The Failures of the New Lectionary

WHERE SOME SINS ARE NOT IMMORAL, ETC.By Chene Richard Heady | June 2000Chene Richard Heady, a convert to Catholicism, is a doctoral student in Victorian literature at Ohio State University.

In the summer of 1999, I began to notice that whenever St. Paul spoke in the new Lectionary at Mass, he seemed a bit “off.” His syntax was awkward, he seemed unsure of himself and his audience, he dodged controversial issues; he was, in short, not his old self. It appeared that Paul was trying to hide his new insecurity by referring to his audience as his “brothers and sisters” rather than as the more accustomed “brothers” (as in the prior Lectionary) or “brethren” (as in the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible). Like a Fundamentalist preacher of the old school, the lector at Mass would rasp, “Brothers and Sisters…” before he wheezed out the epistle reading. Sometimes, even Paul’s doctrine was unclear. I was raised a Fundamentalist, and Paul has been barking at me since early infancy, so naturally I was concerned by such strange behavior. As the summer wore on, I realized that whatever illness had infected Paul had spread to the rest of the scriptural authors, as, overnight, their ears turned to tin, and their lungs blew misty circumlocutions around important doctrinal matters. Something, I thought, had to be said about this, lest the Scriptures themselves turn incoherent.

I have been hesitant to speak publicly on this matter, but, because the Catholic periodicals I receive have discussed only the new Lectionary’s gender implications and have ignored its doctrinal ambiguities, I feel I must speak out. I suspect the reason the doctrinal problems of the new Lectionary (which came into use in 1998 in some places, 1999 in others) have not been discussed in theological periodicals is that they become most clearly apparent through literary analysis. According to the venerable theological dictum lex orandi, lex credendi (roughly: what we pray is what we believe), liturgical problems are as much a literary issue as a theological one. The lex orandi dictum, cited in the Catechism (#1124), implies that what is at issue in a liturgical translation is not simply whether a translation of Scripture is technically justifiable, but also the likely reception of this translation — how the faithful are likely to be taught and shaped by what they are given. There are some consistent and disturbing literary patterns in the new Lectionary: It entirely translates and edits out the Bible’s teaching on fornication, and renders the doctrine of Hell if not invisible, then opaque.

My primary concern here is with the new Lectionary’s sins of commission — its theologically questionable translations — but since its sins of omission also play an important role in this matter, an initial observation about omissions must be made. For the sake of clarity and brevity, omissions are at times necessary in preparing Scripture for public reading. However, the elimination of two verses or less will never serve the end of brevity, and rarely that of clarity. It is fair to say of a given passage and a given doctrine that if (1) the verses that most clearly teach this doctrine are eliminated and (2) the remaining verses are translated ambiguously, then (3) the passage no longer teaches the doctrine in question. As so often happens in literary study, the omission and commission work together to establish textual meaning or eliminate doctrine. But this is needlessly abstract. Allow me to give a concrete example. Paul’s discourse on the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:13-20) reads in the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible [NRSV] as follows:

13. “Food is meant for the stomach, and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16. Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall become one flesh.” 17. But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18. Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20. For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.

The doctrine of this passage is clear: Because God resurrects the body, God has claims on the body, which, rather than being detached from the soul, is the temple of God. This doctrine has concrete moral ramifications — fornication is a particularly vile sin, since it defiles God’s temple (the body) and since the fornicator is choosing union with perversity rather than with God. This has been the doctrine of the Church since her inception.

Now suppose that the word “fornication” is substituted with the more ambiguous word “immorality” in this passage, as occurs in the New American Bible [NAB] and the new Lectionary. The clarity of the passage is diminished by logically nonsensical phrases like, “Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body” (v. 18, NAB). Rendered thus, the verse posits a distinction not between fornication and other sins, but between immorality and sin, a distinction which implies the existence of sins that are, somehow, not immoral — which is of course nonsense. The doctrinal content of the passage is eliminated in the NAB and the new Lectionary, and the new Lectionary omits the discussion of prostitution in verses 15 and 16. So the new Lectionary does not indicate that the type of “immorality” in question is sexual sin. The moral import of the passage has been removed, as it is impossible to locate. There is some evil we are to avoid which is called “immorality” but whose nature we know nothing about, rendering said avoidance quite difficult. When the practical moral demands of the passage are edited or translated out, Paul’s very doctrine becomes distorted. 1 Corinthians 6 becomes a paean to the body. The body is the temple, the body is glorified, the body will be raised up, with no specific catches, commands, or restrictions. We have left Paul’s theology and have entered the realm of Oprah, oracle of today’s “wisdom,” whose moral injunctions are succinctly expressed in her film Beloved — “Love your flesh. Love it hard.” Paul has apparently rid himself the thorn in his flesh and turned pop psychologist.

The new Lectionary’s failings in this regard go on and on. There is no need to individually note each of the myriad of times “immorality” is substituted for “fornication,” with invariably bad results for the doctrinal content of the passage. Many passages that were meant to teach inspired truth now teach, like the passage discussed above, nothing clear at all. For example, Ephesians 4:17-24 (Eighteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle B) warns us against living as the pagans do, but the warning is difficult to follow, for verses 18 and 19, in which we are told how the pagans live, are edited out. Not surprisingly, the primary sin of the pagans which is disclosed in these verses is sexual in nature: their “licentiousness for the practice of every kind of impurity to excess” (v. 19).

Obviously, I cannot discuss every doctrinally questionable passage in the new Lectionary here, but the above are good examples of what’s wrong. Curiously, the editors of the new Lectionary, who feel quite competent to “correct” the NAB when it comes to terms of gender usage, nevertheless follow the NAB’s dubious substitution of “immorality” for “fornication” throughout (see, for example, Col. 3:5 in the Eighteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle C). The editors have explained that their gender “inclusivity” was warranted by changing linguistic usage and the pastoral desire not to alienate the flock; apparently their concern not to mislead the flock is less commanding. One will seek in vain throughout the new Lectionary for a single verse that clearly condemns pre-marital sex. Traditional Catholics have long lamented that Catholic youth are now no more pure or chaste that their pagan peers, and have discussed various catechetical means of correcting this. One possible means of instruction which now must be crossed off the list is the Sunday Scripture readings.

Now let’s turn to eschatology (the doctrine of the Last Things). The greatest sin in today’s culture is “judgmentalism,” and the new Lectionary almost entirely removes any hint of God’s judgment. This dynamic can be summarized in its treatment of a single verse. The editors are willing to proclaim the eschatology of Revelation 11:19a, in which “God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of the covenant could be seen in the temple,” but not that of 11:19b, in which “There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, and earthquake, and a violent hailstorm” (Feast of the Assumption, Mass During the Day — 11:19b is eliminated). We are down to the Two Last Things — death and Heaven. The new Lectionary, in preaching the coming Kingdom, proclaims that “Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates” (Rev. 22:14) but omits to mention that “Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit” (Rev. 22:15, Seventh Sunday of Easter, Cycle C; of Rev. 22:12-17, verse 15 is eliminated). This is a truly modern eschatology — I’m entering a tunnel, I see a bright light, and am embraced by the ill-defined love of an ambiguous deity.

The new Lectionary alters or omits countless Old Testament passages referring to divine judgment, but since the theological meaning of such alterations to the Old Testament is debatable, I won’t discuss them here, and will restrict myself to the new Lectionary’s treatment of New Testament eschatology. In eschatological matters, the editors of the new Lectionary, besides performing omissions like those already discussed, violate their own stated principles, which resemble those of “dynamic equivalence.” While a “formally equivalent” translation (the type preferred by the Vatican) attempts to render the literal content of the original text into the receptor language, a “dynamically equivalent” translation attempts to render what the translators perceive as the meaning of the text into the idioms of the receptor language. For instance, our translators, while paying perfunctory homage to the Vatican’s demands for “maximum possible fidelity” in translation, abandon Paul’s use of “brothers” as a term of address to mixed groups, on the grounds (says Fr. James Moroney in an article in the National Catholic Register, May 16-22, 1999) that this usage is not found in “American English, as it is spoken in our country today.” But this concern for “American English, as it is spoken in our country today,” vanishes when the new Lectionary approaches eschatology. When the Greek word “Hades” is employed in the New Testament text, we generally read “netherworld” and occasionally “Hades.” For the Greek word “Gehenna” we read simply “Gehenna.” In a translation that justifies its linguistically questionable gender politics by the need to use dynamically equivalent “American English,” the word Hades is translated by a term meaningless in “our country today,” and “Gehenna” is simply not translated, but is, rather, transliterated. While there may be no good word in current English parlance to express the conceptions connoted by “Hades” in classical Greek usage (the Greeks did believe in a netherworld), when Jesus uses the terms “Hades” and “Gehenna” he very often is clearly describing a state of eternal punishment for the wicked. There is a simple English equivalent for both these words as Jesus uses them, one with a very exact theological meaning. It is “Hell.” While it was impossible to find the word “Hell” in the old Lectionary, the new Lectionary should have corrected this problem — but didn’t.

A few passages remain in the new Lectionary where the context and content are sufficient to indicate the idea of eternal punishment without the use of the word “Hell” (such as Mt. 25:14-30, Thirty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle A; and Mt. 25:31-46, Solemnity of Christ the King, Cycle A). Unlike fornication, which is entirely eliminated from the new Lectionary, Hell is only diminished. However, even the few passages in the new Lectionary that still teach eternal punishment are undermined by their terminology. We are threatened by destruction for our sins, but we are threatened with destruction in “Gehenna,” “the netherworld,” “Hades” — or “outer darkness,” a phrase which suggests a combination of the pleasantly eerie 60s shows The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits (the first three terms are scattered throughout the new Lectionary, for the fourth see the Thirty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle A). The idea that these terms are meaningful in current English usage is simply laughable. It is questionable how much the laity, who already fear Hell scantly enough, will be stimulated to virtue by hearing them. The presence of such terms deconstructs Hell, breaks its meaning down, distances it from any threat of practical application, and renders it a historical curiosity. The certainty of divine judgment is thus obscured. Who avoids swimming in the Atlantic out of fear of the Leviathan? Suffering in the netherworld is equivalent to paying your debts to the last farthing — with Monopoly money. I realize that here the new Lectionary is just following the NAB, but the editors do feel that they can break from the NAB for “pastoral” reasons — and saving souls from perdition is, I would think, the most compelling pastoral reason imaginable.

Our new Lectionary refuses to teach the sinful character of fornication and downplays, at best, the eternal reality of Hell. Local liturgical translations are not infallible. I pray God this one will be altered before it misteaches generations of the faithful, rendering lex orandi, lex credendi a sad observation rather than a great truth of the Faith.

The Failures of the New Lectionary

CANON LAW, DEBATES, FAITH

A REFUTATION OF BISHOP SCHNEIDER’S DEMAGOGUERY

VIDEOMARCH 26, 2020

FROM ROME EDITOR

By Alexis Bugnolo

A lot of Catholics have asked me to refute Bishop Athanasius’ Schneider in detail. I have written a partial refutation, but his position is so absurd I have refrained, but here is a sound refutation on the more principal points:

However, I will point out that there is in the Church no such thing as the Byzantine Catholic Patriarch. The group which produced this has a checkered history, canonically, but at least doctrinally, in this refutation of Mons. Schneider, they take a Catholic position. Synods must be called in every nation to condemn Bergoglio.

The only errors I see in this video are:

First, that the authors of this video hold that if canon law is used to support heresy and apostasy, canon law is invalid. The correct Catholic position is, rather, that when canon law is used to support heresy and apostasy, it is the use which is to be condemned and the interpretation which is to be corrected by canon 17.

Second that they assert that the worship of an idol is a heresy or manifestation of heresy. But it is rather a sin of apostasy, is not directly a sin of heresy, because heresy is the denial of a truth which is revealed by God, but the adoration of an idol is the denial of the entire Deposit of the Faith. Adoration of an idol might include heresy, but it is much more than heresy.

Third, they avoid entirely that Pope Benedict XVI is the true pope. They do this because in certain matters they themselves have usurped ecclesiastical offices and powers, such as, for example, establishing a Byzantine Patriarchate, without any authority from God or Pope Benedict XVI.

Finally,  I would like to point out, for the sake of public record, that back in 2015 I was greatly inspired by the sound and heroic statements of Bishop Schneider against the errors being promoted by Bergoglio. It truly saddens me that he has abandoned the Catholic Faith and Canon Law to insist that Bergoglio is still the pope, despite all his public sins, his pertinacious heresy, his apostasy and his schism mongering. In this he has done a very wicked thing, and I think if he persists in his false position, that he must be reckoned by all Catholics a heretic himself, for denying the constant teaching of the Church that heretics and apostates and schismatics lose office immediately, as canon 1364 states.

Do we have “faith like a grain of mustard seed!”

“Amen I say to you, that whosoever shall say to this mountain, Be thou removed and be cast

into the sea, and shall not stagger in his heart, but believe, that whatsoever he saith shall be

done; it shall be done unto him. [24] Therefore I say unto you, all things, whatsoever you ask

when ye pray, believe that you shall receive; and they shall come unto you.” [Mk. 11:23-24]

“… Amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this

mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to

you.” [Mt. 17:19]; and “… if you shall say to this mountain, Take up and cast thyself into the sea,

it shall be done.” [Mt. 21:21]

“Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I

do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you shall ask me anything in my name, that I

will do.” [Jn. 14: 13-15]

How big is our own faith? Do we know if it is at least “like to a grain of mustard seed?”

Either way, let us ask God the Father, in the Name of His Son Jesus Christ our Redeemer, to give

us faith “like to a grain of mustard seed.” He promised He will do it. Don’t hesitate for any

reason.

Then, let us use our collective faith immediately to ask God the Father, in the name of Jesus

Christ, to halt the spread of this evil, Satanic COVID-19 absolutely dead in its tracks – no later

than Mercy Sunday, April 19, 2020.

Imagine the global impact if this virus simply disappeared! Think of the conversions that would

result, with no possible explanation but that God ‘delivered the world from this evil.’

For me, I will add just one extra “Our Father” to my daily prayers for this intention. Why just

one? Jesus gave us this prayer, which includes the following: “…deliver us from evil.” This virus

is evil. And Jesus would not have given us a prayer that God the Father did not intend to

answer! One said with faith should be sufficient. But just in case my faith still remains smaller

than a grain of mustard seed, I will say one extra “Our Father” daily through April 19, 2020, and

each day I will first ask for faith “like unto a grain of mustard seed.”

There we have it! This virus is evil. The Gospels give us guidance. Jesus taught us how to pray,

and He promised us that if we have even a small amount of faith (the size of a mustard seed)

that we could move mountains. We have been given the tools and it is up to us to use them.

Please join me however you are moved, in imploring God to deliver us from this evil virus and

lead many souls to conversion as a result. God is True to his Word. Let us expect a miracle!

Jeremiah Bernard

CANON LAW, DEBATES, FAITH

A REFUTATION OF BISHOP SCHNEIDER’S DEMAGOGUERY

VIDEOMARCH 26, 2020FROM ROME EDITOR1 COMMENT

By Alexis Bugnolo

A lot of Catholics have asked me to refute Bishop Athanasius’ Schneider in detail. I have written a partial refutation, but his position is so absurd I have refrained, but here is a sound refutation on the more principal points:

However, I will point out that there is in the Church no such thing as the Byzantine Catholic Patriarch. The group which produced this has a checkered history, canonically, but at least doctrinally, in this refutation of Mons. Schneider, they take a Catholic position. Synods must be called in every nation to condemn Bergoglio.

The only errors I see in this video are:

First, that the authors of this video hold that if canon law is used to support heresy and apostasy, canon law is invalid. The correct Catholic position is, rather, that when canon law is used to support heresy and apostasy, it is the use which is to be condemned and the interpretation which is to be corrected by canon 17.

Second that they assert that the worship of an idol is a heresy or manifestation of heresy. But it is rather a sin of apostasy, is not directly a sin of heresy, because heresy is the denial of a truth which is revealed by God, but the adoration of an idol is the denial of the entire Deposit of the Faith. Adoration of an idol might include heresy, but it is much more than heresy.

Third, they avoid entirely that Pope Benedict XVI is the true pope. They do this because in certain matters they themselves have usurped ecclesiastical offices and powers, such as, for example, establishing a Byzantine Patriarchate, without any authority from God or Pope Benedict XVI.

Finally,  I would like to point out, for the sake of public record, that back in 2015 I was greatly inspired by the sound and heroic statements of Bishop Schneider against the errors being promoted by Bergoglio. It truly saddens me that he has abandoned the Catholic Faith and Canon Law to insist that Bergoglio is still the pope, despite all his public sins, his pertinacious heresy, his apostasy and his schism mongering. In this he has done a very wicked thing, and I think if he persists in his false position, that he must be reckoned by all Catholics a heretic himself, for denying the constant teaching of the Church that heretics and apostates and schismatics lose office immediately, as canon 1364 states.

SHARE THIS:

• Print
• Save
• Share
• Email
• WhatsApp
• Telegram

RELATED

Bishop Schneider, your Essay is a porridge of falsehood and presumption!

In “Editorials”

The wicked impiety of liars

In “Editorials”

5 Questions for Bishop Schneider & Dr. Taylor Marshall

In “Faith”BISHOP ATHANASIUS SCHNEIDER

Post navigation

PREVIOUS POSTResponding to public calumnyNEXT POSTBolsonaro says the “Pandemic” is Media Hype and must be rejected by all nations

ONE THOUGHT ON “A REFUTATION OF BISHOP SCHNEIDER’S DEMAGOGUERY”

1. Em SMARCH 26, 2020 AT 8:16 AM So absurd that a quasi-schismatic group would point out the mote in Schneider’s eye when the beam in their eye seems quite the beam! (Lord knows). There’s always hope for both, but especially Schneider if he repents and regains the Apostolic Spirit of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. Man… that would be the day…Liked by 1 person

Vatican Issues Two Decrees: More Prefaces and Recent Saints in the TLM

Peter Kwasniewski

March 25, 2020

Today, on the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its capacity as the successor to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, issued two decrees updating the traditional Missale Romanum (1962): Quo Magis, by which seven prefaces are added, and Cum Sanctissima, by which provision is made for the celebration of Mass in honor of saints canonized after 1960. While the decrees themselves have been published only in Latin so far, the Congregation has offered informative “presentations” in several languages, including English (here and here). If you are looking for an accurate summary of all of these documents, with apposite quotations, I recommend Gregory DiPippo’s post at New Liturgical Movement.

I want to emphasize that the following are my initial reactions and observations. My first impressions are favorable, but the matter is complex and will need time for pondering and digesting. The first thing I would counsel is therefore patience. No one needs to panic that this is a “Trojan Horse” that threatens to destroy the integrity of the Vetus Ordo. The decrees look, to me, carefully thought through, and I know for a fact that they were drafted only after extensive consultation with individuals and organizations representing the interests of traditional Catholics.

1) Thirteen years after Pope Benedict XVI mentioned (in 2007) that the old missal might be expanded by new prefaces and new saints’ feasts, the CDF has now announced the way in which this can occur. The provisions bend over backwards to avoid stomping on anything already in the MR1962 general calendar. The principle of commemorations is generously applied (that is, no saint or feast or vigil will ever get “dropped,” and a lengthy list of 3rd-class feasts are declared inviolable). Put simply: no saint is removed from the calendar or bumped out by any other saint.

2) The celebration of saints canonized post-1960 is altogether optional: the Vatican is not requiring but permitting (e.g.) St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Padre Pio, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, or St. Elizabeth of the Trinity to be celebrated or commemorated on their appointed feastdays. We have to bear in mind that a very great number of saints canonized after 1960 lived, in fact, decades or centuries before the liturgical reform and are equally saints of the Tridentine Mass as any of the saints currently honored in the old general calendar. Indeed, Padre Pio, as a recent book details, was vehemently opposed to the liturgical reform as it played out in the 1960s until his death in 1968. We should bear in mind that the calendar of the traditional Roman rite is extremely “saint-friendly” and has always heartily accumulated feasts and commemorations, in contrast to the tradition-scorning mentality reflected in the general calendar for the Novus Ordo rolled out by Paul VI in 1969, from which over 300 saints (!) had been removed. Our attitude should be the opposite. We might echo the famous ad campaign: “Got Saints?”

(Admittedly, the thought of a well-meaning young priest who knows no better commemorating “St. Paul VI” at the TLM is enough to make my viscera twist and my flesh crawl, but I find it hard to imagine that any well-informed priest who has the “pulse” of a traditional congregation would even consider offering a TLM in honor of controversial saints of more recent times, let alone actually do it.)

3) Seven new prefaces have been added, but of these, three are neo-Gallican prefaces already contained in many editions of the MR1962, with their use now being unrestricted (oddly, the proper preface for Advent is not listed, yet it would remain permissible under the prior conditions), while the other four are based on ancient sources and have been redacted to harmonize with the other Tridentine prefaces in their phraseology. The texts of these four prefaces have not yet been released.

For people who are asking “Do we really need new Prefaces in the TLM?,” my answer is twofold. (a) We don’t NEED them, strictly speaking… but the Roman rite has had varying numbers of prefaces over the centuries, and seven more beautiful prefaces is not going to shatter the “Romanitas” of the Roman rite. (b) Why don’t we look, for a change, on the positive side? Here, for example, is the newly-approved (but several centuries old) Preface of the Most Blessed Sacrament. It is magnificent!

It is truly meet and just, right and for our salvation, that we should at all times and in all places give thanks unto Thee, O holy Lord, almighty Father, eternal God, through Christ our Lord: Who, having abolished the empty shadows of animal victims, hath rendered acceptable for us in sacrifice His own Body and Blood: that in every place may be offered to Thy Name that clean oblation, which alone hath been pleasing to Thee. Therefore, in this Mystery of inscrutable wisdom and immense charity, that which once accomplished all on the Cross ceaseth not its wonderful operation, He Himself offering, He Himself the Victim. And He inviteth us, being constituted one victim with Him, to that Sacred Banquet, in which He Himself is received as our food, the memory of His Passion is recalled, our minds are filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given unto us. And therefore with the Angels and Archangels, with the Thrones and Dominions, and with all the hosts of the heavenly army, we sing a hymn to Thy glory, evermore saying:…

This preface is thick with allusions to the Old Testament, New Testament, and even St. Thomas Aquinas’s O Sacrum Convivium. It blows away anything in the Novus Ordo. It gives us another feather in our cap: the richest liturgy in the Western world just got richer. Personally, I can’t wait till our local FSSP priest uses this on Corpus Christi or at a votive Mass of the Blessed Sacrament.

4) It took thirteen years to reach these decisions, and now that the decrees are published, the possibilities are repeatedly noted to be optional. This is how liturgical reform should be done: as Gregory DiPippo likes to say, “run the flag up the flagpole and see who salutes; if no one salutes, take it down.” This is a far cry from the slap-dash draconian imposition of the Novus Ordo under Paul VI. In fact, one might say the decrees represent a gentle encouragement for organic development: “Here are possibilities; use as they may be helpful,” and takes away the reproach that the MR1962 is frozen in pack ice.

From this point of view, the new provisions fit well with the worldwide movement to recover the pre-55 Holy Week and other glories of the old rite that were damaged under Pope Pius XII. We are looking at a living liturgy, not something that exists only in books printed in a certain arbitrary year, reflecting the mentality of the liturgical reformers of that period.

5) The decree about saints subtly notes that, on the one hand, it is to be left to the discretion of superiors (not to the celebrant on the spur of the moment) which provisions will be utilized; and on the other hand, that the traditional Roman rite has seen optional sanctoral and devotional Masses in the past: “throughout the post-tridentine period, and up till the rubrical reform carried out by Pope St. Pius X, the calendar included no less that twenty-five such so-called ad libitum feasts.”

Although it is quite true to say that one of the great boasts of the traditional liturgy is its stability, fixity, constancy, and predictability, it is also true that there have always been minor options at the discretion or choice of the celebrant. Some Commons feature alternative readings. Some saints can be either celebrated in full or mentioned as commemorations in a repeated Sunday formulary. Customs exist for the use of votive Masses, but as the very name implies, “votive” is a free-will offering; no one needs to say this or that Votive Mass on a given feria.

However, such small options fit into a larger pattern: once the priest commits himself to a given Mass, everything is spelled out ahead of time; there is no room for “pastoral adaptations,” for a “do-it-yourself” liturgy built up from modular blocks. In this respect, the new decrees do nothing to modify the strengths of the traditional Mass, nor do they bring it in any way closer to the Novus Ordo.

6) One of the most remarkable elements of Cum Sanctissima is buried, in a sense, in the fine print. In 1960, a decision was made to privilege the Lenten ferias to such an extent that the feasts of even very significant saints, e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great, St. Benedict of Nursia, the Archangel Gabriel, and St. Leo the Great, were reduced to mere commemorations, which meant, as Gregory DiPippo notes, “to all intents and purposes [they were] abolished from the General Calendar.” The new decree now states that the feasts of more outstanding saints during Lent (the saints, namely, that the decree lists, giving reasons for its list) can trump the Lenten feria, which would instead be commemorated. In this way, Cum Sanctissima is a document that unmodernizes the Tridentine rite, freeing it from a heavy-handed prejudice of the Liturgical Movement.

7) I have argued strenuously that liturgical rites develop to a perfection of form and content that renders further major development nugatory, and rules out entirely the legitimacy of the kind of soup-to-nuts renovation that produced the Novus Ordo. But minor additions have always been a part of the history of liturgical rites, and always will be. Additions are far different from ideologically-motivated expurgations, abbreviations, or rewritings. I concur with several commentators who have pointed out that today’s announcement effectively stifles any critic whose objection to the TLM is that it is “frozen in time.” Not only is it not so frozen, but every year that passes has witnessed more and more of the full heritage of the Tridentine rite recovered, as the pre-55 Holy Week is reclaimed, as chasubles are folded on days of penance, as the great Pentecost vigil reappears, and so forth. What we are seeing, and thanks be to God for it, is a living liturgy that is truly traditional, sloughing off the undesirable modernizations that paved the way for Paul VI’s revolutionary Novus Ordo — a period piece that now appears more dated by far than the timeless yet intensely present Mass of the Ages.

In conclusion: all this will need further reflection, to be sure, but I appreciate the modesty, discretion, and care that went into the decrees and provisions.

[This article was updated with further content.]

Peter Kwasniewski

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Thomistic theologian, liturgical scholar, and choral composer, is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and The Catholic University of America. He has taught at the International Theological Institute in Austria; the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Austria Program; and Wyoming Catholic College, which he helped establish in 2006. Today he is a full-time writer and speaker on traditional Catholicism, writing regularly for OnePeterFive, New Liturgical Movement, LifeSiteNews, and other websites and print publications. He has published eight books, the most recent being John Henry Newman on Worship, Reverence, and Ritual (Os Justi Press, 2019). Visit his website at www.peterkwasniewski.com.www.peterkwasniewski.com

Vatican Issues Two Decrees: More Prefaces and Recent Saints in the TLM

https://youtu.be/20eash71E0k 

Preview YouTube video IGP DeepState — Does the Deep State Really ExistIGP DeepState — Does the Deep State Really Exist

GUEST EDITORIALS

I AM SICK TO MY STOMACH WATCHING THESE UNNATURAL MEN WHO RUN THE CHURCH

MARCH 25, 2020FROM ROME EDITORLEAVE A COMMENT

 GUEST EDITORIAL

by John Bronston

These are the days that have been foretold to us through Scripture, countless Saints, and numerous Marian apparitions. If we are not aware, it is because of our own ignorance and lack of desire to understand what our Faith is truly about. The Corona virus fear that has gripped the entire world is without a doubt a demonic plot to control the minds and hearts of the people of this world. But why is the Church and so many of the lay faithful going along with the world? We are not called to live as people in the world live. We are Christians and we are called to live as Christ lived.

We do not look to the world for answers or for hope in times of crisis. We should be picking up our rosary and bible and looking towards God for answers. If we aren’t doing that it means we are putting our faith in the world by absorbing the messages that are being given to us through the secular media, which is always atheistic and anti-God.  The world can not tell us anything that will help us save our souls. It despises us because we are followers of Christ. We know Satan is the ruler of this world and yet we look to the world for information. This is a classic example of insanity! The Father of Lies runs the world and we want to listen to him and his minions? No, we should open our bibles and let God speak to us here and now.

God’s word is alive and eternal. The Truth never changes and what was written 2,000 years ago under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (God) is full Truth. In fact, you will learn more about the reality of things today by reading that living word of God than you could ever learn through the news and media reports that come from the world every second of every day. It is sheer chaos and hysteria being spread by the world and the Devil. There is NO truth in them! We need to regain our senses and understand that God is in control of all things and figure out what His plan for us is in this current moment. He is not asking us to be afraid of a virus that can infect our bodies. He is more concerned with the spiritual virus, that is Sin, that is infecting our minds, hearts, souls and the Church!

This is all the more reason that we should not be accepting the closing of the masses by our Bishop(s)! If they had even an ounce of supernatural Faith they would not agree to go along with this diabolical agenda of the world and would resist until the point of death.  We the laity must protest this horrific abuse with all our might. We must write emails, plan protests, rally outside of our churches, depose unfaithful clergy, whatever it takes! It amazes me that so many Catholics on social media are celebrating this atrocity as a prudent decision by the Church. The Catholic Church is not what you think it is. It is not just the hierarchy who get to make decisions and the rest of us just blindly accept it even to our own eternal detriment. This is not using our God given intellect and will.

We do not follow faithless men. We, the Church of light who are called to be the salt of the earth for the rest of humanity, must retain our zeal! If we have lost that, then we are no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot (cf. Matthew 5:13-16).

I am sick to my stomach watching these unnatural men who run the Church telling us, the faithful, what we must do. They use your ignorance of the Faith and of your rights as Christians, to lie to get you to agree to things that no Christians in the history of the world would ever have agreed to.  The true Church does not take its marching orders from the State (Satan). It takes its orders from Christ and those who are in communion with Him. This means those who are in a state of Grace and who reside in the Truth.

We must despise all forms of lying in our own lives if we ever wish to be able to see the Truth as it clearly is. The sin of lying obstructs us from being able to see when others are lying to us. The current hierarchy of the Church is filled with immoral men who can lie with an unsettling ease that is impossible to detect unless you have trained your eyes and ears to only seek truth. Christ is the truth we must seek right now and always if we are ever going to be able to live as he has called us to live in this world.

Fear of God is the only respectable form of fear. If we are afraid, because the world has caused it in us, then we are not exhibiting true faith. If you tell me I cannot receive the most precious and holy Eucharist because of fear of contracting a cold virus then you are doing the devil’s work and you have cut yourself off from the true vine that gives life.  Please understand that your Church is being ripped away from you and if you’re ok watching mass on television and not receiving the most blessed Sacrament than I feel sorry for you. If this is not ok with you than let us, the militant Church, do something about it right now.

Stay away from people who are not followers of the Lord! Can someone who is good get along with someone who is evil? Are light and darkness the same? Is Christ a friend of Satan? Can people who follow the Lord have anything in common with those who don’t? Do idols belong in the temple of God? We are the temple of the living God (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).

​“Who’s going to save our Church? It’s not our bishops, it’s not our priests and it is not the religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes and the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that the priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and the religious act like religious.” – Archbishop Fulton Sheen

“Anyway, they are no more than false apostles and dishonest workers. They only pretend to be apostles of Christ. And it is no wonder. Even Satan tries to make himself look like an angel of light. So why does it seem strange for Satan’s servants to pretend to do what is right? Someday they will get exactly what they deserve.” 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

“For the shepherds are stupid, and do not inquire of the Lord; therefore they have not prospered, and all their flock is scattered.” Jeremiah 10:21

“It is an easy matter for many to be shut up in the hands of a few: and there is no difference in the sight of the God of heaven to deliver with a great multitude, or with a small company: For the success of war is not in the multitude of the army, but strength cometh from heaven. They come against us with an insolent multitude, and with pride, to destroy us, and our wives, and our children, and to take our spoils. But we will fight for our lives and our laws: And the Lord himself will overthrow them before our face: but as for you, fear them not.” 1 (Maccabees) 3:18-22

__________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a photo of Cardinals Kasper and the last Daneels, two prominent members of the St. Gallen Mafia, who promoted Bergoglio to supreme power. It is used here in accord with a Creative Commons Share-Alike 3.0 unported license, as described here.

+ + +

https://www.institute-christ-king.org/videostream

SPECIAL SERIES

How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World

Destruction of the Family

The Epoch Times here serializes “How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World,” a new book by the editorial team of the “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party.”

OPINION | A15

Stephen Gregory, Publisher
Jasper Fakkert, Editor-in-Chief Channaly Philipp, Life & Tradition, Travel Editor
Chrisy Trudeau, Mind & Body Editor Crystal Shi, Food Editor
Sharon Kilarski, Arts & Tradition Editor

ABOUT US

The Epoch Times is a media organization dedicated to seek- ing the truth through insightful and independent journalism.

Standing outside of politi-
cal interests and the pursuit of profit, our starting point and our goal is to create a media for the public benefit, to be truly respon- sible to society.

We endeavor to educate read- ers about today’s most impor- tant topics, seeking to broaden and uplift minds. We believe that rational, balanced debate is key for fostering a healthy democ- racy and a compassionate society.

As an independent media out- let, we use our freedom to inves- tigate issues overlooked—or avoided—by other media outlets. We seek to highlight solutions and what’s good in society rather than what divides us.

We report respectfully, compas- sionately, and rigorously.

We stand against the destruc- tion wrought by communism, including the harm done to cul- tures around the world.

We are inspired in this by our own experience. The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 to bring honest and uncensored news to people oppressed

by the lies and violence in communist China.

We still believe journalism is a noble vocation, but only when it genuinely seeks to serve its com- munities and help them to flour- ish. In all that we do, we will hold ourselves to the highest stand- ards of integrity. This is our promise to you.

CONTACT US

Epoch Times Inc.

229 W. 28th St., Fl. 7
New York, NY 10001 212-239-2808
Advertising advertise@epochtimes.nyc Subscriptions subscribe@epochtimes.com General Inquiries inquiries@epochtimes.com Letters to the Editor lettertoeditor@epochtimes.com

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Get the independent news you won’t find anywhere else.

Subscribe and get the insights only The Epoch Times can provide, delivered to your door every week.

ReadEpoch.com

917-905-2080

Chapter Seven

4. How Communism Destroys Families in the West

c. Promoting Homosexuality to Undermine the Family (cont.) Man and woman were created in divine likeness, and the divine laid out the conditions for human existence. Everyone deserves kindness and respect, and true compassion means upholding the divinely established moral codes.

In recent decades, same-sex marriage and other lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) causes have been aggressively promoted throughout Western society. By tying together LGBT rights and sexual liberation, and thereby normalizing promiscu- ity in general, communists have undermined the sanctity of mar- riage, setting the stage to further destroy the family. South Af- rica’s African National Congress (ANC), a member of the Socialist International, has consistently supported homosexuality. In 1997, it passed the world’s first constitution that recognized ho- mosexuality as a human right. Communism’s promotion of homosexuality has contributed to the growth of a number of un- healthy states that are prevalent in the LGBT community. Many studies confirm that homosexu- als have significantly higher rates of certain sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/AIDS), depression, suicide, and drug abuse than the general popula- tion, even in countries such as Denmark, where same-sex mar- riages have long been legal and destigmatized.

According to a 2012 study by researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of HIV among ho- mosexuals was between 38 and 75 times that of other men and women; syphilis was between

63 and 109 times more prevalent than in the normal popula-
tion. Before the breakthroughs in AIDS treatment made in the 1990s, the average lifespan of homosexuals was 8 to 20 years shorter than the average popula- tion. These facts do not suggest that homosexuality is healthy. The LGBT movement, sexual lib- eration, and feminism have put the family structure and human morality under siege.

d. Promoting Divorce
and Abortion
Before 1969, state laws across the United States on divorce were based on traditional religious values. In order for a divorce
to be considered, it required a legitimate claim of fault from one or both of the spouses. Western religions teach that marriage was established by God. A stable fam- ily is beneficial to the husband, wife, children, and society over- all. For this reason, the church and U.S. state laws all stressed the importance of preserving marriages, except in extenuating circumstances.

But in the 1960s, the ideology of

the Frankfurt School had radi- ated out to society. Traditional marriage came under attack, and the most damage was done by liberalism and feminism.

Liberalism rejects the divine nature of marriage by reducing its definition to a social contract between two people, while femi- nism views the traditional family as a patriarchal instrument in the suppression of women. Divorce was promoted as a woman’s liberation from the “oppression” of an unhappy marriage, or her path to a thrilling life of adven- ture. This mindset led to the legalization of no-fault divorce, allowing either spouse to disband a marriage as irreconcilable for any reason.

The U.S. divorce rate grew rapidly in the 1970s. For the first time in American history, more marriages were being ended not by death but by disagreements. Of all couples wed in the 1970s, nearly half would divorce.

Divorce has deep and long-last- ing effects on children. Michael Reagan, the adoptive son of the late President Ronald Reagan and his first wife, once said: “Divorce is where two adults take every- thing that matters to a child—the child’s home, family, security, and sense of being loved and protected—and they smash it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and leave the child to clean up the mess.”

In the 1960s, the ideology of the Frankfurt School had radiated out to society. Traditional marriage came under attack, and the most damage was done by liberalism and feminism.

Advocates of sexual liberation believe that sex should not be limited to the confines of mar- riage, but unwanted pregnancy presents a natural obstacle to this sort of lifestyle. Contraceptives may fail, so the promoters of un- restricted sex took up the cause of legalizing abortion. At the 1994 U.N. International Conference on Population and Develop- ment in Cairo, it was stipulated that “reproductive rights” are a natural human right, including the right to a “satisfying and safe sex life,” which covers abortion on demand.

At the same time, feminists introduced the slogan “My body, my rights” to argue that women have the right to choose whether to give birth to or kill their unborn children. The debate ex- panded from allowing abortion in special circumstances to giv- ing women the power to unilater- ally end human life.

By accepting abortion, people not only have been led to commit monstrous crimes against the unborn, but also have abandoned the traditional understanding that life is sacred.

e. Using the Welfare System
to Encourage Single-Parent Families
In 1965, just 5 percent of children were born to unwed mothers. At the time, it was taken for granted that children grew up knowing their biological fathers.

By the 2010s, however, unwed mothers accounted for 40 percent of births. From 1965 to 2012, the number of single-parent families in America shot up from 3.3 mil- lion to 13 million. Though some fathers stayed, through cohabita- tion or later marriage, the ma- jority of children born to these single mothers grew up without their fathers.

Fathers serve as role models
to their sons, teaching them
how to be men, and show their daughters what it feels like to
be respected in the way women deserve. Children suffer greatly from their absence. Research shows that children who grow
up without fathers often suffer from low self-esteem. They are more likely to drop out of school, abuse drugs, join gangs, commit crimes, and commit suicide. The majority of jailed youths come from fatherless homes. Early sexual experience, teen pregnan- cy, and promiscuity are common. People who grow up without their fathers are 40 times more likely to commit sex offenses compared with the rest of the population.

The Brookings Institute offered three key pieces of advice for young people looking to escape poverty: Graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and wait until age 21 to marry and have children. According to sta- tistics, only 2 percent of Ameri- cans who meet these conditions live in poverty, and 75 percent are considered middle class. In other words, completing one’s education, finding employment, marrying at a suitable age, and having children in the confines of marriage is the most reliable way to become a responsible adult liv- ing a healthy, productive life.

Most single mothers rely on government charity. A report published by The Heritage Foun- dation used detailed statistical data to show that the welfare policy so strongly advocated by feminists actually encourages the creation of single-mother households, even to the point of penalizing couples who marry, as they receive fewer benefits. The government has effectively replaced the father with welfare.

Welfare policies have not helped families living in pov- erty. Instead, they have simply supported the ever-increasing number of single-parent families. With the children of such house- holds themselves prone to pov- erty, the result is a vicious cycle of expanding reliance on state aid. This is exactly what communism aims to achieve: control over every aspect of the individual’s life through high taxation and omnipresent government.

See next edition for the next installment.

Crisis MagazineA Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity

MARCH 25, 2020

‘Answer Quickly, O Virgin’

FR. PETER M. STRAVINSKAS

On this solemnity which celebrates the high-water point in the history of salvation, permit me to explore with you three Latin expressions.

The first is, verbum caro factum est: “The Word became flesh.” We find this line, of course, in the Prologue to St. John’s Gospel, and the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that Jesus is God’s last and definitive Word—a word spoken in the flesh. The doctrine of the Incarnation is the central teaching of Christianity, however, if one were to survey Catholics leaving churches on Sunday mornings by asking, “When did the salvation of the world occur?” the vast majority would give the Protestant answer by saying, “Calvary”. And they would be wrong, as are Fundamentalists and many other Protestants today, because our salvation began at the Annunciation when “Verbum caro factum est.” Indeed, the whole Christ-event is salvific: From His conception in the womb of His holy Mother to His ascension to His heavenly Father’s right hand. We are saved by the flesh, the Body of Christ. As we heard to today’s Second Reading, “a body you have prepared for me.” Here we come to the second:

Caro cardo salutis—”The flesh is the hinge of salvation,” as Tertullian informs us. What saved the world once continues to do so. The body is good because it was created by God and even more clearly so since the divine plan made it the very means of our redemption. Because of that, the body—and all material reality—takes on even greater significance. The Father made it good, indeed, very good. And Jesus His Son made it holy. Hence, all that has been redeemed— the entire universe—can be marshaled into the on-going work of redemption. A “catholic” instinct, if you will, then, explains our use of water, bread, wine, oil, and natural things to lead us to experience the supernatural. Similarly, man’s creative genius, especially in the arts, gives us access to the holy. So,

Thirdly, in the Creed, we profess our faith in the communio sanctorum, usually translated as the “communion of saints,” but that is only one meaning. The Latin phrase is deliberately multivalent, like any good symbol. So, it means “communion of saints,” yes, but also “communion in holy things”—that is, the sacraments. In other words, our membership in the mystical Body of Christ on earth—the communio sanctorum—is initiated, sustained and brought to completion by that communio sanctorum which is the Church’s sacramental life. And that leads to the consummation of it all in the communio sanctorum which is a participation in the beatific vision for all eternity. That participation will still be embodied/incarnate participation. Remember: Our Lord and Our Lady presently have bodies—glorified bodies—in heaven, and so will we. Therefore, the mystery of the Incarnation continues into eternity. 

What are some attitudes we should form as a result of these truths of faith?

Firstly, Catholics are not Gnostics or Manichaeans or Albigensians or Jansenists who, in various times and places, have made it the heart of their religious convictions to despise the human body. We realize the profound insight of the glorious Te Deum which charmingly almost reminds the Son, Non horruisti Virginis uterum: “Thou didst not disdain the Virgin’s womb.” The Eternal Word of the Father took His flesh from that of the Blessed Virgin Mary, thereby declaring all flesh sacred. At the same time, we are not libertines who do what we please with our bodies. We cannot forget that our bodies are just what St. Paul said they are, “temples of the Holy Spirit,” bodies destined for eternal glory. Abuse of the body, then, spits in the face of the Incarnate Word, putting the lie to our theological conviction.

Catholics are not Puritans, either sexually or artistically or sacramentally. If the material universe has been brought into the great dialogue of redemption, everything human must form a part of that dialogue. The old pagan Roman poet Terence understood this in a very Christian way when he asserted, Nil humanum mihi alienum est: “Nothing human is foreign to me.” Because the Puritans had a truncated appreciation for the mystery of the Incarnation, they were terrified of that part of man which is so bodily and so human—sexuality. But true Christians are proud and happy to share in the inheritance of the Song of Songs, which celebrates human love in the covenant of marriage, as Pope John Paul II never tired of teaching the Universal Church for nearly three decades. Nor are true believers in the Incarnation skittish about harnessing man’s creative energies to produce beautiful art, music and architecture to adore the God of all beauty and to help raise our minds and hearts to Him, Who gave such magnificent talents to human beings. And, most especially, Christians recall that when Jesus worked His wonders, He did not hesitate to use even spittle to heal; how much more, then, should we value those works of creation to which He has assigned a saving meaning in His Church—the sacraments, those signs that creation is graced by the Triune God and the promises that our participation in them graces us, too.

As we think back on how the greatest event in human history occurred, we stand in awe of the fact that the omnipotent God wanted and awaited human cooperation. God the Father made His plan for our salvation contingent on a human being’s saying “yes”. And so, Our Lady stands as a constant reminder of the great things that can happen when the human person cooperates with the divine initiative. But what she did and what God did through her was not a kind of one-day sale; the Lord intends that this happen in the life of every believer. As St. Augustine put it so powerfully, “the God Who created you without you will not save you without you.” Our participation is crucial for our salvation. We don’t buy into that Reformation notion of “imputed righteousness,” which holds that God “makes us right,” even though we really aren’t. No, God makes us right because we want to be right, because we respond to His grace to become right, and therefore, do in fact become right in His sight. The Mother of the Word Incarnate is our model in this endeavor, but also our faithful intercessor before the throne of her Divine Son.

We also learn how to cooperate with the Lord from the Church, which is—as Sacred Scripture teaches—both Christ’s Bride and our Mother. Holy Church, like Holy Mary, always says “yes” to her Bridegroom; good children always follow their Mother’s good example.

Last but not least, today’s solemnity etches into our consciousness an indefatigable awareness of the sanctity of human life—from conception to natural death. God began the work of our redemption at the very moment when the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Virgin Mary as the Eternal Word began His life on earth in her womb, “pitching His tent among us,” as St. John poetically has it. This fact of life and faith makes Christians a people of life, ready to promote the cause of life at every turn and equally ready to do battle with a culture of death. Those who want to kill babies in their mothers’ wombs and those who want to kill the sick and the elderly cannot know the meaning of the Incarnation and cannot hope to benefit from its saving effects.

Today’s celebration, then, stands at the center of the drama of salvation: Without today, no cross and resurrection; without today, no Church or sacraments; without today, no eternal life on high with God. In a marvelous even if fanciful recreation of the Angel’s visit to Our Lady, St. Bernard of Clairvaux caught the essence of what was really at stake on that first Annunciation Day: The whole of creation was waiting to be redeemed, hanging on the response of the Virgin of Nazareth. He says:

You have heard, O Virgin, that you will conceive and bear a son; you have heard that it will not be by man but by the Holy Spirit. The angel awaits an answer; it is time for him to return to God Who sent him. We too are waiting, O Lady, for your word of compassion; the sentence of condemnation weighs heavily upon us.

The price of our salvation is offered to you. We shall be set free at once if you consent. In the eternal Word of God we all came to be, and behold, we die. In your brief response, we are to be remade in order to be recalled to life.

Tearful Adam with his sorrowing family begs this of you, O loving Virgin, in their exile from Paradise. Abraham begs it, David begs it. All the other holy patriarchs, your ancestors, ask it of you, as they dwell in the country of the shadow of death. That is what the whole earth waits for, prostrate at your feet. It is right in doing so, for on your word depends comfort for the wretched, ransom for the captive, freedom for the condemned, indeed, salvation for all the sons of Adam, the whole of your race.

Answer quickly, O Virgin. Reply in haste to the Angel, or rather through the Angel to the Lord. Answer with a word, receive the Word of God. Speak your own word, conceive the divine Word. Breathe a passing word, embrace the eternal Word.

Then St. Bernard speaks even more urgently: “Arise, hasten, open. Arise in faith, hasten in devotion, open in praise and thanksgiving.” That same encouragement is given to each of us as well—to be true sons and daughters of the woman who enabled God to become Man. She said, Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum: “Let it be done to me according to Thy word.” With what result? Verbum caro factum est: the Word became flesh.

If we take seriously this foundational doctrine of our holy Faith—as we must—and live its implications to the full, we can do no less than to echo our Mother’s response of loving cooperation: “Let it be done to me according to thy word.” And the mystery of the Incarnation is repeated all over again in our lives and in our world.

Image: Aix Annunciation attributed to Barthélemy d’Eyck

Tagged as Annunciation of Mary30

By Fr. Peter M. Stravinskas

Fr. Peter M. Stravinskas is the founder and superior of the Priestly Society of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. He is also president of the Catholic Education Foundation and editor of The Catholic Response.