Catholic Sensibility

These sections were expanded considerably from 1975′s GIRM 56 & 108-109. For ease of reference, I colored sections new to 2000 in red:

147. Then the Priest begins the Eucharistic Prayer. In accordance with the rubrics (cf. no. 365), he selects a Eucharistic Prayer from those found in the Roman Missal or approved by the Apostolic See. By its very nature, the Eucharistic Prayer requires that only the Priest say it, in virtue of his Ordination. The people, for their part, should associate themselves with the Priest in faith and in silence, as well as by means of their interventions as prescribed in the course of the Eucharistic Prayer: namely, the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy), the acclamation after the Consecration, the acclamation Amen after the concluding doxology, as well as other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See.

It is most appropriate that the Priest sing those parts of the Eucharistic Prayer for which musical notation is provided.

148. As he begins the Eucharistic Prayer, the Priest extends his hands and sings or says, The Lord be with you. The people reply, And with your spirit. As he continues, saying, Lift up your hearts, he raises his hands. The people reply, We lift them up to the Lord. Then the Priest, with hands extended, adds, Let us give thanks to the Lord our God, and the people reply, It is right and just. After this, the Priest, with hands extended, continues the Preface. At its conclusion, he joins his hands and, together with all those present, sings or says aloud the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) (cf. no. 79 b).

149. The Priest continues the Eucharistic Prayer in accordance with the rubrics that are set out in each of the Prayers.

If the celebrant is a Bishop, in the Prayers, after the words N., our Pope, he adds, and me, your unworthy servant. If, however, the Bishop is celebrating outside his own diocese, after the words with . . . N., our Pope, he adds, my brother N., the Bishop of this Church, and me, your unworthy servant; or after the words especially . . . N., our Pope, he adds, my brother N., the Bishop of this Church, and me, your unworthy servant.

The Diocesan Bishop, or one who is equivalent to the Diocesan Bishop in law, must be mentioned by means of this formula: together with your servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop (or Vicar, Prelate, Prefect, Abbot).

It is permitted to mention Coadjutor Bishop and Auxiliary Bishops in the Eucharistic Prayer, but not other Bishops who happen to be present. When several are to be mentioned, this is done with the collective formula: N., our Bishop and his assistant Bishops.

In each of the Eucharistic Prayers, these formulas are to be adapted according to the requirements of grammar.

150. A little before the Consecration, if appropriate, a minister rings a small bell as a signal to the faithful. The minister also rings the small bell at each elevation by the Priest, according to local custom.

If incense is being used, when the host and the chalice are shown to the people after the Consecration, a minister incenses them.

151. After the Consecration when the Priest has said, The mystery of faith, the people pronounce the acclamation, using one of the prescribed formulas.

At the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, the Priest takes the paten with the host and the chalice and elevates them both while pronouncing alone the doxology Through him. At the end the people acclaim, Amen. After this, the Priest places the paten and the chalice on the corporal.

You can see the intent was to tighten up some loose spots and address issues perceived to be a problem just before 2000, such as the use of unauthorized prayers or acclamations. And handling the name(s) of bishops, too. Anybody see anything of particular note?

When most of the people had left the staff Christmas party last night, our host cracked out last year’s well-regarded The Adjustment Bureau.

I thought it started off pretty well. One fantasy/science fiction premise from Philip K. Dick is nicely developed: a mysterious team “adjusts” things when the world is close to going off the plan. So far so good: the key to great science fiction or fantasy is to find a good twist and ride it for all its worth. What’s the plan? Who knows, but I can be patient for it to get sorted out. I thought this movie rode fast and hard for the first hour.

The adjusters struck me as interfering aliens who seem menacing at first, but clue in David (Matt Damon) and convince him to go along with their plan. Nice twist, I thought. No merciless bad guys. clone of The Matrix. He plays along, but he’s still on the lookout for the beautiful, tart, and intriguing Elise (Emily Blunt). These two shouldn’t get together, according to the bureau, but we don’t know why. I was looking forward to finding out. This romance seems a good and inspiring thing for a politician and a modern art dancer.

I thought the film ran off the rails in the final third. When David presses too much, he’s told that Elise will end up teaching six-year-olds instead of being a world-renowned dancer. The bureau “adjusts” with setting her up for a sprained ankle during a performance. We’re then expected to believe that David goes with the plan for almost a year till he sees a wedding announcement. These dudes sprain his girlfriend’s ankle, and they’re not capable of lying? Too much glad-handing with corporations: this guy is way too trusting. Then suddenly he goes rogue, snatches up Elise minutes before her appearance before a judge and leads the mysterious men in black on a chase through a series of “doorways” that open into different places in New York.

I was fine with the happy ending for the romance. All couples in love should end up together in the end.

I was less okay with how the filmmakers got there. This is a weaker movie than The Lake House because it takes a second f/sf to resolve the story–the mysterious doors. Third, if you count the layered notion that water impedes the aliens’ ability to communicate and manipulate events. The doors are a cool idea, but two or three ideas to resolve one narrative dilemma is lazy writing.

Elise”s best destiny is not teaching children how to dance? When they were setting up this conundrum in the film, I thought, “Cool. One of her students will become the world-renowned artist.” But no. According to the filmmakers, individual personal destiny/stardom/the cult of celebrity wins out over a selfless good.

One of the movie characters (I forget who) suggests the agents are like angels. And they wonder if the “chairman” is God. I prefer the interpretation of interfering aliens. God doesn’t send angels to prevent love’s fruition and manipulate life. Authentic love enriches people who are near the lovers. My pastor frequently preaches at weddings that sacramental marriage reveals God’s love, and that a graced marriage draws and welcomes people: children, guests, friends, the poor.

To be a great film, this one needed some adjustments. I agree with Roger Ebert that this is …

a smart and good movie that could have been a great one if it had a little more daring. I suspect the filmmakers were reluctant to follow its implications too far. What David and Elise signify by their adventures, I think, is that we’re all in this together, and we’re all on our own. If you follow that through, the implications are treacherous to some, not all, religions. In the short term, however, the movie is a sorta heartwarming entertainment.

Mr Ebert’s three stars are generous. I would say 2 1/2. It’s sorta good science fiction. If it’s meant to touch on religion, it misses sacramental Christianity by a mile. The adjusters, if they’re really out for humanity’s better interests, should be spending time thwarting drug deals and wars and corporate raids.

Under the notion of history, we have Biblical catechesis, doctrinal catechesis, and sacramental mystagogy. Perhaps you can help me shed some light on the last point, which seems to suggest the discernment of God’s revelation in the experiences of life.

108. The historical character of the Christian message requires that catechesis attend to the following points:

– presentation of salvation history by means of Biblical catechesis so as to make known the “deeds and the words” with which God has revealed himself to man: the great stages of the Old Testament by which he prepared the journey of the Gospel; (359) the life of Jesus, Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary who by his actions and teaching brought Revelation to completion; (Cf. Dei Verbum 4) the history of the Church which transmits Revelation: this history, read within the perspective of faith, is a fundamental part of the content of catechesis;

– in explaining the Creed and the content of Christian morality by means of doctrinal catechesis, the Gospel message should illuminate the ‘today’ of the history of salvation; indeed, “…in this way the ministry of the Word not only recalls the revelation of God’s wonders which was made in time…but at the same time, in the light of this revelation, interprets human life in our age, the signs of the times, and the things of this world, for the plan of God works in these for the salvation of men”; (General Catechetical Directory 11)

– it should situate the sacraments within the history of salvation by means of a mystagogy which “…re-lives the great events of salvation history in the ‘today’ of her liturgy”; (Catechism 1095. Cf. Catechism 1075; 1116; 129-130 and 1093-1094) reference to the historico-salvific ‘today’ is essential to such catechesis, and thus helps catechumens and those to be catechized “to open themselves to this ‘spiritual’ understanding of the economy of Salvation…”; (363)

– the “deeds and words” of Revelation point to the “mystery contained in them”; (Dei Verbum 2) catechesis helps to make the passage from sign to mystery; it leads to the discovery of the mystery of the Son of God behind his humanity; behind the history of the Church, it uncovers the mystery of her being the “sacrament of salvation;” behind the “signs of the times”, it encounters the traces of God’s presence and plan: catechesis, thus, shall exhibit that knowledge which is typical of faith, which “is knowledge through signs”. (General Catechetical Directory (1971) 72; cf. Catechism 39-43)

(359) Catechism 54-64. At this point the catechism deals with the most important phases of revelation and in them the idea of Covenant is a key concept. These texts are a fundamental reference for biblical catechesis. Cf. Catechism 1081 and 1093.

(363) Catechism 1095. Catechism 1075 indicates the inductive nature of this “mystagogical catechesis” since it proceeds “from the visible to the invisible, from the sign to the thing signified, from the ‘sacraments’ to the ‘mysteries’”.