TRUTH TELLING THROUGH THE USE OF HYPERBOLE CAN GET YOU INTO TROUBLE WITH THOSE WHO ARE NOW REJECTING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S AUTHORITY ON THE TRUTH

The following is my bulletin letter in our Church's bulletin for this past weekend of August 11/12. I got an unsigned rebuttal concerning it. IF it had been signed, I would not be writing about it in this post but would have happily engaged this parishioner in a dialogue privately. However, since it was unsigned, I have no reason not to discuss it publicly as I have no idea who wrote me this letter. This person wrote: "It is disheartening to see a leader of the Church that I belong to and love, espouse such acrid, venomous hatred and resort to name-calling in a religious document." I'll write more about that after you read this:

Dear parishioners,

Well, we just experienced a little bit more of the culture wars that are directly attacking traditional Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. I won’t be chicken about it; I will tell you directly what this culture war is! It is about fascist, liberal, social progressives in our country and throughout the world who are framing the debate on the nature of marriage as a “human rights” issue when, in the name of God and all that is holy, the debate is really about forcing the issue of same sex marriage down the throats of traditional minded people by shifting the debate to a “human rights” issue and thus marginalizing the opponents of same sex marriage as “anti-gay” and “anti-marriage equality.” Thus people like the practicing Southern Baptist CEO, Mr. Dan Cathy of Chick-Fil-A is not even allowed the freedom of speech by these liberal, intolerant fascists to proclaim his belief that marriage is a divine institution, created by God and for one man and one woman and for a lifetime and that natural law and procreation of children are intrinsic to the nature of marriage. Liberal politicians have threatened to ban his business in their communities! Will the Catholic Church be marginalized in such a way and banned next in these communities?

It does not take a giant leap for all practicing, believing Catholics to know that what the liberal, progressive fascists are trying to do to the Southern Baptist, Dan Cathy and his Chick-Fi-A business is exactly what they are trying to do to the Pope, our bishops and what we as practicing, orthodox, believing Catholics believe about the nature of marriage and our total opposition to the progressive “social engineers” in our time who are trying to redefine it for political gain and godless secular politics.

All of this is part and parcel of the current government’s administration to force the Catholic Church in this country to obey a government mandate and law that went into effect on August 1st that all employers provide health insurance that covers artificial contraception, abortion inducing drugs and sterilization under their policies, including the Catholic Church for our Catholic institutions except for those who work directly in our parish church.

President Obama and his Catholic dissident head of the Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius have in their “great” generosity given the Catholic Church an added year to comply or else! The “or else” is that the Catholic Church will have to pay a $100 fine on every employee eligible, every day. The amount of the fine will be astronomical to say the least! This is dictatorial fascism through and through and a presidential intrusion into the revealed faith and morals of the Catholic Church which has not been experienced in this country since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

Today, Catholics, unlike any other time in our American history, are called to make our orthodox Catholic faith to hit the pavement and make a difference in this world where godless, fascist government secularism wants to destroy what the Church is called to do. Some will be martyrs for standing up for the Church. Every Catholic, clergy and laity alike, have a greater mandate to put into practice that supersedes President Obama’s mandate and what the social engineers of our time are trying to do to us as practicing, believing Catholics. God bless you.

Your pastor,
Fr. Allan J. McDonald

My Comments: Yesterday I received an "unsigned" letter from a concerned parishioner who was "vacillating between outrage and sorrow" over what I wrote in my bulletin letter. This person calls me intolerant, bigoted and hateful! Then this person says, "If you want to be outraged by something, how about the abuse of children by priests? That is a cause most of us would appreciate." Never mind that I've written and spoken about the sex abuse scandal from the pulpit about it many times and in the most outraged manner and laid blame where it belongs, on the poor leadership of our bishops as it was happening in real time and subsequently.

But the point this person makes is that bishops and priests have no right to moral outrage about same sex marriage proponents trying to ban a Christian man's business in their community because he believes what the Catholic Church believes about marriage because bishops and priests have failed in another very extremely important venue. although I hasten to add no one in the hierarchy is saying that those who are outraged by the sex abuse scandal are "anti-pedophile equality!"

This person also uses the typical "bleeding heart manipulation" when they write, "I must challenge some of your hatred toward persons who are gay. These human beings are as deserving of respect and love as everyone else...They do not "choose" this status. They should not however be treated as lepers, In fact, Jesus bathed the lepers in love and kindness. The only intolerance that I see is yours."

This is a political talking point that you will hear left-wing pundants using on MSNBC and other outlets when they go after Christians for not being tolerant of homosexuals because Jesus was. Jesus was never tolerant of sin although he loved sinners and called them to repent and sin no more. Make no mistake about that! Modernists in the Church would gladly change revealed Church teaching on sex, contraception, marriage and other areas all coming from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Natural Law in order to appease and accommodate the anti-traditional Catholic, anti-traditional Christian understanding of sexual morality and marriage.

(For the record, I spoke not of "gays" or "gay" bashing in my letter, but "fascists" who would want to ban Chick-fil-A because its CEO believes about marriage what the Catholic Church teaches and believes about marriage, thus you see how liberals are truly the intolerant ones and the means by which they will go to undermine the Church and her teachings on marriage--it is a political ploy and a talking point of the Democrat party today! Make no mistake about that! And finally, Jesus did bath the lepers in love and healed them too. He does the same with the sick and sinner, not just bathing them in an "enabling" love which isn't love at all, but healing them of their sins and calling them to go and sin no more. He bathes all of us in His blood on the Cross too!)

So, we as Christians are intolerant when we call a spade a spade, a liar a liar, and a fascist a fascist. My 93 year old Italian mother lived to see the rise of Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy. Mussolini had a great, charismatic personality and was well liked by Italians because he was so Italian in outward character and he made the trains run on time. But he was a fascist. Fascist try to suppressed the truth and any objections towards them. My mother had to deal head on with them and she and her family only by the grace of God are still alive today because of what they wrought upon Italy, Germany and the world! She saw them face to face and was threatened by them too and could have been killed by them as easily!

Are progressive liberals in the Catholic Church being seduced by the trends of our godless, political secular culture much like the Italians were seduced by Mussolini and the Germans by Hitler? Is this hyperbole or is it the truth? Yes, it is a combination of both and hyperbole is used to make the point in an exaggerated way.

For the record, I don't hate active homosexuals. I don't hate heterosexuals who fornicate or married people who commit adultery. But from the religious point of view we can call them adulterers, fornicators and sodomites. These are Biblical terms that refer to sin and the call to repentance. If the Church isn't allowed to do that by so-called well-meaning Catholics and government officials then maybe we are giving into fascist tendencies that want to sterilize the Church and her message of sin and repentance.

But shall we silence St. Paul in First Corinthians, chapter 6, when he writes, I presume using hyperbole: "9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

And Jesus, did he use harsh names for those who opposed him, especially the leaders of the people (who happened to be religious leaders too)? Keep in mind, my "fascist" term was directed toward "government" officials who have become "Pharisaical" in their opposition to Christian truth, to the point of some "progressive" or "modernist" mayors in large cities wanting to ban Chick-fil-A as a business in their communities. Keep in mind that what the CEO of Chick-fil-A pronounced as his belief as it concerns marriage is what the Catholic Church teaches, believes and and proclaims to be revealed by God the same thing that Cathy announces. Will the Catholic Church be banned by these "Fascists" or "Pharisees" in government?

Throughout Matthew 23, we find Him renouncing the Pharisees - using various derogatory names. In using them against these religious leaders, it was not His intent to manifest hatred, resentment, wrath, or malice toward them for opposing His ministry. He simply called them names in order to reveal to them their true character and in hopes that they would "wake up" and repent of their sins.

In Matthew 23:15, He called them - "hypocrites" - simply because they were stage-players in religion. They were show-offs, frauds, and impersonators. They were acting the part of someone who is holy. Under the mask of godliness, they hid their polluted hearts. Their whole life was a lie.

In Matthew 23:15, He referred to them as being a - "child of hell." He mentioned that their converts were "twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." "Child of hell" was a Talmudic phrase - a Hebraism for an excessively wicked person who might very easily claim Hell for his Mother and the devil for his father. It was one who was fitted and destined for Hell.

In Matthew 23:16, He called them - "blind guides." These who professed to be "guides of the blind"(Romans 2:19), He was calling the total opposite - "blind guides." They professed to be leaders but were themselves blind because they closed their eyes to the Truth and became ignorant of divine things.

In Matthew 23:17, He called them - "fools." Didn't He say in Matthew 5:22 that if you call your brother a "fool," then you would be "in danger of hell fire"? Was He contradicting Himself here or breaking His own law in doing so? No, He was not maliciously calling them "fools" in a fit of rage or anger. He referred to them as such to open their eyes to their own stupidity, irrationality, absurdity, and moral delinquency. Their minds were so blinded by their love for money that they weren't thinking "straight" or reasoning rationally.

In Matthew 23:27, He called them - "whited sepulchres." On the fifteenth day of the month Adair - right before the Passover feast - the Jews would whitewash all the spots where the graves of the poor were situated in the fields or along the roadsides. They did this practice in order to beautify these graves or to alert the pilgrims to the areas where the dead lay. On their way to keeping the Feast of Passover, they did not want to be defiled through contact with the dead. Jesus referred to the Pharisees in this manner because - on the outside like the "whited sepulchres" they appeared pure and clean - but on the inside, they were filled with death.

In Matthew 23:28, He told them that they were - "full of...iniquity." This came as a great insult to these pretenders of holiness and righteousness.

In Matthew 23:33, He called them - "serpents" and a "generation of vipers." They were as deadly as serpents in that they expressed craft and subtlety and were of a venomous nature. They were a generation of envenomed, enraged, and spiteful adversaries to Him and His ministry.

In Matthew 23:34, He prophesied that they were - "murderers" - because they would "kill" the "prophets," "wise men," and "scribes" that He would send unto them.

I wonder what my secret letter-writer would say about Jesus and Saint Paul? I guess they should be banned too! Keep in mind, one cannot make the leap from the Pharisees as religious leaders to the bishops and priests of the Church, who are the successors of the apostles. Jesus never speaks of the apostles or their successors as he does of the Pharisee because the apostles and their successors promote the truth of Jesus and have been commissioned to do so by Jesus in the most authoritative way. Pharisees refers to those in total opposition to Jesus and who will conspire with the political authorities to kill Jesus. That's the difference and Catholics, even if they are lay or clergy, who conspire with the political authorities of the day to oppose Christ, the Church and her infallible teachings on morality and natural law are the Pharisees in other words, they are the fascists, not those who support the Church and Christ!

THE GOODNESS AND SACREDNESS OF THE BODY, CRASS MATERIALISM AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

T'was a time when someone died when everyone got a Christian burial or at least a burial of some kind even if it wasn't Christian. Certainly everyone who professed to be a Catholic made sure that their deceased loved ones got a Christian burial.

Today our culture is more and more pagan rather than Judeo-Christian or our Judeo-Christian culture has bought into pagan practices without realizing they have.

Note how we so many now are encouraged to treat their bodies as though they are a material possession,like a car or a house. They do radical remodels on their bodies, such as radical plastic surgery on their faces, and all kinds of surgeries for weight loss or simply to make their body look more "sexy."

People are now tattooing their bodies in the most extreme ways as well a piercing their bodies in the most unusual of places.

And then when the body is used or spent and dies. It is cremated and tossed aside, not even a proper burial is given. Rather the ashes are stored somewhere as some kind of macabre keepsake having nothing to do with Christian sentiments as body parts being a sacred relic or these are scattering or flushed down the commode or left with the funeral director to discard at his discretion.

The Catholic Church still requires that we give Catholics a Christian burial. Even when there is cremation, Church law requires that the ashes be interred in a cemetery plot or a columbary that has been blessed. The blessed cemetery is a sacramental that shows us that the human body is sacred and even as it decomposes, we look forward to its redemption when the Lord returns and the resurrection of the body occurs. Our bodies will be recreated from the mud of the earth and fashioned perfectly after the risen body of our Savior and Judge. Cemeteries are to life as Advent is to Christmas.

Look at the Blessed Virgin Mary's relationship with and experience of God. It was not just spiritual. It was physical, in and through her body. By the power of the Holy Spirit, she conceived Jesus Christ in her body. She carried Him for 9 months, in her body. She suckled Jesus at her breasts. She embraced and kissed him, held and cuddled him. She bathed and nurtured him. She saw him crucified and dead and caressed his dead body as he lay in her arms and prepared Him for the tomb.

As Catholics, we experience God in a physical way through our bodies. All of the sacraments touch us in a physical way, whether it be water flowing over our bodies, or oil anointing us, or bread and wine that becomes the body and blood of Jesus becoming a very part of us through eating and drinking. In the sacrament of marriage the Church teaches that husbands and wives experience the very presence of God in their most intimate relationships of lovemaking and life creating. In the Sacrament of Holy Orders, men become “Christ” in a visual sacramental way.

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into heaven is an event of her salvation that shows us that our body and soul are good and are redeemed by Christ.

The following gives a very good explanation of what the Catholic Church requires of Catholics where caring for their bodies after death in a Catholic way:

Question: There are some Catholics who say that the Church allows cremation. Then there are others who say that cremation was always forbidden in the Church. What should I believe?

Answer: The Catholic Church's preference has always been to bury the dead. The ban on cremation was to oppose the pagan practices that were considered to be anti-Christian. The Romans did not believe in an afterlife. As such, they cremated their dead. The Christians of the early Church avoided cremation because of the connection with the Roman view. To be cremated served the purpose of denying the resurrection and afterlife.

Since Jesus was not cremated, this is another reason why this practice fell into disfavor with the Christians. And also because of the belief that the body is the home of the Holy Spirit and it should be respected as such.

The Catholic Church's rejection of cremation was never intended to imply that someone who is cremated would never go to heaven. The church has never opposed the cremation of Catholics after disasters such as a plague, earthquakes or floods when mass casualties occurred, making individual burials next to impossible.

The Church also permitted cremation in extra-ordinary situations where transporting a body half way around the world or a very great distance would have created extreme financial hardship.

In 1963, while continuing to maintain a strong preference towards burial, the Catholic Church became more open to allowing cremation. As more and more Catholics became aware of this change in the law, there has been an increase number of cremations among Catholics.

Prior to 1997, cremations had to take place after the funeral Mass so the body could be present during the rite. Since then, the Vatican has granted permission to allow funeral Masses with the presence of the ashes.

To this day, the Catholic Church Law forbids cremation when it is chosen for reasons that are contrary to Christian teaching. These are:

a. Cremation is implemented for the purpose of denying the resurrection of the body.

b. The ashes of cremated Catholics are to be preserved afterwards as a body would be preserved, either in a mausoleum or buried in a Catholic cemetery which is holy grounds.

c. Ashes are not to be scattered.

d. Anything that is contrary to # b above, it is forbidden by the Catholic Church. You cannot decorate your living room with the ashes/urn of the dead. Nor can you keep the ashes in your basement, buried in your yard or in the yard at the cottage, and the list goes on.

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE INTIMATE MOMENT OF RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION COULD BECOME SO COMPLICATED IN THE MODERN LITURGY?

This video creates mixed emotions in me. In the Extraoridnary Form of the Mass, these issues simply did not exist. You came to the altar railing, knelt, waited for the priest to come to you, slightly tilted your head back, slightly extended your tongue and you received.

Today, though, we have so, so many issues with the ways in which people approach the "minister" of Holy Communion, the styles of reverence and the accidents that can and do happen and usually every Sunday.

In the name of God and all that is holy, shouldn't this video tell us something? After 40 years of receiving Holy Communion standing and either on the tongue or in the hand, there are problems, not the least of which is people rushing, Sacred Crumbs falling and people taking the host back to the pew, home or worse yet discarding it on the floor or outside the Church. Enough is enough. The bishops need to wake up and stop the madness! The Extraordinary Form's manner of distributing Holy Communion never had such issues and doesn't today either. Isn't it time to allow the EF to exert its influence on the OF and how people receive Holy Communion during the OF?

THERE IS NO SHAME ANY LONGER LOVING THE EXTRAORIDNARY FORM OF THE MASS AS IT WILL ONLY BENIFIT THE CELEBRATION OF THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS AND REFORM THE CHURCH OF TODAY

Fr. Z at WDTPRS tells us that His Excellency Most Reverend Robert C. Morlino, Bishop of Madision, told his seminarians – 32 in number! – that it was his expectation that all of them learn how to say Mass in the Extraordinary Form before they are ordained.

MY COMMENTS FIRST: I have always felt blessed that I have at least a recollection of what the Church and Catholic schools were like in the late 1950's and the 1960's prior to the Second Vatican Council. I have always felt blessed that my earliest formation as a Catholic was based on the Baltimore Catechism and the Tridentine Mass.

Even as a teenager, I felt that the Second Vatican Council was making me something that I was not intended to be, a Protestantized Catholic. I accepted that for I accepted as a Catholic our pope and the bishops in union with him. But I wondered if it was wise to discard so much that was discarded during the late 60's and 1970's and to be told that this was called renewal.

The fact that we now have maybe two generations of Catholics who never experienced the pre-Vatican II Church or the liturgy of that period worries me. Evidently it worries the Holy Father. Why else would he allow for the liberal celebration of the Mass as it was prior to Vatican II and seek to interpret Vatican within continuity with the Church prior to it.

Today, especially when I celebrate the EF Mass, I feel connected with my roots as a Catholic when God chose me in 1954 through Holy Baptism to be a part of His adopted family as a Roman Catholic in the Latin Rite. I am not ashamed of my heritages as a pre-Vatican II Catholic born in Italy of immigrant parents, one from Canada, the other from Italy and brought up in the south.

A new generation of Catholics experiencing the Extraordinary Form of the Mass will surely help the Church as she continues her "reform of the reform" using the "hermeneutic of continuity." Praise God for that.

Now Father's Z's comments on Bishop Morlino's stroke of genius, but of course it was the Holy Father's stroke of genius to be sure:

Bishop Morlino did not say that they would be required to use it all the time, but that they must know how to use it. If seminaries are not offering the opportunity to learn the older form (which they ought to be, by the way), they could go to workshops or find priests who could help them to learn it. Bottom line: they are to learn the Extraordinary Form.

I think this was a remarkable.

How many bishops, after all, are saying this openly to their seminarians?

It was also, frankly, a paternally charitable thing to tell the seminarians.

First, if there were any doubts about their bishop’s attitude toward his seminarians and traditional forms, these doubts were thereby removed. They need never fear the bishop or worry about what would happen to them when he heard that they were going to TLM’s here or there, learning the rubrics, serving Masses. They need not on this account fear the rector of the seminary they attend, since they are following the expressed desire of the bishop. Moreover, Universae Ecclesiae (the Holy See’s commentary on Summorum Pontificum) gently asserts that seminarians are to know the Extraordinary Form.

Second, knowledge of and use of the older form of Mass teaches men -seminarians and priests alike – something about the priest and the priesthood which the Novus Ordo doesn’t really do on its own. The older form stresses the sacrificial and priestly nature of the priest’s actions and words during Mass as well as the priest’s own deep unworthiness and complete dependence on God’s mercy and grace.

Third, no priest of the Roman Rite ought to rest easy until he knows also the older form. Ignorance of the older form means ignorance of his own rite. Furthermore, when it comes to their ordination, someone must stand up and attest to the ordaining bishop that the men have been properly formed. How can he honestly say they are properly formed if they have been left ignorant by their seminaries of their rite? The seminarians of Madison, by learning the Extraordinary Form, can always be at ease on this point.

At last, the bishop brought them into a larger vision for the “new evangelization”, as it were. I prefer the image of the “Marshall Plan”, by which the USA rebuilt devastated post-war Europe so as to foster good trade and to build a bulwark against encroaching Communism. In our day and in the Church, Benedict XVI is helping to rebuild our Catholic identity in continuity across borders and centuries as well as bolster a bulwark against the dictatorship of relativism. By giving these men their task to learn the older form, Bp. Morlino also brought them as actors into our Holy Father’s project. It seems to me that, as the men ready themselves to go back to their respective seminaries, this is a good start for their participation in the Year of Faith.

AD ORIENTEM AND KNEELING FOR HOLY COMMUNION AND ECUMENISM

Many Episcopal Churches celebrate their Liturgy ad orientem and receive Holy Communion kneeling. They have no "hang-ups" about it!

The next video shows the Lutherans doing it the same way! And like many Episcopal Churches, they too offer their Liturgy "ad orientem!" They have no "hang-ups" about it or belabor a theology that opposes these traditional postures which they have kept since the earliest days of the Reformation. These are Catholic postures!

The Holy Father's desire for ad orientem Masses and kneeling for Holy Communion must be born of not only getting back in touch with our own tradition and roots, but also ecumenism. The Holy Father is the pope of ecumenism!

THE CLASH OF TWO VERY DIFFERENT WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS AND ITS FORM AND OPTIONS

A couple of comments at the Praytell Blog show the challenges we face today in the reform of the reform of the Mass that is the reform of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Msgr Andrew Wadsworth with ICEL comments that, "the Liturgy is something we receive from the Church not something we make for ourselves. This principle does not in any way limit the legitimate diversity of style which the Church permits in relation to liturgical music but rather explains the norms that govern it."

But another person comments on Msgr. Wadsworth by writing, that the "GIRM lists lots of things as mandates, priorities, and options. “Options” is not a dirty word. It enables the parish priest, in consultation with his parishioners, to serve the highest needs of the faith community. Even as GIRM lists priorities, the paramount concern is the “sanctification of the faithful,” not the absolute letter of the liturgy."

And yet a third person writes a comment, "Who – if not “we” – is the Church? We receive the official rites from the hierarchy, but (to paraphrase the maxim about the Eucharist) we, the Church, then make the liturgy, while simultaneously the liturgy makes us. If one thinks that the Church is something/somebody other than all those baptized in water and the Spirit, who are united in that Spirit as the Body of Christ to offer the sacrifice of praise again and again to the Father, then “the liturgy is something we receive from the Church” is an impossibility."

MY COMMENTS: It seems to me that the brilliant Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth understands that the Liturgy is primarily a "vertical" endeavor, where Christ the Head with His members the baptized, offer the one sacrifice to the Father. The ordained priest receives the gifts from the laity, offers them to God, God consecrates them as these become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and the priest returns the gifts of the laity back to them, but transubstantiated.

The other comments make the liturgy into a horizontal event, something we do, rather than something Christ the Head of the Church is doing on His Body's behalf (all the baptized).

These comments confirm that the vertical verses the horizontal understanding of the Liturgy is paramount and that the horizontal elements of the liturgy as experienced since the Second Vatican Council is the corruption of the reform of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The Vertical must be recovered in the Ordinary Form. We need the Extraordinary Form to show us what this means and how to do it. The verticality of the Extraordinary Form must enrich the EF's revision which is the Ordinary Form.

WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING APOLOGETIC FOR CELEBRATING THE MASS AD ORIENTEM?

Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary's Church in beautiful downtown Greenville, South Carolina several years ago began celebrating the Masses in his parish ad orientem. I don't believe he celebrates the EF Mass though. What he celebrates is what Vatican II envisioned for the reform of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The excerpts below of one of his last catchesis on the subject before he implement ad orientem in his parish is quite good. Who could disagree with it?

TURNING TOGETHER TOWARD THE LORD

One objective of the liturgical reforms of the 1960’s was to encourage the active participation of the Catholic people in the celebration of the sacred liturgy, in part by reminding them that they are participants in, not spectators of, offering the sacrifice of praise at the heart of all Christian worship. Unfortunately, in the years following the II Vatican Council, the Church’s desire that all the faithful participate fully in the sacred liturgy was too often rendered a caricature of the Council’s teaching, and misconceptions about the true nature of active participation multiplied. This led to the frenzied expansion of “ministries” among the people and turned worship into a team sport. But it is possible to participate in the liturgy fully, consciously, and actively without ever leaving one’s pew, and it is likewise possible to serve busily as a musician or lector at Mass without truly participating in the sacred liturgy. Both of these are true because the primary meaning of active participation in the liturgy is worshiping the living God in Spirit and truth, and that in turn is an interior disposition of faith, hope, and love which cannot be measured by the presence or absence of physical activity. But this confusion about the role of the laity in the Church’s worship was not the only misconception to follow the liturgical reforms; similar mistakes were made about the part of the priest.

Because of the mistaken idea that the whole congregation had to be “in motion” during the liturgy to be truly participating, the priest was gradually changed in the popular imagination from the celebrant of the Sacred Mysteries of salvation into the coordinator of the liturgical ministries of others. And this false understanding of the ministerial priesthood produced the ever-expanding role of the “priest presider,” whose primary task was to make the congregation feel welcome and constantly engage them with eye contact and the embrace of his warm personality. Once these falsehoods were accepted, then the service of the priest in the liturgy became grotesquely misshapen, and instead of a humble steward of the mysteries whose only task was to draw back the veil between God and man and then hide himself in the folds, the priest became a ring-master or entertainer whose task was thought of as making the congregation feel good about itself. But, whatever that is, it is not Christian worship, and in the last two decades the Church has been gently finding a way back towards the right ordering of her public prayer.

In February 2007 Pope Benedict XVI published an Apostolic Exhortation on the Most Holy Eucharist entitled Sacramentum Caritatis in which he discusses the need for priests to cultivate a proper ars celebrandi or art of celebrating the liturgy. In that document, the pope teaches that “the primary way to foster the participation of the People of God in the sacred rite is the proper celebration of the rite itself,” and an essential part of that work is removing the celebrant from the center of attention so that priest and people together can turn towards the LORD.

Accomplishing this task of restoring God-centered liturgy is one of the main reasons for returning to the ancient and universal practice of priest and people standing together on the same side of the altar as they offer in Christ, each in their own way, the sacrifice of Calvary as true worship of the Father. In other words, the custom of ad orientem celebration enhances, rather than diminishes, the possibility of the people participating fully, consciously, and actively in the celebration of the sacred liturgy.

+ until the 1960’s the vast majority of Christians in every time and place offered the sacrifice of the Most Holy Eucharist with the priest and people standing together on the same side of the altar

+ this ancient and universal practice of offering the Eucharistic Prayer ad orientem, or facing East (whether geographical or liturgical East), is rooted in Judaism and the practice of the first Christians and emphasizes the vertical dimension of worship by opening the circle of priest and people to the presence of God among us in the sacred liturgy. For this reason, the custom of facing East is also described as praying ad Deum or towards God.

+ when properly understood and celebrated, this form of prayer not only does not constitute an impediment to the full, conscious, and active participation of the people in the sacred liturgy, it actually enhances that possibility by removing the priest from the center of the action and allows him to be once again merely a steward of the Sacred Mysteries rather than a host charged with entertaining his guests

+ the II Vatican Council said not one word about the direction in which the priest should face at the altar, and even now the rubrics of the modern Roman Missal are written with the assumption that the priest is facing East at the altar. Moreover, the Congregation for Divine Worship has clarified that facing East and facing the congregation are both equally lawful and that no special permission is needed for the priest to face the East, a fact underscored recently by Pope Benedict’s public celebration ad orientem, something he does everyday in his chapel.

HOW CAN SOMETHING SO GOOD BE SO BAD? THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE OF WOMEN RELIGIOUS AND THEIR GOOD WORKS AND BAD FAITH

My comments first: Pictured is Catholic priest, Father Dwight Longenecker, with his wife, children and the former Bishop of Charleston, Bishop Baker, who accepted a post in 2006 as Chaplain to St Joseph’s Catholic School in Greenville, South Carolina. This brought him and his family back, not only to his hometown, but also to the American Bible belt, and hometown of Bob Jones University. In December 2006 he was ordained as a Catholic priest under the special pastoral provision for married former Anglican clergy. He now serves as parish priest of Our Lady of the Rosary parish in Greenville.


He has some very interesting comments on the "liberally radicalized Leadership Conference of Women Religious" on his blog. The vast majority of Women's Religious Orders who won the hearts, minds and imaginations of countless, Catholics, Protestants, atheists and even Hollywood because of their Religious Commitment to Catholicism, their work in Catholic Schools and other institutions to serve the needy, their distinctive habits, spirituality and Catholic Faith, abandoned that which brought them to the pinnacle of respect worldwide for a radicalized form of being "nuns" that is part and parcel of our secular culture's move to fierce individualism and self-determination.

In other words, liberal nuns have become entrepreneurs in helping the poor and promoting the secular culture's radical feminism and post Christian ethos. How can this be and is it good for them and the Church?

Well, today's radicalized nuns are NOT IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION your "father or mother's" sisters and should not in anyway be confused with what nuns were and did up until the early post-Vatican II era in the late 1960's. Today's version is not in any way related to that.

Yes, these sisters do good works, except where they tear down the institutional Catholic Church and her teachings regarding the sanctity of life of every child conceived. But why should that bother us? Oh, and yes, they like post-Catholic ritual that boarders on Wiccan ideology and strange philosophies. But heck, let them do that, they help the poor, downtrodden and neglected. But so does the Salvation Army and the Shriner's.

Read Fr. Longnecker's take on it:

Is Liberalism dead? Ross Douthat comments HERE on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and the decline of liberal Christianity. It’s a speculative piece which highlights the chasm that now exists within all forms of liberal Christianity and historic Christianity. I’ve written on the subject a few months ago HERE. This divide yawns not only within the Catholic Church, but within most of the Protestant denominations as well.

It’s a divide between those who view Christianity as a human, historical construct which may (and must) adapt itself to the current trends within society, and those who believe the Christian religion is revealed by God for the salvation of the world through his Son Jesus Christ–and that this is an eternal and immutable gospel which only changes and adapts in minor and superficial ways.

In many ways the term ‘Liberal’ is a misnomer, for what we call ‘Liberalism’ is really better termed ‘Progressivism’ or ‘modernism’. These terms are more precise because the belief in the beatitude of progress is at the heart of liberal religion and the classic term for this many headed heresy is ‘modernism’.

We should be clear, the problem with the Catholic sisters who are in revolt is that they are modernist. Too many of them have abandoned what we might call ‘the old, old story’–the story of mankind’s creation by a loving God, his fall from grace, the curse of original sin and the redemption of the world by Our Lord Jesus Christ. They’ve substituted social work, causes for justice and peace and now a wacky new age spirituality which many of them wish would take them ‘beyond Church and beyond Jesus’. Their keynote speaker was Barbara Marx Hubbard–a new age thinker who promotes ‘conscious evolution.’

I have commented before on this sickness within Christianity. There are many theories about what the ‘smoke of Satan’ in the church might be. I believe it is this: the insidious fumes of modernism–which dilutes the supernatural, doubts Sacred Scripture, denies the efficacy of the sacraments and denigrates the authority of Christ in his Church. The paradox of the present situation, as Douthat points out, is that the very agenda of liberal Christianity would not be possible without the ‘old, old story’.

The trendy sisters of today were grounded in the old time religion of supernatural and saving Catholicism. Their spirituality and understanding of the faith was rooted in the need for salvation, the forgiveness of sins and Christ’s saving work. They were brought up on a diet of prayer and humility and sacrifice and service that grew out of a traditional Christian religion.

Like other protesters they have departed from the old way, but without the old way they would have no way. Like Protestants who’s identity is caught up with the fact that they are NOT Catholic, the modernist sisters only seem to have an identity when they are in protest against the ‘old patriarchal Catholic Church.’ Their protest gives them purpose. Once that rebellious rage diminishes their identity diminishes, and if they have nothing to live for other than that protest movement how will they attract new vocations?

The irony is that they now work hard for the poor and to promote peace and justice, and they do so from a background of real Christianity. However, can they continue their work without that real Christianity? Can their good work with the poor and their advocacy for peace and justice stand without religion? Of course it can. That’s why young women quite rightly look at them and say, “If I want to be a social worker or a care giver or a school teacher I can do that without being a nun thank you very much.” What the modernist sisters have done therefore, is to put themselves out of a job.

That’s why other young women (like the Nashville Dominicans, the Sisters of the Renewal, Poor Clares and Sisters of Life) who want to follow Christ through a religious calling are donning traditional habits and learning how to pray again and are returning to full blown, unapologetic Catholicism. They are saying, “You can teach and do social work without the Catholic faith–but not for long. We want to be fully Catholic, fully professed sisters and fully involved in Christ’s work with the poor, the uneducated and the needy.

A few years ago the Vatican launched an investigation into the seminaries in the United States. Very quietly and efficiently the powers that be went through and asked questions, got answers and tried to clean things up. They tried to root out theological modernism and the endemic croneyism and the ‘pink mafia’. Now the seminaries are starting to fill up again. Maybe, just maybe the present purification of the women’s orders will eventually have the same effect.

If it does not, then the women’s orders that have gone the way of modernism will either die out or cease to be Catholic.

IT'S GETTING UGLY IN AUGUSTA! OR WHY YOU SHOULDN'T MAKE BILLY MORRIS MAD

In an earlier post I indicated that my college alma mater changed its name from Augusta College to Augusta State University about ten years ago or so. The other state university in Augusta, the nationally known Medical College of Georgia, founded in 1828 changed its name to Georgia Health Sciences University about a year and half ago, although it kept the "Medical College" name for that particular school within a broader university.

The two seperate state universities have just merged into one institution and there is now a "War Between the State and the Augusta Community" over the new name which is "Georgia Regents University."

Today's front page Augusta Chronicle shows how ugly it has gotten. William Morris III who owns the paper and many others throughout the country and is a multimillionaire (I was told by someone that he is "exotically rich") has gotten into the fray:

Protesting the new Geor­gia Regents University name for two combined Augusta universities, Au­gusta Chron­icle Publisher Wil­liam S. Mor­ris III, a former chairman of the state’s Board of Regents, has resigned from a board at Georgia Health Sciences Uni­ver­sity, expressing his disappointment with GHSU Presi­dent Ricardo Azziz and calling for the school to be renamed with Augusta in the title.

In a letter to Azziz, Morris said he regretted the move because of his and his family’s long association with higher education in Georgia. Morris served on the Board of Regents from 1967 to 1974, including a term as chairman, and his father, William S. Morris, served on the board from 1941 to 1951.

Morris said he was resigning from the GHSU Board of Visitors, to which Azziz appointed him in 2011, because of the affront the new name represents to the city of Augusta and its ties to GHSU and Augusta State University.

The regents voted Tuesday to name the combined schools Georgia Regents Uni­ver­sity.

“I object to your ambivalence to the voice of this community,” Morris wrote. “The naming convention you have advocated, and now gained endorsement from the Georgia regents, lacks sensitivity to the enormous community good will that has been cultivated over the years. It also has no regard for the voices of both your alumni and current student body, nor the longstanding relationship with Georgia Health Sciences University (formerly the Medical College of Georgia) and Augusta State University. You seem oblivious to these concerns.”

Citing Azziz’s stated “bold vision” for GHSU, Morris wrote, “It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for you to carry out your mission and vision without the united support from the city of Augusta and ALL of its citizens.

“I find I am unable to support you in this recent announcement of ‘Georgia Re­gents University’ until you acknowledge, in a profound way, a willingness to listen and accept the broader historical and communal
alignment of the legacy you’ve inherited. This must include a movement by you to rename the school, including the name ‘Augusta’ in its title.”

The resignation from the board, created last year to give state and national leaders a greater advisory role to the university’s leadership, was to take effect immediately.

A scathing front page editorial in the Augusta Chronicle this morning has the following:

Editorial: What's in a name? Everything!

Seldom does The Augusta Chronicle run a front-page editorial. It does so only when the subject is of utmost importance to our nation, state or community.

This editorial speaks to a matter of critical importance to our state and to Augusta.

The Board of Regents of the state of Georgia has made a colossal error this week in choosing a new name for the combined Augusta State University and Medical College of Georgia (recently named by the regents, at President Ricardo Azziz’s recommendation, “Georgia Health Sciences University”).

The new name does not include “Augusta.” Instead, the state Board of Regents has decided to name it “Georgia Regents University.”

What a tragic mistake.

The suggested new name means nothing. It gives no recognition, or appreciation, to our city for its inseparable bond with the two institutions involved, which reaches back to the founding of the medical college in the 1820s. It’s a relationship that includes incredible support in every possible way over all those years.

What a slap in the face. And to a community that quickly embraced the state’s desire to consolidate the two schools.

There are numerous other reasons the “Georgia Regents University” name is a horrid choice, including:

– It doesn’t honor or invoke any special person, place or thing. It is, in short, completely devoid of meaning.

– Because of that, the name cannot possibly inspire the least amount of affection from students and alumni, or from the community at large.

That attachment means more than feelings; in the case of a university, it can affect the bottom line, if alumni feel alienated or simply unexcited about giving to the alma mater.

Indeed, it will alienate generations of sons and daughters who would have potentially applied to a university that was attended by their parents, grandparents and siblings. With this new naming convention, the regents completely erase the association that has motivated those very important family conversations on “where do you intend to go to school?” Alumni will have lost that connection to a university that has become of part of their DNA, and will likely not inspire their children to consider that institution as an option. More importantly, the prospect of gaining alumni contributions in the future will likely be diminished.

– Perhaps worst of all, the “Georgia Regents” name – which is wholly disembodied from its host community – completely severs a nearly 200-year bond between our community and its beloved institutions of higher learning.

Gen. Sherman would have been hard-put to do such damage.

Why go so far out of the way to avoid using the “Augusta” brand? Why would the regents not want to use the most well-known and positive name in all of Georgia: Augusta? This name is far better known than any other city or place in the state because of the wonderful and enormously successful Masters golf tournament. That event has brought positive international recognition to not only our city but also our state.

Why not incorporate it into our new school name? It brings instant good will and recognition from the beginning.

If the board’s idea was to broaden the combined school’s potential reputation, that’s a contrived and misguided concern. For one thing, putting “Georgia” in the name only serves to muddle things: There are some 16 such institutions out there already!

And, as astutely noted by The Chronicle’s Chris Gay, an alumnus of ASU, having a city’s name in the title of a university doesn’t limit its reach: think Auburn, Clemson, Syracuse, Houston, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Boise State, Miami.

The Board of Regents’ decision to cut rhetorical ties with Augusta, and to bizarrely name the school for themselves, is such an insult to Georgia’s second-largest city that Billy Morris, publisher of The Augusta Chronicle and chairman of Morris Communications Inc., has on this page announced his resignation from the Georgia Health Sciences University Board of Visitors – citing the insensitivity and ignorance the name change shows to our community, its history and its long, storied and treasured relationship with these two universities.

It’s clear Dr. Azziz, a relative newcomer, has not come to grips with where he is and the important history he has inherited. He must do so, and soon. A good start would be for him to lead a movement to rename the school to include the name “Augusta” in its title.

We urge Augustans – all Augustans – to not support or accept the Georgia Regents University name. Augusta must be included in whatever name is ultimately chosen.


These are some of the other cartoons from The Chronicle's award winning cartoonist:

BOTTOM LINE? DON'T MAKE BILLY MORRIS MAD!

THE BLISS OF THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY MATRIMONY

I posted this a couple of years ago, but found it again by accident at the end of watching a you-tube posting of the Atlanta Schola Cantorum singing here which I posted below. Weird.

At any rate, watching it again, I'm amazed at how well this was produced as a "theatrical piece" and I feel like I was in a movie!

TO CASSOCK OR NOT TO CASSOCK, THAT IS THE QUESTION!

The cassocked one and the cassockedaphobia one:

Just yesterday I was having a conversation with two newly ordained priests. We were speaking about wearing clerics and that my parochial vicar, Polish Father Dawid Kwiatkowski wears his cassock on and off church property. It is his street clothes.

I mentioned to the newbees that many priests my age and old are "cassockaphobic" (the female counterpart rampant in female orders is "habitaphobia") because the cassock (habit) conjures up those God horrible pre-Vatican II days that the Church in her infinite wisdom erased from the face of the earth with Vatican II that created a new and improved Church ruptured from its despicable past.

Folks, I'm using hyperbole here, but there is a great deal of truth in what I am writing for I know that in the immediate aftermath of the Post Vatican II Church that the greatest insult that was thrown towards traditionalists or those who loved the way the Church was in pre-Vatican II times (and they are legion) was to be called "you are so-pre-Vatican II!)

But the following is Father Dawid's letter in our parish bulletin for this Sunday, August 11/12. It is simply beautiful, but don't tell him I wrote that as he has a big head anyway.

"One of the events in my life that I will never forget took place in 2004 when I was still at the seminary in Poland. Every year, by the end of the second year of formation, we would celebrate the Mass of Investiture. During that Mass, the seminarians of the second year would solemnly receive their cassocks, just like monks receive their habits. After the homily, the Rector of the seminary would be seated in the middle of the church, our families and friends would be in the congregation, and we, who were to receive cassocks, would come up one after another wearing suits and ties for the last time. We would kneel before the rector. And as I was kneeling there, two older seminarians would come from behind, me, pull my hands back, take my suit jacket and my tie off, then they would put a cassock that had been blessed, on me. the rector would say to everyone of us the holy prayer which entered my heart with a great force and decided to lock itself deep down there.

He said, "May the Lord strip off of you the old man, with all his deeds, and clothe you with a new man made in the image and likeness of god, in justice, and holiness of truth."

While all of this was happening, the choir would be chanting. I remember thinking about all of my friends and family, all of the people who came to this Mass, what a powerful sight it was for them to see their brothers, sons, and friends publicly admitting willingness change, and what a powerful call to conversion for them.

This celebration was meant to be a sign. After we got up from kneeling, we would all go behind the high altar, put surplices on and proceed out to the middle of the church to present our new "selves" to family and friends who came to pray for us. That was the first time I wore my cassock. We were commanded to wear our cassock everywhere, to get used to them and to show people that there will be future priests. Still today, my cassock reminds me that I have chosen to belong to Christ and His Church and that I am a sign of God's presence among His people."

Fr. Dawid Kwiatkowski

MY LITURIGCAL PRAISES, RANTS AND INSECURITIES!

FIRST MY PRAISES FOR THE NEW LITURGICAL MOVEMENT:

Yes, we are in a "New Liturgical Movement" that rivals anything that was fomenting in the 1950's! Many priests and laity are watching Pope Benedict's example when it comes to the celebration of the Mass and what he has modeled in the "new liturgical movement" is more widely practiced by rank and file parishes than anything that was done by experimentation by progressive liturgists in the 1950's. Let me just name a few things:

1. The Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons are now being chanted in many places, either replacing hymns chosen from hymnals or in addition to these. Chant is making its way back into the Liturgy either in English or Latin.

2. The Benedictine Altar Arrangement is finding its way into many parishes and some parishes are offering the Ordinary Form of the Mass ad orientem

3. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass is celebrated in many more places than anyone in the 1980's would have thought! For both priests and parishioners, the influence of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is making their participation in the Ordinary Form more solemn and thoughtful.

4. Churches that suffered from the iconoclasm of the 1970's either in renovations or new construction are being retrofitted in a more traditional manner.

5. Attention to detail when it comes to the Liturgy seems to be taking hold amongst many priests and parishes and an expectation for beauty rather than banality in church decorations and vestments as well as language and liturgical music.

NOW FOR MY RANTS AND INSECURITIES:

1. What the pope is modeling is great but nothing has been legislated. We need the Holy Father to legislate the altar arrangement he uses or a modification of it and we need for him to state explicitly that ad orientem is the preference and facing the people but with the Benedictine Altar arrangement is the option! If the next pope models the 1970's look, what then?

2. If kneeling for Holy Communion promotes adoration and respect for Christ received under sacramental signs, then the Holy Father should legislate it for the entire Latin Rite and remove any indults given for Holy Communion standing (except in case of necessity) and receiving in the hand! When a priest allows people to kneel or to stand (making the choice theirs and providing the means by which parishioners can kneel if they wish) this could be seen as divisive by others in the diocese and in high places, like the bishop. Priests should not be placed in this position when following what the Holy Father models!

3. We need to be told just exactly what it means and who does it in terms of the "mutual enrichment" of the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form. What does that mean explicitly? Who decides? Parishes? The bishop? the Pope?

This is minor, but we know that the current rubrics of the Ordinary Form have no rubrics for the use of the pall for the chalice during Mass. I have instituted the rubrics from the EF Mass in the OF Masses I celebrate. Is that kosher?

I recognize the pall issue is minor, but what about adding the "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar" as a prelude to the Mass? Then as the Introit is sung, reverence the altar and go to the chair and begin the Mass as usual for an Ordinary Form Mass and use the "non-confiteor" penitential act option? Technically, adding the "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar" as I describe would be a prelude and separate from the Mass, a kind of devotion, like praying the Holy Rosary prior to the beginning of Mass which is done in many places. What about that?

Or in the Extraordinary Form, why not read the lectionary of the Extraordinary Form or in a sung Mass, chant it in English? What's the big deal with that? In fact this is allowed in the Low Mass already and should certainly be extended to the Sung Mass. In fact, in the spirit of allowing for the English readings in the Low EF Mass, certainly the Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons, not to mention the Last Gospel could all be read in English as all of these are Scripture! Why not have the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar in English?

My praises, rants and insecurities should be addressed by the authorities and liturgical police!

I JUST LOVE THE ACCURATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF OUR LATIN RITE'S 2002 ROMAN MISSAL! HOW ABOUT YOU?

This is a serious mistranslation of the Latin Rite Roman Missal:

I want to say that our new English translation of the Mass, while having some clunkers in terms of word phrasing (and these clunkers can easily be refined in the next edition of the English Missal that will also have the "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar" restored and the EF's Offertory Prayers recovered) is so far superior, much more eloquent and truly worthy of the Lamb. It has our Catholic theology, piety and spirituality in it which was stripped from the sham of a translation for which we had to suffer for 40 years in that arid spiritual desert beginning in 1970 or so.

I absolutely love our new translation!

For example, just read the Collect for this Sunday's Mass (19th Sunday in Ordinary time):

This is "equivalency translation of the 1970 Latin text" that we heard last year on the same Sunday and at face value is seems like a prayer anyone could say but it simply misses the mark of what Catholic theology, piety and spirituality are all about in our relationship to God which is captured in the correct English translation which follows:

Almighty and ever-living God,
your Spirit made us your children,
confident to call you Father.
Increase your Spirit within us
and bring us to our promised inheritance.

Now what we will hear for the first time ever, an accurate translation of the Latin text of the 2002 Latin Missal:

Almighty ever-living God,
whom, taught by the Holy Spirit,
we dare to call our Father,
bring, we pray, to perfection in our hearts
the spirit of adoption as your sons and daughters,
that we may merit to enter into the inheritance
which you have promised.

Forgetting the literal translation of the Latin, can you see the explicit "Latin Rite" theology, spirituality and piety in the corrected translation that the wrong translation of the Latin took from us as Catholics? The equivalency translation of the Latin gives us the gist of the text, the literal (accurate) translation goes beyond that to give us the "piety, spirituality and doctrinal message of the Catholic Church." Can you see and hear that? The Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief!

JOURNEY OF A SOUL: MUSING OF ANDY MILAM ABOUT CONVERSATIONS WITH NOW RAYMOND CARDINAL BURKE

The following are reflections by Andy Milam concerning liturgical conversations with then Bishop Raymond Burke. You can read Andy Milam's blog by pressing here.

When I was a younger Catholic than I am now, 17 years ago, I had the privilege of living for a time with a saintly priest, Mons. Richard Schuler, then-pastor of St. Agnes Church, in St. Paul, MN. I didn’t realize it at first, but it was through the Monsignor’s gentle hand and strong nature that I turned to Traditionalism.

I was privileged to meet many famous and now famous Catholic persons while living at St. Agnes. Of them, His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke, then-bishop of LaCrosse in Wisconsin was one that I met on several occasions. I was allowed the distinct honor of being able to be his MC (master of ceremonies) more than once. After the celebration of Pontifical Mass, the Monsignor would always invite then-bishop Burke and his secretary over for lunch after Holy Masses were concluded, roughly 1pm.

The following is my recollection of a conversation between the Monsignor and Raymond Card. Burke, with several seminarians, priests and the sacristan present around the dining room table in the rectory. While it will not be a perfect recollection, it did take place almost 20 years ago, the effect it had on me was profound and my recollection of the discourse is still clear in my mind.

Monsignor began the conversation by asking the good Bishop what he thought of the state of affairs in the Church. His Eminence laughed and responded that Monsignor had a better grasp on that than he did, but that he noticed a few things. First, the Church would one day be made up of the young and the old. The middle aged would become lukewarm and apathetic, because they had no proper catechesis. Monsignor agreed. H.E. Burke went on to say that the state of the liturgical life of the Church was in such a shambles that it would take the next generation (at that time the 20 somethings) to recover the sacred.

--at this point, I would like to interject that the concept of recovery of the sacred was unheard of in most circles. The idea of instruare sacra was as taboo as using the word ineffable. It simply wasn’t used.--

Monsingor Schuler then spoke at length to that, speaking about participation and the utter lack of understanding with regard to the Mass and the life of Holy Mother Church. He essentially spoke about participatio actuosa being hijacked in favor of partipatio activa. But, it was through constant vigilance and dedication to the idea that actual participation in the Mass is what is needed rather than active participation. Monsignor Schuler spoke to the idea that if we participate with our whole mind, our whole heart, and our whole soul, it didn’t matter what our body was doing, because that was the true end of worship. Whether Mass was in Latin, or in English, or in Swahili (he liked the Africans, he used to say), if one properly worshiped at Holy Mass, then the experience was fulfilled by how one meditated upon the Mass, in any number of ways…through the Life of Christ, through the Stations of the Cross, through the Passion, Death and Resurrection, the rosary, or through meditating on the Mass proper. It was then that one truly communed with God. Not whether one was acting like the Pharisee and making sure he did things….Oh, he would say that doing things was noble, but it was not the right of the people to do so, it was the right of the ministerial priesthood.

At that Card. Burke interjected. He spoke about the tradition of keeping a male sanctuary as key to continuing the proper idea of what Monsignor was talking about. The ministers were simply extensions of the priesthood and as such they should be male. Wherein he made the caveat of a cloistered convent, but was clear to make the distinction that the female nun would not enter the sanctuary, but remain at the rail.

As lunch and the afternoon wore on, we broke for Solemn Vespers at 3pm. We continued the conversation afterwards, wherein Card. Burke spoke about the need to recommit to proper liturgical catechesis. He spoke about posture. He spoke about language. He spoke about mentality. And he spoke about form. Remember, this was early 1995. Card. Burke spoke about how the Novus Ordo was broken. That it didn’t have a foothold in the Church because it was not rooted in tradition, but rather that it was a wholly new endeavor started in the 1960s. He was quick to distinguish between validity and licitness though. To be valid is to understand that there isn’t a complete break with the 2000 year history of the Church, he would go on to say, but that the actions were not consistent with the laws set forth in the rubrics. And that made it illicit. And that is why he liked going to St. Agnes, because the Mass was said licitly. There was no deviation from the rubrics. Mass was ad orientem. Mass was sung. Mass was Solemn. Mass was in Latin. Mass was ceremonially licit. AND the communicants still received at the rail, on their knees and without the use of their hands.

--at this point, I would like to interject that St. Agnes has kept the traditions of the Church alive based upon actual implementation of the Council, as it happened. Monsignor’s Bandas and Schuler thought it best to implement the changes as they happened and to stay consistent. First by Bandas’ leadership then through Schuler’s, after being weekend assistant to Bandas and eventually pastor, in 1969.--

Card. Burke spoke about the importance of Latin. He commented that the language of the Church is Latin; that it is the most efficient, complete and universal way that all priests can be united in solidarity throughout the world. He spoke to the idea that the Latin language is perfect for the Church, because the meanings of the words cannot be misunderstood, unless they are intentionally misunderstood, because it is not a daily speaking language. And he said that the poetry of the language simply fit. In a nutshell, Latin is the best option for celebrating the Roman Rite of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

Both Monsignor Schuler and Card. Burke spoke about form. They spoke about how if the Mass was celebrated properly and with no deviation from the rubrics that the substantive changes would be minimal and the restoration of those things which were found questionable would be minimal. They both spoke about three things….they both spoke about the prayers at the foot. And the importance of the preparation that took place. They both spoke about the Offertory and how it was not a presentation of gifts to the ministers from the people, but a presentation of the gifts from the ministers to God the Father; a nuance to be sure, but a VERY important one. And they both spoke about the abandonment of the altar. The priest spends very little time at the altar in the Novus Ordo as opposed to the TLM, Monsignor said. Of course he was and is right.

--to interject, it is this idea of being presidential which has wrought much damage to the sacrifice in my eyes. The priest doesn’t preside, he celebrates. The faithful don’t celebrate, they worship. This changing of theology with regard to the liturgy has changed how the liturgical experience comes to the masses.—
The idea exists that if the Mass was celebrated the way that the Council intended, the liturgical ceremony would be minimally changed. That is true. The big problem as both saw it was that the liturgical theology was now in jeopardy and that the reform would spiral out of control. Largely it has. We are now in the third edition of the revised Missale Romanum. At the time this conversation was had, there was only one revision, 1975. And since Mass was not in English, but in Latin, the translation issue was moot. A point to which both spoke, because of the major translation issues (for all, as opposed to for many) only the offertory was a problem. Something both acknowledged as being an important point of reform and something not to be overlooked.

As the conversation was winding down, Card. Burke thanked all of us for our time. He thanked Monsignor Schuler for being faithful to the liturgy and holding the line. He expressed his wish that someday he might be able to do the same. In my eyes, I’d say he’s holding the legacy pretty closely.

There are a precious few who really understood what was said that day. I know that I didn’t understand it all. What it did do though was send me down a path that I am glad I went down. It taught me that understanding the liturgy was to understand why we are Catholic, above all other things. Through several more years of living with Mons. Schuler and listening to men talk like now-bishops LeVoir, Sirba, and Sample, I have a better understanding of the life of the Church. By listening to priests like Frs. Zuhlsdorf, Skeris, Pasely, Fox, Groeschel, Hardon, and Altier, I learned about the various spiritual necessities to fight the good fight and not become disillusioned by roadblocks.

The Mass is the source and summit of our faith. It isn’t bible studies, it isn’t ice cream socials. It isn’t service organizations, but it is worshipping the One True God. To worship God the Father, through the sacrifice of the Mass, in an unbloody way, with the compunction of the Holy Spirit is the best way and the truest way we can accomplish our ultimate end as Catholics and as Christians. If the Mass is to be understood in the context of one form enriching the other, then must be understood that the older must inform and teach the younger, as was the case in this conversation between two learned churchmen and a number of young priests, seminarians and houseguests.

It is my opinion that the Novus Ordo is so damaged that it cannot be solved by a mere reform of the reform. But rather that it must be illumined by the TLM in a way by which the Novus Ordo can sustain some legitimate organic growth. Only then, can there be illumination backward, most obviously through an expansion of the calendar of saints.

I continued to live with the good Monsignor for another few years after that first meeting with then-bishop Burke. I met His Eminence several other times and I can honestly say that I learned more in the 20 or so total hours of listening to those two holy men speak than I did in most of my years as a Catholic child coming through Catholic Schools in the 1980s. Cardinal Burke is doing what Monsignor Schuler did. It isn’t popular. It isn’t fair to the man, but it is right and the reward of seeing a good work done is worth it in the end.

As Our Lady said to St. Bernadette; I do not promise to make you happy in this life, but only in the next.

IS THE REFORM OF THE REFORM GOING TO BE KICKED UP A NOTCH DURING THE YEAR OF FAITH BEGINNING OCTOBER 11, 2012?

It is rather astounding that this is presented by the USCCB Catholic News Service. Are we being prepared for a radical new spirit of renewal beginning October 11, 2012, exactly 50 years to the day of the opening of the Second Vatican Council?

Will the Year of Faith bring dramatic change and recovery for the Holy Roman Church?

There are five videos and they are on target! For those who have an antipathy toward the Second Vatican Council, Professor John Rao offers you a serious corrective. He does not reject Vatican II outright but places it in the proper context. PLEASE WATCH CLOSELY AND LISTEN INTENTLY TO THE SECOND VIDEO IN PARTICULAR!

RAYMOND CARDINAL BURKE'S FULL INTERVIEW WITH RAYMOND ARROYO ON EWTN

Go to MINUTE 19:16 FOR THE COMPLETE INTERVIEW AND CARDINAL BURKE'S COMMENTS ON THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS

GET READY FOR CHANT IN MACON AND IT SHOULD BE INTENSIVE, JUST PRAY THAT WE HAVE TEMPERATURES IN THE 70'S AND NOT THE TEENS; EITHER IS POSSIBLE JANUARY 7-11, 2013, THAT IS IF THE WORLD IS STILL HERE AND DOESN'T END ON DECEMBER 21, 2012!

Palestrina - Alma redemptoris Mater performed by the Atlanta Schola Cantorum at St. Joseph's Catholic Church, Macon, GA on May 7, 2011 under the direction of John Whitt.





Winter Chant Intensive: January 7-11, 2013 directed by Arlene Oost-Zinner IS NOW POSTED AT THE "CHANT CAFE" BLOG. PRESS HERE TO SEE IT AND THE REGISTRATION FORM!

Arlene Oost-Zinner is a very optimistic and hopeful person because we all know that the Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012, my 59th birthday, and this will bring about the end of the world and chant as we know it. READ THE SUN FOR PROOF BY PRESSING HERE!

THE HIERARCHY ASSERTING ITSELF OVER DISSENT

For many years the LCWR has acted as though it is a parallel "magisterium" of the Church. Their absurd justification for this comes from the "spirit" of Vatican II and the so-called new models of the Church and the new ecclesiology.

This ecclesiology emboldens groups like the LCWR, Voice of the Faithful, Call to Action and Women's Ordination Conference to act as if their deliberations are as "spirit-filled" and authoritative as that of the Pope and bishops in union with him.

The LCWR and others like them are stealth-like in their authoritarianism for they mask it under "the process of dialogue with community members" that emboldens them in their own "magisterium" which always opposes the true Church and her Magisterium.

It appears the gig is up unless there is a metanoia concerning these particular sisters. Either they get in line or dissolve and become what they are, independent, post-Christian women who want to live alone and do their own thing and have the umbrella group of the LCWR to give advice and promote their heterodoxy. .

This interview on EWTN's "The World Over" only has Raymond Cardinal Burke's strong comments on this group of dissenting sisters, but the complete interview with the Cardinal, which is not available yet, also has him reiterating his belief that the Ordinary Form of the Mass was mistakenly revised and even more poorly implemented. Hopefully that will come soon.

CARDINAL BURKE: ORDINARY FORM GOT OF TRACK AND WAS POORLY REFORMED

I'm posting this on my IPhone having just watched an interview with Cardinal Burke on the Mass.

From what he indicated, my most humble opinion is that one day the 2012 Missal will restore The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar but with a joint confiteor to eliminate useless repitition. This will be followed by the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria and collect with the greeting prior to the Collect.

The traditional Offertory Prayers will be restored.

Holy Communion will be distributed Kneeling. Apart from these changes everything remains as is in the Ordinary Form.

FASCINATING TIME CAPSULE AND UFO SIGHTING! WATCH THIS TRIDENTINE SOLEMN SUNG MASS FACING THE CONGREGATION. I FIND NOTHING OFFENSIVE ABOUT FACING THE CONGREGATION AS IT IS DONE HERE AND WITH THE PARTICULAR "BENEDICTINE ALTAR ARRANGEMENT" THAT IS INCLUDED. THIS MASS IS MARVELOUS, ABSOLUTELY MARVELOUS! BUT MORE MARVELOUS IS THE CATECHESIS OF THE BENEDICTINE MONK ON THE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS--WORTH A MILLION DOLLARS!

This entire video is great, but the actual Mass begins at about minute 18! The Mass is the Tridentine Mass of 1962. This film was made in 1964. This is a Benedictine Priory outside of St. Louis. The Benedictines were known as liturgical progressives and were some of the first to make the altar central and to face the congregation for Mass even in the Tridentine period of the 1950's and 60's.

This Priory church is hideous but what the late '50's and 1960's brought about. But please note all the extra altars around the perimeter of the building for private Masses of the monks.

The celebrant is the President of Fordham University. He can't sing, but he does chant. Every priest had to be able to do at least what he is doing. This has become a lost art in the Ordinary Form.

This is a Solemn Sung Mass with deacon and sub-deacon. It is completely in the Tridentine Rite of 1962 and has the dual action of the choir doing its thing and the priest his. Unfortunately, this film has been edited so there are some things that are cut from it.

The only thing that is "Ordinary Form" looking is the design of the pre-Vatican II Church and the fact that this Mass is facing the people.

But please note that the "Benedictine Altar" arrangement is what we should have today, but that the candles do not overpower the altar when facing the people acting as "jail bars" in perception. Please note too, the placement of the tabernacle. Keep in mind this is all pre-Vatican II!

Finally, the commentary by the monk on the Mass as is progresses is worth a million dollars. LISTEN TO THE USE OF THE WORD "OUR ABASEMENT" FOR THE CONFITEOR TO DESCRIBE OUR RELATIONSHIP TO GOD AS SINFUL CREATURES. SOME THINK THIS IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY DELETERIOUS FOR PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE HORRIBLY ABUSED BY OTHERS. HOW ABSURD! SOME PEOPLE WANT TO ELIMINATE THE SENSE OF PERSONAL SIN THAT THIS MASS EMPHASIZES SO WELL, WHY IN WORLD WOULD WE NEED THIS SACRIFICE IF NOT FOR OUR DAMNN SINS! MODERN CATHOLICS, ESPECIALLY PRIESTS HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT THIS HOLY SACRIFICE AND OUR TOTAL NEED FOR IT AS WELL AS OUR NEED TO OVERCOME OUR DENIAL OF OUR PERSONAL SINFULNESS AND UNWORTHINESS BEFORE THE AWESOME PRESENCE OF GOD! THIS IS OUR WAY OF STRIPPING OURSELVES OF OUR FANCY OUTER CLOTHES AND TAKING OFF OUR SHOES AND WALKING BAREFOOT BEFORE GOD IN HUMBLE SUBMISSION! THIS IS A POWERFUL METAPHOR OF HOW NAKED WE ARE BEFORE GOD WITH OUR SHAME AND OUR NEED TO BE CLOTHED IN CHRIST'S BLOOD, HIS WHITE BAPTISMAL GARMENT OF SALVATION! There is no doubt that this Mass is a sacrifice. What is truly worth hearing is the offertory commentary. He speaks of the procession of gifts and the antiphon that is sung which is now lost in the Mass except for the antiphon. Of course this monk knew that the offertory procession which was to be recovered in this Mass's reform would more than likely be re-established. But listen to the sacrificial description of this Mass. It is wonderful!

Please watch the praying of the Roman Canon. It is not offensive in the least that this prayer is prayed in quiet voice even with the choir's overlay of the Sanctus prior to the consecration and the Benedictus following. The quiet canon acts as the "rood screen" or the "iconostasis in the Eastern Rite" and makes the canon a sacred, intimate moment between the ordain priest (representing the laity and others present at this Mass as he alone enters the Holy of Holies even as he faces the congregation which in my observation of this video given the rubrics of this Mass is not at all out of place! You still have a sense of the sacred even while the priest is facing the congregation becasue of the way the canon is prayed!) This is not clericalism, this is sacrifice! Listen to the monk's description of the canon as it is prayed. What a catechesis!

We've gained some things with the Ordinary Form but lost so much too! The Ordinary Form is so verbose and a constant barrage of words and so banal. The sense of the sacred is dripping in this Mass but dried up in the Ordinary Form! We are recovering some of the lost now but soon I hope we will recover the sense of the sacred that is stripped from the Ordinary Form, especially the sacrificial aspect. Watch Holy Communion! What in the name of God and all that is holy was that damn committee thinking which reformed this Mass. All we needed was more vernacular, especially for the Liturgy of the Word, brief universal prayers and the offertory procession. The canon could have remained in Latin and the Pater Noster too and the sung parts. It should have been made clear in the reform that the vernacular sung parts of the Mass for the laity, should have been modeled on Gregorian Chant and the use of no instruments WAS preferable or if needed the organ only! Perhaps the Rite of Holy Communion as we have it today is fine as a reform. I'd leave everything else as is in the Tridentine Rite. Just think how the renewal would have gone if only minor adaptations were made to this glorious Mass. The theology of this Mass was absolutely hijacked and destroyed out of a FALSE SENSE OF IT'S CLERICALISM WHICH IN FACT IS A HIGH THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT UNDERSTANDING OF PRIESTHOOD AND SACRIFICE. THIS FORM OF THE MASS AT ITS HIGH THEOLOGY OF THE ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD AND ITS EXCLUSIVE FUNCTION DURING THE LITURGY ACCOUNTS IN LARGE PART FOR THE FABULOUS NUMBER OF VOCATIONS IN THE CHURCH THAT EVAPORATED AFTER THE MASS WAS STRIPPED OF THIS MOST IMPORTANT THEOLOGY BY THEOLOGIANS THAT WANTED TO CLERICALIZE THE LAITY ESPECIALLY DURING MASS.

PLEASE LISTEN TO FATHER'S DESCRIPTION OF THE USE OF THE ALTAR RAILING AND WATCH THE REALLY IMPORTANT PROCESSION OF HOLY COMMUNION, THE PRIEST'S PROCESSION TO EACH INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICANT. BUT LISTEN TO THE PRIEST'S DESCRIPTION OF THE PEOPLE'S PROCESSION TO THE ALTAR RAILING! THIS IS FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOR HETERODOX CATHOLICS WHO REJECT VATICAN II (MANY POST HERE) FATHER ROBERT FOX'S TAKE ON IT IS MUST READING--READ ON!

Scott P. Richert wrote the following: Three sentences from Pope Benedict XVI's letter to his fellow bishops "concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre" deserve to be examined on their own. In a mere 79 words, the Holy Father laid to rest the myths that are held dear by those who think that the Church remade Herself in Vatican II:

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society [of St. Pius X]. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

In other words, those who see Vatican II as a break from the past--both traditionalists and (for lack of a better word) modernists--are mistaken. The Church's tradition never comes to an end, which means that all of Her actions, including Vatican II, need to be interpreted in light of Her tradition. If Vatican II seems to us to be "something new under the sun," then the problem lies with us.

Once the Church and SSPX have dealt with issues at the doctrinal level (as Pope Benedict says they now must), then the SSPX, in finally accepting "the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes," will be submitting itself to the living tradition of the Church. Yet they cannot be the only ones to do so. That same submission, the Holy Father has made clear, is required of those--including bishop, priests, and theologians--who sometimes act as if they believe that the tradition of the Church began with Vatican II.

Father Robert Fox was born in 1927 and ordained a priest in 1955. He died in 2009. He was a prolific writer and well known as a columnist for the National Catholic Register and other Catholic papers.

In 2000 he wrote his take on Vatican II which you can read in full by pressing HERE.

Below is the summary of what he wrote. Father Fox lived as a priest prior to the Council, observed it as it happened and saw what transpired afterward. I would recommend that anyone who has an antipathy toward the Second Vatican Council see it through his eyes and accept it as he does.


Summary

How does one summarize an ecumenical council, such as Vatican II, that has been and is transforming Christian society and has brought more changes to the Church in a few years than during the preceding 400 to 500 years? Without harm to faith or morals, some of the changes of Vatican II would have been realized centuries earlier if it had not been for the Protestant Revolt (and its own reformation) in the sixteenth century.

At the time of the Protestant Revolt there were movements for the use of the vernacular (language of the people) in the liturgy. The "revolters" immediately put their services in the language of the people, and so Latin became identified with Christians who remained loyal to the pope in the unity of the ancient Catholic Church. Doubtlessly, the nonauthorized innovations, changes, and discard of doctrines which accompanied the religious upheaval of the sixteenth century necessitated that the Catholic Church, for the protection of her members and to save them from confusion, maintain its long-held position on such questions as use of the vernacular. Thus Latin became almost a fifty (though nonessential) mark of the true Church after the Protestant Revolt.

What does one say about those Catholics who, after Vatican II and during the implementation of the council documents, became confused about of disobedient to Church authority, striking out even against the Holy Father, the pope? Ultimately, only God judges souls. One can sympathize with the faithful who were led astray by some members of the clergy and religious, who themselves rebelled against or misrepresented the truth. And still we must remember that, for each and all, God's grace is always sufficient in every temptation, and once the gift of the fullness of the true faith has been bestowed by God upon a soul, our good, heavenly Father will not withdraw it, unless the person himself (or herself) rejects it.

After Vatican II, life in the Catholic Church became more challenging and more thrilling — more full of joy for those who engaged in the authentic renewal under and together with the magisterium. Confusion reigned only when educators, clergy, religious, and laity did not work in harmony with the Holy Father in interpreting and implementing the authentic renewal to which each Catholic is called.

Most who read and use this book of Church history are Catholic teenagers, tomorrow's adults and tomorrow's Church. But the Church of tomorrow will be the same as the Church of yesterday, of the last century, and of the first century. A newly conceived human life in its mother's womb, is a continuum, sill the same life when it is born as it is one hour, one day, or fifty or eighty years later. So the Catholic Church, Christ's Mystical Body of today and the future, will always b the same Church Jesus Christ founded twenty centuries ago.

The cells of the human body change with the passage of years; still, it is the same human body. Individual members of the laity, religious, priests, bishops, and our Holy Father the pope change with the passage of years. Still, it is the same Church, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." As sacred scripture says: "Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, the same forever."

Our Catholic youth of today must become so strong in the faith — not beset by confusion or misunderstandings, but looking beyond the human failings of individual members of the Church and striving for personal perfection in Christ Jesus — that the reality and the sanctity of the Church, its true face, will truly be known and loved by all the world.

The Catholic Church is a divine organism. It is of Christ, the God-Man himself. It is human, and also divine. With the eyes of faith, each member must see beyond its human quality and witness the inner divine reality which is Christ's Mystical Body.

We have just studied its 2,000-year history, and as we look to the future we can know that, as in the past, Satan and the forces of evil will always be there, attempting to destroy the Church through its human quality. As Christ Jesus was tempted in the desert, the forces of evil, the spirit of wickedness, will never cease tempting the members of Christ. As at the head of the Mystical Body did not and could not fall, for he is divine, so, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the human quality will be strengthened and will prevail.

The history of the Catholic Church will always be full of pages of great and lesser saints who testify to that mark of the Church we call holiness. It will always retain its oneness, its catholicity (universality), and always remain apostolic; the only Church built upon the apostles and promised that "the gates of hell shall never prevail against it."