Thursday, May 31, 2012
Maybe, just maybe...
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Inculturation?
This little ditty keeps popping it's head up every so often. This time it was on facebook. I won't bore you with all of the details, but you'll certainly get the jist of what the conversation was. It centered around the idea that a poster is content with the fact that at least the Mass is valid, even if it be in another language, ie. Spanish. My point was that this is exactly what Vatican Council II DID NOT call for. This is an abuse and while it is valid, there is much more to the issue than validity.
There is more to this than validity. There is the matter of licitness. What one particular person cares for or does not care for has no bearing on the issue at hand. [which is the liturgical action] Right isn't just right, but wrong is always wrong. Doing the bare minimum is not enough. We are called to do more. That is akin to getting a D in school. It passes, but there is so much more that can be accomplished and can be given to the task at hand. Just getting by doesn't solve the problem. It's time we start doing what Vatican Council II actually called for, if we are to accept it at all. And to simply be valid isn't it.
Vatican Council II called for the faithful to know and understand Latin well enough that Catholics could make the responses. As it stands right now, the vast majority of Catholics in the world cannot do that, yet they are expected to be inculturated into Spanish Masses and other languages (I am speaking of the USA). Not only are they to be inculturated into these other languages, but they are expected to be able to respond, yet when it comes to knowing the language of the Church, Latin, the vast majority of Catholics cannot do this. So, where is the disconnect?
The white elephant in the room for liberals is this: Why should a Catholic submit to the particular, when the universal has not been met? Why should a Catholic stand by and expect that a valid Mass in Spanish is enough? Why should a Catholic stand by and just accept the inculturation of a particular (Spanish) when the universal (Latin) is ignored?
I daresay that there is not an answer to that. I daresay that unless the liberal admits that there is a change in theology with regard to the Mass and the Sacraments, there is not an answer to that. If Vatican Council II was simply pastoral and not doctrinal (as has been asserted by many who are higher up), then there was no change in liturgical theology and what was accurate before is accurate today. But is it?
I don't think that it is. I think that there has been a shift in liturgical theology and this shift is dangerous to the faithful. Dangerous, because it is another reason for people to simply look at the Mass as just a part of a greater whole. The Mass is not. The Mass is not on the same level as praying a rosary. The Mass is not on the same level as doing good works. The Mass is not the simply part of the whole.
THE MASS IS HOW WE WORSHIP!
If a Catholic has no more life in the Church than to simply assist at Mass and make his Easter duty, then he is being a dutiful Catholic. While he should strive for more and do what he can, he is doing what he ought. That is not merely getting by, that is doing what he ought. And that IS enough. For doing what we ought is doing what is right.
If the Mass is how we worship, shouldn't we worship according what the Church asks and not what man wants?
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
William Byrd
William Byrd
English composer, born in London in 1542 or 1543; died 4 July, 1623. He was the son of a musician, and studied music principally under Thomas Tallis. He became organist at Lincoln Cathedral in 1563, chorister in the Chapel Royal in 1570, and in 1575 receiv
ed the title of "Organist of the Chapel Royal" without being obliged to perform the funct
ions of that office.
Byrd was the most distinguished contrapuntist and the most prolific composer of his time in England. Fétis calls him the English Palestrina. He was the first Englishman to write madrigals, a form which originated in Italy in the thirteenth century, and received its highest development in the sixteenth century at the hands of Arcadelt and other masters. An organist and performer of the first order upon the virginals, Byrd wrote for the latter instrument an enormous number of compositions, many of which are played today. His chief significance lies, however, in his compositions for the Church, of which he produced a great many.
In 1607 he published a collection of gradualia for the whole ecclesiastical year, among which is to be found a three-part setting of the words of the multitude in the Passion according to St. John. A modern edition of this setting was published in 1899. In 1611 "Psalms, Songs and Sonnets, Some Solemn, Others Joyful, Framed to the Life of the Words, Fit for Voyces or Viols, etc.appeared. Probably in the same year was issued "Parthenia", a collection of virginal music, in which Byrd collaborated with J. Bull and Orlando Gibbons. Three masses -- for three, four, and five voices, respectively -- belong to the composer's best period. The one for five voices was reprinted by the Musical Antiquarian Society in 1841, and in 1899 the same work was issued by Breitkopf and Hartel. Two of his motets, "Domine, ne irascaris" and "Civitas sancti tui", with English texts, are in the repertoire of most Anglican cathedrals.
In spite of the harrowing religious conditions under which he lived, in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I, Byrd remained faithful to his principles and duties as a Catholic, as is shown in his life and by his works. In his last will and testament he prays "that he may live and dye a true and perfect member of the Holy Catholike Churche withoute which I beleeve there is noe salvacon for me".
Here is the Kyrie from my Favorite composition from William, "Mass for four voices", it is probably one of the most profound solemn renaissance pieces in my book.
English composer, born in London in 1542 or 1543; died 4 July, 1623. He was the son of a musician, and studied music principally under Thomas Tallis. He became organist at Lincoln Cathedral in 1563, chorister in the Chapel Royal in 1570, and in 1575 receiv
ed the title of "Organist of the Chapel Royal" without being obliged to perform the funct
ions of that office.
Byrd was the most distinguished contrapuntist and the most prolific composer of his time in England. Fétis calls him the English Palestrina. He was the first Englishman to write madrigals, a form which originated in Italy in the thirteenth century, and received its highest development in the sixteenth century at the hands of Arcadelt and other masters. An organist and performer of the first order upon the virginals, Byrd wrote for the latter instrument an enormous number of compositions, many of which are played today. His chief significance lies, however, in his compositions for the Church, of which he produced a great many.
In 1607 he published a collection of gradualia for the whole ecclesiastical year, among which is to be found a three-part setting of the words of the multitude in the Passion according to St. John. A modern edition of this setting was published in 1899. In 1611 "Psalms, Songs and Sonnets, Some Solemn, Others Joyful, Framed to the Life of the Words, Fit for Voyces or Viols, etc.appeared. Probably in the same year was issued "Parthenia", a collection of virginal music, in which Byrd collaborated with J. Bull and Orlando Gibbons. Three masses -- for three, four, and five voices, respectively -- belong to the composer's best period. The one for five voices was reprinted by the Musical Antiquarian Society in 1841, and in 1899 the same work was issued by Breitkopf and Hartel. Two of his motets, "Domine, ne irascaris" and "Civitas sancti tui", with English texts, are in the repertoire of most Anglican cathedrals.
In spite of the harrowing religious conditions under which he lived, in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I, Byrd remained faithful to his principles and duties as a Catholic, as is shown in his life and by his works. In his last will and testament he prays "that he may live and dye a true and perfect member of the Holy Catholike Churche withoute which I beleeve there is noe salvacon for me".
Here is the Kyrie from my Favorite composition from William, "Mass for four voices", it is probably one of the most profound solemn renaissance pieces in my book.
Homeschooling : the why is Step #1
Before you begin your homeschooling journey, it is important to answer the following question:
"Why Do I want to homeschool?". Over the years, I have heard many answers to this question, from "I do not want to send my children to public school" to "The parish school is not Catholic enough" to just plain "It sounds interesting".
For a Traditional Catholic, the first two replies are probably the strongest. However, it cannot just be a visceral reaction to the state of public or Catholic education. Traditional Catholic homeschooling is a way of life. Catholic teaching must suffuse all subject areas, from science to recess. Parents must provide a Catholic context to all family activities, from the decision to watch television to daily prayer. It must be orderly, carried out within the presence of God. In summary, the decision to homeschool must be a commitment that the entire family undertakes. It must be a commitment that will probably have to be renewed and reviewed often to accommodate the ever-changing stream of life events. Central to the success of homeschooling is prayer to discern whether homeschooling is right for your family and sometimes, although an unpopular idea , whether homeschooling is right for each and every one of your children.
How ready are you to begin homeschooling as a Traditional Catholic? If you homeschool already, does your curriculum, your family life, your entertainments, your home , etc truly reflect Traditional Catholicism? For the new homeschooler and the old, what do the goals for each of your children reflect ?
As you ponder these questions, consider this one for homework: What is the number one lesson each day in your homeschool? I will tell you the answer next week.
"Why Do I want to homeschool?". Over the years, I have heard many answers to this question, from "I do not want to send my children to public school" to "The parish school is not Catholic enough" to just plain "It sounds interesting".
For a Traditional Catholic, the first two replies are probably the strongest. However, it cannot just be a visceral reaction to the state of public or Catholic education. Traditional Catholic homeschooling is a way of life. Catholic teaching must suffuse all subject areas, from science to recess. Parents must provide a Catholic context to all family activities, from the decision to watch television to daily prayer. It must be orderly, carried out within the presence of God. In summary, the decision to homeschool must be a commitment that the entire family undertakes. It must be a commitment that will probably have to be renewed and reviewed often to accommodate the ever-changing stream of life events. Central to the success of homeschooling is prayer to discern whether homeschooling is right for your family and sometimes, although an unpopular idea , whether homeschooling is right for each and every one of your children.
How ready are you to begin homeschooling as a Traditional Catholic? If you homeschool already, does your curriculum, your family life, your entertainments, your home , etc truly reflect Traditional Catholicism? For the new homeschooler and the old, what do the goals for each of your children reflect ?
As you ponder these questions, consider this one for homework: What is the number one lesson each day in your homeschool? I will tell you the answer next week.
Friday, May 25, 2012
TradNews Roundup
*Author of "The Exorcist" and Georgetown graduate brings a canonical suit against Georgetown University over the Sebelius scandal.
*A deluge of law-suits against the HHS pour in on Monday over the "contraception mandate". The University of Notre Dame, as one of the Catholic organizations filing suit, have apparently failed to find that "common ground" with the Obama administration they so loudly lauded three years ago.
*Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller no longer being considered for head of CDF; his negative attitude toward the SSPX could be one of many reasons.
*The Holy See decries the leaking of documents that ended up the basis for a seditious book as a "criminal act", and vows to conduct and investigation and bring the culprits to justice.
*A power struggle in the Vatican could prompt the Holy Father to make radical changes to the curia.
*Hollande begins his anti-Christ rule of France by saluting secularism and threatening the sanctity of marriage.
*A deluge of law-suits against the HHS pour in on Monday over the "contraception mandate". The University of Notre Dame, as one of the Catholic organizations filing suit, have apparently failed to find that "common ground" with the Obama administration they so loudly lauded three years ago.
*Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller no longer being considered for head of CDF; his negative attitude toward the SSPX could be one of many reasons.
*The Holy See decries the leaking of documents that ended up the basis for a seditious book as a "criminal act", and vows to conduct and investigation and bring the culprits to justice.
*A power struggle in the Vatican could prompt the Holy Father to make radical changes to the curia.
*Hollande begins his anti-Christ rule of France by saluting secularism and threatening the sanctity of marriage.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Traditional Catholic Homeschooling: Introduction
+JMJ+
Hi, my name is Barbara and I will be posting on Mondays on all aspects of Traditional Catholic Homeschooling, from birth to that college send-off which comes with strategies for holding on to the Faith. The purpose of Traditional homeschooling must reflect our commitment to Tradition as a way of life which ultimately will guide us to yearn for our Heavenly home.
In his 1903 encyclical, E SUPREMI, Pope St Pius X spoke of the need to end "the substitution of man for God" and "to restore to their ancient place of honor the most holy laws and counsels of the gospel; to proclaim aloud the truths Taught by the Church, and her teachings...."
Traditional Catholic Homeschooling is but one humble tool in our efforts to restore all things in Christ.
Hi, my name is Barbara and I will be posting on Mondays on all aspects of Traditional Catholic Homeschooling, from birth to that college send-off which comes with strategies for holding on to the Faith. The purpose of Traditional homeschooling must reflect our commitment to Tradition as a way of life which ultimately will guide us to yearn for our Heavenly home.
In his 1903 encyclical, E SUPREMI, Pope St Pius X spoke of the need to end "the substitution of man for God" and "to restore to their ancient place of honor the most holy laws and counsels of the gospel; to proclaim aloud the truths Taught by the Church, and her teachings...."
Traditional Catholic Homeschooling is but one humble tool in our efforts to restore all things in Christ.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Fr. Michael Rodriguez's plea to the bishops
A sermon given by Fr. Michael Rodriguez on Ascension Thursday, 2012.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Don't forget that the FSSP Ordinations can be viewed live
Many of you already know that the priestly ordinations for the Fraternity of St. Peter on May 19th will be streamed live on the internet from the Cathedral of the Risen Christ, Lincoln Nebraska, thanks to Fr. Fryar, F.S.S.P. and www.LiveMass.net.
The stream will begin at 11:00 AM Eastern time, today. Just clink on the link for LiveMass.net here.
The stream will begin at 11:00 AM Eastern time, today. Just clink on the link for LiveMass.net here.
Friday, May 18, 2012
TradNews Roundup
*There will be no news posted about the Rome/SSPX negotiations until after Pentecost. Please use these days to pray for the Holy Father and Bishop Bernard Fellay. Thank you.
*Traditional Latin Mass Chapliancy of the Archdiocese of Dublin unveils Traditional Latin Mass and Eucharistic devotions schedule for the 50th International Eucharistic Congress to be held in Dublin in June.
*The Holy Shroud: New Evidence of Authenticity.
*France is the hands of anti-Catholic socialists. Catholics fear losing their schools.
*Yet another famous Macielist is at the center of a sex scandal and cover-up. Macielist leaders regret they took so long to handle the case. They allowed Williams to continue his very public ministry despite knowing all.
*The Holy Father is under vicious attack.
*Traditional Latin Mass Chapliancy of the Archdiocese of Dublin unveils Traditional Latin Mass and Eucharistic devotions schedule for the 50th International Eucharistic Congress to be held in Dublin in June.
*The Holy Shroud: New Evidence of Authenticity.
*France is the hands of anti-Catholic socialists. Catholics fear losing their schools.
*Yet another famous Macielist is at the center of a sex scandal and cover-up. Macielist leaders regret they took so long to handle the case. They allowed Williams to continue his very public ministry despite knowing all.
*The Holy Father is under vicious attack.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Rome/SSPX: Everybody please take a breath
It's time to calm down. Apparently many people were expecting a resolution to the canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X today. However, that didn't happen, nor could it. It was unrealistic to think that it would.
In fact, nothing has changed at all, other than the fact that exactly what was announced happened just as it was announced. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith discussed Bishop Fellay's latest response, provided some observations from the individual members, and then handed the SSPX dossier on to Pope Benedict XVI for his judgment. This is a good thing. This means that the process is going forward as scheduled. Nothing, it seems, is impeding that process.
Since so many people apparently have some misguided expectations, it might be a good idea to consider, realistically, what will probably happen in the coming days. Pope Benedict XVI will review the dossier and either accept Bishop Fellay's response as adequate, or have Cardinal Levada once again meet with Fellay to discuss what the Holy Father does not deem adequate in the response. That has already happened, back in April, and it wasn't the end of the world then, nor will it be the end of world if it should happen again.
If the response is deemed adequate by the Holy Father, as many rumors suggest it will be, then the Holy Father will move to the next step, and that is discussing and formulating the canonical structure for the SSPX. I would imagine the Society's General Council and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have to take the lion's share of the burden in this regard, and that will probably take a few months. Then, of course, the Holy Father will have to review and approve, which will take even more time.
What I'm getting at, is that we have a long way to go. We all want to have a sudden resolution with instant canonical solutions. I suspect, from the comments I've seen around the web, that this is so because a lot people, of various ideological perspectives, want to "spike the football". That way of thinking needs to be removed, because the resolution isn't going to come with a bang, but with a long sigh over time, and that for the divine purpose of instilling a good dose of humility where it is apparently in great need. Pride is making too many people impatient, and inflating the egos of many who ought to know better.
Here's what we know with certainty, and all of them are good:
1. The Holy Father wants this process to proceed, and end with the regularization of the Society. This isn't conjecture, but a plain fact stated by Bishop Fellay, himself. In fact, Bishop Fellay stated that if there is regularization, it will happen because it is the resolute will of the Holy Father.
2. Bishop Fellay believes it will happen soon. He has said as much. He has also called for an extraordinary General Chapter for the end of July. This last piece of information gives us an idea of the time frame we can expect. That General Chapter will probably mark the beginning of discussion concerning the canonical structure for the Society.
3. The other three bishops, whose private correspondence was immorally leaked on internet, may cause difficulties, but only for themselves. The CDF stated today that they will be treated separately from the rest of the SSPX and individually. Despite what some inside and outside the Society are saying, I think this will prove a great benefit. What they say or do from now on will not affect the Holy See's dealings with the Society. While I'm sure that two of the three will work out agreements (and perhaps even the other one), even if they can't or are unwilling to do so, this will not have a deleterious backlash for the rest of the Society.
4. This all is in the hands of God, and is intrusted to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And we all know that God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, loves the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism! We also know with the highest confidence that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph, all the saints in heaven, as well as all the angels and archangels, they all love Traditional Catholicism!
What, then, are we worried about?
Please keep up the prayers and sacrifices for this intention, and, please, take a step back, take a deep breath, and be of good cheer.
In fact, nothing has changed at all, other than the fact that exactly what was announced happened just as it was announced. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith discussed Bishop Fellay's latest response, provided some observations from the individual members, and then handed the SSPX dossier on to Pope Benedict XVI for his judgment. This is a good thing. This means that the process is going forward as scheduled. Nothing, it seems, is impeding that process.
Since so many people apparently have some misguided expectations, it might be a good idea to consider, realistically, what will probably happen in the coming days. Pope Benedict XVI will review the dossier and either accept Bishop Fellay's response as adequate, or have Cardinal Levada once again meet with Fellay to discuss what the Holy Father does not deem adequate in the response. That has already happened, back in April, and it wasn't the end of the world then, nor will it be the end of world if it should happen again.
If the response is deemed adequate by the Holy Father, as many rumors suggest it will be, then the Holy Father will move to the next step, and that is discussing and formulating the canonical structure for the SSPX. I would imagine the Society's General Council and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have to take the lion's share of the burden in this regard, and that will probably take a few months. Then, of course, the Holy Father will have to review and approve, which will take even more time.
What I'm getting at, is that we have a long way to go. We all want to have a sudden resolution with instant canonical solutions. I suspect, from the comments I've seen around the web, that this is so because a lot people, of various ideological perspectives, want to "spike the football". That way of thinking needs to be removed, because the resolution isn't going to come with a bang, but with a long sigh over time, and that for the divine purpose of instilling a good dose of humility where it is apparently in great need. Pride is making too many people impatient, and inflating the egos of many who ought to know better.
Here's what we know with certainty, and all of them are good:
1. The Holy Father wants this process to proceed, and end with the regularization of the Society. This isn't conjecture, but a plain fact stated by Bishop Fellay, himself. In fact, Bishop Fellay stated that if there is regularization, it will happen because it is the resolute will of the Holy Father.
2. Bishop Fellay believes it will happen soon. He has said as much. He has also called for an extraordinary General Chapter for the end of July. This last piece of information gives us an idea of the time frame we can expect. That General Chapter will probably mark the beginning of discussion concerning the canonical structure for the Society.
3. The other three bishops, whose private correspondence was immorally leaked on internet, may cause difficulties, but only for themselves. The CDF stated today that they will be treated separately from the rest of the SSPX and individually. Despite what some inside and outside the Society are saying, I think this will prove a great benefit. What they say or do from now on will not affect the Holy See's dealings with the Society. While I'm sure that two of the three will work out agreements (and perhaps even the other one), even if they can't or are unwilling to do so, this will not have a deleterious backlash for the rest of the Society.
4. This all is in the hands of God, and is intrusted to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And we all know that God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, loves the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism! We also know with the highest confidence that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph, all the saints in heaven, as well as all the angels and archangels, they all love Traditional Catholicism!
What, then, are we worried about?
Please keep up the prayers and sacrifices for this intention, and, please, take a step back, take a deep breath, and be of good cheer.
Communique on the Society of St. Pius X
Vatican City, 16 May 2012 (VIS) - Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office issued the following communique regarding the Society of St. Pius X:
"As reported by news agencies, today, 16 May 2012, an Ordinary Session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met to discuss the question of the Society of St. Pius X.In particular, the text of the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, received on 17 April, 2012, was examined and some observations, which will be considered in further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, were formulated.Regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly".
"As reported by news agencies, today, 16 May 2012, an Ordinary Session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met to discuss the question of the Society of St. Pius X.In particular, the text of the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, received on 17 April, 2012, was examined and some observations, which will be considered in further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, were formulated.Regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly".
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
CNS Interview of Bishop Bernard Fellay
(The Vivaldi in the background is a bit... over the top? strange, no?... but, oh well, it is CNS.)
Rogation Day and Motherhood
Sunday, May 13, 2012
The Holy Father's comments about the Rosary at Fatima, 2010
"The recitation of the rosary allows us to fix our gaze and our hearts upon Jesus, just like his Mother, the supreme model of contemplation of the Son. Meditating upon the joyful, luminous, sorrowful and glorious mysteries as we pray our Hail Marys, let us reflect upon the interior mystery of Jesus, from the Incarnation, through the Cross, to the glory of the Resurrection; let us contemplate the intimate participation of Mary in the mystery of our life in Christ today, a life which is also made up of joy and sorrow, of darkness and light, of fear and hope. Grace invades our hearts, provoking a wish for an incisive and evangelical change of life so that we can say with Saint Paul: “For me to live is Christ” (Phil 1:21) in a communion of life and destiny with Christ."--Pope Benedict XVI, Fatima, 2010
Friday, May 11, 2012
I will stand with Bishop Fellay
I've been asked via email to "clarify my position" in regards to the canonical recognition of the SSPX. Accompanying that request was, I think, a veiled threat that this particular person would not return to Ars Orandi if I were to support an agreement between Rome and the SSPX.
Allow me, then to use this opportunity to reiterate what I have already made clear in the Q&A: I am not, in any way, affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, nor do I attend an SSPX chapel, nor do I personally know any SSPX priests. Therefore, my "position" is completely irrelevant, and I shouldn't have to answer that question one way or the other. I would like to say that I'm here simply to propose the beauty and spiritual fecundity of the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism.
However, I will, for the sake of clarity, make clear that I will stand with the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay. I will support whatever decision he makes in regards to an agreement with the Pontificate of Benedict XVI. Even though I respect the person and profoundly honor the office of the Pope, frankly, I trust Bishop Fellay more than I trust the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI. Those intentions, however, in no way change the fact that greater will be the good fruits for the Church if the SSPX is reconciled and given canonical recognition than if its priests and bishops aren't. No matter the intentions of the Pope, be they liberal or genuine, nothing but good can come from canonical recognition if it means that the Society can gain that recognition without having to change who they are or what they stand for, which seems to be the case.
If the Holy Father gives Bishop Fellay everything he asks for, how can resistance from within the SSPX be anything less than a wholesale denial of the visible nature of the Catholic Church and the august role of the Office of St. Peter?
I would also like to make something very clear to those of you who seem to agree with the notion that every Catholic not affiliated with the SSPX is a Modernist or a liberal: YOU ARE WRONG. Your Superior General has told you, himself, that you are WRONG. I am not a liberal or Modernist because I attend a Traditional Latin Mass offered by a Fraternity priest or because I belong to a parish of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. Not only is such an opinion unrealistic, as your Superior General has told you, but it is intellectually lazy and disingenuous, and this applies to you whether you be a layman, priest or bishop.
It is my prayer that the SSPX will soon be given the canonical recognition that it deserves, that its Founder desired, and that its current Superior General so earnestly desires. It will not, by any stretch of the imagination, end the fight, but it will signal a decisive turning of the tide, which will benefit all traditional Catholics. It is high time that those members of the Society, who have in these recent days caused so much pain for their Superior General, realize that their insularity is not only intellectually false and prideful, but also diabolically uncharitable. It is uncharitable to the rest of us who are laboring, in the vineyard of the Church, for an end to the novus ordo Mass, and the full and complete restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism.
Isn't it enough that we must face insidious enemies on the Left? Why now should we be decimated by blows from those who ought to be our brothers?
Allow me, then to use this opportunity to reiterate what I have already made clear in the Q&A: I am not, in any way, affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, nor do I attend an SSPX chapel, nor do I personally know any SSPX priests. Therefore, my "position" is completely irrelevant, and I shouldn't have to answer that question one way or the other. I would like to say that I'm here simply to propose the beauty and spiritual fecundity of the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism.
However, I will, for the sake of clarity, make clear that I will stand with the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay. I will support whatever decision he makes in regards to an agreement with the Pontificate of Benedict XVI. Even though I respect the person and profoundly honor the office of the Pope, frankly, I trust Bishop Fellay more than I trust the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI. Those intentions, however, in no way change the fact that greater will be the good fruits for the Church if the SSPX is reconciled and given canonical recognition than if its priests and bishops aren't. No matter the intentions of the Pope, be they liberal or genuine, nothing but good can come from canonical recognition if it means that the Society can gain that recognition without having to change who they are or what they stand for, which seems to be the case.
If the Holy Father gives Bishop Fellay everything he asks for, how can resistance from within the SSPX be anything less than a wholesale denial of the visible nature of the Catholic Church and the august role of the Office of St. Peter?
I would also like to make something very clear to those of you who seem to agree with the notion that every Catholic not affiliated with the SSPX is a Modernist or a liberal: YOU ARE WRONG. Your Superior General has told you, himself, that you are WRONG. I am not a liberal or Modernist because I attend a Traditional Latin Mass offered by a Fraternity priest or because I belong to a parish of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. Not only is such an opinion unrealistic, as your Superior General has told you, but it is intellectually lazy and disingenuous, and this applies to you whether you be a layman, priest or bishop.
It is my prayer that the SSPX will soon be given the canonical recognition that it deserves, that its Founder desired, and that its current Superior General so earnestly desires. It will not, by any stretch of the imagination, end the fight, but it will signal a decisive turning of the tide, which will benefit all traditional Catholics. It is high time that those members of the Society, who have in these recent days caused so much pain for their Superior General, realize that their insularity is not only intellectually false and prideful, but also diabolically uncharitable. It is uncharitable to the rest of us who are laboring, in the vineyard of the Church, for an end to the novus ordo Mass, and the full and complete restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism.
Isn't it enough that we must face insidious enemies on the Left? Why now should we be decimated by blows from those who ought to be our brothers?
TradNews Roundup
*Please see sidebar for the latest news concerning the Rome/SSPX talks and impending agreement.
*Patrick Buchanan: If Obama wins, gay fake marriage will be imposed on Americans from the high court.
*Cardinal Dolan saddened by Obama's affirmation of fake marriage.
*Socialists are victorious in France. Will the referendum on austerity measures have the unhappy side-effect of ushering in persecution of traditional Catholics, gay "marriage" and euthanasia in France?
*The Chen scandal highlights how the little antichrist in the White House has placed climate change ahead of human rights.
*The Obama Welfare Utopia Fantasy.
*Patrick Buchanan: If Obama wins, gay fake marriage will be imposed on Americans from the high court.
*Cardinal Dolan saddened by Obama's affirmation of fake marriage.
*Socialists are victorious in France. Will the referendum on austerity measures have the unhappy side-effect of ushering in persecution of traditional Catholics, gay "marriage" and euthanasia in France?
*The Chen scandal highlights how the little antichrist in the White House has placed climate change ahead of human rights.
*The Obama Welfare Utopia Fantasy.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Monday, May 7, 2012
Novena for the Reconciliation and Canonical Recognition of the SSPX
It is the wish of the Society of St. Pius X District Superiors of both the U.S. and Asia that the faithful pray a novena starting tomorrow, Tuesday, May 8th, to Wednesday, May 16th (the eve of the Ascension) for the following intention: "that the Holy Ghost may give the graces of light and strength to the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, and to the Superior General of the Society, Bishop Fellay."
Even though Ars Orandi is not affiliated with the SSPX, it is still true that we ardently desire the reconciliation and canonical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X. Therefore, I urge all those who visit this site to join us in praying this novena. The following novena prayers will be appended to the "Collect of the Day" posts, starting tomorrow and going through May 16th. I would also like to add to the intention the following: "and for the reconciliation and canonical recognition of the SSPX."
In addition, please consider offering a Communion for this intention, as well as some extra rosaries and sacrifices.
Thank you, and may God's Will be done!
Even though Ars Orandi is not affiliated with the SSPX, it is still true that we ardently desire the reconciliation and canonical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X. Therefore, I urge all those who visit this site to join us in praying this novena. The following novena prayers will be appended to the "Collect of the Day" posts, starting tomorrow and going through May 16th. I would also like to add to the intention the following: "and for the reconciliation and canonical recognition of the SSPX."
In addition, please consider offering a Communion for this intention, as well as some extra rosaries and sacrifices.
Thank you, and may God's Will be done!
| VENI, Creator Spiritus, mentes tuorum visita, imple superna gratia quae tu creasti pectora. Qui diceris Paraclitus, altissimi donum Dei, fons vivus, ignis, caritas, et spiritalis unctio. Tu, septiformis munere, digitus paternae dexterae, Tu rite promissum Patris, sermone ditans guttura. Accende lumen sensibus: infunde amorem cordibus: infirma nostri corporis virtute firmans perpeti. Hostem repellas longius, pacemque dones protinus: ductore sic te praevio vitemus omne noxium. Per te sciamus da Patrem, noscamus atque Filium; Teque utriusque Spiritum credamus omni tempore. Deo Patri sit gloria, et Filio, qui a mortuis surrexit, ac Paraclito, in saeculorum saecula. Amen. V. Emitte Spiritum tuum, et creabuntur: R. Et renovabis faciem terrae. Oremus: Deus qui corda fidelium Sancti Spiritus illustratione docuisti: da nobis in eodem Spiritu recta sapere, et de eius semper consolatione gaudere. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. R. Amen. | COME, Holy Spirit, Creator blest, and in our souls take up Thy rest; come with Thy grace and heavenly aid to fill the hearts which Thou hast made. O comforter, to Thee we cry, O heavenly gift of God Most High, O fount of life and fire of love, and sweet anointing from above. Thou in Thy sevenfold gifts are known; Thou, finger of God’s hand we own; Thou, promise of the Father, Thou Who dost the tongue with power imbue. Kindle our sense from above, and make our hearts overflow with love; with patience firm and virtue high the weakness of our flesh supply. Far from us drive the foe we dread, and grant us Thy peace instead; so shall we not, with Thee for guide, turn from the path of life aside. Oh, may Thy grace on us bestow the Father and the Son to know; and Thee, through endless times confessed, of both the eternal Spirit blest. Now to the Father and the Son, Who rose from death, be glory given, with Thou, O Holy Comforter, henceforth by all in earth and heaven. Amen. V. Send forth Thy Spirit, and they shall be created. R. And Thou shalt renew the face of the earth. Let us Pray: O God, Who hast taught the hearts of the faithful by the light of the Holy Ghost: grant that, by the gift of the same Spirit, we may be always truly wise, and ever rejoice in His consolation. Through Christ Our Lord. R. Amen. |
| MEMORARE, O piissima Virgo Maria, non esse auditum a saeculo, quemquam ad tua currentem praesidia, tua implorantem auxilia, tua petentem suffragia, esse derelictum. Ego tali animatus confidentia, ad te, Virgo Virginum, Mater, curro, ad te venio, coram te gemens peccator assisto. Noli, Mater Verbi, verba mea despicere; sed audi propitia et exaudi. Amen. | REMEMBER, O Most Gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to Thy protection, implored Thy help and sought Thy intercession, was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto Thee, O Virgin of Virgins, my Mother; to Thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in Thy mercy, hear and answer me. Amen. |
God's Plan...And His Garden
Some of you know about my family some of you don't. For those of you who do know about my family, this will make sense, for those of you who don't perhaps this will be a way to take a good look into how I look to the members of my family.
Recently, I had to run to the store to pick up some odds and ends for a group party that I was a part of. So, off I went. I went around the store and I picked up the things that I needed. As I was heading to the front, I was heading up the aisle, only to be blocked by a young man who seemed to be about 15 or 16 years of age. I wasn't in a crazy rush, so I patiently waited for him to realize I was there. This was when he waved his hands wildly and said very loudly, "Mommy, I'm over here!!!"
It became clear to me that he suffered from some sort of mental retardation and it startled him to see me standing behind him, waiting patiently to pass by. His eyes got really wide and when I said, "Hey, pal...what's your name?"
"My name is Danny and I'm shopping with my mom!" He responded enthusiastically.
"Wow," I said, "My name is Andy, but having a name like Danny would be pretty cool," I repsonded. "How old are you, Danny?"
"How old am I now, Mommy?" He asked his mother as she slowly came over from the next aisle.
"You're 15 years old Danny; now be a good boy and let the nice man pass by." She said.
I acknowledged her and continued to talk to Danny for a few minutes more about the end of school, summer, and his plans for a fun time. I watched as he became more and more excited about the idea that he was the center of someones attention other than his mother's. He turned and headed away with his Mom, but not before she thanked me for taking the time to stop a moment and talk to her son. She had a puzzled look upon her face. She told me that many people wouldn't even look at him, let alone take the time to talk with him. I told her that it was my pleasure and then I said something from where I have no idea it came; other than perhaps from the prompting of the Holy Ghost.
I said, "There are plenty of red, yellow, and pink roses in God's garden; however, blue roses are very rare, even for His garden and should be appreciated for their beauty and rarity. You see, Danny is a blue rose and if someone didn't stop to smell that rose and touch that rose with the kindness of their heart, they've truly missed a blessing from God."
The mother went silent for a moment, then with a tear in her eye, she asked, "Who are you?"
Without thinking I responded, "Oh, I'm just a dandelion, but I sure love living in God's garden."
She reached out, grabbed my hand and said to me, looking directly into my face, "God Bless, you!"
If I can be so bold, the next time you see a "blue rose," don't turn and walk away. Take the time to stop and say hello. Why? Because, by the grace of God, this mother or father could be you. In this instance, it was my cousin. See, I have a cousin who is severely challenged and far too many people don't pay attention. Because if they did, they would see what a wonderful young woman Rebecca really is.
I don't see much of her, because we live almost 1000 miles apart, but I know her mother and her uncle very well. They are my cousins too. And I know the great love that pours from Rebecca without any thought or expectation. That is true love. Her mother asked me once, while I was in seminary, "Why did God allow this to happen to Rebecca and me?"
I told her that God's plan for each person is His own. We can't know the reason or the method by which He will use us, but that we must simply trust and have faith in Him Who Is. I believe that Rebecca was made the way she was to teach us how to love unconditionally. It is a rare thing in this world to see pure love and it is a rare thing to see such beauty. We might not like the ease or difficulty by which God chooses to act in our lives, but in the end, it is how we view it that makes a big difference.
So, take it from a dandelion, examples of love are everywhere and in the most unlikely places. Please keep your eyes open and know that God has a reason and a use for every person.
Recently, I had to run to the store to pick up some odds and ends for a group party that I was a part of. So, off I went. I went around the store and I picked up the things that I needed. As I was heading to the front, I was heading up the aisle, only to be blocked by a young man who seemed to be about 15 or 16 years of age. I wasn't in a crazy rush, so I patiently waited for him to realize I was there. This was when he waved his hands wildly and said very loudly, "Mommy, I'm over here!!!"
It became clear to me that he suffered from some sort of mental retardation and it startled him to see me standing behind him, waiting patiently to pass by. His eyes got really wide and when I said, "Hey, pal...what's your name?"
"My name is Danny and I'm shopping with my mom!" He responded enthusiastically.
"Wow," I said, "My name is Andy, but having a name like Danny would be pretty cool," I repsonded. "How old are you, Danny?"
"How old am I now, Mommy?" He asked his mother as she slowly came over from the next aisle.
"You're 15 years old Danny; now be a good boy and let the nice man pass by." She said.
I acknowledged her and continued to talk to Danny for a few minutes more about the end of school, summer, and his plans for a fun time. I watched as he became more and more excited about the idea that he was the center of someones attention other than his mother's. He turned and headed away with his Mom, but not before she thanked me for taking the time to stop a moment and talk to her son. She had a puzzled look upon her face. She told me that many people wouldn't even look at him, let alone take the time to talk with him. I told her that it was my pleasure and then I said something from where I have no idea it came; other than perhaps from the prompting of the Holy Ghost.
I said, "There are plenty of red, yellow, and pink roses in God's garden; however, blue roses are very rare, even for His garden and should be appreciated for their beauty and rarity. You see, Danny is a blue rose and if someone didn't stop to smell that rose and touch that rose with the kindness of their heart, they've truly missed a blessing from God."
The mother went silent for a moment, then with a tear in her eye, she asked, "Who are you?"
Without thinking I responded, "Oh, I'm just a dandelion, but I sure love living in God's garden."
She reached out, grabbed my hand and said to me, looking directly into my face, "God Bless, you!"
If I can be so bold, the next time you see a "blue rose," don't turn and walk away. Take the time to stop and say hello. Why? Because, by the grace of God, this mother or father could be you. In this instance, it was my cousin. See, I have a cousin who is severely challenged and far too many people don't pay attention. Because if they did, they would see what a wonderful young woman Rebecca really is.
I don't see much of her, because we live almost 1000 miles apart, but I know her mother and her uncle very well. They are my cousins too. And I know the great love that pours from Rebecca without any thought or expectation. That is true love. Her mother asked me once, while I was in seminary, "Why did God allow this to happen to Rebecca and me?"
I told her that God's plan for each person is His own. We can't know the reason or the method by which He will use us, but that we must simply trust and have faith in Him Who Is. I believe that Rebecca was made the way she was to teach us how to love unconditionally. It is a rare thing in this world to see pure love and it is a rare thing to see such beauty. We might not like the ease or difficulty by which God chooses to act in our lives, but in the end, it is how we view it that makes a big difference.
So, take it from a dandelion, examples of love are everywhere and in the most unlikely places. Please keep your eyes open and know that God has a reason and a use for every person.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
What do you do when your son doesn’t return?
The following comment was left for the Collect of the Day: St. Monica. I thought that it was too heartfelt to just place at the bottom of another post, but, rather, it deserved its own post.
The last words written by Dom Guéranger on the feast of St. Monica were: “[A mother’s] prayers and sufferings must be efficacious; sooner or later, the wished-for grace will descend upon the prodigal, and he will return to God and to his mother.” It is not very often that I think Dom Guéranger wrong, but even before reading the comment above, while I was typing those words from the holy abbot, I knew from my own experience that Guéranger was just plain wrong. It is understandable, since Guéranger was never a parent of children, biological children, at any rate. There is in his statement a certain monkish naivety.
A parent is responsible for their children, but only to a certain point. After all, our children do grow up, and they, whether we parents like it or not, possess free will. The rub is: God made them that way. They will make decisions, some good, and some bad. Hopefully we have, as parents, instilled values and virtues that will help our children make more good decisions than bad. Hopefully, we have given more good examples than bad examples to our children of how to live as Christian men and women. However, no matter how holy, no matter how pious, no matter how moral or religious we are, that is no guarantee that our children will be holy, pious, moral or religious when they grow up and start making their own decisions.
Take for example… well… St. Monica! There is no doubt that St. Monica was holy, pious, moral and religious, and just look at where her son ended up! He turned out to be a profligate and a heretic! He lived in debauchery for a good portion of his young life. Never mind for the moment that he later converted and became a great saint. No one doubts for a moment that St. Monica was a noble and virtuous parent; no one thinks that she was somehow lacking as a mother. No one would accuse St. Monica of being the reason for Augustine’s profligate youth once he was out of the home. There’s only so much to which you can hold a parent responsible, and many times the life of a parent’s grown child does not reflect the life or character of the parent.
This should be born in mind by everyone in traditional Catholic communities. Think before you speak! Before you judge someone based on the actions of their children, consider the glass house you live in!
Also, we have to keep in mind that our children have their own crosses to bear, most of which we as parents had nothing to do with. Some of us have children who are born with handicaps, genetic disorders or predispositions, or they experience traumas or tragedies outside of our control. It is natural for us to want to protect our children or save them from their maladies. However, there are simply things that are beyond our control.
All we can do is pray, and trust God.
Once again St. Monica is a great example for us. If her son had not returned, would we consider her efforts any less holy, any less heroic? Of course, we wouldn’t know about her efforts, as it was her prodigal son that recorded them for prosperity. However, even if her efforts did not bring about her son’s return, they would be no less precious in the sight of God. It is her consistency in hope and prayer that we as parents ought to emulate, and even if we aren’t given consolation, our sacrifices are still precious in the sight of God.
While we should look to St. Monica’s example, and while we should always have hope, we can’t allow ourselves to dwell too long in disappointment if we don't get the same results. After all, Monica had an advantage that most of us parents simply do not have. Her son might have turned out a profligate and a heretic, but her son was also… well, he was St. Augustine! Even when St. Augustine was wrong, he was brilliantly wrong. St. Monica was blessed with a child who was far more intelligent than most others. Our children, while always being special in our eyes, usually aren’t equal to the genius of a St. Augustine. So in a way, God spoiled St. Monica. Not all of us parents have been spoiled in that way.
Being a parent is to strike out into uncharted waters. It takes a lot of courage to lay your heart out there, to expose yourself spiritually for your children. We are going to get beat up. Some of us more than others, but all things, good and bad, are for the greater glory of God. All we mere mortals can do is pray and trust God.
So I don’t know if I’m qualified to answer your questions, Anonymous Mom, but let me give it a shot.
Why didn’t my prayers and sacrifices make him convert?
I don’t know. God knows. And He will give you the answer some happy day. But I do know that your prayers are like so many roses about His Throne.
Am I not holy enough?
Did you not pray and weep every day? Did you not offer rosaries? Did you not have Masses said? Did you not tell the truth with charity and motherly affection? God help us if you aren’t holy, because then nobody would be holy.
Am I not as good as St. Monica?
I would say that today, you are a contemporary example of St. Monica for me, and for that, I thank you.
Am I a terrible mother?
If you are, then so was St. Monica.
What do you do when your son doesn’t return?
As difficult as it is, and knowing we have to push through even when it seems pointless and absurd, all we can do is pray and trust God.
I'm sorry, but that's all I got. For much better answers, please speak with your priest. Know that you will be in my prayers.
Thank you for the Collect of the Day posts. I read them every day, and they are great help in my prayer life. However, I couldn’t bring myself to read today’s post [St. Monica]. I’m afraid it is simply too painful for me to think about. It’s a hard story for me. I’m the mother of three children, and my youngest son was lost to me while he was in highschool. He revealed to my husband and I that he was gay, and that he was in a relationship with a man almost twice his age. Soon after that, he ran away from home. I prayed for him every day. I cried every day, and then prayed again. I offered rosaries for him, and I had Masses said for his conversion. On the rare occasions I saw him, I was kind to him. I avoided harping on him. I told him he was wrong, that he was hurting himself. But I always made it clear to him he had a home, and he was welcome home whenever he wanted. A little more than two years ago my son died from complications due to HIV. I was not there. He never even told me he was sick. He died in a hospital alone, I was told later by one of the nurses. He had been abandoned by all his “friends”, and his family was denied the chance to be with him at the end. I ask myself every day why didn’t my prayers and sacrifices make him convert? Am I not holy enough? Am I not as good as St. Monica? Am I a terrible mother? What do you do when your son doesn’t return?
The last words written by Dom Guéranger on the feast of St. Monica were: “[A mother’s] prayers and sufferings must be efficacious; sooner or later, the wished-for grace will descend upon the prodigal, and he will return to God and to his mother.” It is not very often that I think Dom Guéranger wrong, but even before reading the comment above, while I was typing those words from the holy abbot, I knew from my own experience that Guéranger was just plain wrong. It is understandable, since Guéranger was never a parent of children, biological children, at any rate. There is in his statement a certain monkish naivety.
A parent is responsible for their children, but only to a certain point. After all, our children do grow up, and they, whether we parents like it or not, possess free will. The rub is: God made them that way. They will make decisions, some good, and some bad. Hopefully we have, as parents, instilled values and virtues that will help our children make more good decisions than bad. Hopefully, we have given more good examples than bad examples to our children of how to live as Christian men and women. However, no matter how holy, no matter how pious, no matter how moral or religious we are, that is no guarantee that our children will be holy, pious, moral or religious when they grow up and start making their own decisions.
Take for example… well… St. Monica! There is no doubt that St. Monica was holy, pious, moral and religious, and just look at where her son ended up! He turned out to be a profligate and a heretic! He lived in debauchery for a good portion of his young life. Never mind for the moment that he later converted and became a great saint. No one doubts for a moment that St. Monica was a noble and virtuous parent; no one thinks that she was somehow lacking as a mother. No one would accuse St. Monica of being the reason for Augustine’s profligate youth once he was out of the home. There’s only so much to which you can hold a parent responsible, and many times the life of a parent’s grown child does not reflect the life or character of the parent.
This should be born in mind by everyone in traditional Catholic communities. Think before you speak! Before you judge someone based on the actions of their children, consider the glass house you live in!
Also, we have to keep in mind that our children have their own crosses to bear, most of which we as parents had nothing to do with. Some of us have children who are born with handicaps, genetic disorders or predispositions, or they experience traumas or tragedies outside of our control. It is natural for us to want to protect our children or save them from their maladies. However, there are simply things that are beyond our control.
All we can do is pray, and trust God.
Once again St. Monica is a great example for us. If her son had not returned, would we consider her efforts any less holy, any less heroic? Of course, we wouldn’t know about her efforts, as it was her prodigal son that recorded them for prosperity. However, even if her efforts did not bring about her son’s return, they would be no less precious in the sight of God. It is her consistency in hope and prayer that we as parents ought to emulate, and even if we aren’t given consolation, our sacrifices are still precious in the sight of God.
While we should look to St. Monica’s example, and while we should always have hope, we can’t allow ourselves to dwell too long in disappointment if we don't get the same results. After all, Monica had an advantage that most of us parents simply do not have. Her son might have turned out a profligate and a heretic, but her son was also… well, he was St. Augustine! Even when St. Augustine was wrong, he was brilliantly wrong. St. Monica was blessed with a child who was far more intelligent than most others. Our children, while always being special in our eyes, usually aren’t equal to the genius of a St. Augustine. So in a way, God spoiled St. Monica. Not all of us parents have been spoiled in that way.
Being a parent is to strike out into uncharted waters. It takes a lot of courage to lay your heart out there, to expose yourself spiritually for your children. We are going to get beat up. Some of us more than others, but all things, good and bad, are for the greater glory of God. All we mere mortals can do is pray and trust God.
So I don’t know if I’m qualified to answer your questions, Anonymous Mom, but let me give it a shot.
Why didn’t my prayers and sacrifices make him convert?
I don’t know. God knows. And He will give you the answer some happy day. But I do know that your prayers are like so many roses about His Throne.
Am I not holy enough?
Did you not pray and weep every day? Did you not offer rosaries? Did you not have Masses said? Did you not tell the truth with charity and motherly affection? God help us if you aren’t holy, because then nobody would be holy.
Am I not as good as St. Monica?
I would say that today, you are a contemporary example of St. Monica for me, and for that, I thank you.
Am I a terrible mother?
If you are, then so was St. Monica.
What do you do when your son doesn’t return?
As difficult as it is, and knowing we have to push through even when it seems pointless and absurd, all we can do is pray and trust God.
I'm sorry, but that's all I got. For much better answers, please speak with your priest. Know that you will be in my prayers.
Friday, May 4, 2012
TradNews Roundup
*See the sidebar for latest Rome/SSPX news. Please keep up the prayers and fastings!
*Bishop Morlino takes the vocal minority in Madison.
*Another Vatican crack down. This time it is Caritas Internationalis.
*The Obama Administration demonstrates once again that they are clueless when it comes to the US Constitution. Do Americans realize how incompetent this Administration is?
*France on the verge of plunging into darkness.
*US economy is stuck in neutral.
*Royal family backed into a corner due to push for legalized abortion.
*The Angry, Lazy Bigotry of Maureen Dowd. She's an idiot.
*PepsiCo stops using aborted fetal cell line in its contract with Senomyx.
*The ever changing ideological face of Cinco de Mayo.
*US plagued by increasing religious pluralism, increase in non-Christian religions, decrease in religious practice and decrease in "active" Catholics.
The Chen Guangcheng Round up:
*Will Obama hang Chinese Pro-Life activist out to dry?
*And the answer is: YES! The antichrist in the white house and his State Department abandons Chen. Go figure.
*This administration is the most evil group of people to ever occupy office. Obama Administration is no different from the Chi-Coms.
*Congressman Chris Smith calls the Obama Administration handling of Chin Guangcheng situation a "scandal".
*Chen calls into emergency congressional hearing and expresses concern about the unknown whereabouts of family members and arrested brother. Meanwhile, Barack Obama and his lovely wife, Mooch-elle, plan their next White House party, and Hilary Clinton licks the boot straps of a bunch of Chi-Coms, commending them on their population control measures.
*Chinese poet and communist dissent urges Hillary Clinton to meet with Chen. Why would she listen now?
*Obama under pressure from Romney on the Chen fiasco. Read to the bottom: Cohen of Amnesty International thinks it best that Chen suffers in China rather than "disappear" in America. Is there any doubt left as to the moral bankruptcy at Amnesty International?
*Bishop Morlino takes the vocal minority in Madison.
*Another Vatican crack down. This time it is Caritas Internationalis.
*The Obama Administration demonstrates once again that they are clueless when it comes to the US Constitution. Do Americans realize how incompetent this Administration is?
*France on the verge of plunging into darkness.
*US economy is stuck in neutral.
*Royal family backed into a corner due to push for legalized abortion.
*The Angry, Lazy Bigotry of Maureen Dowd. She's an idiot.
*PepsiCo stops using aborted fetal cell line in its contract with Senomyx.
*The ever changing ideological face of Cinco de Mayo.
*US plagued by increasing religious pluralism, increase in non-Christian religions, decrease in religious practice and decrease in "active" Catholics.
The Chen Guangcheng Round up:
*Will Obama hang Chinese Pro-Life activist out to dry?
*And the answer is: YES! The antichrist in the white house and his State Department abandons Chen. Go figure.
*This administration is the most evil group of people to ever occupy office. Obama Administration is no different from the Chi-Coms.
*Congressman Chris Smith calls the Obama Administration handling of Chin Guangcheng situation a "scandal".
*Chen calls into emergency congressional hearing and expresses concern about the unknown whereabouts of family members and arrested brother. Meanwhile, Barack Obama and his lovely wife, Mooch-elle, plan their next White House party, and Hilary Clinton licks the boot straps of a bunch of Chi-Coms, commending them on their population control measures.
*Chinese poet and communist dissent urges Hillary Clinton to meet with Chen. Why would she listen now?
*Obama under pressure from Romney on the Chen fiasco. Read to the bottom: Cohen of Amnesty International thinks it best that Chen suffers in China rather than "disappear" in America. Is there any doubt left as to the moral bankruptcy at Amnesty International?
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick....We Just Gotta Wait...
For those of us who are more traditional minded, we have entered into a sort of "waiting game." We have become enamored with the idea that the SSPX are going to reconcile. Some of us, including myself think that this can do nothing but promote healing in the Church with regard to the traddy faction and the progressive faction. Some feel exactly the opposite. I cannot speak for the progressives, for I am not one of them, but I can give my view as a traddy, because it is what I believe.
From time immemorial, the Church has been conservative. Her role is not only to help Catholics live in the time in which they are a part, but also to maintain the connection between the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church. A very big part of the Church is to conserve the Truth of Jesus Christ. That, above all else, is what drives the SSPX and all traddies. As traddies, we are not looking to stifle the Church, hardly, but we are looking to conserve that which transmits the truth. We can be certain that the traditional ways of Catholicism do this, we cannot be certain that the new methods do, especially when those methods are at odds with traditional Catholic thought.
This is the conundrum which we face. I think that it is the conundrum every age faces. I don't think that the Church has endured such a polarizing shift as it did in the 1960s. It's how we respond to those conundrums which define us as Catholics.
We hear all the time that the SSPX is "acting away from the Church." We hear that the SSPX is "dangerous to the faith." We hear that the SSPX is "disobedient." We hear that the SSPX has "set up an alternate Magisterium." Where has the SSPX said any of this? Where has the SSPX done most of this? Let me answer some of these questions, from my point of view.
1. How exactly is the SSPX "dangerous to the faith?" Have they taught heresy? No. Have they taught apsotasy? No. They don't teach anything which is contrary to Catholic thought. If they do, I would like to hear it.
2. How has the SSPX been "disobedient?" Because they question the Magisterium of Vatican Council II? How can Vatican Council II have a Magisterium if there was no dogma and no doctrine defined? There was nothing definitively declared. There were no Magisterial acts enjoined. It was pastoral. To question this isn't being disobedient, it is being intellectually honest. Then there is the whole Econe consecration thing. Well....last I checked that was forgiven and the excommunications were lifted. So, to speak of that as being an act of disobedience is intellectually dishonest, because if the Church (and we are the Church) is socially aware enough to forgive, then the Church should simply forgive and not put conditions on the forgiveness.
3. The SSPX has not set up an "alternate magisterium." Where has the leadership of the SSPX ever said that they were anything other than Catholic? Where has the leadership of the SSPX ever said that they were above the Pope? They have not. They have constantly and consistently said, since their early days that they were concerned with the authentic tradition of the Church being transmitted.
The problem lies, as I see it, with the progressives. They have tried and tried, over and over, in many different ways to set up alternative magisteria. Think about it...there are many different manifestations of this, the two most recent being the priests in Austria and the LCWR in America. The progressives have altered the liturgical action through disobedience, to the point where it is unrecognizable to the wishes of the Council Fathers. The progressives have attempted to alter the understanding of ecumenism, to the point where ecuemenism doesn't refer to the Orthodox any longer, but rather it refers to any Christian denomination. And the progressives have expanded and perverted the notion of religious liberty to the point where secular humanism and the melding of the Protestant mind is no longer a heresy, but simply another way of looking at Christianity on an equal and respected level.
Is it disobedient to protect tradition? I don't know. I do know one thing though, none of this, NONE of this is infallible. The SSPX, by all accounts will reconcile in May. They will be "legitimate." They will be as legitimate as Sr. Joan Chittister, they will be as legitimate as Fr. Richard McBrien, they will be as legitimate as any progressive member of the Church. The big question is this...
What will the progressives do when they are reconciled?
The reason the progressives don't like the SSPX or any other traddy group is simple. We stand in the way of their re-imagining of the Church. There is no place in the Church for secular humanism and the heresy of Protestantism. There is a place however, for those who support tradition. Why? Because what the traddy promotes is consistent with 2000 years of the Church, can the progressives say that, authentically?
Caveat: This isn't about the SSPX. This is about tradition. This is about understanding the breakdown of what is going on in the Church today. The SSPX is the most visible, so they are the obvious example, but this can be attributed to most any traddy.
The truth is that the progressives wanted change. The problem is that the Church doesn't change, she grows. The sooner the progressives understand this, the better.
From time immemorial, the Church has been conservative. Her role is not only to help Catholics live in the time in which they are a part, but also to maintain the connection between the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church. A very big part of the Church is to conserve the Truth of Jesus Christ. That, above all else, is what drives the SSPX and all traddies. As traddies, we are not looking to stifle the Church, hardly, but we are looking to conserve that which transmits the truth. We can be certain that the traditional ways of Catholicism do this, we cannot be certain that the new methods do, especially when those methods are at odds with traditional Catholic thought.
This is the conundrum which we face. I think that it is the conundrum every age faces. I don't think that the Church has endured such a polarizing shift as it did in the 1960s. It's how we respond to those conundrums which define us as Catholics.
We hear all the time that the SSPX is "acting away from the Church." We hear that the SSPX is "dangerous to the faith." We hear that the SSPX is "disobedient." We hear that the SSPX has "set up an alternate Magisterium." Where has the SSPX said any of this? Where has the SSPX done most of this? Let me answer some of these questions, from my point of view.
1. How exactly is the SSPX "dangerous to the faith?" Have they taught heresy? No. Have they taught apsotasy? No. They don't teach anything which is contrary to Catholic thought. If they do, I would like to hear it.
2. How has the SSPX been "disobedient?" Because they question the Magisterium of Vatican Council II? How can Vatican Council II have a Magisterium if there was no dogma and no doctrine defined? There was nothing definitively declared. There were no Magisterial acts enjoined. It was pastoral. To question this isn't being disobedient, it is being intellectually honest. Then there is the whole Econe consecration thing. Well....last I checked that was forgiven and the excommunications were lifted. So, to speak of that as being an act of disobedience is intellectually dishonest, because if the Church (and we are the Church) is socially aware enough to forgive, then the Church should simply forgive and not put conditions on the forgiveness.
3. The SSPX has not set up an "alternate magisterium." Where has the leadership of the SSPX ever said that they were anything other than Catholic? Where has the leadership of the SSPX ever said that they were above the Pope? They have not. They have constantly and consistently said, since their early days that they were concerned with the authentic tradition of the Church being transmitted.
The problem lies, as I see it, with the progressives. They have tried and tried, over and over, in many different ways to set up alternative magisteria. Think about it...there are many different manifestations of this, the two most recent being the priests in Austria and the LCWR in America. The progressives have altered the liturgical action through disobedience, to the point where it is unrecognizable to the wishes of the Council Fathers. The progressives have attempted to alter the understanding of ecumenism, to the point where ecuemenism doesn't refer to the Orthodox any longer, but rather it refers to any Christian denomination. And the progressives have expanded and perverted the notion of religious liberty to the point where secular humanism and the melding of the Protestant mind is no longer a heresy, but simply another way of looking at Christianity on an equal and respected level.
Is it disobedient to protect tradition? I don't know. I do know one thing though, none of this, NONE of this is infallible. The SSPX, by all accounts will reconcile in May. They will be "legitimate." They will be as legitimate as Sr. Joan Chittister, they will be as legitimate as Fr. Richard McBrien, they will be as legitimate as any progressive member of the Church. The big question is this...
What will the progressives do when they are reconciled?
The reason the progressives don't like the SSPX or any other traddy group is simple. We stand in the way of their re-imagining of the Church. There is no place in the Church for secular humanism and the heresy of Protestantism. There is a place however, for those who support tradition. Why? Because what the traddy promotes is consistent with 2000 years of the Church, can the progressives say that, authentically?
Caveat: This isn't about the SSPX. This is about tradition. This is about understanding the breakdown of what is going on in the Church today. The SSPX is the most visible, so they are the obvious example, but this can be attributed to most any traddy.
The truth is that the progressives wanted change. The problem is that the Church doesn't change, she grows. The sooner the progressives understand this, the better.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Prudish or Prudent?
I was having a conversation with a friend recently and she got me to thinking a little bit about some things which are inherently Catholic in nature. Bear with me as I flush out my brain on this one...
As Catholics (traddy or not) we're supposed to live in the world. We don't necessarily need to be of the world, but we do need to live in it. This idea that we are to deny ourselves the things in life which are part of our time isn't what it means to be of the world. I know that may come as a shock to some, but there is nothing wrong with TV, there is nothing wrong with video games, there is nothing wrong with going out and spending time with friends at a bar (if you're of legal age), there is nothing wrong with dressing like others of the time in which one lives. What CAN be wrong, is how those things are used by the person. I'm not saying that there are not bad things on TV, in music, in video games, at the bar, in clothing lines, etc...but the human person is a rational being. He can choose what to expose himself too. But to deny out of some perceived fear that he might be corrupted isn't how a Catholic should think. As a matter of fact, that is what got Decartes into so much trouble. That kind of philosophy is flawed.
As a traddy Catholic, there is this stigma that I should dress a very conservative way and that I should abstain from TV and that I should only listen to classical music, yadda, yadda, yadda....How are we to be witnesses to the masses, if we don't engage them? How are we supposed to live in the world, if we stay out of it?
Because we can reason, we have the opportunity to set an example to others that we can live in the world, do the things that others do and still be good Catholics.
Question: Do you think that prior to the Council and long before, people didn't dress, act, and live in the time in which they lived?
Ask parents and grandparents. I think that you'll find that this leap of austerity that is being promoted by some is a direct reaction to a subjective immorality. Does it exist? Yes. Should we practice prudence? Yes, but do we have to force our young people to be prudish in order to be Catholic? A resounding no. I am friends with a good many people, Catholic (both traddy and non), non-Catholic, and even non-Christian. If I can't engage them on the things they know, how can I minister to them? Doesn't the Church demand that we catechize, evangelize and be ecumenical? How can I do that, if I don't live in the world in which I am a part?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't practice moderation, to the contrary, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. As my friend put it who I was having the conversation with said, "Where do you draw the line?" Where is the line between Harry Potter and Narnia? Where is the difference between Lord of the Rings and Star Wars? Would I let a small child see that? No, but when a child is old enough to recognize that magic is a fairy tale and not real, then it becomes something which with help, they can discern. The inherent evil in life isn't from things, it is from people. We need to work to convert those people. That is what we are to do.
However how does wearing khaki's a button down with dress shoes to play baseball serve any purpose? Or how does wearing a skirt which comes to the ankles to the park on a 90 degree day serve any purpose? There are times when it is ok to dress in moderation, not inappropriately, but there isn't anything wrong with bermuda shorts and a t-shirt for a girl or wearing a knee length skirt or dress. Just like there is nothing wrong with a boy wearing bermuda shorts and a t-shirt or even both wearing jeans. I'm not condoning that for Holy Mass, don't get me wrong. I think that one should dress appropriately for Mass with all conservation and appropriateness, but in the world at large, it just doesn't make sense. It would be like asking a person from the 1850s to wear clothing from the 1740s. They didn't do it, why should we do it today?
This all comes down to two things for the person, first it comes to reason. Man can reason. He knows what is right and what is wrong. If his reasoning is wrong, then he should be taught what is right. Reason is objective, application is subjective. Second is moderation. If things are done in moderation, then it isn't so difficult to adapt and alter when necessary.
As Catholics, we need to be able to live in the world. I'm not saying that we fall into the traps of the world, but we can't live as if we were in Brigadoon, that's not fair to the faithful, it's not fair to the Church and it certainly isn't fair to the self. If we are devout as Catholics and accept ALL that she teaches, then there should be no problem living in the world without having to constantly fight being of the world. Catholicism isn't about being prudish, it is about being prudent. We all need to take a step back and think about that, in my humble opinion.
At the Altar
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Analysis of the Dialogue Mass now available at The Remnant Online
The first of my two part assessment of the Dialogue Mass is now available from The Remnant Online.
If you don't already have a subscription, what are you waiting for? Subscribe here.
If you don't already have a subscription, what are you waiting for? Subscribe here.
Ad Orientem, The Focus of Prayerful Worship
Recently, I came across a commentary regarding the posture of the priest during the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.
I think that this is a very concise and metered view of the issue. While the idea of versus populum can exist, the reality is that because most (if not all) churches had an altar which was already apt, the iconoclasm really began. I know that this is not brought up, but it does fly in the face of the Consilium. The men who comprise the Consilium left just enough to allow for ad orientem worship, but clearly were pushing an agenda which would lead to the almost universal destruction of the oriented position. We as Catholics have a patrimony and from the earliest days of the Church we have seen it borne out in the liturgy. We must make it known to our bishops and priests that an oriented liturgy is more in keeping with the Sacred Mysteries. The versus populum argument is rooted, in it's heart with a humanist bent. The Mass is not ordered to man, but to God. Facing man (as the norm) is not being authentic.
What we are after and what I am blogging about is authenticity; pure and simple.
Please read on:
Ad Orientem PrayerThe reform of the liturgical books after the Second Vatican Council conceded to the celebrant of the Liturgy a wider application of the practice of the versus populum posture. While the Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI continued to embrace the immemorial tradition of the ad orientem posture the alternative posture received a strong endorsement as well. Indeed, it became popular to such an extent that some observers have concluded that the ad orientem position of the priest has been discarded. Sadly, undue criticism has sometimes emerged in regard to two lawful practices. Although the universal law foresees little conflict some local authorities have attempted to abnegate some of these provisions. Wherein lies the authority to regulate the Sacred Liturgy?
Codex Iuris Canonici1
Canon 838 - §1. The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.
§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books, to review their translations into the vernacular languages and to see that liturgical ordinances are faithfully observed everywhere.
§3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare translations of the liturgical books into the vernacular languages, with the appropriate adaptations within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves, and to publish them with the prior review by the Holy See.
§4. It pertains to the diocesan bishop in the church entrusted to him, within the limits of his competence, to issue liturgical norms by which all are bound.Canon 839 - §2. Local ordinaries are to see to it that the prayers and other pious and sacred exercises of the Christian people are fully in harmony with the norms of the Church.Canon 135 - §2. Legislative power is to be exercised in the manner prescribed by law ... a law which is contrary to a higher law cannot be validly enacted by a lower level legislator.
The ad orientem posture of the celebrant during Mass dates to the earliest centuries of liturgical development. It has enjoyed a consistency throughout history enshrined both in immemorial custom and in law. Numerous scholarly studies have been undertaken which confirm the validity of this practice not only in the Latin Rite but in the Eastern Rites as well. The ad orientem posture is sometime referred to as the ad altare posture. The terms are nuanced and the reader is referred to other studies, which examine the underlying meanings. A fallacy exists among many observers who regard the versus populum posture as entirely new to the Church and that it was first introduced in the reform of Vatican II. On the contrary, the historical proof for its prior existence is substantial although the interpretation of the data is somewhat controverted. The Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae that compiles the rubrical directives for the 1570 Missal of Pius V countenanced the possibility of Mass versus populum. Conversely, the Institutio generalis Missalis Romani (IGMR) which compiles the rubrical directives for the 1970 Missal of Paul VI presume the time honored discipline of Mass ad orientem or ad altare. Consistent with the provisions of the Ritus servandus the Institutio generalis continues to countenance and, indeed, to expand usage of the versus populum orientation of the celebrant.
The reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council have allowed for a variance in the posture of the celebrant. Although the former tradition continues and is in no way abrogated, the celebrant is now permitted to turn towards the people for the entirety of the liturgy. Of this there can be no doubt and the optional practice has been widely and warmly received. Still the ad altare posture remains the forma typica and the versus populum posture exists as a lawful option. Indeed the altar ideally is envisioned to be free standing for two reasons: so that the celebrant may walk around it especially during incensation and to allow Mass versus populum. Many churches, of course, have an altar that is designed otherwise and often times this altar possesses such an extraordinary beauty that no one could rightfully destroy this patrimony. And since it does not seem desirable to have two altars it is also evident that the optional versus populum posture would be difficult to accommodate in those churches with beautiful high altars at least during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
The question of a diocesan bishop’s authority to regulate the liturgy is not in doubt. Canon 838 §4 empowers the Bishop to enact norms; however, these norms must accord with the universal law. Canon 135 §2 expressly declares any attempt by a lower level legislator (e.g., plenary or provincial councils of bishops, diocesan bishop) to establish a law contrary to a higher law (e.g., papal law) as invalid.
The legal sources that provide the foundation for canon 838 §4 are found in the following texts:
1917 Codex Iuris Canonici
Can. 1261 §2. Si loci Ordinarius leges pro suo territorio hac in re tulerit, etiam religiosi omnes, exempti quoque, obligatione tenentur easdem servandi; et Ordinarius potest eorundem ecclesias vel publica oratoria in hunc finem visitare.2
Vatican Council II, Constitutio Sacrosanctum concilium, 4 Dec 1963, AAS 56 (1964) 97-138.3
22. (1) Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
(3) Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
SC Rites (Consilium), Instructio (prima) ad exsecutionem constitutionis de Sacra Liturgia recte ordinandam Inter Oecumenici, 26 September 1964, AAS 56 (1964) 877-900.4
22. It is for the bishop to regulate the liturgy in his own diocese, in accordance with the norms and the spirit of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, the decrees of the Holy See and of the competent territorial authority.
Vatican Council II, Constitutio dogmatica Lumen gentium, 21 Nov 1964, AAS 57 (1965) 5-71.5
26. Moreover, every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is regulated by the bishop, to whom is confided the duty of presenting to the divine majesty the cult of the Christian religion and of ordering it in accordance with the Lord’s injunctions and the Church’s regulations, as further defined for the diocese by his particular decision.
Vatican Council II, Decretum Christus Dominus, 28 Oct 1965, AAS 58 (1966) 673-701.6
15. It is therefore bishops who are the principle dispensers of the mysteries of God, and it is their function to control, promote and protect the entire liturgical life of the Church entrusted to them.
35. (4) All religious, whether exempt or non-exempt, are subject to the authority of the local ordinary in the following matters: public worship, without prejudice, however, to the diversity of rites.
Whether a diocesan bishop, in the exercise of his moderatorial responsibilities, may restrict the use of options for the sake of uniformity throughout his diocese has been debated. One such doubt was proposed and given a response by the Apostolic See.It must be remembered that this opinion which was given almost 35 years ago in 1965 was applied directly to the interpretation of n. 22 of the instruction Inter Oecumenici. At that time the revision of the liturgical books had barely commenced. Since the principle of Sacrosanctum concilium 22 has been reiterated in several conciliar documents and provides the language for canon 838 § 4 the response to the aforementioned dubium remains relevant and bears somewhat on the present discussion. However, it must be said again that the ad altare posture is the forma typica of the Ordo Missae of 1970 as it was in the Ordo Missæ of 1570. In both ordines the priest is required to turn to face the congregation at certain brief moments during the Mass. The notable difference lies in the expressly permitted option in the Ordo Missæ of 1970 to turn and face the congregation for the entirety of the Mass. The only posture which is presented as an option is the versus populum posture. Query: When the rubrics provide several options, may the competent territorial authority for the whole region or the bishop for his diocese direct all to observe a single way of doing things, for the sake of uniformity?
Reply: Strictly speaking (per se) this is lawful. But always to be kept in mind is the preservation of that freedom, envisioned by the new rubrics, to adapt the celebration in an intelligent way to the particular church and assembly of the faithful in such a way that the whole rite is a living reality for living people.7
To further illustrate the point one might examine the penitential rite of the Ordo Missæ of 1970. Form A, the Confiteor, is the forma typica while Form B, and Form C (with its 9 paradigmatic formulas in the NCCB Sacramentary) are ad libitum, i. e., they are options.
An example of the way in which the dubium relative to n. 22 of Inter Oecumenici might be applied practically is found in the following scenario. The competent territorial authority or a diocesan bishop, "strictly speaking (per se)" could restrict the penitential rite to use of only Form B or Form C since these are the optional texts. That same authority, however, could not disallow use of Form A, the forma typica. The illustration applies similarly to the competent authority’s moderation of the celebrant’s posture at Mass. The competent ecclesiastical authority "strictly speaking (per se)" could restrict the celebrant’s posture to one of the optional postures. Since, a sole option is countenanced and a range of options is non-existent, in fact, the competent authority mentioned in canon 838 § 4 could not place any restrictions. And he certainly could not disallow the typical ad altare posture.
The discretion to celebrate ad orientem or versus populum is exercised by the celebrant. Prudence and circumstances compel him to consider those who are touched by his decision if he is going to depart from local usage. Common sense will dictate whether the physical environment of the presbyterium and the altar place any constraints. Respect for local de facto or de iure custom demands sensitivity. Clearly, the rector of a church or the caretaker of the oratory or chapel can grant or deny access to the sacred place to all the faithful or to specific individuals based on the willingness of the persons to conform to established customs of the place. Indeed, the rector or caretaker would be obligated to deny egress to a sacred minister who bore certain ecclesiastical penalties.
In reference to the posture of the priest during Mass the prescriptions differ for Masses with a congregation and for Masses without a congregation.
In a Mass with a congregation the rites and rubrics provide that during the Liturgy of the Word the celebrant sit or stand at the celebrant’s chair however it may be situated in the presbyterium. During the Liturgy of the Eucharist, i.e., from the Preparation of the Gifts until the Dismissal is pronounced, the priest faces the altar, turning to the congregation for specified brief moments and then returning to face the altar.8 As an option the celebrant may turn towards the congregation for the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist.
In a Mass without a congregation the rites and rubrics require the priest to face the altar during the entire Mass, turning to the minister or server only for specified brief moments and then returning to face the altar.9 The celebrant’s chair plays no role.
The permissiveness for the priest to celebrate Mass versus populum is mentioned in the 1964 decree Inter Oecumenici, the first instruction on the orderly carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy. However, the concession is found not in Chapter II which outlines the changes to the Ordo Missae rather it is mentioned in Chapter V which relates certain principles on the design of churches and altars:
91. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.
The suitability of a free standing altar contained in Inter Oecumenici 91 (and repeated in n. 95) is reiterated several times in subsequent documents.10 While the aptness of an altar versus populum is certainly fostered the Consilium also declared:
We wish to emphasize, however, that the celebration of the whole Mass facing the people is not absolutely indispensable for pastoral effectiveness. The entire liturgy of the Word, in which the active participation of the faithful is amply achieved through dialogue and song, already proceeds facing the people and is all the more intelligible now that it uses the people’s own language.11
Above all because for a living and participated liturgy, it is not indispensable that the altar should be versus populum: in the Mass, the entire liturgy of the Word is celebrated at the chair, ambo or lectern, and, therefore, facing the assembly.12
Most recently the ad altare question was revisited and the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments published the following commentary:13
3. The arrangement of the altar "versus populum" is certainly something desirable in the current liturgical legislation. Nonetheless, it is not an absolute value over every other one ... It is more faithful to the liturgical sense in these cases to celebrate at the existing altar with the backs turned to the people than to maintain two altars in the same sanctuary. The principle of the oneness of the altar is theologically more important than the practice to celebrate turned towards the people.
4. It is appropriate to explain clearly that the expression "celebrate turned to the people" does not have a theological sense, but only a topographic-positional sense. Every celebration of the Eucharist is "ad laudem et gloriam nominis Dei, ad utilitatem quoque nostram, totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae." Theologically, therefore, the Mass is always turned to God and turned to the people. In the form of celebration it is necessary to be attentive not to reverse theology and topography, especially when the priest is on the altar. Only in the dialogues from the altar does the priest speak to the people. All the rest is prayer to the Father mediated through Christ in the Holy Spirit. This theology must be able to be visible.
ENDNOTES
1. Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition, Canon Law Society of America, Washington, DC, 1983.
2. Private translation: If the local Ordinary issues laws on this matter for his territory, all religious also, even if exempt, are bound to observe them. To this end the Ordinary can visit their churches or public oratories.
3. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Postconciliar Documents, ed., Rev. Austin Flannery, O.P., (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1975) (Hereafter Flannery).
4. Ibid., Flannery.
5. Ibid., Flannery.
6. Ibid., Flannery.
7. Notitiae 1 (1965) 254.
8. See IGMR, nn. 86, 107, 115, 116, 122, 198, 199; see Ordo Missae, nn. 2, 25, 128, 133, 134, 142, 143.
9. See IGMR, nn. 213 and 227; see Ordo Missae, nn. 2, 19, 24, 27, 28, and 34.
10. See SC Rites, Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium 54, IGMR 262, Ordo dedicationis ecclesiae et altaris 8.
11. Consilium, Letter, Le renouveau liturgique, n. 6, 30 Jun 1965.
12. Consilium, Letter, L'heureux développement, n. 6, 25 Jan 1966.
13. Notitae 29 (1993) 249.There was a point to versus populum and it had absolutely nothing to do with returning to "a previous practice." That was a smokescreen...the real issue is that versus populum postures are to make the Protestant feel more comfortable. In the process, it made the Catholic feel uncomfortable...that is the real point. Bring the Protty in and convert the Catholic to a new way of thinking. That was the whole point of the Consilium. Too bad that isn't the point of the Church.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Catholic motherhood and contentment
Aprons for Our Lady
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)