WE JUST HAVE TO SAY NO TO THOSE WHO WANT A LIBERAL CATHOLIC CHURCH

As some of my previous posts indicate, there is a final, feeble resurgence of a cabal of dissident Catholics from the 1960's and 70's who are trying to seize upon some of the woes the Church is experiencing to push their old agenda for the Church, a liberalizing agenda.

From the 1970's this is still the liberal agenda for the Church:
1. married priests
2. female priests
3. redefining Holy Orders to allow anyone to celebrate the sacraments
4. inclusiveness of lifestyles (now to include homosexual marriage)
5. Contraception and abortion without guilt
6. Liturgies that are created anew and for each congregation, super-creativity
7. Penitential Rite of the Mass to be sufficiently sacramental Penance
8. Divorce and remarriage without guilt
9. inter-communion and communion to whomever wishes to receive baptized or not
10. No Roman control, popes and bishops facilitators of whatever any congregation or religious group wants rather than authoritative leaders of clarity in doctrine, morals and Church unity

There is not much new about their agenda except they are very vocal and more divisive than ever. The other thing that isn't new is that if they succeed in gaining greater support, especially that of a bishop or two, there could be a real schism like the sort led by Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve in the 1970's and 80's that led to his excommunication and the excommunication of the bishops he consecrated.

The only silver lining in this dark liberal cloud is that liberals are so wishy-washy and all over the place, that their radicalness can never be unified through latent anger alone. They are so splintered that the only viable option is a lose confederation of congregationalism. And yes, we have that in Protestantism. I just wonder why in the world they want to reinvent the wheel and drag the Universal Church down with them.

Now if you want to see what would happen to the Catholic Church if the liberal agenda won the day, just look at what is happening to the Anglican Communion (Episcopal Church in America):

From the United Kingdom's Weekly Standard
The End of Canterbury
Will the sun set on the Anglican communion?
Dec 19, 2011, Vol. 17, No. 14 • By JOSEPH BOTTUM

The archbishop of Canterbury is going to resign next year. At least that’s the story making the rounds of newspapers in London, and the interesting part is not that the 61-year-old Rowan Williams should be willing to give up another decade in the job. Or even, if the Telegraph is right, that the clergy and his fellow bishops are working to push him out.

No, the interesting news about the looming resignation is how little attention anyone appears to be paying to it. The Church of England just doesn’t seem to matter all that much, fading from the world’s stage only slightly more slowly than the British Empire that planted it across the globe...

Anglicanism remains widespread, with 80 million members around the world, from the Episcopal Church in the United States to the followers of Henry Luke Orombi, archbishop of Uganda. England is still the largest Anglican province, with 26 million members, at least nominally. But far more Anglicans are in church on a Sunday morning in Kenya and Nigeria than in Britain, and the center of Anglican belief is now firmly in Africa—a major part, as Philip Jenkins noted in his 2002 book The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, of the nearly complete conversion of sub-Saharan Africa to Christianity over the last 100 years.

The rise of the African church could have made Canterbury an important player in international relations—not exactly a rival to Rome (Catholicism’s one billion adherents make that unlikely) but at least a second European center with which Africans would have felt a relation and to which they could have looked for intellectual and ecclesial authority.

What the archbishop of Canterbury needed to hold together was a church divided between such African heroes of the faith as the retired archbishop of Cape Town, Desmond Tutu, and such established masters of the Anglican bureaucracy as the primate of the Church of Canada, Fred Hiltz. On issues from the legality of abortion to the installation of female bishops and, especially, church ceremonies for gay marriage and the consecration of openly gay priests, the difference between the conservative African churches and the radical Western churches—between, say, Nicholas Okoh, Anglican primate of Nigeria, and Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States—is unbridgeable.

The current archbishop is a cultivated, intelligent man: a published poet and literary figure with theological sophistication and a talent for administration. Rowan Williams never possessed either the international star-power of someone like John Paul II or the intellectual depth of Benedict XVI. Still, he has more or less succeeded in his decade-long attempt to hold Anglicanism together with a kind of quiet, British suasion.

He pursued that end, however, mostly by trying to make himself an utterly neutral figure, beginning his reign as archbishop, for example, by leaving the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, an important British pro-life group. And his Laodicean pose has led him into such inanities as his 2008 call to enact some form of the “unavoidable” sharia law in Great Britain—even while his fellow Anglicans in Nigeria were being attacked by Muslim mobs.

(The liberal bishops of the liberal northern, western hemisphere are) demanding that all churches in the communion embrace their views on human sexuality. In all likelihood, the forcing of the issue of same-sex marriage will lead the African churches to withdraw from communion with the Western churches—while the churches of Europe and North America will denounce the African churches, choosing allegiance with standard-issue Western liberalism over the orthodox teaching of their own faith.

And thereby the world will lose one more of the old ties that might have bound it together. Freed from their African anchor, the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in America will move even further in a pro-Muslim, anti-Israel direction, providing yet more cover for fashionable liberal anti-Semitism. Let loose from their allegiance to Canterbury, the African churches will quickly move toward forming pan-African denominations that will feel entirely distanced from Europe and America—and will help build the belief the global South owes nothing to the West.

My final comment: If liberal Catholics get their way, what is happening to the Anglican Communion will happen to the Catholic Church. Liberals,especially politically motivated Catholic liberals, want this because this is the agenda of godless secularism well pursued by Western Europe and now afflicting America. Liberals are not about God or immutable truth, they are about politics and godless secularism that pushes the true God into the private sphere and into fragmented congregationalism that can in no way influence politics, elections or the direction of the world. Liberals are satisfied with that, just as long as the poor are cared for, the earth is not warming too much and the wealth is evenly distributed and government is god.

WHATEVER HAPPEN TO LARGE CATHOLIC FAMILIES? ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL AS MEDICINE WHEN CHILDREN ARE SEEN AS A DISEASE NOT A GIFT FROM GOD

From Catholic World News: Michigan bishop explains how contraception decimates parishes

In an interview with Catholic World Report, Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette, Michigan, sees contraception as a major cause for the deterioration of American Catholic parishes.

Bishop Sample, who was ordained a bishop at the age of 50, describes himself as a member of “the first lost generation of poor catechesis.” He spoke with Catholic World Report about the critical need to restore proper religious education in order to bring young people back to the active practice of the faith.

When asked whether the prevalence of contraceptive use is a problem for the Church, Bishop Sample responded clearly:

Absolutely. Not everyone wants to talk about it, but that is a clear factor in the decline of the Catholic community. When I speak to my pastors, I hear them ask, “Where are the children?” We’re struggling to keep our Catholic school population up. This is true in our public schools as well.

My pastors want to have flourishing schools, but the children just aren’t there to fill them. Couples are using artificial contraceptives to limit the size of their families, and sterilization is also becoming a common practice. Families think they have the number of children they want, and then close off any further openness to life that God might want to bring into their family.

My comments:
Two weeks ago, I baptized the 9th baby of one of our families. The next day, I welcomed back another family who have moved away, but returned to the parish. The mother had a newborn in her arms, her 11th child.
On Thursday night's 7:00 PM Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception another one of our families with 9 children sat with the two other families for a total of 35 children and adults from three families!

Now, if I could only convince them to use our Catholic school rather than home school. But therein lies the rub, those who are using Catholic home schooling curriculum are the ones who live their Catholic lives like large Catholic families in the 1950's. They lead disciplined Catholic lives.

How did we as parishes and Catholic schools lose that? It is more than just the contraceptive mentality. It has a great deal to do with what the good bishop says above my comments!

SOMETIMES 1960'S HIP THEOLOGY JUST CAN'T BE RECAPTURED AND WHEN YOU TRY IT IS SAD, NOT FUNNY

When I was in the seminary in the 1970's Godspell was still popular and we were being taught that any masculine pronouns to describe God or common humanity (man) were forbidden and in an infallible way, even as it concerns proper English grammar. We were to change these horrible masculine terms for God and neuter them.

The National Catholic Reporter has a review on the revival of Godspell on Broadway. The reviewer is not kind and in the following paragraph seems to get it right:

“Godspell” is showing its age, at least as represented by director Daniel Goldstein’s production at New York’s Circle in the Square Theatre. This first Broadway revival of the beloved 1971 “rock musical” might be compared to a middle-aged person trying to recapture youth. In people the result is sad to see, but here it’s just boring."

But then she goes off in the caricature she decries and laments that masculine terms for God were NOT neutered among other aging hippie concerns of certain Catholics of a certain age today.

It reminded me of Robert Kumpel's comments on the previous post:

The biggest enemies of the return to tradition are aging Catholics. They cannot let go of their 60's and 70's mentality and seem to believe that the only true tradition is the "revolution" imposed upon us in 1970. Strangely, it is younger people who are more disposed and open to tradition and open to the new translation of the Mass.

Why can't the older people have more respect for THEIR elders, namely the Holy Father and the Fathers of the Church?

I think we are seeing the wacked out 60's movement of aging priests, religious and laity staging their final attack against those who dare to call them to task for their novelty and 60's "do your own thing" generation which came to be called the "me generation."

Isn't it time to move on. As hard as it was to say goodbye to Bob Barker on the Price is Right, good old Drew Carey is carrying on (no pun intended) just fine.

The fact of the matter is that we have moved on and those who are still chanting Godspell songs are the caricature of the NCR article above of these oldsters trying to recapture their lost youth and theology.

I HOPE GOD HAS A GOOD SENSE OF HUMOR, BUT OF COURSE, HE CREATED US!

So I flubbed some things at this morning at Saturday Mass with the corrected English translation. I reverted back to "cup" when I should have said chalice, but that is nothing compared to what I heard when I dismissed the congregation at the end of Mass.

I chose option "B" for the dismissal:

"Go and announce the Gospel of of the Lord."

And some responded:

"Praise to you Lord, Jesus Christ!"

CONTRARY TO MY PREVIOUS CATECHESIS, IF YOU CAN HEAR, FOLLOW THE MASS TOO WITH YOUR PRAYER MISSAL OR MISSALETTE!

I used to teach people about their participation in the Mass that they should NOT follow the Mass in their missal as the Mass is meant to be watched with one's eyes. Unlike the EF Mass where you need the missal for the English translation, you don't for the vernacular OF Mass which then frees you from following in the missalette.

But those professional liturgists of the 1970's who were trying to deconstruct and re-imagine the Catholic Church wanted a more spontaneous, homegrown, inculturated Mass. So priests were encouraged to ad lib and make up their own prayers or fiddle with this, that or the other, despite the very strict prohibition of that from the documents of Vatican II and subsequent authoritative prohibitions.

These professional liturgists knew what they were doing. If Catholics didn't follow in a worship aid, they wouldn't know how the lectors or deacons or priests were making things up as they go and then wouldn't report them to the parish Liturgy committee and when that failed to rectify things since these committees were in tandem with the professional liturgists. Then they would have to go to diocesan liturgical commissions which where as sensitive to these concerns as the parish clones. The only one left would be the bishop himself and then the Vatican, professional liturgist's true enemy.

So taking away worship aids that have all the prayers of the Mass in them was like the frog in the crock pot, before he knew it he was cooked, but didn't realize it was happening. The same with the laity, before they knew it, they thought all the changes that the lectors were making to masculine imagery in the scriptures were official as well as the ad libs of the deacons and priests.

I use to teach that only those who who couldn't hear or understand because of the loss of hearing or bad acoustics should use a worship aid to follow the Mass.

But now I say that if one can hear, all the more reason to follow along so as to expect and demand the Liturgy of the Church, not anything the lector, deacon or priest makes up.

We should all expect everyone, clergy and laity alike, to "Say the Black and Do the Red!"

Now, changing gears only slightly, Did you know that there was a 1998 revision of the Roman Mass that was rejected by the Vatican after it was approved by English speaking bishops? And that rejection led to Liturgiam Authenticum which asked that a dynamic literal approach be taken in translating the Mass from the official Latin into vernacular languages? The 1998 while better than the 1970 translation was still more of the same and even tinkered with the order of the Mass for English speaking Catholics, a tinkering that wasn't in the official Latin Missal. In addition to that, the 1998 missal continued the now defunct "alternative" choice for the opening collect, all of which were new compositions not in the official Latin text. This was allowed for the 1970 sacramentary in English and for the proposed 1998 one, but forbidden by Liturgiam Authenticum.

Here's an example of what could have been prayed the First Sunday of Advent as an alternative opening Collect if the 1998 missal had been approved for official use by the Vatican. What do you think?

Let us pray:

Above the clamor of our violence
your Word of truth resounds,
O God of majesty and power.
Over the nations enshrouded in despair
your justice dawns.

Grant your household
a discerning spirit and a watchful eye
to perceive the hour in which we live.
Hasten the advent of that Day
when the weapons of war shall be banished,
our deeds of darkness cast off,
and all your scattered children gathered into one.

We ask this through him whose coming is certain,
whose Day draws near:
your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.

CONFLICTED IN MACON

Yesterday I celebrated three wonderful Masses for the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. Two were in the marvelous corrected English translation that is already producing much fruit and renewed reverence for the Sacred Mysteries.

The other one was the EF Low Mass. Although I could have encouraged the congregation to sing an opening and closing Marian hymn, we simply spoke the texts of this Mass.

While I like Latin and have enjoyed celebrating the Latin Mass, I constantly wonder why in the name of God we can't do parts of it in English like everything the laity hears and speaks. I wouldn't request any change but that.

We had a large group for the EF Mass and so ahead of time I went out and reminded them that they could participate with every part of the Mass that the Altar Servers respond. But quite frankly it is difficult for many to speak the Latin out loud and I suspect they are self-conscious.

I really think that more people would avail themselves to the EF Mass if only the Holy Father would allow the vernacular for the laity's parts that they hear, speak or sing.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, ADAM AND EVE, THAT IS THE QUESTION

There are limitations to the historical-critical analysis of Sacred Scripture as well as relying too heavily on literary criticism also. In terms of the first, Pope Benedict in his book on Jesus takes a very sharp razor to much of historical-critical analysis of the Scripture although he does not negate it altogether.

I have found some scholars and priests becoming so dogmatic in trying to debunk people's belief in a literal Adam and Eve and in a literal Manger scene, that in the process they have helped to erode and destroy people's faith rather then build it up. My seminary class in 1976 started with about 60 men. By the end of the first year it was down to 30 and many of those who left, left because of the liberal, Catholic-faith destroying teachings of modern Scripture scholars and those who promoted the spirit of Vatican II theology using the hermeneutic of rupture rather than continuity with what preceded Vatican II. The worst label anyone could give you back then was "you are so pre-Vatican II!" It was like calling you a Nazi.

As it concerns Adam and Eve and all the stories of Genesis up to Abraham, I think it is appropriate to teach that these are not "historical" in the classic sense of what constitutes history. Once we get to Abraham then we begin to enter more into classical history.

If one chooses to see these chapters as a parable, the truth of the Church can never be challenged as it concerns the nature of God's creatures and who is the Creator and that Original Sin tainted the human race and excluded them from salvation. But from the beginning, God has a plan of salvation fulfilled in Jesus Christ and what is called the "Christ Event."

It should bother no one that some accept Adam and Eve as literal and the first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis as literal. It should not bother anyone that some choose to understand these books in a parabolic sense while embracing the totality of what the Church teaches concerning creation and the fall of the our first parents.

The following apologetic is rather good I think:

By Fr. Peter Joseph, STD.

The Church teaches that the whole human race is descended from Adam and Eve:

Old Testament: This is the obvious sense of Sacred Scripture: before the creation of Adam, “there was no man to till the ground” (Genesis 2:5); Eve is “the mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20). This is re-asserted in other Old Testament books: e.g., Wisdom 7:1: “I also am mortal, like all men, a descendant of the firstformed child of earth.” Tobit 8:5-6: “Tobias began to pray: Blessed are You, O God of our fathers … You made Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung.” (RSV version)
New Testament: St Paul speaks of “the first man Adam” in contrast with Jesus, the new Adam (1 Cor 15:45, and 47. Cf. 1 Tim 2:13; Lk 3:38; Acts 17:26). He says, “sin came into the world through one man” (Romans 5:12). Seven times in Romans 5:12-19, St Paul speaks of Adam as “one man”. If there were many first men, then St Paul was completely wrong, and so is the Bible in the Old and New Testaments.
The Fathers: So many of the early Fathers, such as St Irenaeus and St Justin, following the idea of St Paul, called Jesus the ‘new Adam’—and then developed the idea and called Mary ‘the new Eve’. If there were many Adams and Eves, then Jesus and Mary have been given useless and meaningless titles by the Church. The Adam-Eve and Jesus-Mary parallel is taught all through the centuries. Vatican II says the same in its documents quoted below.
Catholic doctrine of Redemption: The doctrines of Original Sin and the Redemption require us to believe that we are all descended from Adam: we sinned in Adam, because he was our parent; and because we inherited his sin, we had need of Redemption. The Council of Trent’s solemn and infallible decree of 1546 on Original Sin begins by speaking of the sin of “the first man Adam”.
Pope Pius XII: ‘Polygenism’ (belief in several original ancestors) is therefore contrary to the teaching of the Church. Pope Pius XII in 1950 declared, “Christ’s faithful cannot embrace a theory which involves the existence, after Adam’s time, of some earthly race of men, truly so called, who were not descended from him as the ancestor of all men, or else supposes that Adam was the name given to a multiplicity of original ancestors.” (Encyclical Humani Generis)
Vatican II: The Second Vatican Council speaks of Adam and Eve, and the new Adam and the new Eve, in at least 7 passages, quoted below.
The Catechism: Belief in the descent of all men from one man Adam is called ‘monogenism’. It is upheld in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at least 13 times, quoted below.


II. QUESTIONS ON GENESIS AND ITS MEANING

Q. If Adam and Eve had only Cain and Abel, where did everyone else come from?

A. The account in Genesis does not claim to list all their children by name, but makes it clear that there were others: Genesis 4:17 mentions that Cain had a wife. Gen 4:25 mentions the birth of Seth, another son of Adam and Eve. 4:26 mentions Seth’s son, Enosh. Finally, 5:4 says, “Adam … had other sons and daughters.”


Q. Does this mean that brother and sister married at the start?

A. Yes: at the beginning of the human race, marriage between close relations was necessary and unavoidable but was closed off once the necessity had passed. God the Creator ensured that it led to no genetic problems.


Q. What about science?

A. Scientists have not proved the multiple origin of the human species. The fact that all men all over the world, formally educated or not, have the gift of speech and the power to grasp intellectual and moral truths, tends to show that we are all members of the same family, and is, therefore, fully consistent with the doctrine revealed to us that we are descended from a single pair of ancestors. This argument is confirmed by world-wide similarities in ancient traditions and folklore, and is not affected by differences of race and language. All races
are true to a common type, despite their varieties and considerable differences. The human races are all capable of breeding with one another. Difference in language is due chiefly to geographical separation. As the study of philology and linguistics advances, the kinship is gradually being established between all languages, even between those which at one time were thought to be totally unrelated. The more recent researches into human genetic structure would very much favour the common origin of the human race.


Q. I have heard it said that the book of Genesis is just a myth. Why, then, insist that there is history within it?

A. Some parts of Genesis are symbolic; other parts are to be taken literally and historically. The Church guides us as to which is which. Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950) said:
The first 11 chapters of Genesis, although it is not right to judge them by modern standards of historical composition, such as would be applied to the great classical authors, or to the learned of our own day, do nevertheless come under the heading of history; in what exact sense it is for the further labours of the exegete to determine. These chapters have a simple, symbolic way of talking, well suited to the understanding of a primitive people. … It may be that these ancient writers of sacred history drew some of their material from current popular stories.

So much may be granted; but it must be remembered that they did so under the impulse of divine inspiration, which preserved them from all error in selecting and assessing the material they used. These excerpts from current stories, which are found in the sacred books, must not be put on a level with mere myths, or with legend in general. Myths arise from the uncontrolled imagination; whereas in our sacred books, even of the Old Testament, a love of truth and simplicity shine out, so as to put these sacred writers on a demonstrably higher level than their profane contemporaries.
The same Pope in the same document ruled out the idea that ‘Adam’ means several people, as quoted above.


Q. How are we to understand the six days’ creation by God?

A. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

337. God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work,” concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.

338. Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun.

Catholics are permitted to believe either in the literal creation in six days, or in a long period of time directed by God. One may believe that God literally created the world in six twenty-four hour days, or over many years through some secondary causes willed by God Himself. The most important thing is, whatever ‘method’ or ‘process’ was used, it occurred and was willed by God. But as to the evolution of man, any theory can only refer to the evolution of the human body, not the human soul—since each person’s soul is directly created by God. The human soul is spiritual, and therefore cannot arise through any natural process.

The Church teaches that:

God directly created the soul of Adam.
God directly creates every human soul.
The human soul is spiritual.

God created the soul of Adam, as every human soul, immediately out of nothing (direct creation). But in forming the body of Adam, He made use of material already existing (indirect creation), and transformed it. Was it an animal body that God transformed and elevated—or was it matter straight from the Earth? The Church has not ruled on the question. But if evolution has occurred (which is far from proved, and even contrary to the evidence), it can only mean evolution of the body, not of the soul. No human person can appear on the earth except by divine intervention, by God’s creation of a soul.


III. VATICAN II ON ADAM AND EVE

Did Vatican II change the Church’s teaching on Adam and Eve? The answer has to be No, since no Council can change Church teaching. Here are some quotes from three Council documents to show the Council upheld traditional teaching:

Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (1964), in 5 different paragraphs:

02. Fallen in Adam, God the Father did not leave men to themselves, but ceaselessly offered helps to salvation, in view of Christ, the Redeemer …At the end of time it will gloriously achieve completion, when, as is read in the Fathers, all the just, from Adam and ‘from Abel, the just one, to the last of the elect,’ will be gathered together with the Father in the universal Church.

53. The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is acknowledged and honoured as being truly the Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer. … At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved.

55. The Mother of the Redeemer … is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to our first parents after their fall into sin.

56. The Father of mercies willed that the incarnation should be preceded by the acceptance of her who was predestined to be the mother of His Son, so that just as a woman [Eve] contributed to death, so also a woman [Mary] should contribute to life. … Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus. … For, as St Irenaeus says, she ‘being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.’ Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert in their preaching, ‘The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience; what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith.’ Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her ‘the Mother of the living,’ and still more often they say: ‘death through Eve, life through Mary.’

63. The Blessed Virgin … by her belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the new Eve brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in that of God’s messenger.

Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (1965) in 1 paragraph:

03. God … from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen 3:15).

Gaudium et Spes: Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (1965):

22. The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come, namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear. … He Who is ‘the image of the invisible God’ is Himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward.


IV. THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ADAM AND EVE

Many paragraphs of the Catechism speak of our first parents Adam and Eve:

360. Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor, [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”.

374. The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him.

375. The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.

376. The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called ‘original justice’.

379. This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.

390. The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

391. Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called ‘Satan’ or the ‘devil’. The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.

399. Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.

404. How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.

411. The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “new Adam” who, because he became obedient unto death, even death on a cross, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience of Adam. Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”.

417. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

635. Christ went down into the depths of death so that “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” … [Then comes a quote from an ancient homily]: “Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. … He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, He has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him—He who is both their God and the son of Eve”.

766. The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus. For it was from the side of Christ as He slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church. As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.

LIKE THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, ARE WE IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED TOO?

We believe as Roman Catholics in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception defined as dogma only in 1854. This dogma states that at the moment of the Blessed Virgin Mary's conception through the normal marital act (sexual intercourse) of her mother, St. Anne's and Blessed Mary's father, St. Joachim, God applied the eternal and supernatural grace of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity to our Blessed Mother and preserved her in a singular way from the taint of Adam and Eve's Original sin which everyone else inherits. In other words, the Blessed Virgin Mary was full of grace from the moment of her conception.

The Church teaches that when we are baptized, we are born again with all our sins cleansed, either Original Sin or actual sin.

But can't we also say that at our baptism we are "immaculately conceived" and given all the grace we need to be made perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect? Obviously the great majority of us will sin again after Holy Baptism thus the gift of an additional way God will forgive us through the Sacrament of Penance. But nonetheless, the process by which we will be made perfect by God either now or at our judgment or in purgatory starts with our "immaculate conception" in Holy Baptism.

Is this correct or incorrect?

OUT OF THE MOUTH OF A CHILD

Just one more sign that the newly corrected English translation is paying off and forming Catholics as the old saying goes, the law of prayer is the law of belief: We had our school penance service this morning and one child came in and said, "Bless me father for I have GREATLY sinned..."

Of course we say that now with the corrected Confiteor. It's made an impression on her! Maybe we'll see an increase in confessions with that word and "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault!"

THE LORD BE WITH YOU AND WITH YOUR SPIRIT

The most difficult change in the corrected English Mass to remember is "and with your Spirit." Just last Thursday at our Sacrament of Anointing Mass which Fr. Dawid celebrated and I concelebrated to assist in the anointing, when he greeted the people, guess what my response was? "And also with you!" Fortunately everyone else in the congregation said the corrected response and I wasn't too loud in saying the old.

However, last night we had a Christmas concert with our school children within the context of Lessons and Carols. I had to say the opening and closing prayers. Each time I greeted the people and more than half responded correctly. Since this wasn't Mass that tells me that people are getting in the groove of things with the new response.

Funerals and weddings remain a challenge, but here in the south the majority of people at these are not Catholics or seldom church-going Catholics. So usually there is no response to the greetings.

I'm having a hard time telling if the congregation is actually saying at the Gospel "Glory to you O Lord" or not and the same with the Orate Fratres, "...for the good of His HOLY Church."

I must say that I love the return to the corrected "Lord, I am not Worthy to have you come under my roof..."

For the first time I was able to watch the corrected translation at a regular EWTN Mass on Tuesday morning. The priest tried to sing all his parts and while not having a great voice, did a nice job. He even sang the introductory statement for the penitential rite. They even sang the "Orate Fratres" with its response and sang "Behold the Lamb of God..." with its response which now has music for these parts in the new Roman Missal.

I liked listening to all the new words and it is indeed more reverent sounding. It is a no-brainer in terms of making the Mass what it should always have been, reform or no reform. There are some clunkers here and there, but compared to all the clunkers in the uncorrected English that no one seem to mind or complain about, the new clunkers are so minor and few, I doubt that anyone will complain about these except for the elites who have an ax to grind against the Vatican. In time, though, I'm sure there will be minor refinements of the translation to eliminate some of the more "egregious" clunkers.

Keep in mind that this is a translation of the reformed Mass which was first reformed in Latin. Our older English translation was created by translators who thought that the reformed Mass of Vatican II wasn't good enough or didn't go far enough so they took it on themselves to do it for English. And I ask this small group of translators who thought they knew better than those who were commissioned to reform the Latin Mass, "What were you thinking?" Is this a blatant example of English speakers arrogance?

HO, HO, HO! HERE COMES SANTA CLAUS--HE LIVES

Yes, I believe in Santa Claus. He is one of my favorite saints and today, December 6th is his feast day. I love Rudolph too!

HOUSE DIVIDED AND THE PRESS'S TAKE ON IT

HOW TO MAKE THE CORRECTED ENGLISH ORDINARY FORM MASS LOOK LIKE AN EXTRAORDINARY FORM MASS WITHOUT CHANGING MUCH IN THE ORDINARY FORM ENGLISH MISSAL

The Ordinary Form in English, Ad Orientem and with minor rubrical changes--the new missal for the future!

There is still some talk that one day we'll have a new Roman Missal that will be a combination of the 1962 missal and the revised post-Vatican II Missal in English.

I think this can be accomplished without changing anything in the 2011 missal except the placement of greetings and eliminating the other options for the penitential rite and sticking to the Confiteor. This revision would also re-complicate the rubrics and stick closer to the 1962 rubrics for the Mass.

Nothing else would have to be changed, i.e. Lectionary or its current rubrics for proclaiming the Scriptures, calendar or vestments.

The Mass is celebrated Ad Orientem

The Entrance Chant is the official Entrance Chant with multiple psalm verses.

At arriving at the altar, the priest reverences it and kisses it and if incense is used, it is incensed and the priest is incensed.

The priest goes to the foot of the altar. After the Entrance Chant is completed, facing the altar, He begins with the Sign of the Cross, and the sentence to acknowledge sins. There is a pause of silence and then all profoundly bow and pray the confiteor standing erect for the absolution with the sign of the cross made by all.

The priest ascends the altar for the Kyrie and when prescribed the Gloria from the middle of the altar. All make the sign of the Cross as the Gloria is concluded as in the EF Mass.

Afterwards, the priest kisses the altar, turns to the people and sings or says "The Lord be with you." Then he goes to the Epistle side of the altar, sings or says "Let us Pray" and prays the collect.

All are seated for the Liturgy of the Word as it is normally carried out in the OF Mass.

At the Alleluia, the priest goes to the middle of the altar, places incense in the thurible if incense is used, and prays the prayer to prepare for the Gospel. As he is doing this the altar servers transfer the missal from the Epistle side of the altar to the Gospel side. then the priest or deacon takes the Book of the Gospel and goes to the Ambo to proclaim it. At the entrance procession, the Book of the Gospel is carried in and placed flat on the center of the altar. The veiled chalice is at the credence table.

The homily follows.

The priest goes to the middle of the altar for the Credo and genuflects at the words concerning the "Incarnation." All make the Sign of the Cross as the Credo concludes as in the EF Mass.

The Universal Prayer follows, either by the deacon, cantor or priest but with the priest at the middle of the altar. Afterwards the priest returns to the chair and the deacon or in his absence an adult acolyte or the priest himself prepares the altar.

The Offertory verse is sung and any other suitable anthem as the altar is prepared, the collection is taken. The priest returns to the sedalia and then receives the gifts of bread and wine and money as is currently done.

The priest prepares the gifts using the reformed offertory prayers as currently celebrated.

He turns for the Orate Frates and then back for the Prayer over the Offerings.

Then the Preface Dialogue, Preface and Eucharistic Prayer (any option) are prayed as usual.

The Sanctus is sung or said with all making the Sign of the Cross as the Benedictus part begins.

The only addition to the rubrics is the double genuflections for the consecrations, the use of the pall as prescribed in the EF Mass and genuflecting each time the pall is removed once the Precious Blood is consecrated. All the options for the Eucharistic Prayers are possible.

The Per Ipsum is as in the OF Mass, but the pall is removed, the priest genuflects, sings it, places the chalice on the altar, covers is and genuflects after the Great Amen is chanted.

The Communion Rite remains the same.

The Priest turns for the Pax Domini and asks all the exchange the Sign of Peace.

The Fraction Rite or Breaking of the Bread begins and the Agnus Dei is Sung. The priest prays his quiet prayers as usual.

After the Agnus Dei, the priest turns to the people for the "Behold the Lamb of God.." etc.

He turns back to receive Holy Communion himself as the Communion Chant is begun.

He distributes Holy Communion by intinction with the help of the deacon and others when necessary to those kneeling. The Common Chalice could be used for smaller congregations.

He returns to the altar, purifies the vessels, sits for silence and returns to the Altar, kisses it, turns to the people for the greeting and then goes to pray the Prayer after Holy Communion at the Epistle side of the Altar as he sings or says "Let us Pray" (the Missal is transferred during the silence after Communion).

He goes to the center of the Altar again, kisses it, turns to the People, greets them, blesses them and dismisses them or the deacon does. He descends the altar, turns to it to bow or genuflect and departs as the recessional hymn occurs.

The only other added rubric is that the priest kisses the altar each time he turns away from it to greet the people as in the EF Mass.

This is the OF Mass in the current corrected English, no changes but the rubrical ones I mention and the placement of the greetings.

My clairvoyant suggestions for a slightly revised OF Mass, using the brand new Corrected Roman Missal in English would not be a dramatic change, would still be the reformed Mass that was commissioned by Paul VI in light of Sacrosanctum Concilium of the Second Vatican Council.

In other words it is extremely faithful to what Vatican II actually asked for the reform of the Mass.

The only thing that is not completely faithful is the lack of specifics regarding the use of Latin. I like the corrected English and I'm not sure about mandating Latin, but if we did, I would recommend it for the Greetings, since these are easy to do, for the Sanctus and Agnus Dei only.

Of course, a parish could still have the option of doing the entire Mass in Latin if so desired or other parts, but the minimum would be the Greetings, Sanctus and Agnus Dei and the Kyrie should always be in Greek.
But I don't mind a completely English Mass in the least.

What do you think? Should I write the Pope with my recommendation? Of course not, he reads my blog daily!

CAN A CATHOLIC ALSO BE A LIBERAL? ONLY IF ONE RE-IMAGINES THE CHURCH OR DESCONSTRUCTS IT ALTOGETHER; OR HAS A BRAIN INJURY,OTHERWISE NO!

From the Wisconsin State Journal:

In the Spirit: Can a Catholic also be a liberal?
by: DOUG ERICKSON

To certain Catholics, Peter Kreeft is a rock star.

That was evident Nov. 18, when nearly 500 people filled an auditorium at the Bishop O'Connor Center in Madison to hear him talk.

Kreeft, a Catholic author and Boston College philosophy professor, had been asked by the Catholic Diocese of Madison to speak on whether "a Catholic can be a liberal." Kreeft called it "a very challenging question" and said he'd never spoken on it before.

Kreeft is a strong defender of the Catholic Church against what some people call "modernists" or, more derisively, "cafeteria Catholics," people who pick and choose which church teachings to follow.

There is no middle ground to Kreeft. It would be silly and redundant to him, for instance, to call someone a "pro-life Catholic." You cannot be anything but against abortion to be a Catholic, Kreeft said.

"To be a Catholic is to take the whole deal," he told the crowd.

Kreeft said several definitions of a liberal can and should fit Catholics, including "someone who is generous and unselfish" and "someone who highly values liberty and freedom."

On abortion, Kreeft contended Catholics are the "true liberals," because a liberal wants to extend liberty to the oppressed, and "the unborn are the most oppressed," he said.

Yet, in the political realm, the term liberal has been hijacked by abortion rights activists, Kreeft said. "A Catholic cannot be today what is called a liberal about abortion. That's obvious. That's a ‘duh.'"

Kreeft mentioned other issues, such as homosexual marriage and euthanasia, that he said Catholics cannot take politically liberal positions on, yet he focused most on abortion. Coming in for the most criticism were elected officials who call themselves Catholic yet support abortion rights.

During the Q&A, an audience member brought up the Kennedy political dynasty and how a group of leading theologians and Catholic college professors had met with Kennedy family members in the mid-1960s and came up with a way for Catholic politicians to support a pro-abortion rights platform with clear consciences.

Kreeft said these Catholic advisers "told the Kennedys how they could get away with murder." Kreeft then made one of his boldest comments of the evening, suggesting the theologians who first convinced Democratic politicians they could support abortion rights and remain Catholic did more damage to the Catholic Church than pedophile priests.

"These were wicked people. These were dishonest people. These were people who, frankly, loved power more than they loved God," Kreeft said. "Sorry, that's just the way it is. In fact, I'd say these were even worse than the child molesters — though the immediate damage they did was not as obvious — because they did it deliberately, it wasn't a sin of weakness. Sins of power are worse than sins of weakness. Cold, calculating sins — that's straight from the devil."

A few minutes later, the talk over, the crowd gave him a standing ovation.

DID YOU KNOW THERE WERE SOME WHO WANTED TO DERAIL THE CORRECTED ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE MASS AND ARE STEAMING THAT IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED SO WELL?

This is a good article by Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture:

Why liberal liturgists dislike the new translation
By Phil Lawler | December 01, 2011

From all available indications, the new English translation of the Mass has been received quietly. The faithful have not rebelled—much to the dismay of those who have spent months fighting a desperate rear-guard action against this translation, and those who saddled us for 40 years with banal language for the sacred liturgy.

Oh, I have no doubt that there was grumbling in some churches when the new translation was introduced on the First Sunday of Advent. In many parishes, liberal clerics and professional liturgists had prepared the congregations to be unhappy. (so true, I learned that by reading the PrayTell Blog! Very sad indeed! Fr.AJM) But for the great majority of Catholics, who approached the new language without prejudice, the differences were not jarring.

As it happened, the Lawler family enjoyed an unexpected bonus last Sunday. For complicated reasons (mostly involving the travel schedules of children who were visiting for Thanksgiving weekend), we attended Mass at St. Paul’s cathedral in Worcester, where the celebrant was Msgr. James Moroney: the former executive director of the US bishops’ liturgy committee, the secretary of the Vox Clara committee, the single American most responsible for the new translation. Msgr. Moroney had been working for 15 years toward this day, and now that it had finally arrived, he had trouble containing his joy. So did we.

A further personal observation: At our regular parish, the pastor jumped the gun, and we have been using the new language for a month now. So I can testify that after a few weeks of stumbling, we are already growing accustomed to the new language. Old habits are hard to break, and it will be a while before all stop saying reflexively, “And also with you.” But by Christmas, I suspect, we will usually have it right.

How appropriate that the new translation was unveiled at the beginning of Advent! Not only is it the beginning of the liturgical year, but it is also a time of searching and discovery. As we stumble over the new responses, we can think of the Magi following the unpredictable movements of a star, or St. Joseph banging on doors looking for a place to stay. If we are forced to pay extra attention to the words, that won’t be a bad thing. And if we continue to blurt out the old responses from time to time, that might be a useful lesson in humility.

Somewhat to my surprise, most Catholic Americans had been prepared for the introduction of the new translation. In an informal survey on our Catholic Culture site, almost exactly half of our readers (49.6%) reported that their parishes had been gradually introducing the faithful to the new language over a period of months. Another 40% had been invited to special presentations on the new translation (26.1%), or issued reminders during the last few weeks before the new Missal was introduced. Only 3% of our readers had been given no advance warning of the changes. In other words—if Catholic Culture readers form a fair sample—American pastors had done a good job preparing their congregations for the change.

New Missal Survey Results
(Click image for larger view.)


Unfortunately, the opponents of the new translation had done a good job in their own quest to stir dissatisfaction with the new liturgical language. So by last Sunday, scores of newspaper columns and blog posts had appeared, informing us that the Catholic faithful would be unable to adjust to the word “consubstantial.”

Somehow the faithful endured the shock. Actually the laity, having been prepared for major changes, may have been surprised by how little changed in the responses of the congregation. The most important changes in the new translation appear in the words used by the priest-celebrant.

And here we come to the crux of the matter (pun intended), and the reason why resistance against the new translation has been far more common among priests than among lay people. The new, loftier language has the effect of drawing attention to the action of Jesus Christ the High Priest, and minimizing the role of the celebrant’s personality. Critics of the new translation say that it is difficult for a priest to “declaim” this liturgical language. Exactly.

Place the new translation of a Eucharistic Prayer side-by-side with the old, and notice how the new Missal reminds us that a prayer—a conversation with the Almighty—is not an equal exchange. In the old version we would “ask” God to accept our sacrifice; now it is our “humble prayer and petition.” And why do the faithful do this? For “the redemption of their souls,” so that they might be “delivered from eternal damnation.” The same ideas are contained in the old translation, it’s true. But here they are spelled out with refreshing clarity.

Then notice the constant references to the glory of God and our own humble estate: “Be pleased…venerate…oblation…holy and venerable…eyes raised to heaven…glorious majesty…humble prayer…divine majesty…graciously grant.” With a liberal sprinkling of “blessed” and “holy” and “sacred”—words that were often dropped from the Latin in the old English translation—this language steadily reminds us that the Eucharistic liturgy is much more than another community event. The language helps us to recognize that when God vouchsafes to accept our sacrifice, it is because of his inexhaustible mercy, not because of our rhetorical prowess.

At its worst, the old translation could sound like a business memo, addressed to God, giving the Almighty a to-do list: grant this, accept that, bless this. The new language avoids that trap. And in doing so, the new translation guards against the tendency to view the priest-celebrant as the central actor in the drama. Instead we are reminded that the Eucharist is the action of Christ. (Is it too much to hope that the next step in the liturgical renewal will be for priests to turn around and face in the same direction that the faithful are facing: ad orientem, driving home the truth that we are all praying together, priest and people?)

The new English liturgical texts are more faithful to the Latin originals. But that fidelity is not the only benefit of the new language. This new translation unlocks a treasury of Catholic liturgical heritage. There is the rich poetic language, with its parallel clauses and vivid imagery. There are the allusions to the prophets, the Psalms, and the history of Israel—helping us to recall the Hebrew roots of Christian faith, and to be mindful that apart from this holy Sacrifice, we would be like the ancient Patriarchs, feeling painfully unworthy to raise our eyes in the presence of the eternal I Am. It is sad to realize that an entire generation of Catholics has been raised with an impoverished liturgical language, but consoling to know that they will now discover the riches they have inherited.

The new language of the liturgy is instructive, enriching, yet not didactic. This is not the language of a memo, nor of a declamation. It is, unmistakably, the language of prayer.

MY COMMENTS: I agree with everything Phil writes especially the last paragraph. For the first time since I've been a priest, I feel as though I have been given a text for the Mass that is meant for the majesty of God the Almighty Father who brings us to His majesty through the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross, His suffering, death and resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit all of which is renewed continually at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But the Majesty of God is what the language now make marvelously plain. It was always there in the Latin, and by that I mean the Latin Mass that was reformed after Vatican II, not just the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. There is no reason apart from wanting to denigrate the majesty of God and thus obscure His glory that the original English translation was allowed to be the way it was, so corrupted.

WHAT'S THE HANG UP WITH HOLDING HANDS AT MASS?

Saint Philip Benizi Church, Jonesboro, Georgia (guess who is the former pastor there?)

READ THE BISHOP OF COVINGTON,KENTUCKY, Most Reverend Roger J. Foys, D.D. RULES FOR MASS AND HOW TO HOLD ONE'S HANDS.

Let me be clear, if family groups or friends wish to hold hands at the "Our Father" or there is a Mass designated for such, then so be it. I'm not a prude or a liturgical Nazi.

What I don't like is when the priest-celebrant or some commentator says, let's join hand and pray the "Our Father." I despise when the priest joins hands with those around the altar, whether Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion or altar servers. That shouldn't happen, period.

However, if people hold hands naturally, especially if they belong to the same family or are close friends, so what!

When I first arrived at St. Joseph, because someone had foisted holding hands during the Our Father, I simply wrote in the bulletin but never said publicly the following:

"Holding hands during Mass especially at the "Our Father" is not a rubric for the laity at Mass nor of long-standing tradition for praying in the Catholic Church. If done it should respect those who are not inclined to do so, thus never foisted upon someone. I would ask you to consider simply holding hands with your family members or close friends who find this meaningful but not force others you do not know to hold hands with you unless it happens naturally."

I had many people tell me how much they appreciated my comments and the fact that they did not like holding hands especially of strangers. But of course there were others who thought saying this would turn the congregation into a frigid, unfriendly environment.

This contempt for respecting the private space of others comes from the "free love" period of the 1960's when respect for the personal boundaries of others was challenged and overturned. It has led to all kinds of problems, scandals and sometimes sexual harassment suits at the workplace, although not at church because of unwanted hand holding. There are those who do not have "impulse" control when it comes to the personal, physical boundaries of others and we should not be naive about it and the "jollies" that some people get infringing on others personal space!

For some people, holding hands is just too physical for them, especially with someone they don't know and just too intimate, especially with someone they don't know. I say be sober and respectful about this.

Following the common rubrics for postures at Mass for both the laity and the priest puts us all on equal ground and makes clear what expectations are and leaves out the element of surprise and discomfort when individuals foist their physical needs for intimacy on others.

Finally, the Bishop of Covington as primary liturgist for his diocese has made clear his desire for parishes in his diocese based upon his understanding of the rubrics of the Mass.He is completely within his rights to do so. But as far as I know there is no definitive statement about non-rubrical postures the laity take at Mass from the Vatican or the United States Conference of Bishops, so to select one and not the other non-rubrical postures for elimination strikes me as a bit odd.

For example, many people make the sign of the cross before or after receiving Holy Communion. This is not prescribed in the rubrics. Some people kneel for Holy Communion although the rubric for the USA is to bow before receiving and to receive standing.

Some people return to their pew and relax their head on the pew in front of them as they kneel (but with their rear-end leaning the the seat of their pew and simply meditate. This is not in the rubrics.

There might be other things you notice parishioners doing during Mass that aren't prescribed. What are they?

THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL IS THE NORM FOR THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL

The nature of the intellectual assent that is owed
to the teachings of the Council
The following article, written by Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz Braña, Vicar General of Holy Cross and Opus Dei (also one of the Vatican representatives in the doctrinal talks with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X), was published in this afternoon's (dated tomorrow) edition of the official daily of the Holy See, L'Osservatore Romano.

On adhesion to the Second Vatican Council

The forthcoming 50th anniversary of the convocation of the Second Vatican Council (25 December 1961) is a cause for celebration, but also for renewed reflection on the reception and application of the Conciliar Documents. Over and above the more directly practical aspects of this reception and application, both positive and negative, it seems appropriate also to recall the nature of the intellectual assent that is owed to the teachings of the Council. Although we are dealing here with a well-known doctrine, about which there is an extensive bibliography, it is nevertheless useful to review it in its essential points, given the persistence - also in public opinion - of misunderstandings regarding the continuity of some Conciliar teachings with previous teachings of the Church's Magisterium.

First of all, it is not pointless to recall that the pastoral motivation of the Council does not mean that it was not doctrinal – since all pastoral activity is necessarily based on doctrine. But, above all, it is important to emphasise that precisely because doctrine is aimed at salvation, the teaching of doctrine is an integral part of all pastoral work. Furthermore, within the Documents of the Council it is obvious that there are many strictly doctrinal teachings: on Divine Revelation, on the Church, etc. As Blessed John Paul II wrote: “With the help of God, the Council Fathers in four years of work were able to produce a considerable collection of doctrinal statements and pastoral norms which were presented to the whole Church” (Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, 11 October 1992, Introduction).


Assent Owed to the Magisterium

The Second Vatican Council did not define any dogma, in the sense that it proposed no doctrine with a definitive act. However, even if the Magisterium proposes a teaching without directly invoking the charism of infallibility, it does not follow that such a teaching is therefore to be considered "fallible" - in the sense that what is proposed is somehow a “provisional doctrine” or just an “authoritative opinion”. Every authentic expression of the Magisterium must be received for what it truly is: a teaching given by Pastors who, in the apostolic succession, speak with the “charism of truth” (Dei Verbum, n. 8), “endowed with the authority of Christ” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25), “and by the light of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

This charism, this authority and this light were certainly present at the Second Vatican Council; to deny this to the entire episcopate gathered to teach the universal Church cum Petro and sub Petro, would be to deny something of the very essence of the Church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 24 June 1973, nn. 2-5).

Naturally not all the affirmations contained in the Conciliar documents have the same doctrinal value and therefore not all require the same degree of assent. The various levels of assent owed to doctrines proposed by the Magisterium were outlined in Vatican II’s Constitution Lumen Gentium (n. 25), and subsequently synthesised in the three clauses added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the formula of the Professio fidei published in 1989 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Blessed John Paul II.

Those affirmations of the Second Vatican Council that recall truths of the faith naturally require the assent of theological faith, not because they were taught by this Council but because they have already been taught infallibly as such by the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. So also a full and definitive assent is required for the other doctrines set forth by the Second Vatican Council which have already been proposed by a previous definitive act of the Magisterium.

The Council’s other doctrinal teachings require of the faithful a degree of assent called “religious submission of will and intellect”. Precisely because it is “religious” assent, such assent is not based purely on rational motives. This kind of adherence does not take the form of an act of faith. Rather, it is an act of obedience that is not merely disciplinary, but is well-rooted in our confidence in the divine assistance given to the Magisterium, and therefore “within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis, 24 May 1990, n. 23). This obedience to the Magisterium of the Church does not limit freedom but, on the contrary, is the source of freedom. Christ’s words: “he who hears you hears me” (Lk 10:16) are addressed also to the successors of the Apostles; and to listen to Christ means to receive in itself the truth which will make you free (cf. Jn 8:32).

Documents of the Magisterium may contain elements that are not exactly doctrinal — as is the case in the documents of the Second Vatican Council — elements whose nature is more or less circumstantial (descriptions of the state of a society, suggestions, exhortations, etc.). Such matters are received with respect and gratitude, but do not require an intellectual assent in the strictest sense (cf. Instruction Donum Veritatis, nn. 24-31).

The Interpretation of Teachings

The unity of the Church and unity in the faith are inseparable, and this also involves the unity of the Magisterium of the Church in every age, since the Magisterium is the authentic interpreter of Divine Revelation transmitted by Sacred Scripture and by Tradition. This means, among other things, that an essential characteristic of the Magisterium is its continuity and consistency through history. Continuity does not mean an absence of development; down the centuries the Church deepens in her knowledge, in her understanding and, consequently, also in her magisterial teaching of Catholic faith and morals.

A number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council: on the sacramental nature of the episcopate, on episcopal collegiality, on religious freedom, etc. These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will, even though some of them were and still are the object of controversy with regard to their continuity with earlier magisterial teaching, or their compatibility with the tradition. In the face of such difficulties in understanding the continuity of certain Conciliar Teachings with the tradition, the Catholic attitude, having taken into account the unity of the Magisterium, is to seek a unitive interpretation in which the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the preceding Magisterial documents illuminate each other. Not only should the Second Vatican Council be interpreted in the light of previous Magisterial documents, but also some of these earlier magisterial documents can be understood better in the light of the Second Vatican Council. This is nothing new in the history of the Church. It should be remembered, for example, that the meaning of important concepts adopted in the First Council of Nicaea in the formulation of the Trinitarian and Christological faith (hypóstasis, ousía), were greatly clarified by later Councils.
The interpretation of the innovations taught by the Second Vatican Council must therefore reject, as Benedict XVI put it, “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” while it must affirm the “hermeneutic of reform, of renewal within continuity” (Discourse, 22 December 2005). These are innovations in the sense that they explain new aspects which have not previously been formulated by the Magisterium, but which do not doctrinally contradict previous Magisterial documents. This is so even though, in certain cases — for example, concerning religious freedom — these innovations imply very different consequences at the level of historical decisions concerning juridical and political applications of the teaching, especially given the changes in historical and social conditions. An authentic interpretation of Conciliar texts can only be made by the Magisterium of the Church herself. Therefore, in the theological work of the interpretation of passages in the Conciliar texts which arouse queries or seem to present difficulties, it is above all necessary to take into account the sense in which they have been interpreted in subsequent Magisterial interventions. Nevertheless, there remains space for legitimate theological freedom to explain in one way or in another how certain formulations present in the Conciliar texts do not contradict the Tradition and, therefore, to explain the correct meaning of some expressions contained in those passages.

Lastly, in this regard, it does not seem superfluous to call to mind that almost half a century has passed since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council and that in these decades four Roman Pontiffs have succeeded one another on the Chair of Peter. An assessment of the teaching of these Popes and the corresponding assent of the Episcopate to that teaching should transform a possible situation of difficulty into a serene and joyful acceptance of the Magisterium, the authentic interpreter of the doctrine of the faith. This must be possible and is to be hoped for, even if aspects that are not entirely understood remain. In any case, there remains legitimate room for theological freedom and for further opportune in-depth study. As Benedict XVI wrote recently: “the essential content that for centuries has formed the heritage of all believers needs to be confirmed, understood and explored ever anew, so as to bear consistent witness in historical circumstances very different from those of the past” (Benedict XVI, Motu Proprio Porta Fidei, 11 October 2011, n. 4).

December 2, 2011

POPE BENEDICT APPROVES OF THE KRYSTAL KATHEDRAL

Soon the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will be celebrated here daily and not just sung about!


Pope approves Diocese buying Crystal Cathedral
The Associated Press
Posted: 11/30/2011 04:40:29 PM PST


GARDEN GROVE, Calif.—The Pope has signed off on a plan by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange to buy the shimmering Crystal Cathedral.

The Orange County Register ( http://bit.ly/ukDoBp) reports Wednesday that the approval was the final hurdle for the diocese to buy the sprawling property for $57.5 million for use as a countywide cathedral.

The diocese beat out Orange County's Chapman University in a bidding war for the glass-paned building on the site that is home to the "Hour of Power" televangelist program.

The Crystal Cathedral sold the property after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last year.

A federal bankruptcy court judge approved the sale on Nov. 17. A number of churchgoers wanted the university to buy the property and let them continue to worship there.

LET'S BE REALISTIC; THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS WILL BE THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS FOR SOME TIME TO COME

From this...

to this?

Be grateful that we have the corrected translation of the Latin Mass into English. This is a huge reform in the right direction. Catholics who belong to the Latin Rite deserve a Latin Rite Mass. The corrected English translation gives us that. It is more than just being literal in translating the Latin into English, it is about devotion and spirituality. The Latin reformed Mass never did away with the spiritual and devotional use of words that the uncorrected English did. Why did that occur? We'll find out at the Last Judgement.

With that said, I don't see a new missal that is more like the 1962 or the 1965. What I do see as through clairvoyance is the possibility of two things one of which is already happening in some places:

1. Bishops of local dioceses will allow explicitly the Mass to be celebrated Ad Orientem, but under strict guidelines so that the laity aren't yanked around on the whim of the priest who might be celebrating Mass.

2. The Ordinary Form Missal will be allowed to be celebrated using the 1962 Order of Mass except for the Liturgy of the Word and in the vernacular

The second option simply means that the Prayers at the Foot of the altar would be restored; the Introit, offertory and communion antiphons would be sung or spoken as in the 1962 manner; the offertory will be the 1962 version and the Communion Rite would be the 1962 version. This would be very simple to accomplish with a simple insert for the current missal. In this option only the Roman Canon would be prayed. Actually, the insert could be a permanent feature of the new missal as it is further published, in the mean time a simple additional insert could be used. All you would need is the order of the Mass with the 1962 rubrics (in English) and the rubrics for the Roman Canon in English, but spoken aloud, and the Communion Rite. Everything else in the missal would remain the same--the best of both worlds and so easy to accomplish that one Mass in multiple Mass parishes such as St. Joseph could easily take over an existing Mass with the 1962 order of the Mass in the vernacular and with the Ordinary Form calendar and lectionary--it would be not big deal in other words!

Other reforms to the current missal will concern art, architecture and music. There will be stricter norms for music so that the silly season symbolized by Elvis Presley is eradicated from the current Liturgy.

I say this because we must be realistic about what reforms will occur and what won't. The Ordinary Form of the Mass is here to stay as is the Extraordinary Form and for most of us for the rest of our lives.