Some reflections by Papal Secretary on the occasion of a new book by Pope Emeritus Benedict

I mentioned in a recent post that Monsignor Alfred Xuereb, Papal Secretary to both our Holy Father Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict, had participated in the launch for the Pope Emeritus’ new book on human ecology.

The monsignor recounted how Benedict “would melt in front of animals, in nature; he liked to stand outside when we would go for a picnic,” adding that he appreciates not only cats, “but has love for all animals.” 

He told of how they were once walking in the Vatican Gardens praying the Rosary, and they noticed a particular bird that the Holy Father suggested they photograph. “When he saw the photos, his expression was of marvel,” and he insisted that they be published in L’Osservatore Romano

 “To recognize creation as God’s gift to humanity helps us to understand the vocation and worth of man,” he concluded. “It makes no sense to care for nature, for plants and then despise man. Respect for man, as a consequence, leads to respect for nature.”

It looks like the book is only in Italian for the moment, unfortunately. The National Catholic Register has the story.

Liturgical Music Today: The Best of Times, the Worst of Times

Catholic World Report interviews Joseph P. Swain, author of Sacred Treasure: Understanding Catholic Liturgical Music.

At no time in history has the Church had to hand, in print music and recordings, such a wealth of liturgical music of amazing variety and of the highest quality. At no time have such numbers of highly trained church musicians been available to sing and play that music. At no time has there been such a pitch of interest in liturgy and its music on the part of everyday, churchgoing Catholics. These are the best of times. At the same time, only a tiny fraction of the liturgical music thought by Catholics and non-Catholics alike to be among the most beautiful ever conceived is ever heard by everyday Catholics at mass. 

Mediator Dei on participation

Following up on Adam Wood’s intriguing idea that “participation” might have been understood by the Council Fathers in a more metaphysical sense than we might understand it today, I thought these paragraphs from Mediator Dei might make for some interesting background reading.

102. All the elements of the liturgy, then, would have us reproduce in our hearts the likeness of the divine Redeemer through the mystery of the cross, according to the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles, “With Christ I am nailed to the cross. I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me.”[95] Thus we become a victim, as it were, along with Christ to increase the glory of the eternal Father. 
103. Let this, then, be the intention and aspiration of the faithful, when they offer up the divine Victim in the Mass. For if, as St. Augustine writes, our mystery is enacted on the Lord’s table, that is Christ our Lord Himself,[96] who is the Head and symbol of that union through which we are the body of Christ[97] and members of His Body;[98] if St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, according to the mind of the Doctor of Hippo, that in the sacrifice of the altar there is signified the general sacrifice by which the whole Mystical Body of Christ, that is, all the city of redeemed, is offered up to God through Christ, the High Priest:[99] nothing can be conceived more just or fitting than that all of us in union with our Head, who suffered for our sake, should also sacrifice ourselves to the eternal Father. For in the sacrament of the altar, as the same St. Augustine has it, the Church is made to see that in what she offers she herself is offered.[100] 
104. Let the faithful, therefore, consider to what a high dignity they are raised by the sacrament of baptism. They should not think it enough to participate in the eucharistic sacrifice with that general intention which befits members of Christ and children of the Church, but let them further, in keeping with the spirit of the sacred liturgy, be most closely united with the High Priest and His earthly minister, at the time the consecration of the divine Victim is enacted, and at that time especially when those solemn words are pronounced, “By Him and with Him and in Him is to Thee, God the Father almighty, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory for ever and ever”;[101] to these words in fact the people answer, “Amen.” Nor should Christians forget to offer themselves, their cares, their sorrows, their distress and their necessities in union with their divine Savior upon the cross. 
105. Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the “Roman Missal,” so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant. 
100. These methods of participation in the Mass are to be approved and recommended when they are in complete agreement with the precepts of the Church and the rubrics of the liturgy. Their chief aim is to foster and promote the people’s piety and intimate union with Christ and His visible minister and to arouse those internal sentiments and dispositions which should make our hearts become like to that of the High Priest of the New Testament. However, though they show also in an outward manner that the very nature of the sacrifice, as offered by the Mediator between God and men,[102] must be regarded as the act of the whole Mystical Body of Christ, still they are by no means necessary to constitute it a public act or to give it a social character. And besides, a “dialogue” Mass of this kind cannot replace the high Mass, which, as a matter of fact, though it should be offered with only the sacred ministers present, possesses its own special dignity due to the impressive character of its ritual and the magnificence of its ceremonies. The splendor and grandeur of a high Mass, however, are very much increased if, as the Church desires, the people are present in great numbers and with devotion. 
107. It is to be observed, also, that they have strayed from the path of truth and right reason who, led away by false opinions, make so much of these accidentals as to presume to assert that without them the Mass cannot fulfill its appointed end. 
108. Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men’s talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them. 
95. Gal. 2:19-20.
96. Cf. Serm. 272.
97. Cf. 1 Cor. 12:27.
98. Cf. Eph. 5:30.
99. Cf. Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Missa, 2, c. 8.
100. Cf. De Civitate Dei, Book 10, c. 6.
101. Roman Missal, Canon of the Mass.
102. Cf. 1 Tim. 2:5.
 

What is this Participation?

Dr. Jerry Galipeau’s recent excursion to a Mass in the Extraordinary Form has sparked some interesting discussion and reactions. Perhaps the most interesting is his attempt to reconcile the experience of an “unreformed” Low Mass with the notion of “active (actual) participation” called for by the Second Vatican Council. There are interesting and worthwhile ideas to explore here, and I hope no one simply dismisses this out of hand with some version of “Vatican II doesn’t apply here!”

One related point I have been pondering a lot recently is- just what do we mean by participation?

I have written some of my thoughts on this matter in the past, and we all know that the ideas of participation range from the “active doing” advocated by many (so-called) progressive liturgists all the way to the “passive meditation” advocated by many (so-called) traditionalists.

But I wonder…

Both conceptions of participation – whether active or interior – seem overly focused on the individual person, and on a modern definition of “participation.” It’s as if we all agree on what “participation” means, we just have different ideas about what actions/activities rightly constitute appropriate participation in the liturgy.

But I’ve been reading Thomas Aquinas recently (this is a new experience for me). And I’m struck by how often he talks about “participation.” God is good absolutely, but we are only good inasmuch as we participate in God’s goodness. Fire is hot by nature, but something that isn’t fire only participates in heat.

I don’t have any conclusions yet- but I wonder what difference this theological conception of participation would make to our understanding of both the nature of liturgical participation and also the will of the Council in calling for participation of the faithful to be fostered.

Off hand, it seems to me that NEITHER active doing nor interior prayerfulness are “participation,” but rather are contributing causes: things we can do in order to help foster participation or to better dispose ourselves to participation.

I ask the rest of our community of readers here – particularly those with a better understanding of Aquinas than me (which I have to think would be almost anyone) – to chime in here and help develop these thoughts a bit further.

The Pope’s Liturgical Example – and our response to it

PrayTell blog has a short post covering different views about the relative importance of the the liturgical example set by the Bishop of Rome.

The (somewhat cynical) thrust of the post is stated at the end:

It appears that we have a new principle of liturgical renewal: our theology of the importance of the pope depends on whether or not we like the pope in office.

This might be a bit unfair, as the pro- and anti- quotes don’t just come from different papal periods, but come from different people. Nevertheless, I think it is likely there is some truth in it, as I have said before:

Everyone’s an ultramontanist when they like the guy.

To me, the question isn’t quite so theoretical. These issues of what people “should” do (as in- “Should people look to Papal liturgy as an example?”) are pointless: the FACT of the matter is:

  • Some people DO, and ALWAYS WILL, see Papal liturgies as an example to follow
  • Most people will continue to do whatever they like, and either ignore Papal exemplars (when they disagree) or invoke them as cover (when they are in alignment).

The more important influence seems, to me, to come from the whole operation of liturgical culture- which the Pope has a big hand in swinging one way or the other – not in the actions of individual priests and liturgists deciding to copy one aspect or another of a Papal liturgy. (Fanons, anyone?)

In that way, the influence of Benedict – who influenced liturgical culture both actively and passively – will be long with us, whether any of us like it or not. Since Francis seems somewhat less interested in liturgical matters, it strikes me that his influence is less in some particular direction, and more like a loosening that allows a return to the “natural” development and habits of liturgical culture and practice (both good and bad).

All that being said: I think the worthwhile questions are not “What should people do in reaction to Papal exemplars?” (as the prescriptive fussbudgets in every age declare), or “What should the Pope do, since he ought to know that everyone is watching?” (as so many papal pundits seem to be blathering on with), but rather:

What should I do? What should we do?