Op-Ed Contributor - Latin Mass Appeal - NYTimes.com

A friend of mine pointed this article out to me. I thought it was worth sharing:

WALKING into church 40 years ago on this first Sunday of Advent, many Roman Catholics might have wondered where they were. The priest not only spoke English rather than Latin, but he faced the congregation instead of the tabernacle; laymen took on duties previously reserved for priests; folk music filled the air. The great changes of Vatican II had hit home.

All this was a radical break from the traditional Latin Mass, codified in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. For centuries, that Mass served as a structured sacrifice with directives, called “rubrics,” that were not optional. This is how it is done, said the book. As recently as 1947, Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical on liturgy that scoffed at modernization; he said that the idea of changes to the traditional Latin Mass “pained” him “grievously.”

Paradoxically, however, it was Pius himself who was largely responsible for the momentous changes of 1969. It was he who appointed the chief architect of the new Mass, Annibale Bugnini, to the Vatican’s liturgical commission in 1948.

Bugnini was born in 1912 and ordained a Vincentian priest in 1936. Though Bugnini had barely a decade of parish work, Pius XII made him secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform. In the 1950s, Bugnini led a major revision of the liturgies of Holy Week. As a result, on Good Friday of 1955, congregations for the first time joined the priest in reciting the Pater Noster, and the priest faced the congregation for some of the liturgy.

The next pope, John XXIII, named Bugnini secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy of Vatican II, in which position he worked with Catholic clergymen and, surprisingly, some Protestant ministers on liturgical reforms. In 1962 he wrote what would eventually become the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the document that gave the form of the new Mass.

Many of Bugnini’s reforms were aimed at appeasing non-Catholics, and changes emulating Protestant services were made, including placing altars to face the people instead of a sacrifice toward the liturgical east. As he put it, “We must strip from our ... Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (Paradoxically, the Anglicans who will join the Catholic Church as a result of the current pope’s outreach will use a liturgy that often features the priest facing in the same direction as the congregation.)

How was Bugnini able to make such sweeping changes? In part because none of the popes he served were liturgists. Bugnini changed so many things that John’s successor, Paul VI, sometimes did not know the latest directives. The pope once questioned the vestments set out for him by his staff, saying they were the wrong color, only to be told he had eliminated the week-long celebration of Pentecost and could not wear the corresponding red garments for Mass. The pope’s master of ceremonies then witnessed Paul VI break down in tears.

Bugnini fell from grace in the 1970s. Rumors spread in the Italian press that he was a Freemason, which if true would have merited excommunication. The Vatican never denied the claims, and in 1976 Bugnini, by then an archbishop, was exiled to a ceremonial post in Iran. He died, largely forgotten, in 1982.

But his legacy lived on. Pope John Paul II continued the liberalizations of Mass, allowing females to serve in place of altar boys and to permit unordained men and women to distribute communion in the hands of standing recipients. Even conservative organizations like Opus Dei adopted the liberal liturgical reforms.

But Bugnini may have finally met his match in Benedict XVI, a noted liturgist himself who is no fan of the past 40 years of change. Chanting Latin, wearing antique vestments and distributing communion only on the tongues (rather than into the hands) of kneeling Catholics, Benedict has slowly reversed the innovations of his predecessors. And the Latin Mass is back, at least on a limited basis, in places like Arlington, Va., where one in five parishes offer the old liturgy.

Benedict understands that his younger priests and seminarians — most born after Vatican II — are helping lead a counterrevolution. They value the beauty of the solemn high Mass and its accompanying chant, incense and ceremony. Priests in cassocks and sisters in habits are again common; traditionalist societies like the Institute of Christ the King are expanding.

At the beginning of this decade, Benedict (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) wrote: “The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.” He was right: 40 years of the new Mass have brought chaos and banality into the most visible and outward sign of the church. Benedict XVI wants a return to order and meaning. So, it seems, does the next generation of Catholics.

Kenneth J. Wolfe writes frequently for traditionalist Roman Catholic publications.

Op-Ed Contributor - Latin Mass Appeal - NYTimes.com

HABEMUS MONSIGNORUM!!!!!

(Top pic.: Crest of Archbishop Eusebius Beltran)
(Bottom pic.: organ in Our Lady's Cathedral, OKC)

After a 60+ year drought, I am proud to announce that the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City has a monsignor!!! Father Edward J. Weisenburger has been given the title of "Prelate of Honor to His Holiness" by Pope Benedict XVI. Now-Monsignor Weisenburger's investiture ceremony will be December 30th at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Cathedral in Oklahoma City.

Oh, and by the way, he's my pastor!!!!!

I Hate Mornings...

No matter how many times I get up early, I hate doing it... It doesn't matter if I go to bed early or late, its always difficult for me to get out of bed and meet the day. Somehow I do it, though... kicking and cursing the whole way...

The History of Anglican-Catholic Reunion

I thought this was interesting...

This offer was 400 years in the making
Fr Michael Rear says that new provisions for the reception of Anglicans should not surprise those who are familiar with English history

6 November 2009

Pope Paul VI presents a mounted 13th-century fresco of Christ to Dr Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, on March 23 1966 at the Vatican (AP Photo) Years before Pope Pius V excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I, and absolved the people of England from their allegiance to her (at a stroke turning Catholics into traitors), years before the threat of a Catholic invasion and plots to unseat her, Pope Pius IV had invited the Queen to send Anglican bishops to the Council of Trent, and, it was rumoured, was willing to approve the use of the Book of Common Prayer in the English Church.

The next initiative came not from Rome but from King James I, who wrote to Pope Pius V offering to recognise his spiritual supremacy and reunite the English Church to Rome, if only the Pope would disclaim political sovereignty over kings. The offer was rejected. Too late would a new pope, Urban III, succeed to the papacy two years before James died, and declare: "We know that we may declare Protestants excommunicated, as Pius V declared Queen Elizabeth of England, and before him Clement VII the King of England, Henry VIII... But with what success? The whole world can tell. We yet bewail it in terms of blood. Wisdom does not teach us to imitate Pius V or Clement VII."

Hopes ran high under Urban VIII. Archbishop Laud of Canterbury mentions in his journal that on the very day he was appointed he was seriously offered the dignity of being a cardinal. Nothing more is known of this mysterious offer, but soon a Benedictine monk, Dom Leander, was sent to England by the pope to report on the English Church. Dom Leander, a close friend of Archbishop Laud from their student days, had been expelled on suspicion of being a Catholic from St John's College, Oxford, where they had shared a room.

Dom Leander made extensive contact with Anglican bishops and his report was optimistic and lengthy.

"In the greater number of the articles of the faith the English Protestants are truly orthodox... they contend they have been treated unworthily as heretics and schismatic; that greater differences than theirs were tolerated by the Council of Florence; and that the importance of Great Britain and its dependencies renders it an object of as much importance to reconcile her to the Roman Church, and as much worthwhile to call a special council for the purpose, as it could have been to obtain the reconciliation of the Greeks." But he did note that the Puritans were very numerous and fierce. Dom Leander suggested a way of reconciling "moderate Papists and moderate Protestants". This was by allowing:

1) Communion under both kinds;
2) Marriage of the clergy;
3) Liturgy in English;
4) The admittance of English Protestant clergy to benefices (coming to agree in points of faith) either by re-ordination sub conditione, or by way of commenda;
5) To allow Roman Catholics to take the Oath of Allegiance to the monarch.

The plan hotted up. Gregory Panzani was sent as an agent and spent two years in England in detailed discussion with the King and others in Church and state. Opposition to unity, he noted, came from Jesuits and Puritans. Most Anglican bishops were in favour of unity. Some, particularly the Bishops of Gloucester and Chichester (nothing changes) were very keen, and only the bishops of Durham, Salisbury and Exeter "were violently bent against the See of Rome". But like Leander, he spoke warily about the rising power of the Puritans. The Civil War broke out. King Charles was beheaded, going to the scaffold declaring: "I die in the Christian Faith, according to the profession of the Church of England." Archbishop Laud was impeached for corresponding with Rome and treating with the pope's men in England, and he too was beheaded.

And for the next 15 years there was no Anglican Church. All the bishops were banished, imprisoned or fled. Priests lost their parishes. The Book of Common Prayer was banned. Presbyterianism became the new religion.

The restoration of the monarchy under Charles II restored the church. Enough exiled bishops were alive to consecrate new ones. The king opened Parliament calling for religious toleration and the repeal of laws against Catholics, but the House rejected his proposals and actually increased the discriminatory legislation. Nonetheless, it was in the reign of Charles II that what amounted to a Uniate Church was proposed:

1) The Archbishop of Canterbury to be designated Patriarch, responsible for governing the Church in the three realms, except a few rights reserved to Rome;
2) A Roman Legate, a native Englishman, to reside in England to exercise the rights reserved to the pope;
3) Existing archbishops, bishops and clergy to remain in office if they accept Catholic ordination;
4) An annual General Synod to be convened;
5) The King to nominate bishops;
6) Complete religious freedom for Protestants;
7) Priests and bishops could be married, though celibacy would be introduced later;
8) The Eucharist in two kinds for those who wish;
9) Mass in Latin, with English hymns;
10) A Catholic catechism based on Scripture to be published;
11) Some religious orders to be restored;
12) The most disputed questions, like the infallibility the Pope and his right to depose monarchs, not to be discussed either in the pulpit of in writings, though Catholic preachers could dispute with Protestants, providing they avoided the narration of miracles or speaking of a material purgatory.

Nothing happened. The Protestants were far too powerful. But as the centuries went by the vision of unity was kept alive by many individuals. The 1833 Oxford Movement of Newman, Pusey and Keble gave it fresh impetus. The Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom was formed in 1838. At the first Lambeth Conference, in 1867, the Bishop of Salisbury presented a petition signed by more than 1,000 clergy and 4,500 laity urging the Anglican bishops to end the long separation of their church from Rome.

The Catholic League was formed to promote reunion. Many do not know this, but the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity began in 1908 as an Anglican initiative to promote unity between Anglicans and Catholics; only from 1936 was it decided, under the influence of a French priest, Abbé Paul Couturier, to widen its scope to embrace all Christians.

After the Appeal for Christian Unity at the 1920 Lambeth Conference, Cardinal Mercier of Belgium and Lord Halifax gathered a group of theologians into what became known as the Malines Conversations, producing a plan for a Uniate Church similar to that proposed in the reign of Charles II. The talks ended when the Archbishop of York visited the Pope, the first Anglican archbishop to visit the Pope, and explained that Lord Halifax had no official standing.

It was not until the Second Vatican Council that the time became more auspicious, and through the visit of Archbishop Michael Ramsey to Pope Paul VI in 1996, the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC)_was created "to work for the restoration of complete communion of faith and sacramental life". Archbishop Ramsey had already indicated what form he thought it might take.

Building on the plans of past centuries he suggested: "Unity could take the form of the Anglican Communion being in communion with Rome, having sufficient dogmatic agreement with Rome, accepting the Pope as the presiding bishop of all Christians, but being allowed to have their own liturgy and married clergy and a great deal of existing Anglican customs; that is to say, it would be in a position rather like the Eastern Uniate Churches in relation to the see of Rome."

Bishop Butler in 1970 picked up the old idea of the Archbishop of Canterbury becoming a Patriarch of the English Rite "with its own bishops, liturgy and theological tradition". Later the same year Pope Paul VI stressed there would be no seeking to lessen the prestige and usage proper to the Anglican Church, which he called a sister church. He returned to the theme, assuring Archbishop Coggan in 1977: "these words of hope 'The Anglican Church united not absorbed' are no longer a mere dream".

To suggest now, as some have done, that Pope Benedict is seeking to undermine the Anglican Church is unfair and untrue. He has not undermined it; it has undermined itself. Strictly speaking, there is now no such thing as the Anglican Communion. It would be more accurate to call it a Federation of Anglican Communions, for there are several groupings, which are no longer in communion with each other or with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Cardinal Kasper addressed the Anglican bishops at Lambeth, pointing out the difficulty this presents. " In several contexts, bishops are not in communion with other bishops; in some instances, Anglican provinces are no longer in full communion with each other." How can the Catholic Church maintain a dialogue for organic unity with an Anglican Communion so divided in itself? The ARCIC conversations were inevitably downgraded to cooperation and friendship, but are still most important for all that, and more so now when relations are under strain.

For there are very large numbers of Anglicans, like the allegedly 400,000 Anglicans of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and others no longer in communion with their diocesan bishops, who have separate "episcopal visitors". Many of these have earnestly requested Rome to complete the ARCIC process with them. This put Rome on the spot. Cardinal Kasper referred to the dilemma at the Lambeth Conference in 2008.

He asked: "Should we, and how can we, appropriately and honestly engage in conversations also with those who share Catholic perspectives on the points currently in dispute, and who disagree with some developments within the Anglican Communion or particular Anglican provinces?" Not an easy question to answer.

What would the Anglican Church do if 400,000 Methodists asked to come into the Church of England while being allowed to keep their distinctive traditions? My guess is that it would be churlish to refuse, and they would be warmly welcomed, despite the possible risks. Rome has drawn from the precedents of history, and this favourable response is neither a novelty nor a surprise.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000491.shtml

A Recent Musing

Tonight I had the opportunity to go to a performance of Mozart's Die Zauberflöte, at Indiana University in Bloomington, IN. I went with a Diocesan brother, and we really had a wonderful time. As we sat waiting for the opera to begin, I began thinking about roads not taken in my life. I thought to myself, “Ya know, I’d probably be doing this sort of thing right now if I hadn’t gone to seminary,” and “boy, I miss getting to perform like this.”

The opera began, and as the overture was being played, my attention was riveted by the conductor. I’ve always had a thing for conductors; they are the ones in control; they are the organizational masterminds. Though this may be the outward appearance, in reality it is up to the conductor to sacrifice himself, in personal practice and painstaking work with the ensemble, to bring into focus the desired effect of the composer: music.

In the life of the Church, is not the priest a type of conductor? Does he not strive for perfection within himself so that he may endeavor to impart to the Church what the Divine Composer has wrought?

I left the opera confident in my decision of vocation. Deo Gratias.

TheEucharist -- Fr. John Riccardo

Fr. John Riccardo is past or of Our Lady of Good Counsel in Plymouth, Michigan.

I would like to draw your attention to the last 10 minutes or so of this podcast. He discusses Communion in the hand verses on the tongue. I found this entire podcast to be very insightful. Enjoy!

C4CC-TheEucharist.m4a (audio/x-m4a Object)

Fr. Guy Mansini: Mary and Issues of Ecclesiology

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS

In recent times the Holy Spirit has moved groups of Anglicans to petition repeatedly and insistently to be received into full Catholic communion individually as well as corporately. The Apostolic See has responded favorably to such petitions. Indeed, the successor of Peter, mandated by the Lord Jesus to guarantee the unity of the episcopate and to preside over and safeguard the universal communion of all the Churches,1 could not fail to make available the means necessary to bring this holy desire to realization.

The Church, a people gathered into the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,2 was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, as "a sacrament – a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all people."3 Every division among the baptized in Jesus Christ wounds that which the Church is and that for which the Church exists; in fact, "such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages that most holy cause, the preaching the Gospel to every creature."4 Precisely for this reason, before shedding his blood for the salvation of the world, the Lord Jesus prayed to the Father for the unity of his disciples.5

It is the Holy Spirit, the principle of unity, which establishes the Church as a communion.6 He is the principle of the unity of the faithful in the teaching of the Apostles, in the breaking of the bread and in prayer.7 The Church, however, analogous to the mystery of the Incarnate Word, is not only an invisible spiritual communion, but is also visible;8 in fact, "the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, the visible society and the spiritual community, the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches, are not to be thought of as two realities. On the contrary, they form one complex reality formed from a two-fold element, human and divine."9 The communion of the baptized in the teaching of the Apostles and in the breaking of the eucharistic bread is visibly manifested in the bonds of the profession of the faith in its entirety, of the celebration of all of the sacraments instituted by Christ, and of the governance of the College of Bishops united with its head, the Roman Pontiff.10

This single Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic "subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside her visible confines. Since these are gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity."11

In the light of these ecclesiological principles, this Apostolic Constitution provides the general normative structure for regulating the institution and life of Personal Ordinariates for those Anglican faithful who desire to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church in a corporate manner. This Constitution is completed by Complementary Norms issued by the Apostolic See.

I. §1 Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church are erected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference.

§2 Within the territory of a particular Conference of Bishops, one or more Ordinariates may be erected as needed.

§3 Each Ordinariate possesses public juridic personality by the law itself (ipso iure); it is juridically comparable to a diocese.12

§4 The Ordinariate is composed of lay faithful, clerics and members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, originally belonging to the Anglican Communion and now in full communion with the Catholic Church, or those who receive the Sacraments of Initiation within the jurisdiction of the Ordinariate.

§5 The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate.

II. The Personal Ordinariate is governed according to the norms of universal law and the present Apostolic Constitution and is subject to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the other Dicasteries of the Roman Curia in accordance with their competencies. It is also governed by the Complementary Norms as well as any other specific Norms given for each Ordinariate.

III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

IV. A Personal Ordinariate is entrusted to the pastoral care of an Ordinary appointed by the Roman Pontiff.

V. The power (potestas) of the Ordinary is:

a. ordinary: connected by the law itself to the office entrusted to him by the Roman Pontiff, for both the internal forum and external forum;

b. vicarious: exercised in the name of the Roman Pontiff;

c. personal: exercised over all who belong to the Ordinariate;

This power is to be exercised jointly with that of the local Diocesan Bishop, in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms.

VI. §1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law13 and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments14 may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 4215 and in the Statement In June16 are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.

§2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

§3. Incardination of clerics will be regulated according to the norms of canon law.

§4. Priests incardinated into an Ordinariate, who constitute the presbyterate of the Ordinariate, are also to cultivate bonds of unity with the presbyterate of the Diocese in which they exercise their ministry. They should promote common pastoral and charitable initiatives and activities, which can be the object of agreements between the Ordinary and the local Diocesan Bishop.

§5. Candidates for Holy Orders in an Ordinariate should be prepared alongside other seminarians, especially in the areas of doctrinal and pastoral formation. In order to address the particular needs of seminarians of the Ordinariate and formation in Anglican patrimony, the Ordinary may also establish seminary programs or houses of formation which would relate to existing Catholic faculties of theology.

VII. The Ordinary, with the approval of the Holy See, can erect new Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, with the right to call their members to Holy Orders, according to the norms of canon law. Institutes of Consecrated Life originating in the Anglican Communion and entering into full communion with the Catholic Church may also be placed under his jurisdiction by mutual consent.

VIII. §1. The Ordinary, according to the norm of law, after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect, with the consent of the Holy See, personal parishes for the faithful who belong to the Ordinariate.

§2. Pastors of the Ordinariate enjoy all the rights and are held to all the obligations established in the Code of Canon Law and, in cases established by the Complementary Norms, such rights and obligations are to be exercised in mutual pastoral assistance together with the pastors of the local Diocese where the personal parish of the Ordinariate has been established.

IX. Both the lay faithful as well as members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, originally part of the Anglican Communion, who wish to enter the Personal Ordinariate, must manifest this desire in writing.

X. §1. The Ordinary is aided in his governance by a Governing Council with its own statutes approved by the Ordinary and confirmed by the Holy See.17

§2. The Governing Council, presided over by the Ordinary, is composed of at least six priests. It exercises the functions specified in the Code of Canon Law for the Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors, as well as those areas specified in the Complementary Norms.

§3. The Ordinary is to establish a Finance Council according to the norms established by the Code of Canon Law which will exercise the duties specified therein.18

§4. In order to provide for the consultation of the faithful, a Pastoral Council is to be constituted in the Ordinariate.19

XI. Every five years the Ordinary is required to come to Rome for an ad limina Apostolorum visit and present to the Roman Pontiff, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and in consultation with the Congregation for Bishops and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, a report on the status of the Ordinariate.

XII. For judicial cases, the competent tribunal is that of the Diocese in which one of the parties is domiciled, unless the Ordinariate has constituted its own tribunal, in which case the tribunal of second instance is the one designated by the Ordinariate and approved by the Holy See.

XIII. The Decree establishing an Ordinariate will determine the location of the See and, if appropriate, the principal church.

We desire that our dispositions and norms be valid and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, should it be necessary, the Apostolic Constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors, or any other prescriptions, even those requiring special mention or derogation.

Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on November 4, 2009, the Memorial of St. Charles Borromeo.

BENEDICTUS PP XVI


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html

The Widow's Mite

(Mark 12:41-44) [Jesus] sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents. Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, "Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood."

It isn’t because of the temple, but in spite of it that the widow gave all she had. Let us learn to follow her example.

I thought I'd share this little gem of knowledge from the professor of my "Creed in History and Theology" class, Fr. Guy Mansini. This may give evidence as to why his class is one of my all-time favorites.

From "An Exposition of the Apostles' Creed" by Fr. Mansini:

Mary and the Church:

“…there is a relation of Mary to Israel and to the Church. In the first place, Mary is a sort of perfect representation of Israel, the one in whom the vocation of Israel is fulfilled. This can be said of our Lord, too. Doubtless, therefore, they are the fulfillment of Israel in different ways. Christ s the fulfillment of Israel according as he is the gent that completes the mission she receives from Go, an eschatological mission realized in history. Mary the fulfillment of Israel according as, in order to complete her mission, Israel must first hear the word of God and receive it into her heart.

“Mary’s representation of Israel passes over into the representation of the Church. In a way, Mary is the Church and the Church is Mary. As Cyril Vollert says, “All the Marian dogmas… converge towards a theological and prayerful contemplation of Mary as the archetype of the Church.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia). This is how Blessed Isaac of Stella (+ c. 1169) put it I the 12^th century:

‘What is said in the inspired Scriptures universally of the virgin mother, the Church, is understood in a singular way o the Virgin Mary, and what is said particularly of the virgin mother Mary is rightly understood in a general way of the virgin mother, the Church. And when either is spoken of, what is said goes for the both together, practically without difference. (Sermon 51, the First Sermon for the Assumption)’

“This is a sort of rule for Catholic speech about the Church and Mary, like the Communication of Idioms for speech about Christ, and the Rule of Athanasius for speech about the persons of the Trinity. As Benedict XVI says, “Mary’s motherhood becomes theologically significant as the ultimate personal concretization of the Church.” (Mary: The Church at the Source, with Hans Urs von Balthasar [San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005], pg. 30)

“Mary is not a mere representation of the Church, however. The Church’s maternity as bringing forth Christians from the laver of baptism really depends on Mary’s maternity relative to Christ. She shares her maternity with the Church so that the Church can bring for Christians in the she brought forth Christ. But she does not share her maternity with the Church in binging for Christ. When we say the Church brings forth Christ, we mean she brings forth Christians, or Christ in Christians. On the other hand, you can say that Mary’s maternity depends on the maternity of the Church n that she is a daughter of Zion, the first Church, and she is brought forth from Israel in order to fulfill the promise to Abraham and his descendents.

“It follows that we can say the same things of both Mary and the Church, as Blessed Isaac says, “practically,” but not completely, “without difference.” What is common to them, according to Yves Congar, is that both bespeak human cooperation in the work of salvation, where the initiative and efficaciousness belong to God in Christ (Christ, Our Lady and the Church, 1957 [French, 1952], pg. 16). Mary cooperated in bringing forth the head; the Church cooperated in bringing forth the members of Christ. Together, they bear the whole Christ. And since the Church is one person with Christ, it follows that Mary is Mother of the Church, as Paul VI taught at the close of the Council. Christians really depend on Mary, because they really depend on Christ, and because the fullness of her grace is a fullness for all other Christians, too. But Christ is not dependent on the Church, but rather the reverse. So again, the Church is our mother, but not Christ’s. She forms Christ in each Christian.”