leggings and similar garments. The more conservative clergy conserved the tuniclike habit for both ordinary and liturgical use.

In time, the color of the alb led to its association with purity (along with the cincture) and with the white garments of the saints as found in the Book of Revelation. This can be seen from the prayers the priest may recite while putting on these vestments.

As he puts on the alb he says, "Purify me, Lord, and cleanse my heart so that, washed in the Blood of the Lamb, I may enjoy eternal bliss."

As he ties the cincture, he says: "Lord, gird me about with the cincture of purity and extinguish my fleshly desires, that the virtue of continence and chastity may abide within me."

The cincture, however, unlike the alb, may correspond to the color of the liturgical season or festivity.

Some non-Latin liturgies have vestments with a function analogous to the alb, such as the Byzantine sticharion, which can be of several colors, including blue and gold.

Article: Doctrinal Formation and Communion Under Both Kinds: The Theology Behind Receiving Body and Blood

By Father Paul Gunter, OSB

[Father Paul Gunter, OSB, is a professor of the Pontifical Institute of Liturgy in Rome and a Consulter to the Office of the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.]

* * *

ROME, JUNE 17, 2011 (Zenit.org).- In the ordinary form of the Mass, the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds is an option whose usage has become a daily occurrence in many countries but, by no means everywhere, even in Europe.

The instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," promulgated in 2004, explains the context of this practice: "So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent" (100).

This laudable intention frequently meets the catechetical stumbling block mentioned. Undoubtedly, Holy Communion under both species illustrates Christ's intention that we eat his Body and drink his Blood. However, that desire for Holy Communion in both kinds has not necessarily been accompanied by fidelity to the norms of liturgical books and supporting formation to protect against Eucharistic abuses and doctrinal misunderstandings.

While many have grasped that the Eucharist is the "Source and Summit" of Christian life, the handing down of the dogmatic principles of the Council of Trent has been seen as old-fashioned. The instruction has made clear that, intrinsic to the "fullness of the sign," is consistency with liturgical books and with the teachings of Trent.

"Redemptionis Sacramentum" displaces ambiguities of Eucharistic practice and "is directed toward such a conformity of our own understanding with that of Christ, as expressed in the words and the rites of the Liturgy" (5). Not infrequently, essential lack of Eucharistic awareness is revealed when, for want of formation, commissioned extraordinary ministers make reference to "giving out the wine." This very terminology suggests that, as part of their proper training, the dogmatic principle of Trent was not absorbed. Some might have heard about "substance" and "accidents" within the contexts of the religious education of yesteryear, but might have been encouraged to think that the Church had, somehow, moved on.

For modern generations, the Council of Trent may not have been mentioned in their doctrinal formation which emphasizes that "nothing is lost by the body being received by the people without the blood: because the priest both offers and receives the blood in the name of all, and the whole Christ is present under either species" (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 80, a. 12, ad 3). So, under the species of bread there is also present, by concomitance, the precious blood.

The purpose, then, of receiving Holy Communion under both kinds, is not that the faithful receive more grace than when they receive it under one kind alone, but that the faithful are enabled to appreciate vividly the value of the sign. Sadly, this distinction has not always been made clear and some people, when not offered Holy Communion under both kinds, have expressed a sense of bewilderment, even thwarted entitlement, or a feeling that Holy Communion under one kind alone was, to some extent, deficient.

Bishops conferences and diocesan bishops, in particular, are the key to ensuring locally that Holy Communion is distributed with reverence and avoidance of misunderstanding. "Redemptionis Sacramentum" makes clear that the slightest danger of the sacred species being profaned is to be avoided (101). It also expresses concern about the "detriment of so great a mystery" (106). While "profanation" and the "detriment of so great a mystery" suggest different levels of Eucharistic abuse, both levels are expressly mentioned so that they will be avoided.

Every care should be taken to avoid the ministering of the chalice where circumstances suggest ambiguity of reception or a setting where the safety of the contents of the chalice might not be assured. "Redemptionis Sacramentum" states that where it is difficult to assess the quantity of wine needed for a particular celebration, owing to the large size of the congregation expected that the chalice is not to be ministered (102).

Alternative methods could be equally difficult to envisage such as the use of a spoon or a tube where these options are not the local custom. For Holy Communion by intinction, "the communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand" (104).

Forthcoming translations of the third edition of the Roman Missal mark, as the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales wrote in their joint pastoral letter of May 2011, "a moment of special grace." It is to be hoped that the envisaged in-depth catechesis on the Mass will revisit the mentality and the manner in which Holy Communion is received.

It sounds restrictive to suggest that Holy Communion received fervently under one species is more fruitful than a tepid Communion received under both species when concrete objectives aimed at doctrinal formation, care and reverence in the liturgical celebration and organizational forethought could do so much to acknowledge and address the challenges that have arisen.

The psalmist declares the imperative of that in-depth catechesis: "The things we have heard and understood, the things our fathers have told us these we will not hide from their children but will tell to the next generation" (Psalm 78:4).

St. Ambrose discloses what people of faith gain from that knowledge: "For as often as we eat this Bread and drink this cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord’s death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his Blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy" (St Ambrose, De sacr. 4, 6, 28: PL 16, 464).

Article: Reactionary liberalism and Catholic social doctrine

GEORGE WEIGEL

A review of the basics of Catholic social doctrine is needed.

The debate over Catholic social doctrine and U.S. social welfare policy took an unhelpful turn in May when a gaggle of academics fired a shot across the bow of House Speaker John Boehner, prior to his commencement address at the Catholic University of America. Their charge? That Boehner's House voting record showed him to be a man who fails "to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching."

Why? Because he had not supported legislation that, in the professors' view, addressed "the desperate needs of the poor."

Speaker Boehner, a Catholic with a solid pro-life voting record, is a big boy who can defend his votes on various issues.

What bothered me about the open letter to Boehner was its tone (smarmy), its assumptions about the one-to-one correspondence between the principles of Catholic social doctrine and the policy preferences of the Democratic Party, and its suggestion that anyone who challenges that linkage is in "dissent" from settled Catholic teaching.

The 2012 election seems likely to be defined by a major national debate on the welfare state, government spending, and social responsibility. If libertarian minimalism of the sort espoused by Ron Paul sits poorly with the rich and complex tradition of Catholic social doctrine, so does reactionary liberalism of the sort espoused by the anti-Boehner pedagogues.

So perhaps a review of the basics is in order, to put the forthcoming argument on a more secure footing.

1. The Church's concern for the poor does not imply a "preferential option" for Big Government.
   
   The social doctrine teaches that the problem of poverty is best addressed by empowerment: enabling poor people to enter the circle of productivity and exchange in society.
   
   The responsibility for that empowerment falls on everyone: individuals, through charitable giving and service work; voluntary organizations, including the Church; businesses and trade unions.
   
   Government at all levels can play a role in this process of empowerment, but it is a serious distortion of the social doctrine to suggest that government has exclusive responsibility here.
   
   On the contrary: in the 1991 social encyclical, Centesimus Annus, Blessed John Paul II condemned the "Social Assistance State" because it saps welfare-recipients of their dignity and their creativity while making them wards of the government.

   

   
   

2. Fiscal prudence is a matter of justice extended toward future generations, and is therefore an inter-generational moral imperative (as is provision for the retired elderly).
   
   To leave mountains of unserviceable debt to future generations is shameful.
   
   The reactionary defense of governmental pension and social welfare programs with no evident concern for their fiscal implications violates the moral structure of Catholic social doctrine: the portside analogue to a cool indifference toward the fate of the poor.

   

   
   

3. There are legitimate disagreements about the implications of the Church's social doctrine for American social welfare policy.
   
   

   On the contrary: in the 1991 social encyclical,Centesimus Annus, Blessed John Paul II condemned the "Social Assistance State" because it saps welfare-recipients of their dignity and their creativity while making them wards of the government.

   To suggest that the social doctrine provides obvious, clear-cut answers to questions about the future of Medicare or Medicaid is to misrepresent that teaching.
   
   To charge someone with "dissent" from Church teaching because that someone disagrees with one's own prudential judgments about the application of the social doctrine to complex policy issues is a serious misuse of the notion of "dissent" and borders on calumny (a false statement that "harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them" –Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2477).
   
   It ill behooves anyone to make such a charge; it particularly ill behooves academics who publicly dissent from settled Catholic teaching on marital chastity, sexual morality, and qualifications for Holy Orders from chairs at Catholic universities.

   

   
   

4. The moral imperative to legally protect innocent human life from conception until natural death is a settled matter in Catholic doctrine.
   
   So is the nature of marriage as the stable union of a man and a woman. Catholic legislators who support the abortion license are manifestly in dissent and have damaged their communion with the Church. So have legislators who support "gay marriage." Academics eager to demonstrate their fidelity to Catholic social doctrine might point this out – and support the bishops who do.
   

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

George Weigel. "Reactionary liberalism and Catholic social doctrine." The Catholic Difference(June 1, 2011).

Reprinted with permission of George Weigel.

George Weigel's column is distributed by the Denver Catholic Register, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Denver. Phone: 303-715-3123.

THE AUTHOR

George Weigel, a Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a Roman Catholic theologian and one of America's leading commentators on issues of religion and public life. Weigel is the author or editor of The End and the Beginning: John Paul II – The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy,Against the Grain: Christianity and Democracy, War and Peace, Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism: A Call to Action, God's Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church, The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God,Letters to a Young Catholic: The Art of Mentoring, The Courage to Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church, and The Truth of Catholicism: Ten Controversies Explore.

George Weigel's major study of the life, thought, and action of Pope John Paul II, Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II (Harper Collins, 1999) was published to international acclaim in 1999, and translated into French, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Czech, Slovenian, Russian, and German. The 2001 documentary film based on the book won numerous prizes. George Weigel is a consultant on Vatican affairs for NBC News, and his weekly column, "The Catholic Difference," is syndicated to more than fifty newspapers around the United States.

Copyright © 2011 George Weigel

Article: The True Meaning of Marriage

ARCHBISHOP TIMOTHY MICHAEL DOLAN

The stampede is on. Our elected senators who have stood courageous in their refusal to capitulate on the state's presumption to redefine marriage are reporting unrelenting pressure to cave-in.

Archbishop Timothy Michael Dolan

The media, mainly sympathetic to this rush to tamper with a definition as old as human reason and ordered good, reports annoyance on the part of some senators that those in defense of traditional marriage just don't see the light, as we persist in opposing this enlightened, progressive, cause.

But, really, shouldn't we be more upset – and worried – about this perilous presumption of the state to re-invent the very definition of an undeniable truth – one man, one woman, united in lifelong love and fidelity, hoping for children – that has served as the very cornerstone of civilization and culture from the start?

Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America – not in China or North Korea. In those countries, government presumes daily to "redefine" rights, relationships, values, and natural law. There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of "family" and "marriage" means.

But, please, not here! Our country's founding principles speak of rights given by God, not invented by government, and certain noble values – life, home, family, marriage, children, faith – that are protected, not re-defined, by a state presuming omnipotence.

Please, not here! We cherish true freedom, not as the license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought; we acknowledge that not every desire, urge, want, or chic cause is automatically a "right." And, what about other rights, like that of a child to be raised in a family with a mom and a dad?

Our beliefs should not be viewed as discrimination against homosexual people. The Church affirms the basic human rights of gay men and women, and the state has rightly changed many laws to offer these men and women hospital visitation rights, bereavement leave, death benefits, insurance benefits, and the like. This is not about denying rights. It is about upholding a truth about the human condition. Marriage is not simply a mechanism for delivering benefits: It is the union of a man and a woman in a loving, permanent, life-giving union to pro-create children. Please don't vote to change that. If you do, you are claiming the power to change what is not into what is, simply because you say so. This is false, it is wrong, and it defies logic and common sense.

Yes, I admit, I come at this as a believer, who, along with other citizens of a diversity of creeds believe that God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage a long time ago. We believers worry not only about what this new intrusion will do to our common good, but also that we will be coerced to violate our deepest beliefs to accommodate the newest state decree. (If you think this paranoia, just ask believers in Canada and England what's going on there to justify our apprehensions.)

But I also come at this as an American citizen, who reads our formative principles as limiting government, not unleashing it to tamper with life's most basic values.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Archbishop Timothy Michael Dolan. "The True Meaning of Marriage." The Gospel In The Digital Age (June 14, 2011).

Reprinted by permission of the media office of the Archdiocese of New York. The Gospel In The Digital Age is Archbishop Dolan's blog.

THE AUTHOR

Archbishop Timothy Michael Dolan was named Archbishop of New York by Pope Benedict XVI on February 23, 2009. Born February 6, 1950, Archbishop Dolan was ordained to the priesthood on June 19, 1976. He completed his priestly formation at the Pontifical North American College in Rome where he earned a License in Sacred Theology at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas. In 1994, he was appointed rector of the Pontifical North American College in Rome where he served until June 2001. While in Rome, he also served as a visiting professor of Church History at the Pontifical Gregorian University and as a faculty member in the Department of Ecumenical Theology at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas. The work of the Archbishop in the area of seminary education has influenced the life and ministry of a great number of priests of the new millennium. Archbishop Dolan is the author of Doers of the Word: Putting Your Faith Into Practice, To Whom Shall We Go?, and Advent Reflections: Come, Lord Jesus!.

Copyright © 2011 Archbishop Timothy Michael Dolan

Article: Joy

PETER KREEFT

Joy is more than happiness, just as happiness is more than pleasure.

Pleasure is in the body. Happiness is in the mind and feelings. Joy is deep in the heart, the spirit, the center of the self.

The way to pleasure is power and prudence. The way to happiness is moral goodness. The way to joy is sanctity, loving God with your whole heart and your neighbor as yourself.

Everyone wants pleasure. More deeply, everyone wants happiness. Most deeply, everyone wants joy.

Freud says that spiritual joy is a substitute for physical pleasure. People become saints out of sexual frustrations.

This is exactly the opposite of the truth. St. Thomas Aquinas says, "No man can live without joy. That is why one deprived of spiritual joy goes over to carnal pleasures." Sanctity is never a substitute for sex, but sex is often a substitute for sanctity.

The simplest, most unanswerable proof that Aquinas is right and Freud is wrong, is experience. It is not a matter of faith alone. It has been proved by experience by many, many people, many, many times. You can repeat the experiment and prove it to yourself. You can be absolutely certain that it is true, just as you can be certain that fire is hot and ice is cold.

Millions of people for thousands of years have tried the experiment, and not one of them has ever been cheated. All who seek, find – this is not just a promise about the next life, to be believed by faith, but a promise about this life, to be proved by experience, to be tested by experiment.

No one who ever said to God, "Thy will be done" and meant it with his heart, ever failed to find joy – not just in heaven, or even down the road in the future in this world, but in this world at that very moment, here and now.

In the very act of self-surrender to God there is joy. Not just later, as a consequence, but right then. It is exactly like a woman's voluntary sexual surrender to a man. The mystics often say all souls are female to God; that's one reason why God is always symbolized as male. Of course it's only a symbol, but it's a true symbol, a symbol of something true.

The symbolism is not "sexist" either. It holds for a man's soul as well. Only when lovers give up all control and melt helplessly into each other's bodies and spirits, only when they overcome the fear that demands control, do they find the deepest joy. Frigidity, whether sexual or spiritual, comes from egotism.

We've all known people who are cold, suspicious, mistrusting, unable to let go. These people are miserable, wretched. They can't find joy because they can't trust, they can't have faith. You need faith to love, and you need to love to find joy. Faith, love, and joy are a package deal.

Every time I have ever said yes to God with something even slightly approaching the whole of my soul, every time I have not only said "Thy will be done" but meant it, loved it, longed for it – I have never failed to find joy and peace at that moment. In fact, to the precise extent that I have said it and meant it, to exactly that extent have I found joy.

Every other Christian who has ever lived has found exactly the same thing in his own experience. It is an experiment that has been performed over and over again billions of times, always with the same result. It is as certain as gravity.

It sounds too good to be true. It sounds like pious exaggeration, a salesman's pitch. Instant joy? All you have to do is surrender to God? What's the catch?

It's true; God is a killer. If you let him, he will kill your old, selfish, unhappy, bored, wretched, mistrusting, loveless self.

There is a catch. It's a big one, but a simple one: you have to really do it, not just think about it.

To do it completely requires something we dislike very much: death. Not the death of the body. The body is not the obstacle. The ego is. Self-will is. We fear giving that up even more than we fear giving up our body to death – even though that ego, the thing St. Paul calls "the old man" in us, or the Adam in us, is the cause of all our misery.

That old self has sold itself to the devil. It's his microphone. It sits there behind our ears chattering away. When we're about to give ourselves to God, it instantly whispers to us: "Careful, now. Hold back. Don't get too close to him. He's dangerous. In fact, he's a killer."

The voice speaks some truth. Even the devil has to begin with some truth in order to twist it into a lie. It's true; God is a killer. If you let him, he will kill your old, selfish, unhappy, bored, wretched, mistrusting, loveless self.

But he will do it only if you want him to; and he will do it only as much as you want him to. God is a gentleman. He will never rape your soul, only woo it.

And when he does, you understand one of the reasons why sex is so different, so special, so holy: it is an image of this, of heaven, of the ultimate meaning and destiny and purpose of your life.

Even the tiny foretaste of heaven that we can all have here on earth by surrendering to God is as much more joyful than the greatest ecstasy sex can give, just as being with your beloved is more joyful than being with her picture.

You either believe all this, or you don't. If you do, then do it! If you don't, then try it. You'll like it.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Peter Kreeft. "Joy".

This article is reprinted with permission from Peter Kreeft.

THE AUTHOR

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College. He is an alumnus of Calvin College (AB 1959) and Fordham University (MA 1961, Ph.D., 1965). He taught at Villanova University from 1962-1965, and has been at Boston College since 1965.

He is the author of numerous books (over forty and counting) including: The Snakebite Letters,The Philosophy of Jesus, The Journey: A Spiritual Roadmap for Modern Pilgrims, Prayer: The Great Conversation: Straight Answers to Tough Questions About Prayer, How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis, Love Is Stronger Than Death, Philosophy 101 by Socrates: An Introduction to Philosophy Via Plato's Apology, A Pocket Guide to the Meaning of Life, and Before I Go: Letters to Our Children About What Really Matters. Peter Kreeft in on the Advisory Board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2011 Peter Kreeft

Wednesday Liturgy: Wearing the Rosary as a Necklace

ROME, JUNE 14, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I have seen people wear the rosary as a necklace and, in fact, I had a fifth-grader ask me during CCD if that was a sin. I told her that I didn't believe it was a sin per se, but that as it is a wonderful prayer and most favored by the Blessed Mother, that I thought it disrespectful, not very reverent (regardless if the rosary is blessed or not). The student promptly asked about my decade rosary bracelet, "What about wearing it like a bracelet?" It's a good question, in light of the cross and rosary "look-alikes" that seem to be ubiquitous these days in fashion jewelry. What do we tell young girls? -- J.M., Leavenworth, Kansas

A: The closest resemblance to a norm on this topic is found in Canon 1171 of the Code of Canon Law. To wit: "Sacred objects, set aside for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated with reverence. They are not to be made over to secular or inappropriate use, even though they may belong to private persons."

It is probable that this law does not fully apply to our case, since it refers primarily to sacred objects for liturgical worship such as chalices and vestments rather than to rosaries. At the same time, the intimation to treat sacred objects with reverence and respect can logically be extended to rosaries, crosses, medals and similar items.

Also, wearing a sacred object is not the same as using it in a secular or inappropriate manner. In fact, many religious congregations wear the rosary as part of their habit, usually hanging from a belt. There are also several historical cases of laypeople wearing the rosary for devotional purposes. For example, in his book "The Secret of the Rosary," St. Louis de Montfort illustrates the positive results of this practice in an episode from the life of King Alfonso VI of Galicia and Leon.

I think that the key to answering this question can be found in St. Paul: "So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). In other words, there should be no indifferent or irrelevant actions in the life of a Christian.

If the reason for wearing a rosary is as a statement of faith, as a reminder to pray it, or some similar reason "to the glory of God," then there is nothing to object to. It would not be respectful to wear it merely as jewelry.

This latter point is something to bear in mind in the case of wearing a rosary around the neck. In the first place, while not unknown, it is not common Catholic practice.

Second, in relatively recent times, certain controversial public figures have popularized the fashion of wearing the rosary as a necklace, and not precisely in order to "do all to the glory of God." It would also appear that in some parts of the United States and elsewhere, wearing rosary beads around the neck has become a gang-related badge of identification.

Hence, while a Catholic may wear a rosary around the neck for a good purpose, he or she should consider if the practice will be positively understood in the cultural context in which the person moves. If any misunderstanding is likely, then it would be better to avoid the practice.

At the same time, as Catholics we should presume the good intentions of the person wearing a rosary unless other external elements clearly indicate otherwise.

Similar reasoning is observed in dealing with rosary bracelets and rings, although in this case there is far less danger of confusion as to meaning. They are never mere jewelry but are worn as a sign of faith.

According to some sources, small single-decade rosaries or chaplets were developed in times of persecution, as they were easily hidden and could be used without attracting undesired attention. They also became popular among Catholic soldiers on the frontline especially during World War I.

Far more important than the visible wearing of a rosary is actually using the rosary, including publicly, for prayer. Then it is truly done "to the glory of God."

Wednesday Liturgy: Wearing Stoles Over the Chasuble

ROME, JUNE 7, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I have been in the habit of wearing my stole under the chasuble, as I was taught and as I have always found in the instructions. In our country, however, the stole is generally worn above the chasuble. Some bishops follow this practice, too. I was told several times that my way of wearing the stole was wrong. Somebody explained to me that the chasubles we use are "gothic chasubles"; they have no special decoration in the front, while the accompanying stoles do carry elaborate artwork. This would be the reason for wearing them above the chasubles. I searched for further details about this matter, but I found none. If I am in the wrong, I would rather change my habits. Is there any indication about this? -- P.V., Colombo, Sri Lanka

A: Your practice of wearing the stole under the chasuble is correct, according to the Church's most recent legislation. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says in No. 337, "The vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other sacred actions directly connected with Mass is, unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole."

The fashion for designing chasubles with external stoles became popular during the 1970s and early 1980s but is now definitively on the wane. Some countries have received specific permission from the Holy See to adopt special liturgical vestments such as a kind of combined alb-chasuble which necessarily requires the external stole. But this rather ugly and ungainly vestment has never quite caught on.

Traditionally the stole is seen as a symbol of priestly authority while the chasuble is a symbol of charity. It was often argued, therefore, that the reason why the stole is beneath the chasuble is that charity must always cover authority.

Whether this reasoning is authentic or not, the relative position of stole and chasuble has nothing to do with the use of gothic or Roman styles or with the decorative elements of these sacred vestments. Indeed, the stole is placed under the chasuble in all historical vestment styles. The external stole is a recent and transitory fad which is now contrary to the universal liturgical law.

There have been many forms of chasuble over the centuries. The earliest form of liturgical chasuble resembles the so-called monastic style, a full-cut roughly oval garment often falling to the celebrant's shoe tops and at times furnished with a hood. Modern monastic chasubles tend to be square-cut rather than oval.

Since this form of chasuble required the arms to be gathered up to be used freely, from the 12th century on, the sides were gradually shortened to ease movements. Thus the gothic chasuble was developed. This form gradually tapers from the shoulders to a near point at the base but with both sides of equal length. The semi-gothic form is similar but slightly shorter. Most contemporary chasubles are inspired by these two forms although frequently with a gradual rounding from shoulder to base or with rectangular or square cuts.

From the 16th century on, the size and shape of the chasuble was further reduced in length front and back and the arms were left completely free. This was done, above all, to facilitate certain movements such as joining the hands and incensing the altar. This kind of chasuble was often elaborately embroidered with Christian symbols and made quite stiff and heavy with the use of rich materials such as silk, gold and brocade. Within this form there were several stylistic differences.

One of the most common was the Roman, or fiddleback, chasuble with a rectangular front and a back vaguely resembling a violin. The Spanish-style chasuble is even shorter; its rounded front and back give it a distinctive shape sometimes referred to as a "guitar" chasuble. The Germanic style is simpler, with a rectangular front and back.

The early 20th century saw a tendency to return to earlier forms, especially the gothic. At first this practice met with resistance, and the Congregation of Rites replied to a 1925 query in terms which many bishops interpreted as cautiously favorable. Thus the revived form slowly spread in the Church. In 1957 the congregation wrote to the bishops, leaving decisions regarding the use of older forms of the chasuble to their prudent judgment.

Present legislation allows for the use of practically all historical styles of chasuble.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Translating "Pro Multis"

ROME, JUNE 7, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

In the wake of our comments on the translation of "pro multis" (May 24), a reader commented: "Regarding your comment about 'the art of translation' and the upcoming changes to the missal, as a person who has been called upon to translate texts into and from English, Japanese, French and Spanish, I understand what a challenge it is. If I may be so bold, for 'pro multis' I might like to suggest 'for the many,' as it speaks more theologically to Jesus' message and experience, as well as the mission of the apostles, to offer the call of salvation beyond just the Jewish nation. Don't you agree?"

It is too late now to change the approved missal, but it is worth pointing out that "for the many" was one of the possibilities suggested by the Holy See as a legitimate translation of "pro multis." In the end the bishops' conferences opted for the simpler "for many," which is perhaps easier to understand and more familiar.

In explaining the new version a priest would still be able to expound the different legitimate translation possibilities and how each one adds a shade of meaning to the Eucharistic mystery.

Another reader wrote: "Permit me to reference to 'Jesus of Nazareth,' Volume 2, by His Holiness. He goes into quite some detail on this starting at Page 134."

I think this adds another good reason to read the Holy Father's latest book.

Wednesday Liturgy: Translating "Visibilium Omnium et Invisibilium"

ROME, MAY 31, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Continuing our reflections on the new translation of the Roman Missal, we now turn to the creed. Last Sept. 28 we treated the meaning of "consubstantial" and why it is a better translation than "one in Being."

Another novelty in the creed is the translation of "visibilium omnium et invisibilium" as "all things visible and invisible" rather than "all that is seen and unseen" as in the current translation.

The first point to be underlined is that the new translation uses the word "things" and not just the generic "all that." This apparently slight adjustment does a better job of bringing out the fact that each and every creature, including ourselves in our concrete individual existence, is an object of God's creative will and of his fatherly love. The expression "all that" is not necessarily inaccurate but could lead to a more abstract notion of creation and a more distant concept of the Creator.

I believe that the literal rendition "visible and invisible" is not only more accurate than "seen and unseen" but also better reflects the philosophical and theological history behind the use of these terms.

In Christian philosophy and theology an invisible creature pertains to the spiritual realm beyond physical reality.

In this sense, "invisible" is not synonymous with "unseen." If I were to hide behind a curtain, I would be unseen, but I would certainly not be invisible. Even the fictional "Invisible Man" felt hot and cold and would bleed if he stepped on a nail.

We sometimes use the term "invisible" to refer to physical realities in the infrared or ultraviolet spectrum shielded from our normal vision, or to radiation, radio waves and all sorts of forces. All of these realities pertain to the physical world, and although they are unseen by our eyes they are detectable and measurable by specialized instruments. Hence, philosophically and theologically they might be unseen but are not invisible.

The new translation of the creed, in using the term "invisible," affirms with greater clarity the reality of the spiritual realm beyond the physical. This reality is explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (even though this work obviously refers to the former translation of the creed).

"325. The Apostles' Creed professes that God is 'Creator of heaven and earth.' The Nicene Creed makes it explicit that this profession includes 'all that is, seen and unseen.'

"326. The Scriptural expression 'heaven and earth' means all that exists, creation in its entirety. It also indicates the bond, deep within creation, that both unites heaven and earth and distinguishes the one from the other: 'the earth' is the world of men, while 'heaven' or 'the heavens' can designate both the firmament and God's own 'place' -- 'our Father in heaven' and consequently the 'heaven' too which is eschatological glory. Finally, 'heaven' refers to the saints and the 'place' of the spiritual creatures, the angels, who surround God.

"327. The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God 'from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body."

"328. The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls 'angels' is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition."

It is to be hoped that future editions of the Catechism will incorporate the new and more accurate translation of the creed.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: When to Extinguish the Easter Candle

ROME, MAY 31, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

In the wake of our May 17 column, several readers asked about the use of the Easter candle. A Welsh reader asked: "In the extraordinary form it is directed that, in Eastertide, the paschal candle must not be lit during exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. I can remember that, in pre-conciliar times, if exposition and Benediction followed immediately after vespers, a server would extinguish the paschal candle at the end of vespers. I can find no mention of this in the ordinary rite. Does this mean that the paschal candle should be lit when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed in Eastertide?"

The ordinary forms simply states that it is lit during solemn liturgical celebrations during the Easter season. Nothing is said regarding exposition.

As our reader says, the extraordinary form of the Roman rite does not allow the candle to be lit during exposition or Benediction. An exception to this rule is when solemn vespers are celebrated before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. If Benediction immediately follows the vespers, then the candle remains lit.

This overall criterion holds true for the ordinary form. If vespers, or some other solemn liturgical celebration, is carried out before the Blessed Sacrament exposed, then the candle could be lit. This could be done throughout the exposition even if the celebration does not take up the whole time of adoration.

However, since exposition by itself does not constitute a liturgical celebration then, as a general rule, the candle need not be lit. This would be especially true for prolonged exposition.

A California reader asked: "Is it permissible to light the paschal candle at confirmations which are celebrated outside of the Easter season? Also, would it be appropriate to sing the Litany of Saints at some point of the confirmation liturgy? In many places the widespread separation of confirmation from its traditional place among the other sacraments of initiation has led to much theological confusion. My thought is that these two liturgical actions, alongside the sprinkling rite and the renewal of baptismal promises, would better highlight the deep connection of the sacrament of confirmation to the sacrament of baptism."

While these are not bad ideas, and could even be pastorally useful, it is not permissible to add to the approved rites.

Only a bishops' conference is able to propose permanent adaptations to some of the rites for its country. These proposals have to be approved by the Holy See.

The process usually takes years, since it is necessary to reflect long and hard on any proposed changes; this often requires thinking in terms of possible effects over decades and centuries. Adjustments in rites eventually color the spiritual concepts behind them and the way they are lived and perceived.

Thus we would have to reflect whether the use of the Easter candle (probably along with other candles) might eventually put so much stress on the renewal of baptismal promises as to shift attention from the primary signs of the sacrament of confirmation. Likewise, since the Litany of Saints takes the place of the prayer of the faithful we would have to explore if the special general intercessions found in the ritual are not preferable to the litany.

Although this process is arduous, it is not impossible. For example, a few years ago the Italian bishops' conference published a revised rite of marriage which included a Litany of Saints, especially of those who lived in holy matrimony.