Category: Liturgy

A reader writes:

During the last supper Jesus offered bread and wine to the apostles and said this is my body and blood, do this in rememberance of  Me . At the jewish seder meal, food and elements are presented for rememberance, to bring forth the struggles of the Hebrew peoples. My question is at the supper Jesus could of created a new seder memory for future Passovers. Mr. Akins this is a troubleing topic for me, I’m catholic and believe in the real presents.

The seder passover meal is a recreation of the jewish struggle by presenting elements at the table to eat and remember the past. Could Jesus have introduced a new element to the seder on his last night with the Jewish apostles for them to add his memory to the Jewish table.  Not actual real presents which would have been difficult for a jew, but for the seder meal this would have been very  easy to accept.

If I understand correctly, there are two questions here. The first is whether by instituting the Eucharist Jesus simply meant to add an additional new rite to the Passover meal. The second is whether the Eucharist is to be understood symbolically or realistically.

Let’s deal with the first question first.

Jesus certainly could have simply added a new rite to the Passover meal if that is what he had wanted to do. He’s God, so he can do anything he wants. But the question for us is: What evidence do we have that he simply wanted to add a new rite to the Passover meal? Not much.

Since none of us has a time travelling De Lorean, we can’t go back to the Last Supper and see everything that Jesus said. (NOTE: If anyone does have a time-travelling De Lorean, or other workable time travel device, please contact me via e-mail. There are several events in world history that I need to go back and change.) As a result, we have to rely on what the apostles said and understood Jesus to say.

It seems clear that they did not understand Jesus to simply be instituting a new element in the ritual of the Passover meal. We know this because the evidence that we have points to the early Church celebrating the Lord’s Supper on a frequent basis–not just once a year, like Passover.

The evidence strongly suggests that the early Christians celebrated the Eucharist at least weekly, in which case it could not simply have been an addition to the Passover rite. It was something based on Passover (with Jesus taking the place of the lamb as the true Lamb of God), but it was independent from Passover and could be celebrated much more frequently.

So the evidence we have indicates that Jesus wasn’t just making an addition to the Passover rite. He was making a much more radical change. The question is: How radical? How much was he changing?

That leads to question #2: Could he have meant the Eucharist to simply be symbolic of his body and blood rather than really being his body and blood?

Again, he could have. He’s God, and he can do what he wants. But once more the question is: How did the people who heard him–who heard all of what he said (not just the parts recorded in Scripture)–understand him?

They understood him in terms that went way beyond symbolism. If you read John 6, for example, you’ll see that some people did resist Jesus’ declaration that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. What was Jesus’ response? Did he say, "Hey, guys, it’s only a metaphor. Don’t sweat it?" No. Instead, he repeated his assertion, causing some people who had been following him up to that point to quit following him.

Did he explain the metaphor privately to his core disciples, as he had various metaphors that he used on other occasions? No. Instead, he asked them if they too wanted to quit following him. This means that Jesus was willing to lose his core disciples rather than water down the assertion he made about eating his flesh and blood.

This would be inexplicable if he was just using a metaphor. On occasions when he used metaphors that the apostles didn’t understand, he explained them to the apostles privately. He didn’t draw a line in the sand and ask them if they wanted to leave if they didn’t accept it.

It may well have been his forcefulness on this point that prepared the disciples for what he would do at the Last Supper. He had already prepped them for the idea of literally eating his flesh and blood, so they understood the intent of his action when he actually called upon them to do it at the Last Supper.

Also remember that the apostles weren’t ordinary Jews. They had already come to recognize Jesus as the Son of God and had seen him work many miracles. They themselves had handed out the bread that he had miraculously multiplied, so they knew that he was capable of transubstantiating bread and wine if he wanted to.

And, remember, they weren’t people growing up in the anti-supernatural 21st century. They were firm believers in the miraculous and were much more prepared than people today to interpret things as miraculous rather than symbolic.

We also have the witness of the other early Christians–to whom the apostles passed on the faith and who also understood the Eucharist in realistic terms.

For more on all this.

SEE THIS LINK.

AND THIS ONE AS WELL.

I’d also like to call attention to the fact that Jesus made some pretty specific promises to the apostles and to the Church as a whole, telling them that he would send the Holy Spirit to reinforce their understanding of what he had taught them and telling us that he would be with the Church until the end of time.

This means that Jesus guided the apostles, and has guided the Church, into a correct understanding of matters that are fundmental to the Christian faith–like the nature of the Eucharist. His providential care guarantees that the Church has not misunderstood the Eucharist, either in regard to whether it is just an addition to the Passover meal or in regard to whether it is realistic or symbolic.

We have Jesus’ word on it.

(One other note: I’ve written the above on the assumption that first century Jews understood the Passover meal in a symbolic sense. That’s not altogether clear. There are strands in Jewish thought that understand the Passover meal as a real participation in the events of the Exodus in a manner not unlike a form of transubstantiation.)

A reader writes:

Every year, our pastor offers the blessing of throats on the feast of St. Blaise.  The folks at Mass line up in two rows, just like for communion, and the priest gives blessings on one side while a woman from the congregation gives blessings on the other side.

My understanding of canon 1169 is that only ordained persons can give blessings.  (Oh, I should have mentioned that the woman in question is not a priest or a deacon.)  So I worry that the non-priest blessing throats is in fact simulating a sacred thing, and that there is some kind of sacriledge involved.

Let’s start with canon 1169, since you mention it. Here ’tis:

Can.  1169 §1. Those marked with the episcopal character and presbyters permitted by law or legitimate grant can perform consecrations and dedications validly.

§2. Any presbyter can impart blessings except those reserved to the Roman Pontiff or bishops.

§3. A deacon can impart only those blessings expressly permitted by law.

If that’s all the law said then your conclusion that only a cleric can give sacramentals like the St. Blase blessing would be arguable, but that’s not all that the law says. There is also canon 1168:

Can.  1168 The minister of sacramentals is a cleric
who has been provided with the requisite power. According to the norm of the
liturgical books and to the judgment of the local ordinary lay persons who
possess the appropriate qualities can also administer some sacramentals.

So the question is: Is the St. Blase blessing one that the liturgical books empower lay people to give?

Yes.

The Book of Blessings provides the following:

1626 The blessing of throats may be given by a priest, deacon, or a lay minister who follows the rites and prayers designated for a lay minister. If the blessing is conferred during Mass, the blessing follows the homily and general intercessions, or, for pastoral reasons, the prayer of blessing may take the place of the final blessing of the Mass. When the blessing is given outside Mass, it is preceded by a brief celebration of the word of God. If the blessing is to be celebrated at Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer, it is given after the reading and responsory (and homily) and before the gospel canticle.

While we at it, let’s clear up a few other potential worries that folks might have based on what they see and hear at Mass today regarding the St. Blase blessing.

1627 The blessing may be given by touching the throat of each person with two candles blessed on the feast of the Presentation of the Lord (February 2) and which have been joined together in the form of a cross.

1628 If, for pastoral reasons, each individual cannot be blessed in the manner described in no. 1627, for example when great numbers are gathered for the blessing or when thememorial of Saint Blase occurs on a Sunday, a priest or deacon may give the blessing to all assembled by extending hands, without the crossed candles, over the people while saying the prayer of blessing. A lay minister says the prayer proper to lay ministers without making the sign of the cross.

1629 The blessing may also be given to the sick or the elderly in their homes when they cannot attend the parish celebration.

1633 . . . During trhe blessing suitable psalms or other suitable songs may be sung.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

Jimmy

Can you tell me how offten the book of Jonah is use in the Liturgy, I only see it being used once in cycle "B" third Sunday of Ordinary Time. Thanks for your help in this matter.

You’re in luck! I probably am one of the few people who could tell you this (easily, at any rate), since there doesn’t seem to be a published correlation table for the the Scripture readings sorted by book.

Fortunately, I am in possession of such a list, because I made one last year. A friend of mine who is a Chaldean priest was in need of one so that he could correlate Latin Rite homily helps with the Chaldean liturgical calendar and, since no such table seemed available, I spent a few hours reverse-engineering one for him on the computer.

I’ve meant to convert it to HTML and put it on the web so that it can be of service to others. (Thanks for the reminder!) But in the meantime, here’s the info on where Jonah shows up. As you can see, it AIN’T the whole book–just selected passages:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jonah   1:1–2:1, 11	YEAR I	Week 27 – Mon
Jonah 2:2, 3, 4, 5, 8	YEAR   I	Week   27 – Mon
Jonah 3:1-10	YEAR   I OR II	First   Week of Lent — Wed
Jonah 3:1-10	YEAR   I	Week   27 – Tues
Jonah 3:1-5, 10	YEAR   B	3rd   Sunday of Year B
Jonah 4:1-11	YEAR   I	Week   27 – Wed

Note that Jonah shows up TWICE on the Monday of the 27th week of Ordinary Time in Year I. This is because the second reading (from Jonah 2) is used as a responsorial psalm, after the first reading from Jonah 1.

Hope this helps!

Continue reading “Searching For Jonah”

Recently Pope Benedict met with a bunch of families who are part of the Neocatechumenal Way who are going to be going to do mission work in various places, especially in Latin America.

As expected, he said very nice things to them.

He also discussed the matter of the liturgy:

He then went on to emphasize the importance of the liturgy in evangelization: "Your long experience can well confirm how the centrality of the mystery of Christ, celebrated in liturgical rites, constitutes a privileged and indispensable way to build vibrant and lasting Christian communities."

The Pope then referred to norms concerning the celebration of the Eucharist recently emanated, specifically for the Neocatechumenal Way, by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. "I am sure," he said, "that you will attentively observe these norms, which are based on liturgical texts approved by the Church. By faithful adherence to all Church directives, you will render your apostolate even more effective, in harmony and full communion with the Pope and the pastors of dioceses."

GET THE VATICAN INFORMATION SERVICE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)

Now, you may recall that recently here on this blog Mr. Giuseppe Gennarini, American spokesman for the Neocatechumenal Way argued the following regarding the letter from Cardinal Arinze that contained these norms:

1. This is a private letter whose real contents are known only by
   Cardinal Arinze, Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez and Father Mario
   Pezzi. Any use of a private document to enforce a public policy is
   completely illegitimate and improper.

I responded with a number of points demonstrating the invalidity of this argument (read them here).

Now we have Pope Benedict himself publicly referring to the norms and telling members of the Neocatechumenal Way to obey them.

Any suggestion that the norms are perhaps not to be implemented because they are part of a "private letter" is, therefore, toast.

Now for my reply to Mr. Gennarini’s e-mail (see below for the text of the e-mail itself).

Dear Mr. Gennarini:

I’d like to make something clear up front, so here is

THE BIG RED DISCLAIMER: I have no beef with the Neocatechumenal
Way. I have not read extensively on it. I have not had previous
interaction with it. I have no personal opinion on it. I accept the
judgment of the two most recent popes that it does good in the world,
and for that I applaud it.

My concern here is EXCLUSIVELY with your interview in Zenit in which you manifestly mischaracterized the document.

Nothing in the response you have provided has given me reason to think that this concern was in error.

You write that you were surprised by my hostile attitude. Actually, I feel no hostility toward you or the Neocatechumenal Way. I would characterize my attitude not as hostile but as shocked, for your interview with Zenit completely miscaracteritized the text of Cardinal Arinze’s letter to the leaders of your movement. The degree of mischaracterization was so extreme that I stated that you must either be grossly misinformed regarding the letter’s contents or that you are in denial. Which of these is the case, I do not claim to know.

Your own attitude toward Sandro Magister, however, is one that I would characterize as hostile since in your response you immediately accuse him of writing a piece which is "full of lies." To accuse someone of lying in a piece is a very serious charge because it involves an imputation of deliberate malfeasance. To make such a strong accusation when more charitable explanations are possible (like being grossly misinformed or in denial or even being disengenuous) demonstates hostility.

Your letter now moves to a series of four numbered paragraphs in which you engage various things that were said by Sandro Magister. I’ll respond with correspondingly numbered points.

1. The individuals listed as having celebrated Mass in conjunction with Neocatechumenal communities does not in any way show that there were not liturgical abuses at these Masses–not even in the case of John Paul II, for many times liturgical abuses would be performed not by the pope but by others at Masses where he was present. Further, it may well be the case that representatives of the NW were "on their best behavior" during these Masses and they may not have committed abuses that frequently characterize Masses in which the pope did not participate.

You also say that Magister is wrong regarding the type of bread used and the manner of distributing the Precious Blood. This may be the case. It also may be the case that the practice is mixed in different Neocatechumenal communities. The NW is a large movement and it is doubtful that practice at its Masses is completely uniform across the world. Magister may be in contact with NW communities whose practice is different.

I am not in a position to decide between you and Magister on this point, so I make no judgment in the matter. I reported what Magister said, and I’ve let you have your say, too.

2. Here you introduce what appear to be several elements of spin. First, you state regarding the "admonitions" in NW Masses that the Arinze letter "accepts [them] and turns an extraordinary practice into a common one."

This is not the case. In fact, what the Arinze letter says is

2. As for any admonitions issued before the readings, these must be brief. Adherence must also be shown to what is set out in the “Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani” (nn. 105 and 128) and to the Praenotanda of the “Ordo Lectionum Missae” (nn. 15, 19, 38, 42).

This gives the NW no special permission to do anything that is not already provided for in the liturgical books. Instead, it directs you to follow the liturgical books.

Your subsequent statement that "Obviously we have to keep in mind that the Neocatechumenal Way is gradual initiation and that 70% of the  people are coming back to the Church" appears on its face to be a rationale for lengthening the admonitions and thus possibly circumventing the directive that they be brief (which is also stressed in the GIRM passages cited by Cardinal Arinze).

The statement that "Regarding ‘Echos’: no layman in the communities has ever done the homily at the place of the priests and the letter accepts as valid this new practice of the Neocatechumenal Way" has two difficulties.

First, the statement that no layman "has ever done the homily at the place of the priests" is ambiguous. If you mean that they have done the homily but in a different location than the priest gives it then this is a clear liturgical violation. If you mean that no layman has ever given a homily in a NW Mass then this is a very sweeping statement, and I would be interested to know how you could substantiate it. Given the significant numbers of lay people who have illicitly preached homilies in recent years, the size of your movement, and the prominence of lay people in your movement, it is such a dramatic claim that one could ask more than just your say so that it is true.

It also raises a question of why point 3 of Cardinal Arinze’s letter is devoted to stressing the fact that the homily is reserved to the clergy and restricting lay participation in this. If there are no reports of lay people intruding into homily time in an inappropriate way, why would Cardinal Arinze single this out for attention?

Second, regarding the responses given by NW lay members (i.e., the "echoes"), the Arinze letter states:

As for the occasional contribution of testimonies on the part of the lay faithful, the proper places and methods for these are indicated in the Interdicasterial Instruction “Ecclesiae de Mysterio,” . . .

The Cardinal then quotes Ecclesiae de Mysterio, stating:

It is permitted to have a brief instruction that helps explain better the liturgy that is being celebrated, and even, in exceptional circumstances, a few testimonies, as long as these conform to the liturgical norms, are offered on the occasion of Eucharistic liturgies celebrated on particular days (for seminarians, the sick, etc.), and are thought truly helpful as an illustration of the regular homily delivered by the celebrating priest.

If the "echoes" in NW assemblies are given only in exceptional circumstances and only on particular days then the NW practice is in conformity with this directive. If not, not. My impression is that the answer is "not," at least in enough cases for Cardinal Arinze to feel the need to re-stress the directive.

3. You fault Sandro Magister for saying that NW Masses are celebrated at "unusual" times and done "separately" from the rest of the parish.

The term "unusual" can have more than one meaning. I think that the meaning that Magister has in mind (or that he reasonably may have in mind) is that it is unusual for a movent to celebrate its Masses only on Saturday evenings. While Saturday evenings are a time when it is permitted to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation, the Church’s focus remains on Sunday as the Lord’s Day and not Saturday evening, which is provided by way of concession to provide additional time for fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation.

"Separate" also can be taken in more than one sense. It could mean "no non-NW members are permitted," but this is clearly not what Magister has in mind. I take him to mean that NW Masses are separate in the sense that they are not the parish’s regularly scheduled vigil Mass and that the population who attends the parish’s vigil Mass and the population who attends the NW Masses are substantially different.

Indeed, the method of distributing Communion at NW Masses would seem to assure this.

In what I would presume to be agreement with you, however, I think Magister goes to far when he writes:

The statutes approved by the Holy See in 2002 require that the Masses of the Neocatechumenals be “open to other members of the faithful” (article 13.3), but in fact nothing has changed. The greetings, presentations, and applause during the entrance ceremony form a natural barrier to outsiders.

I didn’t quote this part because it seems to me that if NW Masses are open in principle to non-NW members then they are in compliance with the approved statutes on this point and Magister is going too far here. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t separate Masses, though.

4. You provide a list of quotations from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedixt XVI. The last of these does not mention the NW and so is not germane to the present discussion. The first three quotations do indeed praise it, which is not in dispute. I mentioned in my original piece that BOTH JP2 and B16 have praised the movement.

The Holy See is so concerned about the crisis in faith that is occurring in much of the developed world, and particularly in Europe, that they are delighted by and will say nice things about any movement attempting to recall people to the authentic practice of the faith.

Your movement deserves real credit for its efforts to do this, and you get that credit when people like the two most recent popes say positive things about you.

This does not mean that your movement is immune from criticism or that it does not make mistakes–even systematic mistakes–in some areas. Facing reality means acknowledging both the good a person or movement does and the bad as well.

The focus of the Arinze letter is on liturgical problems that have cropped up in your movement. These problems do not neutralize the good that it has also done, but neither can they be minimized or dismissed.

In your interview with Zenit, you went beyond minimizing and dismissing these as problems and inaccurately portrayed the Arinze letter as a complete vindication of your liturgical praxis, which anyone who reads it can see it manifestly is not. (Hence my shock upon reading your statements.)

In your response you next proceed to make a number of guilt by association charges against Sandro Magister as well as leveling a number of additional charges directly against him. I am not interested in the guilt by association charges as they are forms of ad hominem argumentation. As to the charges you make directly against him, these may or may not be true. I do not know. I’ve read a significant number of pieces by Magister, and I do not always agree with him, but I can say that he is a supporter of Pope Benedict, at least in broad outlines, and–here is the important part–he regularly publishes documents by others and I have never known him to publish a fraudulent document.

That’s the real key here, because even if you dismiss everything Magister himself says in the piece, the Arinze letter speaks for itself, and it is the clash between what Arinze wrote and what you told Zenit that I found shocking.

Next you have another quote from B16 that, while inspiring, does not discuss the Neocatechumenal Way.

Lastly you give another four numbered points in which you address my central concern: the spin that you put on the Arinze letter.

1. You write: "This is a private letter whose real contents are known only by Cardinal Arinze, Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez and Father Mario Pezzi. Any use of a private document to enforce a public policy is completely illegitimate and improper."

Unless the document is fraudulent, its conents are known by an awful lot of people, incluidng all those who visited the link I provided and read the text of the letter.

I don’t know if this letter is considered private or not. There is nothing in the letter that says it is private, Cardinal Arinze clearly expects is contents to be made known in some way so that NW Masses can be corrected, and letters such as this often show up in Notitiae, the journal of the CDW. For all I know, this will be published in Notitiae shortly.

The statement that "Any use of a private document to enforce a public policy is completely illegitimate and improper" seems not to be relevant here since I am not trying to "enforce" anything. I have no capacity to enforce anything that the Vatican mandates. All I’m doing is pointing it out when a representative of a movement MISrepresents what was said in a Vatican communication.

Which bring up this: If the letter is indeed meant to be private then what business did you have characterizing its contents in the press?

It seems to me that if it is fair for you–someone to whom the letter is not addressed–to characterize its contents to the press then it is certainly fair for others who happen to have knowledge of its contents to correct your characterization.

Whatever the implications may be of the fact that a document is privately circulated, it certainly does not include a one-way rachet that allows you to publicly mischaracterize the contents and be immune from correction.

And once the document is public–as it was before I wrote–the privacy issue is moot. The document is out and people can read it for themselves to see if it is being accurately characterized.

The only defense I can see against this would be to charge that the document is fraudulent, and this you have not done.

2. In this point you appear to misuse the term "instrumentum laboris." This document is not an instrumentum laboris (certainly not in the proper sense), as is clear from the fact that it is not labelled "instrumentum laboris."

It is a communique to the leaders of your movement are being in which the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship states "I am to inform you of the Holy Father’s decisions" and then goes on to issue liturgical directives from Pope Benedict that require changes in the way NW liturgies are celebrated.

Now, these are the two top guys, liturgically speaking. If the pope decides something and the head of the CDW tells you, you’ve got to do it. You can’t simply dismiss it as a "working document" (instrumentum laboris). So this is more spin from you.

Further, here’s another case where you can’t have it both ways: You note with satisfaction in the Zenit interview that one of the points in the letter (Arinze’s point #4) extends permission to you to continue having the Sign of Peace at a point in the Mass other than where the rubrics currently call for it. You can’t say that Arinze’s point #4 is authoritative while arguing that other points of his are only tentative. You have to take them as a batch. Either all of his six points are things that are to govern your liturgical practice or they all are only proposals (something manifestly contrary to the way in which they are phrased).

3. The statement that every decision regarding the NW must be approved by four dicasteries seems simply to be in error. Your Statues were so approved, and your Catechetical Directory is in the process of being so approved, but this letter makes no reference to the latter. The letter deals with your liturgical praxis directly, not your Statutes or Catechetical Directory.

Further, since the regulation of the liturgy is within the competence of the CDW and since Pope Benedict has (it seems) approved the decisions communicated in the letter then, unless Pope Benedict changes his mind, these are things that your movement is expected to implement.

Further, even if everything you said in point 3 were true, none of that gives you license to misrepresent the contents of the Arinze letter to the press.

4. Finally, your statement that "What is for now the actual norm is the confirmation by the Holy Father of the liturgical praxis of the Way" is again more spin.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t represent the Arinze letter as being authoritative when it confirms something you are doing and as non-authoritative when it says you must change what you are doing. It’s either genuine and authoritative or fraudulent and non-authoritative. You can’t have it one way when it’s convenient for you and another way when it’s not.

And you most especially can’t mischaracterize what it says. Your statement to Zenit that

[T]he way of distributing Communion as it currently takes place, is allowed for a long period of time, if only "ad experimentum." Such a grant shows that this practice is not irreverent, but fully legitimate, as can be attested by anyone who participates in a Eucharist of the communities.

This concession is written within the context of the final approval of the statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way, which are right now approved also "ad experimentum." When this period "ad experimentum" ends, the interdicasterial commission of the five congregations which approved the statutes … will verify the necessary adaptations.

is flatly at variance with what the Arinze letter says:

5. On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.

So whether or not you were properly informed about the contents of the letter (and I’d be interested to know whether you had read it yourself before characterizing its contents to the press), you clearly have misrepresented what it says.

Had you simply come out and said, "We can’t talk about the document because it isn’t public" or then I would not have been shocked and would not have blogged the matter.

If you had said "We accept the document and will make the necessary changes in our celebration of the Mass" then I almost certainly would not have blogged it and, if I had, I would have said, "Good for them. They’re doing the same thing Life Teen did after a letter like this. I know it’s painful for them, but they are doing what the Holy See is telling them to do, and for that they deserve credit."

Instead, you grossly mischaracterized the contents of the document, and I wrote to correct this mischaracterization.

READ THE ARINZE LETTER (WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY SANDRO MAGISTER).

READ THE ZENIT INTERVIEW.

READ MY ORIGINAL POST.

A few days ago I published a post on an interview given to Zenit by Mr. Guiseppe Gennarini of the Neocatechumenal Way. The interview concerned a letter sent by Cardinal Arinze of the Congregation for DivineWorship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to the leaders of the Neocatechumenal Way.

In my blog post I stated that Mr. Gennarini was either grossly misinformed regarding what the letter said or that he was in denial, because the interview he gave ammounted to pure spin.

Since that time I have receive the following e-mail from Mr. Gennarini, who asked me to publish it. My response will be up soon.

Dear Mr. Akin

I have read your article and I was very surprise by your hostile attitude.

I do not know you and I do not know if you usually check out sources before printing, but you quote extensively an article of Sandro Magister which is full of lies, misrepresentation and innuendos :

1. He writes: In the Neocatechumenal Way, communion is taken while seated around a large square table, with a large loaf of bread that is divided among the participants and wine that is passes from hand to hand and is taken in large swallows.

John Paul II has presided a Eucharist with the Neocatechumenal communities twice, Benedict XVI, before becoming Pope, has also presided twice and many Cardinals have participated regularly, among them Pell from Sydney, Sandoval from Guadalajara, Schonborn from Wien and many many others. I do not know if this is of any relevance to you, but at least should make you doubt the misrepresentation of Magister. If you will have occasion to participate to a celebration of the Neocatechumenal Communities you will be able to witness the reverence and the dignity of it.

Then let us go to the details. We do not use a large loaf of bread: we use bread “made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened” [1] .Wine is not passed “from hand to hand” but it is served only by the priests, deacons or extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist..

2. Magister continues in your quotation: “For example, the readings from the liturgy of the Word are commented upon by the catechists of the group, who make lengthy “admonitions” followed by “resonances” from many of those present. The priest’s homily is hardly distinguished, or not distinguished at all, from the rest of the comments.

Again, we are dealing here with a caricature. The “admonitions” before the reading – which the letter accepts and turns an extraordinary practice into a common one – are made according to article 105 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Obviously we have to keep in mind that the Neocatechumenal Way is gradual initiation and that 70% of the  people are coming back to the Church . Regarding “Echos”: no layman in the communities has ever done the homily at the place of the priests and the letter accepts as valid this new practice of the Neocatechumenal Way.

3. Magister continues: The times and places for the Mass are also unusual. The Neocatechumenals do not celebrate their Masses on Sunday, but on Saturday evening, in small groups and separate from the parish communities to which they belong.

The ignorance of Magister reaches here its peak: does he not know that Saturday Night is already a Sunday celebration? How can it  be for him a ‘unusual time” when on Sat Eve  it is possible to attend Mass on in all the parishes of the World?

“Separate”? the celebrations of the communities are open to everybody; moreover  the unity of the thousands of masses in every diocese is guaranteed by the communion with the Holy Father and the local Bishop (not just by celebrating in the same room).

4. Here Magister gives his punch-line: Until recently, the founders and directors of the Way had shielded these practices by claiming they had received verbal authorization from John Paul II. But with Benedict XVI, playtime is over.

Sorry, but he is grossly mistaken. Benedict XVI has introduced the Neocatechumenal Way in Germany and in many of his books speak glowingly of the NW. Just a few examples:

a. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report.  An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church.  San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985. What is hopeful at the level of the universal Church -and that is happening right in the heart of the crisis of the Church in the Western world-is the rise of new move­ments which nobody had planned and which nobody has called into being, but which have sprung spontaneously from the inner vitality of the faith itself.  What is manifested in them-albeit subdued-is something like a Pentecostal season in the Church.  I am thinking, say, of the charismatic movement, of the Cursillos, of the movement of the Focolare, of the neo-catechumenal communities, of Communion and Liberation, etc.

b. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium.  An interview with Peter Seewald. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997.

On the other side, however, Christianity will offer models of life in new ways and will once again present itself in the wasteland of technological existence as a place of true humanity.  That is already happening now.  I mean, one can always raise objections to individual movements such as the Neo-catechumens or the Focolarini, but whatever else you may say, we can observe innovative things emerging there.  In these movements, Christianity is present as an experience of newness and is suddenly felt by people – who often come from very far outside – as a chance to live in this century.

c. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World.  A Conversation with Peter Seewald.  San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002.

Catholicism in fact can never be merely institutionally and academically planned and managed, but appears ever again as a gift, as a spiritual vitality.  And it in the process also has the gift of diversity.  There is no uniformity among Catholics.  There can be “Focolare” or Catechumenate piety, Schönstatt, Cursillo, and CL spirituality, and so on, as well as a Franciscan, Dominican, and Benedictine piety.  The treasury of faith provides many dwelling places within the one house.  And we should preserve this dynamic openness. Seen in this way, the Church always has a responsibility for society as a whole.  Missionary responsibility means in fact that, as the Pope says, we really have to try to re-evangelize.  We cannot just calmly allow everyone else to relapse into paganism, but have to find ways of bridging the gospel into the spheres of life of those who do not believe.  There are already models for this.  The Neo-Catechumenate has one model, and other groups are trying in their own various ways.  The Church will have to develop a great deal of imagination to help the gospel remain a force in public life.  So that it may shape the people and pervade their life and work among them like yeast.

d. Pope Benedict XVI Homily at the Mass at Marienfeld at the WYD: Form communities based on faith! In recent decades, movements and communities have come to birth in which the power of the Gospel is keenly felt. Seek communion in faith, like fellow travellers who continue together to follow the itinerary of the great pilgrimage that the Magi from the East first pointed out to us.

I suspect that you do not know that Sandro Magister is an italian journalist writing on "L’Espresso", the newspaper of the progressive and freethinking italian elite who embraces the ways of the world and like very much Brokeback Mountain,. but do not like Narnia. Magister has a guiding principle: to fight against every ecclesial reality that has strength to witness Christianity in today’s world. In his website you will see that he attacks the Focolarini, Communio and Liberazione, Sant’Egidio, the Charismatic renewal, etc… exactly the contrary of the vision of Benedict XVI which appears from the few excerpts quoted above. For them the Pope is good if he criticizes the war in Iraq, but not if he supports the new ecclesial realities. Magister is also close to Alberto Melloni, the Italian historian who bashed Pio XII for – supposedly- not having spoken against Nazism, and he is close to the Centro Documentazione di Bologna led by historian Giuseppe Alberigo:  Alberigo  interprets the II Vatican Council as a radical break with the past. Again, something radically opposite to the vision of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who see the Council not as a “break” with the past but as a necessary answer to modernity .

The Pope has another program of which he spoke at the WYD addressing  the German bishops:

“We have become a mission land". This is true for large parts of Germany. I therefore believe that throughout Europe, and likewise in France, Spain and elsewhere, we should give serious thought as to how to achieve a true evangelization in this day and age, not only a new evangelization, but often a true and proper first evangelization. People do not know God, they do not know Christ. There is a new form of paganism and it is not enough for us to strive to preserve the existing flock, although this is very important: we must ask the important question: what really is life? I believe we must all try together to find new ways of bringing the Gospel to the contemporary world, of proclaiming Christ anew and of implanting the faith.

Regarding “the spin” thing of which you accuse me rather too hastily :

1. This is a private letter whose real contents are known only by Cardinal Arinze, Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez and Father Mario Pezzi. Any use of a private document to enforce a public policy is completely illegitimate and improper.
2. If someone of the above mentioned people should confirm that the contents of this letter are authentic, this does not change its nature of a confidential and internal instrumentum laboris (working instrument). To consider this letter as having the strength of a norm would be as if we considered the Instrumentum Laboris of the Synod on the Eucharist as the final Document of the Synod.
3. The iter established by the Holy See regarding the Neocatechumenal Way foresees that every decision must be approved conjunctly by the Inter-Dicasterial Commisssion (Pontifical Institute for the Laity, faith, Liturgy, Clergy and Catechesis, Catholic Education). This letter is just a moment of the proceedings of the Interdicasterial.
4. The only document approved conjunctly until now are the Statutes, which are much more explicit than the contents of the letter. At the end of the ad experimentum period all the Five Congregations will issue the official decisions. What is for now the actual norm is the confirmation by the Holy Father of the liturgical praxis of the Way.

I write I wrote all of all this in the hope that, if you were surprised by truth once, you may love truth and you will have the fairness to publish my answer.

Giuseppe T.Gennarini

—————————————————-

[1] GIRM 2003, the new General Instructions of  the Roman Missal

Art. 320: The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.

Art. 321. The meaning of the sign demands that the material for the Eucharistic celebration truly have the appearance of food. It is therefore expedient that the Eucharistic bread, even though  unleavened and baked in the traditional shape, be made in such a way that the priest at Mass with a congregation is able in practice to break it into parts for distribution to at least some of the faithful. Small hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it. The action of the fraction or breaking of bread, which gave its name to the Eucharist in apostolic times, will bring out more clearly the force and  importance of the sign of unity of all in the one bread, and of the sign of charity by the fact that  the one bread is distributed among the brothers and sisters.

You may have heard rumblings in recent times about changes regarding an ecclesial movement known as The Neocatechumenal Way (a.k.a., the Neocatechumenate).

This is a movement that goes back several decades and that has a relationship with the Church that has been mixed. While Church leaders, including the previous and current popes, have said positive things about the NW, they have also insisted on changes in the way that the movement operates.

BASIC INFO ON THE MOVEMENT HERE.

Most recently B16 issued a series of decisions designed to pull back the NW from a number of liturgical abuses that have routinely characterized Masses celebrated under its auspices.

Journalist Sandro Magister gives a basic explanation (excerpts):

In the Neocatechumenal Way, communion is taken while seated around a large square table, with a large loaf of bread that is divided among the participants and wine that is passes from hand to hand and is taken in large swallows.

But communion is not the only area in which there is a departure from the traditional liturgy. There are significant innovations in other parts of the Mass.

For example, the readings from the liturgy of the Word are commented upon by the catechists of the group, who make lengthy “admonitions” followed by “resonances” from many of those present. The priest’s homily is hardly distinguished, or not distinguished at all, from the rest of the comments.

The times and places for the Mass are also unusual.

The Neocatechumenals do not celebrate their Masses on Sunday, but on Saturday evening, in small groups and separate from the parish communities to which they belong.

Each Neocatechumenal group corresponds to a different stage of the Way, so each group of 20-30 persons has its own Mass. If there are ten groups of Neocatechumenals in a parish, there will be ten different Masses on Saturday evening, in ten separate locations.

Until recently, the founders and directors of the Way had shielded
these practices by claiming they had received verbal authorization from
John Paul II. But with Benedict XVI, playtime is over.

In mid-December, the founders and directors of the Neocatechumenal Way – Spaniards Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernandez, and the Italian priest Mario Pezzi – received a two-page letter from cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, with a list of “decisions of the Holy Father” which they must obey.

Of the six points detailing the pope’s directives, only one permits the Neocatechumenals to continue what they are doing. This regards placing the exchange of peace before the offertory, a traditional practice in the Christian liturgy which is still in use today, for example, in the Ambrosian Rite celebrated in the archdiocese of Milan.

All the other points require the Neocatechumenal Way to eliminate a large portion of its liturgical innovations.

In the wake of this, Zenit ran an interview with "Giuseppe Gennarini, a spokesman who is in charge of the Way in the United States."

I was interested to read the interview because I wanted to see what kind of response the NW was making regarding the changes the pope has mandated. (I’ve read the letter from Cardinal Arinze containing them. It’s linked below.)

I figured that Gennarini would most likely put a positive face on the matter and express the NW’s intent to comply with the mandates–the same way that Life Teen did following a similar letter mandating that they eliminate prominent liturgical abuses in their Masses.

But I had NO IDEA.

The interview was PURE SPIN on Gennarini’s part. I mean, it goes beyond putting a positive face on the matter. The man is either grossly misinformed about what the letter says or he is in denial.

He represent the letter as fully vindicating and approving multiple things that the NW does in its Masses (not just the one cited–correctly–by Magister) and totally ignores the numerous requirements and cautions expressed in the letter regarding how things are to be done. He conveys the impression that the Vatican has simply rubber stamped current practice when the tone taken in the letter is very different, often saying–in essence–"Look, if you want to do something like this then you can ONLY do it if you start observing the following conditions."

The height of misrepresentation occurs when Gennarini addresses the manner in which the NW distributes Communion:

Finally, the way of distributing Communion as it currently takes place, is allowed for a long period of time, if only "ad experimentum." Such a grant shows that this practice is not irreverent, but fully legitimate, as can be attested by anyone who participates in a Eucharist of the communities.

This concession is written within the context of the final approval of the statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way, which are right now approved also "ad experimentum." When this period "ad experimentum" ends, the interdicasterial commission of the five congregations which approved the statutes … will verify the necessary adaptations.

This not only states that the NW manner of distributing Communion is "fully legitimate" and allowed "ad experimentum" (i.e., for purposes of experiment to see if the arrangement should be made permanent), it also seems to suggest that at the end of the approval process for the NW’s statutes that the Vatican may permanently allow this manner of distributing Communion.

Now here’s what the letter from Cardinal Arinze actually says:

5. On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.

There is no "ad experimentum" approval given in there for how the NW distributes Communion. Quite the opposite. They’ve been given two years to clean up their act.

Gennarni is also exceptionally disingenuous when he says:

Without the intervention of the Holy Father, the approval of these liturgical variations would have never taken place. We feel fully confirmed by Peter. Those who are trying to oppose Benedict XVI and John Paul II are altering the reality.

Judge for yourself who is altering reality, here.

READ THE LETTER.

A reader writes:

I’ve listened to you numerous times on the radio and have a feeling you’re a good person to ask the following question:

My husband and I have been married for many years, raised practicing Catholic children, and are in the process of having our marriage convalidated in the Church.  He is learning and studying the catechism and is interested in converting at some point (raised Mormon).  After Midnight Mass, he asked me why I am not considered worthy to receive the Eucharist at this point but so many people who attend Mass once or twice a year (the C & E’s!) are able to receive.  I have to admit that this bothers me a great deal.  It is painful to sit and watch so many people, including those who are non-Catholic, standing in line to receive the Eucharist.  How can I explain this?  Thanks for your help.

This is a very sensitive question, but I’ll try to answer it as best I can.

The basic answer is that neither persons in your situation (if I understand it correctly) nor the C & Es should be receiving Communion. The difference is that the C & Es don’t seem to know better, whereas you do. This makes your experience more painful than theirs, but it also means that you are better in conformity with God’s will in an important respect, which should be a source of comfort.

Having given the basic answer, I’ll try to flesh it out.

Here’s where it gets really sensitive.

I assume from what you have said that you are a Catholic who, years ago, got married outside the Church without a dispensation from observing the Catholic form of marriage. (If this is not your situation then the following answer does not apply.)

This means that a valid marriage was prevented from coming into existence at that point. Until you have your marriage convalidated, therefore, you are not objectively married and to have marital relations with someone to whom you are not married is objectively and gravely sinful.

It is the presence of this objectively grave sin that prevents you from being able to receive Communion. The situation may be solved either by not having such relations or by having the union convalidated so that there will be an objectively real marriage and the relations will no longer be sinful. If either of these things happens then it will be possible to go to confession and begin receiving Communion.

(NOTE: The fact that a valid marriage did not come into existence when you first attempted it does NOT mean that your children are illegitimate. Assuming that EITHER you OR your husband entered the marriage believing it to be a real marriage then the children will be legitimate.)

The reason that C & E only Catholics should not be receiving Communion is that they are gravely bound to attend Mass each Sunday and holy day of obligation unless prevented from attending by an excusing cause.

Most of them do not have such causes, and those who do not have them are failing to fulfill an obligation that binds gravely and thus also are objectively gravely sinning.

Thus THEY should not be receiving Commuion, either, until such time as they start fulfilling their Sunday and holy day obligations and go to confession.

At least this applies in the archtypical case. (The answer may be affected by the level of knowledge and culpability an individual has.)

I know this is a difficult answer, but I’ve tried to explain it as straightforwardly and simply as I can.

The fact that you are taking steps to rectify your marital situation and that you are refraining from receiving holy Communion until you do reveals that God is working in your heart and that you are responding to his grace by working to bring your situation into conformity with his will–which is ultimately for the good of your own soul and those of your family.

This is a cause for rejoicing and, in the interim, the Church acknowledges and appreciates your efforts and wants to make you feel welcome and a part of the Catholic community. Pope Benedict has personally stressed the need to understand the pain that is experienced by couples in your situation and the need to reach out to them, to help them feel connected to the Church and to God, and to live the Catholic life.

God loves you, and the Church and the pope do, too.

20

A reader writes:

My son went to Mass on Christmas Eve. He’s big time into evolution and tho I’ve tried to get him to read Creator and the Cosmos he wasn’t interested.  For Christmas I gave him the book The Science Before Science ( I think that’s the name) which he was hardly thrilled to get.

Anyway, at the beginning of Mass they read:

Proclamation of the Birth of Christ
from the Christmas Martyrology (Roman Rite)

The twenty-fifth day of December.
In the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth year of the creation of the world
from the time when God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth;
the two thousand nine hundred and fifty-seventh year after the flood;
the two thousand and fifteenth year from the birth of Abraham;….

and he took great exception to that.  He said since we KNOW that the earth was not 6000 years old at the time Christ was born we shouldn’t be reading that.  It only perpetuates a falsehood. (I wanted to say "well, were you there?  How do you know it isn’t?  Maybe the earth was created as a middle age earth….maybe mankind is only 6000 years old)  Anyway, he tried to argue that just because it’s in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s true. I said that’s not out of the Bible. His arguments were based on science and religion don’t agree. When I said they do, truth is truth…science has proven that we all come from 1 set of parents…thru DNA research…he said he doen’st think the church should sit and wait till it figures out that science is right (ie Coprenican theory of the rotation of the planets etc.).

So….not that you can argue or win an argument with someone who’s mind is made up..don’t confuse me with facts…what do you say about the reading at church and the years of the age of the earth?  Any suggestions?

It sounds to me as if you and your son have positions that are leading you into conflict unnecessarily.

From the Church’s point of view, there is not a problem with the idea that God used evolution as a means by which he accomplished his purposes in creating man and other species. Neither does the Church insist that the earth is only a few thousand years old. If your son feels that the evidence he has been exposed to points to the existence of an old earth and God’s use of evolution to realize his plans for the world then I would not fight with him about that.

If he believes, on the other hand, that evolution occurred but that God didn’t employ it and that it was a process not subject to God’s providence then I still wouldn’t fight with him about it (or give him books that he doesn’t want to read) but I would point out that at that point he is advancing a view that science has no way of proving. You don’t need to argue about that. It’s just a fact that would be worth pointing out.

I am afraid that I don’t understand completely everything that you recount your son as having said, so some of it I am not able to comment on. However, I would point out that it sounds to me as if he may be pitting science against Scripture in an unnecessary fashion.

For its part, the Church is quite open to the idea that the early material in Genesis is written in a symbolic fashion and thus that one should not expect it to pronounce on issues like the age of the earth or the specific means that God used to give rise to the creatures we now see in the world.

THIS ARTICLE MAY HELP.

As to the specific issue of the dating of Christ’s birth that was read at Mass, your son should bear in mind the genre of the literature he was hearing. This was not a scientific treatise. It was liturgy, and liturgy is in significant measure poetic.

Those dates are not and were never intended to be rock solid and precise. They were just the best estimates that were available at the time the piece was composed, and even then it was known that they were just estimates and that we really can’t date the birth of Christ with precision. People back then knew that it wasn’t a certainty that Christ was born in the 42nd year of Augustus Caesar’s reign (in fact, he was probably born a few years before that), and they knew that we can’t date the creation of the world precisely either.

So take these numbers for what they are: Old fashioned estimates that were put together a long time ago to build up a poetic proclamation to convey a sense of the grandeur and majesty of the birth of God’s Son.

Not a scientific treatise.

Recognizing the nature of liturgy is important here. It not only involves poetry but it also involves tradition. In that way, it is much like Shakespeare. If Shakespeare had written that piece and incorporated it into one of his plays then it would and should continue to be performed today–e.g., by a college drama company, even if the school does not teach in its science classes that these dates are to be taken literally.

In the same way, the Church can include traditional/poetic material in its liturgy that is not to be taken literally and that the Church does not hold forth as literally true when discussing the age of the world in a catechetical text.

See the above-linked article for more on what the Church does hold regarding creation and evolution,

SEE HERE

AND HERE.

A reader writes:

Merry Christmas Mr. Akin, I was curious if you could take a moment to
comment on the following:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3547357.html

I am particularly interested in the "valid" and "illicit" part
associated with this Mass.

First a note for those who may not read further: "Licit" means "in conformity with the law," while "illicit" means "not in conformity with the law." A celebration of the liturgy is in conformity with the law (licit) if those celebrating it don’t break any of the Church’s laws in their celebration. It is illicit if they do break such laws.

"Valid," by contrast," means (effectively) "real," while "invalid" means "unreal."

This is important in the context of liturgy, for example, because even an unlawful (illicit) celebration of the Mass may have at its heart a valid (real) consecration of the Eucharist.

From an ultimate perspective, the FIRST question one should ask about a celebration of the Eucharist is whether it is valid (i.e., does Jesus really become present?).

The SECOND question is whether–even if Jesus does really become present–the celebration is lawful (licit) according to the Church.

Based on the first two questions, one needs to ask a THIRD question: Is attending this Mass sinful or non-sinful? If the consecration is INVALID or the Mass as a whole is ILLICIT then the answer is presumably sinful.

HERE’S MORE ON THE SITUATION IN ST. LOUIS FROM ST. LOUIS NATIVE, DR. EDWARD PETERS.

(BTW, special congratulations to Ed for finally joining the 21st century and getting REAL [valid] permalinks for his blog, which will DRAMATICALLY enhance its effectiveness. His new blog design is quite cool, too! Check it out!)