IF ONLY THE SECULAR ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA WOULD FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF THE VATICAN IN RESPECTING ALL RELGIONS, IN PARTICULAR THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, THE MOST VILIFIED TODAY!

Vatican City, 12 September 2012 (VIS) - Given below is the text of a declaration made by Holy See Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi following episodes of violence in the Libyan city of Benghazi yesterday.

"Profound respect for the beliefs, texts, outstanding figures and symbols of the various religions is an essential precondition for the peaceful coexistence of peoples. The serious consequences of unjustified offense and provocations against the sensibilities of Muslim believers are once again evident in these days, as we see the reactions they arouse, sometimes with tragic results, which in their turn nourish tension and hatred, unleashing unacceptable violence.

"The message of dialogue and respect for all believers of different religions, which the Holy Father is preparing to carry with him on his forthcoming trip to Lebanon, indicate the path that everyone should follow in order to construct shared and peaceful coexistence among religions and peoples".


And from our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI:

"At this hour in two days' time", the Holy Father said, "I will be on a plane bound for Lebanon. I rejoice at this apostolic trip which will enable me to meet many members of Lebanese society: the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, Catholic faithful of various rites, other Christians, and the Muslims and Druze of the region. I thank the Lord for this rich variety, which will be able to continue only if people live in permanent peace and reconciliation. For this reason I exhort all Christians of the Middle East, both those born there and the newly arrived, to be builders of peace and architects of reconciliation. Let us pray to God that He may fortify the faith of Christians in Lebanon and the Middle East, and fill them with hope. I thank God for their presence and call upon the entire Church to show solidarity, that they may continue to bear witness to Christ in those blessed lands, seeking communion in unity. I thank God for all the individuals and institutions who, in many ways, help them to do so. The history of the Middle East teaches us the important and sometimes primordial role. played by the various Christian communities in inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue Let us ask God to give that region of the world its longed-for peace, and respect for legitimate differences. May God bless Lebanon and the Middle East. May God bless you".

THE HOLY FATHER AND THE REFORM OF THE REFORM

This is a more recent celebration of the Solemnity of the Baptism of the Lord, a Sunday Mass, in the Sistine Chapel, during a liturgy where babies have been baptized. So this is a family Mass!
Unfortunately the camera people and director do not understand the full impact of ad orientem and so miss it in videoing this Mass, but you get the point of what the Holy Father is modeling for the pastors of the Church, pastors meaning bishops.

Please note that the Holy Father elevates the Host and Chalice but not in an obnoxious way and uses the pall which is not prescribed in the rubrics of the OF Mass. He is also praying Eucharistic Prayer III in Latin, which in the later years of his papacy has been the norm for all Masses he celebrates where there is a mix of vernacular and Latin. The Latin is for the Preface dialogue, preface, Eucharistic Prayer and Pater Noster, while everything else is in the vernacular.

Please note too that the Holy Father quiets his voice for the consecrations!


This next video is the same solemnity but a few years earlier. The Holy Father while celebrating this Mass ad orientem also, prays the Eucharistic Prayer in Italian, not Latin, and is praying Eucharistic Prayer II:

THE HERMEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WAS PROMOTED WAY BACK IN 1985 AND CERTAINLY BEFORE THAT TOO

Many tout the "new" and "ruptured" ecceleisiology of Vatican II for all kinds of novelties when it comes to the Church and the Holy Mass and the role of the laity.

However the Extraordinary Synod on Vatican II in 1985 made it clear that it just ain't so:

3. The Mystery of the Church

The whole importance of the Church derives from her connection with Christ. The Council has described the Church in diverse ways: as the people of God, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, the family of God. These descriptions of the Church complete one another and must be understood in the light of the Mystery of Christ or of the Church in Christ. We cannot replace a false unilateral vision of the Church as purely hierarchical with a new sociological conception which is also unilateral. Jesus Christ is ever present in his Church and lives in her as risen. From the Church's connection with Christ we clearly understand the eschatological character of the Church herself (cf. LG 7) In this way the pilgrim Church on earth is the messianic people (cf. LG 9) that already anticipates in itself its future reality as a new creation. Yet she remains a holy Church that has sinners in her midst, that must ever be purified, and that moves amidst the persecutions of this world and the consolations of God, towards the future kingdom (cf. LG 8) In this sense there are always present within the Church the mystery of the Cross and the mystery of the resurrection.

4. The universal vocation to holiness

Because the Church in Christ is mystery, she must be considered a sign and instrument of holiness. For this reason the Council proclaimed the vocation of all the faithful to holiness (cf. LG 5). The call to holiness is an invitation to an intimate conversion of heart and to participate in the life of God, One and Triune, and this signifies and surpasses the realization of man's every desire. In our day above all, when so many people feel an interior void and spiritual crisis, the Church must preserve and energetically promote the sense of penance, prayer, adoration, sacrifice, self-giving, charity and justice.

Men and women saints have always been founts and origins of renewal in the most difficult circumstances throughout the Church's history. Today we have tremendous need of saints, for whom we must assiduously Implore God. The Institutes of consecrated life through the profession of the evangelical counsels must be conscious of their special mission in today's Church, and we must encourage them in that mission. The apostolic movements and the new movements of spirituality are the bearers of great hope, if they properly remain in ecclesial communion. All the laity must perform their role in the Church in their daily occupations such as the family, the workplace, secular activities and leisure time so as to permeate and transform the world with the light and life of Christ. Popular devotion, rightly understood and practiced, is very useful in nourishing the holiness of the people. It therefore merits greater attention on the part of pastors.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, who is our mother in the order of grace (cf. LG 61), is an example for all Christians of holiness and of total response to God's call (LG chaps. 8).

5. Suggestions

Today it is extremely necessary that the Pastors of the Church excel in the witness of holiness. It is necessary already in seminaries and religious houses to give a formation that educates the candidates not only intellectually but also spiritually; they must be seriously introduced to a daily spiritual life (prayer, meditation, the reading of the Bible, the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist) According to what is expressed by the Decree "Presbyterorum Ordinis", they should be prepared for the priestly ministry in such a way that they find nourishment for their spiritual life in pastoral activity itself (cf. PO 16) Thus, in the exercise of the ministry they will also be capable of offering the faithful the correct counsel for their spiritual lives. The true renewal of the Institutes of consecrated life must be favoured in every way. But the spirituality of the laity, founded on baptism, must also be promoted. In the first place, it is necessary to promote conjugal spirituality, which is based on the sacrament of marriage and is of great importance for the transmission of the faith to future generations.

AMBIGUOUS OR NON EXISTENT RUBRICS; REASON NUMBER 7,777,777 AS TO WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE A REFORM OF THE REFORM OF THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS

As I have written in the past, I love the Ordinary Form of the Mass when celebrated properly. However, I recognize the reason for it not being celebrated properly is because the General Instruction as well as the rubrics for the Ordinary Form Mass are weak, ambiguous and allow for great diversity from priest to priest based upon his interpretation of these rules and is own pious practices some of which are dubious.

Let's just take a few examples.

1. How wide does the priest hold his arms for the "Orans" position? The EF was very sober and specific about this, but not so in the OF's rubrics. A priest can do almost anything, from looking like he is being "held up" which as a legitimate liturgical reason, to making his arms appear to be the horizontal beam of the cross with his body the vertical beam. Or something in between the various extremes. But it really depends on the priest and his likes and dislikes, no?

2. To cover the chalice with a pall, veil and burse for the corporal cloth. Heck, let's just do what feels good there.

3. The use of the pall during Mass to cover the chalice; heck have it available if a fly, wasp or honey bee is flying about or a cloud of dust comes rolling in from the desert.

4. The rubrics tell the priest to "show" the consecrated Host and then the chalice of Precious Blood after their consecration. But how high? How low? How long? Your guess and the practice you see is as good as the rest.

5. How about at the doxology, how high, low or medium should the chalice and host be "raised" above the altar and is it to show to the people or to acknowledge the sacrifice offering of Christ to the Father which the Father is pleased to accept?

6. What about the personal piety of the priest? Can he say in an audible way, "My Lord and My God.." at the consecrations? Of course if he did it ad orientem who would know. He could have the most pious, saccharine look on his face and no one would know the difference.

The Ordinary Form of the Mass falls victim to the subjective interpretation of the GIRM and rubics of the Mass by the priest and that has caused all the problems in the world with the OF Mass and the battle cry from so many for the reform of the reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

REMEMBERING 9/11 AND ALL THOSE INJURED, KILLED AND GREIF STRIKEN

My recollection of 9/11 apart from the news on live TV was our normal 12:15 PM Daily Mass on that day, in my former parish in Augusta, The Church of the Most Holy Trinity, which normally would have about 50 to 90 people having a full church of about 500 and a mix of Catholics and Protestants. We sang as the recessional of the Mass "O Beautiful" and the last verse had everyone in tears:

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam,
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self control,
Thy liberty in law.

We opened the front doors of the swung wide open for people to know that the Church was open for any and everyone to come and pray and come and pray they did and any and everyone!

FOR ALL THOSE WHO WANT SAINT JOSEPH TO HAVE ROMAN STYLE, AKA, FIDDLE BACK, VESTMENTS, YOUR PRAYERS ARE ANSWERED!

The good and economical aspect of this vestment is that all liturgical colors are present which means only this vestment will be used for all liturgical colors, very economical to say the least. I hope you like it.

FATHER Z OF WDTPRS CAN BE SO FUNNY SOMETIMES IN THE MOST SERIOUS WAY

My comment is at the end of this humorous post by Fr. Z on the conundrum of accidentally inserting the Host in someone's mouth who desires to receive our Lord and Savior on the hand:

From a reader:

I tend not to be legalistic but when visiting that church the priest pressed my hand quite rudely and hissed “We do not take it in the hand here”. I wonder if I should send him a note. God bless you.

Brief, but I think we get the idea.

I strongly doubt that the priest hissed. What is this, Harry Potter?

However, the choice of the word “hissed” underscores how sensitive people are to liturgical moments. Communion is… should be… a vulnerable moment.

I loathe Communion in the hand. On the first full day of my pontificate as Pius the Tenth the Second, or maybe Clement XV, or perhaps John XXIII… I will abolish it by means of a Bull, which I shall also read from the central loggia of St. John Lateran… with full social media coverage and live internet streaming.

Priests should not deny people Holy Communion in the hand if they are in a place where the bishop has given permission for Communion in the hand.

It can happen that, in the course of distribution, the altar boy may be holding the paten in such a way that the priest doesn’t see the hands, the surprised tongue pops out, BAM, on we go. That happened to me at least once this morning, but it was pretty clear that this was just a mechanical thing, and not Father-denied-Communion, etc.

However, from the better readings of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae it seems that during celebrations of Holy Mass with the Extraordinary Form, communicants are not to receive in the hand, even where it is permitted. That said, I think that even in EF celebrations, priests should be very careful not to bruise the sensibilities of newcomers, who, by the time of Communion, probably think they are on another planet.

They are right. They are on another planet is some sense.

But let’s be careful and gentle with them.

And may we also review how PROPERLY to receive in the hand?

We do NOT receive one-handed.
We do NOT use pintcher fingers.
We do NOT cup hands next to each other.
We do NOT lick the Host up.
We do NOT swap the Host back and forth.
We do NOT rattle Jesus around in the hand before popping Him.

In the meantime… dear readers…

… please please please just STOP receiving Communion in the hand.

Please? You are making me sad.

MY COMMENTS NOW: At three of our Sunday Masses we offer the receiving the Most Precious Blood of our Lord through intinction with the option of receiving Holy Communion kneeling if one so desires at all of our Masses. We have made it abundantly clear that if one wishes to receive Holy Communion on the palm of the hand, then they should make that abundantly clear to the minister or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion prior to the Host being intincted. At the "intinction" Masses more people are now receiving from the chalice than ever before as so many refuse to go and place their mouth on the rim of a chalice to drink the Precious Blood and so by-pass the chalice altogether. But with intinction they are able to eat and drink the Most Precious Body and Blood of the Lord and without the fear of contagion by directly placing their mouth on the rim of a chalice that contains salivic bacteria on it, the bacteria being life threatening rather than life saving.

Those who wish to receive in the hand still do and some receive on the palm by kneeling.

At our weekly school Mass, we have taught the children to receive the intincted host by kneeling although we make clear that if a child chooses to stand they may do so and also receive on the palm by making that clear prior to the Host being intincted.

To say that this has slowed the children down and made their receiving of Holy Communion much more reverent and solemn is an understatement. I know that this experience will increase their reverence and awe for the Lord whom they receive under the sacramental signs of bread and wine.

I have been concerned for years at the manner in which our children casually and unthinkingly receive the host on the palm of their hand which is a moving target or try to snatch it or cup their hand and walk off with the host as they pop Jesus in their mouth no matter how often we catechized them to do so more deliberately and reverently. They are children after all and do not intentionally act irreverently, but that's exactly how it looks, but no more with intinction, reverence in its external form rules the liturgical day!

Kneeling and intinction are no-brainers.

REQUIEM FOR A VERY GOOD ITALIAN FRIEND!

At the end of my vacation, a very good Italian friend of mine who was my former parishioner at the Church of the Most Holy Trinity in Augusta died. She had been our parish's "hostess" for parish receptions and major dinners at the rectory. She was also active in the Council of Catholic Women and past president of that organization.

Her Requiem was videoed since her Italian siblings and other relatives could not come to Augusta from Italy.

Most Holy Trinity was completed and consecrated in April of 1863. The Jardine pipe organ you hear could not be shipped from New York because of the Union blockade of the Confederacy. But it arrived in 1866 due in large part to Most Holy Trinity's associate pastor at the time, Father Abram Ryan, the priest-poet of the Confederacy who offered poetry recitals of his poems in Augusta and raised the funds to have it shipped.

The Church has remained untouched since its consecration except the altar table was pulled from the reredos. But as you can see, this Church is ideal for both the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the modern Ordinary Form and Mass technically could still be celebrated ad orientem quite easily. The altar railing is completely in tact and has marvelous brass gates that came from a Church in France in the 1860's. So no telling how old these are.

The parish was founded on its current property in 1810 and primarily was composed of Catholics of French origin. In the 1840's due to an influx of Irish immigrants to Augusta to escape the potato famine and to find work in the textile industry and cotton fields and also to build Augusta's canal, the small frame church was expanded. By the middle of the 1850's the pastor realized that a new and larger Church needed to be built and so the corner stone of the new Church as it is still called, was laid in 1857 and dedicated to St. Vincent de Paul. The pastor who had been there since the 1840's, Father John Barry, realized that the Irish were eclipsing the French and had taken over the parish so to placate the French he laid the corner stone honoring a French saint. By that time he was also the second Bishop of the Diocese of Savannah having been established in 1850. Prior to that it was under the Diocese of Charleston, SC and prior to Charleston's erection as a diocese, it was under Baltimore.

Most Holy Trinity was also a large part of the trustee movement in the USA in the 1860's and has an interesting checkered history in that regard.

When the Church was consecrated at the height of the War between the States, also known as the Civil War, an Irish pastor was in place. The following week by vote of the clergy and laity, yes, laity, the parish took on a new patron saint, Saint Patrick of Ireland! And yes, without officially changing the name of the parish, it was called St. Patrick's Catholic Church until 1970 when two parishes in downtown Augusta were closed and merged into "Saint Patrick" and the original name, never officially changed, was restored to the Church of the Most Holy Trinity.

The Irish went so far as to remove a cast iron statue of Saint Vincent de Paul that was nearly 6 feet tall, and quite heavey, crushed it and buried it behind the Church so as to poke in the eye the horrified French who had their patron saint, Saint Vincent de Paul de-throned as the patron saint of the parish.

I discovered poor old Saint Vincent de Paul when construction workers building the foundation for the church's new sacristy in 1998 hit it as the dug the ground and I asked them to unearth it to find out what it was. And sure enough it was Saint Vincent de Paul! He was re-interred at the same spot, so damaged was it by deliberate violence of the Irish!

I thought I gave a rather nice homily for the funeral of Cheti Warner!

VATICAN II WHEN IT CELEBRATED ITS 40TH ANNIVERSARY 10 YEARS AGO

Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote a very good evaluation of Vatican II at its 40th anniversary in 2003. You can read the entire article from America Magazine by pressing here. You can also read the 1985 Extraordinary Synod on the Second Vatican Council by pressing here.

By reading these two links, you will see that the Church has been clarifying the true nature of the Second Vatican Council for years. It will take more time to allow the true effects of the Council to take root, effects based upon the hermeneutic of continuity, not of rupture.

The following are the salient points of the Cardinal Dulles article in America Magazine 2003:

1. The Council Fathers tried to cast a wide net for varying schools of theological thought. In some cases they adopted deliberate ambiguities.

2. Pope John XXIII, in his opening speech on Oct. 11, 1962, declared that although the church had sometimes condemned errors with the greatest severity, it would best meet the needs of our time “by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.” Because the council saw fit to follow this instruction, it did not dwell on the negative implications of its doctrine. Framed so as not to offend any large group, except perhaps atheistic Communism, the documents are markedly irenic.

3. The council occurred at a unique moment of history, when the Western world was swept up in a wave of optimism typified by Pope John XXIII himself.

4. In the postconciliar period, the [secular] communications media favored the emphasis on novelty. Progressive theologians were lionized for writing books and articles that seemed to be breaking new barriers and demolishing the old edifice of preconciliar Catholicism.

5. To overcome polarization and bring about greater consensus, Pope John Paul II convened an extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops in 1985, the 20th anniversary of the close of the council. This synod in its final report came up with six agreed principles for sound interpretation, which may be paraphrased as follows:

A. Each passage and document of the council must be interpreted in the context of all the others, so that the integral teaching of the council may be rightly grasped.

B. The four constitutions of the council (those on liturgy, church, revelation and church in the modern world) are the hermeneutical key to the other documents—namely, the council’s nine decrees and three declarations.

C. The pastoral import of the documents ought not to be separated from, or set in opposition to, their doctrinal content.

D. No opposition may be made between the spirit and the letter of Vatican II.

E. The council must be interpreted in continuity with the great tradition of the church, including earlier councils.

F. Vatican II should be accepted as illuminating the problems of our own day.

6. It is widely believed that the council taught that non-Christian religions contain revelation and are paths to salvation for their members. A careful examination of the documents, however, proves the contrary. The council taught that salvation cannot be found in any other name than that of Jesus.

7. Regarding the means by which revelation is transmitted, many theologians have argued that the council gave priority to Scripture as the written word of God, and demoted tradition to the status of a secondary norm, to be tested against the higher norm of Scripture. An impartial reading of Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, the “Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation” (1965) indicates on the contrary that the council gave a certain priority to tradition.

8. A third error relating to revelation is the view that, according to the council, God continues to reveal himself in secular experience through the signs of the times, which therefore provide criteria for interpreting the Gospel. Vatican II, in fact, rejected the idea of continuing revelation.

9. It has become almost a platitude to say that the council, reversing earlier Catholic teaching, taught that the church is not necessary for salvation. But in reality the council affirmed that faith and baptism are necessary for salvation (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and that, since baptism is the door to the church, the church too is necessary.

10. The doctrine of collegiality is frequently misunderstood as though it restricted the powers of the pope, requiring him to establish a consensus of the world’s bishops before deciding important issues. Vatican II did indeed affirm that the bishops as a college, when acting together with their head, the pope, enjoy supreme authority, but it affirmed that the pope likewise has supreme authority as successor of Peter and head of the college.

11. Vatican II never mentioned dissent, but by implication rejected it. It stated that even when the pope and the bishops do not speak infallibly, their authoritative teaching is binding, and that the faithful are required to adhere to it with a “religious submission of mind” (LG, No. 25). Vatican II, therefore, cannot be quoted as favoring dissent.

12. Regarding the laity, the council did much to clarify their active role in the worship and mission of the church and their vocation to refashion secular society according to the norms of the Gospel. At several points Vatican II urged pastors to consult the laity and to listen to them when they speak within their competence (LG, No. 37; GS, Nos. 43, 62). But at no point did it suggest that the hierarchy have any obligation to accept the recommendations of the laity with regard to matters pertaining to the pastoral office.

13. It is often said that with Vatican II the church, reversing its earlier position, acknowledged marriage as a vocation no less blessed than celibacy. The council wrote eloquently of the sacrament of matrimony as a sacred bond mirroring the union between Christ and the church (GS, No. 48), but it also reaffirmed the teaching of Trent that it is better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be joined in matrimony—a doctrine that Trent traced back to Jesus

14. Opponents of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968) make much of the fact that Vatican II was silent on the morality of contraception. The council did not explicitly condemn contraception because the pope had reserved this question to a special commission outside the council. But after declaring that the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation must be preserved in marital intercourse, the council declared: “Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons and daughters of the church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the church in its unfolding of the divine law” (GS, No. 51). At this point the fathers inserted footnotes referring to documents of Pius XI and Pius XII forbidding contraception. If this passage had been written after Humanae Vitae, no revision would have been needed except the addition of a reference to that document in the footnote.

15. The council’s teaching on religious freedom has been poorly understood. It is widely believed that the council recognized that members of non-Catholic and non-Christian religious bodies have a right to believe as they do and to propagate their beliefs freely. But the council declared no such thing. In its “Declaration on Religious Freedom” it rejected coercion by the state in the area of religion, but it did not set all religions on the same level. The “one true religion,” it stated, “subsists in the Catholic and apostolic church to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men”

16. Turning in conclusion to the liturgy, I shall limit myself to one question. Vatican II is frequently praised or blamed for having authorized the translation of the Latin liturgy into the vernacular. But the matter is not so simple. In Sacrosactum Concilium, its “Constitution on the Liturgy” (1963), the council declared: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite, except where a particular law might indicate otherwise” (SC, No 36, Paragraph 1). In the following two paragraphs the constitution went on to say that competent local ecclesiastical authorities may determine that certain readings, instructions, prayers and chants be translated into the mother tongue of the people. The council fathers would not have anticipated that in the space of a few years the Latin language would almost totally disappear. It would be well if Catholics could be familiar with the Mass in Latin, the official language of the Roman rite. But since there are sound pastoral reasons for the vernacular, faithful translations of high quality should be provided. We may hope that such translations are in the making.

Cardinal Dulles concludes: Because the hermeneutics of discontinuity has prevailed in countries like our own, the efforts of the Holy See to clarify the documents have regularly been attacked as retrenchments. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was denounced for its declaration on infallibility, Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), for the new profession of faith issued in 1989, for its ecclesiology of communion in Communionis Notio (1991) and for its document on Christ and the Church, Dominus Iesus (2000). The Roman document on the collaboration of the laity in the sacred ministry (1997) was angrily dismissed, as was, in some quarters, John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Apostolos Suos, on the status and authority of episcopal conferences (1998). In each of these cases there was a clamor of protest, but the critics did not convincingly show that the official teaching had departed from the teaching of Vatican II, interpreted according to the principles set forth in the Extraordinary Synod of 1985.

I am not seeking in this brief article to defend the teaching of Vatican II on points that someone or other might wish to challenge. My authority could not add anything to that of the council, which spoke with the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit. I can say only that I find the teaching of Vatican II very solid, carefully nuanced and sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of our own time and place. The artful blending of majority and minority perspectives in the council documents should have forestalled the unilateral interpretations. There is no reason today why Vatican II should be a bone of contention among Catholics.

History, of course, does not stop. Just as Vatican II made important changes reflecting new biblical studies, the liturgical movement and the ecumenical movement, we may expect future developments in doctrine and polity. Progress must be made, but progress always depends upon an acceptance of prior achievements so that it is not necessary to begin each time from the beginning.

THE POST VATICAN II REFORM OF THE MASS: WHAT WENT WRONG?

Liturgical reform gone wrong; liturgical fundamentalism/literalism:

The recovery of mystery, spirituality, ritual and ecclesiology in the Ordinary Form of the Mass (YES! THIS IS THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS!):

I wrote the following article for our Diocesan Newspaper, The Southern Cross, in 2003. Father Paul Cioffi who died sometime after this article was written, was a Jesuit Liturgist, which seems to be two words in conflict, but he really was an expert in the Liturgy and sacraments and a wonderful speaker. I had attended a workshop with him in West Palm Beach Florida in January of 2003. This article was inspired by what he taught us (at the end of this reprint, I have my current editorializing comments:

Father Paul Cioffi the preeminent Jesuit liturgist (and no that’s not an oxymoron) in evaluating the last 40 years of liturgical renewal has come to the conclusion that the renewal of the Mass has been a “mixed bag.” He states that the unambiguous successes of the past forty years include the restoration of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, the reform of the lectionary and Liturgy of the Word, the development of liturgical ministries, more frequent Holy Communion at Mass and allowing the Chalice to be given to the laity.

But he warns that there have been “unambiguous failures” as well these past forty years. Church leaders have not adequately catechized the laity on the need or the value of the reforms of the Mass and its theological and devotional impact. Priests and seminarians have not been well trained in the area of catechetics, homiletics or presiding at Mass. In fact he states that only 10% of priests are capable of presiding well.

Fr. Cioffi maintains that in the last forty years, apart from a few exceptions, we have only had reform but not renewal of the Mass. He states, “we changed texts and translation and moved furniture without changing minds or moving hearts.” Catechesis concerning the new theology of celebrating the Mass, its spirituality and ecclesiology has been so lacking that very few grasped the meaning of the reforms and thus feel that the reforms seem to be “much ado about nothing.”

For the most part, the Sunday experience of Mass throughout our country fails to nourish our need for mystery and the transcendent. The main culprit in this failure is that many liturgists and liturgical architects rushed to an uncritical horizontal/communitarian approach to celebrating Mass so much so that it has overshadowed the vertical/transcendent. Fr. Cioffi states that new Liturgical forms “did not sufficiently reinforce awareness that we are in another story and on Someone else’s agenda”—God’s agenda. To an outsider the Mass appears to be merely a humanistic feast.

We have forgotten that we are not just a community; we are a forgiven community with a forgiveness, which comes from God’s intervention in the human community and more importantly in the lives of individuals. We have tried to produce at Mass a sense of a fellowship of joy and warm feelings whereas God’s intervention in the gathered community and in the individuals celebrating Mass produces exultation.

Fr. Cioffi states that the “notion of sin was lost” also. We can only appreciate our salvation and justification in Jesus Christ to the extent that we recognize the “wretchedness” of our sinfulness and how our sin is responsible for the one sacrifice of Jesus, his shedding of his blood on the cross, his death and his glorious resurrection. If sin and redemption are trivialized in the celebration of Mass, as they have been over that last few decades, then the central Christian experience of being forgiven and being a “wretch” in need of forgiveness will be trivialized as well. Only the one who truly understands the need for forgiveness will hunger and thirst for the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Fr. Cioffi states that “we have carried the principle of variability of ritual and musical forms to a degree which destroys the very concept of ritual whose nature is to be the same.” Without contemplation created by “silence, sameness, repetition, and precision in the ritual,” there is the unfortunate tendency to keep improvising which then destroys the essence of ritual.

For example, many believe that we have too much new music of poor musical and theological quality constantly thrown to congregations today. Paperback hymnals and missalettes, which are replaced on a regular basis with new music constantly added, destroys ritual that needs to be the same. In addition, songs in which Biblical texts are set in a secular musical style reminiscent of musical theater or current pop music violate liturgical guidelines stated by Pope Pius X in 1903 and affirmed by the Second Vatican Council. Many songs composed in the recent past which admittedly have become popular at Catholic Masses unfortunately fall into this category.

Fr. Cioffi also points out that we have failed to “pay enough attention to the non-verbal and non-rational elements of worship, nor to the value of silence, repetition, precision, and music that point to another world. Liturgies became too busy, creative, and wordy.” In other words, our Mass for the most part as well as our art and architecture have failed to inspire and lift us into the eternal heavenly banquet of the Lamb slain for our salvation.

Someone has once said that if we celebrated our Masses as intended by the Church, we would be so caught up in the beauty, splendor and contemplation of mystery that if the Second Coming of Christ were to occur we would not know the difference.

Fr. Cioffi laments the fact that the “liturgical bus stalled. No one will get back on until they are assured it is fixed. We must go back to the original vision that inspired the reform. We must infuse heart into the institutional reform.” We must abandon forever the notion that reform by itself will automatically produce renewal in the lives of our people.

Furthermore, Fr. Cioffi emphasizes that “reform without a renewal of spirituality was a terrible mistake. The original vision was not a mistake. The common enemy is liturgy without a sense of mystery; too variable, sloppy and busy; not yet integrated with subjective piety; lack of leadership and priests not capable of presiding and preaching.”

We must begin anew states Fr. Cioffi to bring about reform and renewal in the Mass. It will not be as exciting the second time around, but it must be done. He states, “Let’s do the truth in love.”

MY NEW COMMENTS: I wrote this in 2003 before Pope Benedict's election as pope. What Father Cioffi is describing is what Pope Benedict has ushered into the Church's liturgical life, "The Reform of the Reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass" with in the Hermeneutic of Liturgical Continuity."

Where so many who comment here miss the liturgical bus is trying to negate what Sacrosanctum Concilium desired for liturgical renewal in the Church and what was implemented that is actual the good fruit of Vatican II. I fear too many here want to throw out the baby with the bath water of post Vatican II liturgical renewal.

For example, Fr. Cioffi says that the best part of Vatican II is the reform of the Lectionary and the Liturgy of the Word, which as most here know, I wholeheartedly endorse. He also says the restoration of the Precious Blood to the congregation is a marvelous renewal too. I agree. I see to reason to prevent the laity from receiving the Precious Blood. Those who disagree with me sound like Scrooge.

But Fr. Cioffi does agree that the horizontal developments within the Mass were not foreseen by Vatican II and have been deleterious to the Liturgy.

He agrees that there has been a loss of spirituality renewal in the Mass, meaning a deep and abiding faith that Jesus Christ is truly present for our exultation, for our redemption from sin and death. This is not a secular get together simply to form friendships and community--that can be done in so many other ways, secular or religious.

He laments the miserable state of affairs in liturgical music and the loss of continuity, spirituality that has occurred and the banality of so much that is sung in the Church.

Finally, he states that the majority of priests do not know the art of celebrating the revised liturgy and this has contributed to the dissatisfaction so many experience. I think many commenting here feel that also, that from priest to priest there is such diversity in terms of how the Mass is celebrated that it all hinges on how the priest celebrates it and often this leads to the cult of the personality rather than the cult of Jesus Christ, cult meaning "worship."

So I would recommend not denigrating the revised lectionary or Liturgy of the Word, but to work for the proper art of celebrating the Mass by both the priest and the congregation and appreciating the gift of the restoration of the Precious Blood for the laity to receive our Risen Lord under that form, like the Eastern Rite and Eastern Orthodox have always had and we had for the for eight or nine centuries of the Mass.

But the recovery of chant, Latin or English, and the recovery of ritual repetition and the awesome sense of mystery are necessary and I've already given my clairvoyant vision of what that will be.

OF NOBLE SIMPLICITY AND THE LITURGICAL HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY (THE VIDEO AT THE END HITS THIS REFORM OF THE REFORM ON THE HEAD AND IS THE MODEL OF THINGS TO COME!)

As an aside, our Benedictine retreat master is marvelous. Fr. Eugene Hensell of St. Meinrad Archabbey has a wonderful dry sense of humor and is an excellent teacher and preacher. He has been focusing on the parables and has certainly given us a new perspective on them.

Today's simple daily Mass had as the main celebrant Fr. Dan Melaba, a Nigerian priest who is the neighboring pastor of St. Peter Claver Church in Macon.

I want to make clear that as much as I am grateful for the restoration of the EF Mass and its gravitational pull on the OF Mass, that I love the OF Mass when celebrated as it should be, which unfortunately is not the case in so many places.

What struck me about the OF Mass today and Fr. Dan's marvelous liturgical style, if you will, is how elegant it can be even in its noble simplicity. I want to discuss the rite itself, not the music as I see that is another conundrum that is more difficult to rationally discuss with so many in the Church today.

Fr. Dan began the Introductory rite by using the Introductory Rite as it is meant to be. It is noble in its simplicity. He began with the Sign of the Cross, the simple greeting "The Lord be with you" and the opening statement, "Brothers, let us acknowledge our sins so as to prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries." There were no banal introductory statements or explanations! Then there was a moment of silence, a variation on the Penitential Act, which includes the Kyrie and then the Collect. It was noble and elegant.

The downside, I believe to this reform of the Introductory rite that I never really like from the first time I heard it in the 1960's is, "let us call to mind our sins..." in its various expressions. Never in the Tridentine Rite is anyone asked to call to mind specific sins. Why start the Mass on a negative note and dwell on the list of sins that I'm calling to mind?

Would it not be better after the Greeting, for the priest to say, "Let us go to the altar of God, with the response, The God of our youthfulness, and then have silence and then the Penitential Act in its various options?

The Liturgy of the Word has always been my favorite part of the reform. When done properly it is marvelous. I have no suggestions for improvement, except for Solemn High Liturgies to have lectors who could chant the lessons. I personally like the Responsorial Psalm better than the Gradual, although I don't begrudge the latter.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist is fine the way it is even with the modern preparation prayers, although I would not have a hissy-fit if the older offertory prayers were recovered.

The only reform or recovery of the Tridentine Mass I would strongly, strongly, recommend for the Liturgy of the Eucharist is that it be celebrated Ad Orientem. Facing the people makes it look like the words of the prayers as well as the words of institution are being directed to the congregation. These simply aren't. Ad Orientem would make that clear and obvious and add the hermeneutic of liturgical continuity to this part of the Mass.

Of course, I recommend Holy Communion by intinction and kneeling. It is a no brainer. I have to thank the comment by WSquared who wrote that he agreed with me that liturgists who say that standing to receive is a better sign of the be raised up in Christ is "bull." He wrote that kneeling to receive Holy Communion and then standing to return to one's pew is a better sign of being raised up and I thought that was profound!

In terms of our retreat Mass today, I hope and pray that we will recover the propers in Gregorian Chant, either in Latin or English for the Introit, Offertory and Communion--we miss the boat on that and big time!

Finally, I have no problem with the Introductory Rite and Concluding Rite taking place at the chair. I find that elegant too.

The following video which I copy from The New Liturgical Movement shows the re-dedication and reconsecration of a monastic chapel that had been destroyed by fire.

It is the Ordinary Form of this Rite but borrows elements from the EF Rite for this, which I find interesting. Note the sand on the floor and the tracing of letters in it by with the crozier of the bishop--this I believe is EF not OF. I've never seen this in the OF consecration rite and also the bishop goes and anoints the walls by going on a ladder to do so, this again is EF in origin, not OF as in the OF, priests do this, not the bishop. The Anointing of the altar though is, OF, but the manner of installing the relics is EF. I'm not sure about how the incense is burned and why the bishop and all are kneeling, this could be EF influence too? Anyone know?

The OF Mass is celebrated Ad Orientem, and the people receive kneeling, although the nuns receive standing and from the chalice. I think that there is room now for either standing or kneeling and is not divisive to the liturgical assembly at all.


I would say this Mass is what to expect in "the reform of the reform within the hermeneutic of continuity with the EF Mass" in the near future, for the future is here now! Please note the mix of vernacular and Latin!

I absolutely love the architecture of this chapel, its art and the manner of the sanctuary even with the seating in front of it and to the sides in the transcept. I LOVE THIS!

REDISCOVERING OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES AND THE OLD TESTAMENT PRIESTHOOD AS THE ANTECEDENT TO THE NEW TESTAMENT UN-BLOODY SACRIFICE AND NEW TESTAMENT ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD

The Old Testament priesthood was not a calling, but came from priestly families, it was inherited. The Old Testament priesthood offered animal sacrifices in the temple by entering the Holy of Holies and sacrificing the animal, a variety of which could be sacrificed, first by killing the animal and bleeding it, and then ultimately cooking its flesh and then consuming it. In all cases, what was left over was given as food to the people outside of the temple's holy of holies.

In the East, the holy of holies of the Christian temple was the presbytery or what we in the Latin Rite call the sanctuary. It was cordoned off by an iconostasis, or screen and the priest entered it with his back to the congregation to offer the One Sacrifice of Christ, re-presented in an unbloody way at the altar. Afterward, to complete this sacrifice the Christian priest took and ate and drank the Body and Blood of the Risen Lord, but not a dead sacrifice, but the Living, Glorified, Risen Lord.

The same developed in the Western Church and thus the Latin Rite, our Rite. But rather than an iconostasis, there developed a "rood screen or wall" to demarcate the "holy of holies" where the ordained Christian priest entered to offer the unbloody, one Sacrifice of Christ re-presented on our Chritian altar and to do the same as the Eastern Rite priests do.

Eventually the rood screen or wall was removed or modified into an altar railing from which the laity would receive the Body and Blood of Christ kneeling. In fact the altar railing simply became an extension of the altar-table for the laity as they approached the "table of the Lord" to receive Holy Communion.

The post-Vatican II era blurred the holy of holies in our Christian temples and also the unique role of the ordained Christian priest to offer sacrfice to God on behalf of the mystical Body of Christ. The distinction between the two was diminished and to the detriment of both.

For example the altar was thrust into the center of the nave, often priests were encouraged by so-called liturgist, not the rubrics, to receive Holy Communion last, after the laity had completed Holy Communion as a sign of "hospitality!"

All of this a breach not only with our pre-Vatican II heritage, but also with the Old Testament antecedents to the Mass and Catholic Priesthood, the Old Testament priesthood and bloody sacrifices they offered except for Melchizedek who "sacrificed" and offered bread and wine.

This is a comment I made to Carol about this from the last post I made:

Carol you are correct, but in establishing the sacraments or anything that gives the apostles authority it all has to do with leading the adopted children of God through Holy Baptism to the Kingdom of God and the "Christification" of the world. The ordained priest differs in degree or character from the baptismal, general priesthood of the laity, but both lay and clergy share in the one priesthood of Christ in differing degrees. So, the priest who celebrates the Mass must "take and eat, take and drink" the Bread and Wine, the Body and Blood of Christ, to complete the Sacrifice of the Mass--this is not required of the laity, they simply share in the fruits of the Sacrifice by receiving our Lord after the priest has completed the sacrifice.
What I have just described would have been very clear to the pre-Vatican II Catholic but has be obfuscated in the post-Vatican II era by progressive Catholics who do not want the ordained priesthood to have a unique status and to differ in degree from the laity's baptismal priesthood. This is symbolized in the manner in which the Mass is celebrated and the architecture of modern or redesigned churches.

VATICAN II, LITURGY, SCRIPTURE AND ECUMENISM

As we have already seen, the Second Vatican Council's document on the liturgy did not happen in a vacuum. There had been a liturgical movement for most of the 20th century and even experimentation in different countries in terms of actual participation and facing the people and reading the Scriptures in the vernacular.

So much of Vatican II was conditioned by what had happened organically in the first part of the 20th century and some of which went back to the 19th century.

The three areas that Vatican II addressed that is still controversial for traditionalists are:

A. Ecumenism: A desire for Christian unity began with Protestantism and even in the early 1900's the Catholic Church participated also in what would come to be the annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity that normally concludes on the Solemnity of Saint Paul.

B. Liturgy: The desire for a reform liturgy goes well ahead of Vatican II. Pope Pius understood this and began to reform the Holy Week Liturgies in light of this organic development. Pope John XXIII made some reforms of the missal which is now the EF's missal.

C. The Word of God: Pope Pius XII understood the scriptural developments taking place and by 1943 opened the doors to Catholic scholarship to the historical critical method of studying the Scriptures.

Each of these areas are conservatively discussed at Vatican II and the documents are conservative in nature while acknowledging the organic development that had already occurred.

But in implementing the vision of Vatican II each of these three areas developed bacteria infections that could easily be described as carbuncles.

A. Ecumenism's carbuncle is a false egalitarianism that says there is no real difference between the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations. This leads to open communion and a loss of Catholic identity.

B. Liturgy's carbuncle is a manufactured liturgy that allows for so much flexibility of style and wording makes it totally different from the template of the Tridentine Mass which is the Mass that is being reformed. Today's expression of the OF Mass in many places is so different from the EF Mass that a Catholic who never experienced the EF Mass would think that it has nothing to do with Catholicism.

C. The Word of God's carbuncle is that the faith of rank and file Catholics is questioned when promoting the term myth to describe the creation accounts and other aspects of the Old and New Testament. Rather than building up faith, it tears it down, a consequence of the Historical Critical Method, if properly used, does not have to take place.

ON LITURGISTS AND LITURGY

IN ALL OF THE IMAGES BELOW PEOPLE ARE RECEIVING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR GLORIFIED AND RISEN LORD, THEY ARE NOT SIMPLY EATING AND DRINKING AS THOUGH AT A SECULAR BANQUET, NO THEY ARE RECEIVING OUR LORD IN THE MOST SACRED BANQUET THERE IS ON THIS SIDE OF HEAVEN!

Several years ago, Archbishop Rembert Weakland who was a part of the Consilium to redesign the Mass after Vatican II, and very progressive in matters of liturgy and otherwise, the law of prayer is the law of belief, lamented the fact that many progressive liturgists and parishes focused more an the "extravagant" signs and symbols of the liturgy which is idolatry and less on what these signify, Jesus Christ.

For example, in the modern post-Vatican II era, the focus was on the ingredients of the bread and wine used, did it look like real bread and have a lovely, chewable taste and quality, was it like real food. The same for the wine, was it pleasing to the nose, tantalizing and sweet to the tongue and did it have a rich, colorful bouquet?

Tied into this, did people actually eat and drink, chew and chug? After all, Jesus at the Last Supper told the Apostles take and eat, take and drink. He didn't say, receive, kneeling, and on the tongue and forget about taking and drinking.

Of course, at the Last Supper Jesus was talking to the Apostles as he instituted both the priesthood and the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, the first priests/bishops of the Church and not to the laity. And today, priests and bishops must take and eat, take and drink, but the laity have always "received" never taking!

In the Latin Rite, the belief that Jesus' Body and Blood is "whole" because we are receiving the Glorified and Risen Lord whole and complete, but under sacramental signs and symbols, and we are not receiving dead flesh and blood taken as though from a carving plate or a blood vile means that if the laity receive only the consecrated Bread or only the consecrated Wine, they receive Christ, pure and simple!

But listen to liturgists who focus on a misunderstanding of the Last Supper and what they think is the primary sign and symbol of the Communion Rite. It is processing to the Communion station, taking the bread that looks like real bread, eating and chewing and the same for the consecrated Wine, taking it and drinking, guzzling and moving on. This is the action that is primary to the Communion Rite and all this while they are singing a communion chant.

But actually, isn't the primary emphasis during the Communion Rite, receiving our Lord "hidden or veiled" under the sacramental signs of bread and wine. We're not receiving bread and wine as though these are an end in and of themselves, we are receiving Christ, in a physical/spiritual sense, not just spiritual.

For example, a person receives Christ spiritually when one asks the Lord to come into their heart and soul during prayer or during Holy Communion when unable to receive Him sacramentally, they do what is called a "spiritual" communion. While actually receiving the Body and Blood of our Risen and Glorified Lord is primary or the source and summit of receiving Christ, there are other ways to receive Christ and call it eating and drinking, like eating the Word of God and drinking it in and do so not in the literal sense but in the figurative sense at Mass during the Liturgy of the Word.

For example, when I eat cereal, I eat and drink the milk with it by using a spoon. When I was a baby, my mother spoon-fed me. In either case, I was eating and drinking.

The same with Italians who know quite well and fabulously wonderfully, that when one takes a good piece of Italian bread and drunks it into a fine class of Chianti that they are eating and drinking that bread and wine even though it is by "dunking" the liturgical side which is called "intinction!"

Now for kneeling or standing for Holy Communion. The liturgists say that standing better symbolizes being "raised up" in Christ. I say, bull! If I receive kneeling, I am still raised up in Christ. If I receive while sick and in bed, I am still raised up in Christ. And if I died in Christ and lay in my coffin before the altar at my Requiem, I am still raised up in Christ! Just who are these liturgists kidding by their silly reductionism as it concerns the symbol of being raised up?

Yes,the Mass in either form, OF or EF must show forth Jesus Christ under the various signs and symbols used. The Proclamation of the Word of God must appear to be proclaimed to God's people for them to "eat and drink" it in.

Yes, the one Sacrifice of Christ, re-presented in an unbloody way through the "mystery of the Paschal Mystery, or better yet, the Mystery of the eternity of God's plan and salvation of His Chosen People" should appear to be a sacrifice as the Old Testament has understood sacrifice and the best of the Tradition of both the East and the West has shown that sacrifice.

Yes, the Communion Rite, should be a "Sacrificial Meal" where after the Sacrifice is completed, and in the Mass, like Melchizedek's sacrifice in the Old Testament that is "unbloody and nothing is killed" we consume what is sacrificed, the Holocuast. In the Old Testament bloody sacrifices it was the flesh and blood of the aninmal sacrificed, in the Mass it is the Body and Blood of our Risen Savior, but He is alive not dead, like the holocausts of the Old Testament bloody sacrifices.

In this sense, we can call the entire Mass a Sacrificial Meal, from start to finish, including the "eating and drinking" of the Word of God during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Mass itself is the eternal wedding banquet of heaven, or points to it!

Like on disciples on the Road to Emmaus, from the start of Mass to its ending, we are walking with the Lord who speaks to us and we come to recognize in the Breaking of the Bread, both Word and Sacrament. We are sent from Mass to "glorify the Lord by our life." The Mass always has a moral and ethical dimension to it, it signifies how we as individuals and as a Church must conduct our lives in the world concerned about "Christifying" the world through evangelization, especially the manner in which we conduct our lives and using words only when necessary!

GET BACK TO CHURCH, SUNDAY, OR GET BACK TO THE POOL, RETREAT

The view from my motel room door, exactly!

I'm in Jacksonville for our annual priests' retreat for the Diocese of Savannah. I could not get into the retreat house at Marywood, for the first time ever, and so I'm staying at the Ramada Inn about 20 minutes away. Sad. But I procrastinated calling the diocese to register, so there you have it. But someone, several someones, had to go elsewhere, why not me?

The retreat master is a Benedictine from St. Meinrad, Indiana, Fr. Eugene Hensell, OSB. When I was vocation director, I placed a few of our seminarians in their college seminary. I enjoyed visiting there and they offered a vocation director workshop each year in February.

Since I'm in a traditional motel room, with the door opening directly to the outside and to a lovely pool and that traditional motel smell, that is turning my stomach, I also have a TV with cable.

One of the Jacksonville stations had an advertisement by a Protestant minister advertising "Get Back to Church Sunday, September 16th." I don't know if this is just a Jacksonville thing or has a broader inspiration. The minister promoted his own church but then listed the names of other churches people could get back to. These were all Protestant, not a Catholic name in any of them.

I wonder how well these advertisements work. I know we Catholics had many ads for our Catholics Come Home in the Diocese of Savannah and of course we didn't advertise Protestant Churches. We did see a goodly number of people returning to the Church, but I wonder how many stayed. But if one person only returned permanently to the Church I suspect it was worth it.

So on this retreat, with a lovely pool right outside my door, do I pray or swim? What a conundrum!

JUST WHAT HAS EMPTIED THE CHURCHES? LIBERALISM OR CONSERVATISM, LOSS OF CATHOLIC IDENTITY OR CONSERVATION OF CATHOLIC IDENTITY?

Two men of the same generation, one a traditionalist, the other a progressive, both the problem not the solution to the loss of Catholic moral identity in our current day and both of the same school of enablement of sin but in differing degrees:

My comments follow this article on Cardinal Carol Maria Martini and his diagnosis of the crisis in the Church. Is his rant the problem or the solution even to the sex abuse scandal? I say that his generation, those who are now in the late 60's and upward, whether progressive or traditionalist, is the problem not the solution!

REUTERS - The former archbishop of Milan and papal candidate Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini said the Catholic Church was "200 years out of date" in his final interview before his death, published on Saturday.

Martini, once favoured by Vatican progressives to succeed Pope John Paul II and a prominent voice in the church until his death at the age of 85 on Friday, gave a scathing portrayal of a pompous and bureaucratic church failing to move with the times.

"Our culture has aged, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our rituals and our cassocks are pompous," Martini said in the interview published in Italian daily Corriere della Sera.

"The Church must admit its mistakes and begin a radical change, starting from the pope and the bishops. The paedophilia scandals oblige us to take a journey of transformation," he said in the interview.

In the last decade the Church has been accused of failing to fully address a series of child abuse scandals which have undermined its status as a moral arbiter, though it has paid many millions in compensation settlements worldwide.

Martini, famous for comments that the use of condoms could be acceptable in some cases, told interviewers the Church should open up to new kinds of families or risk losing its flock.

"A woman is abandoned by her husband and finds a new companion to look after her and her children. A second love succeeds. If this family is discriminated against, not just the mother will be cut off but also her children."

In this way "the Church loses the future generation", Martini said in the interview, made a fortnight before he died. The Vatican opposes divorce and forbids contraception in favour of fidelity within marriage and abstinence without.

A liberal voice in the church, Martini's chances of becoming pope were damaged when he revealed he was suffering from a rare form of Parkinson's disease and he retired in 2002.

Pope John Paul II was instead succeeded in 2005 by Pope Benedict XVI, a hero of Catholic conservatives who is known by such critical epithets as "God's rottweiler" because of his stern stand on theological issues.

Martini's final message to Pope Benedict was to begin a shake up of the Catholic church without delay.

"The church is 200 years out of date. Why don't we rouse ourselves? Are we afraid?"

Martini was much loved and thousands paid their respects at his coffin in Milan cathedral on Saturday.

MY COMMENTS: Cardinal Martini clearly is of the school of Father Hans Kung and Charles Curran. This school was born prior to the Second Vatican Council, what many call the progressive branch of academia in the various schools of theology. The other school is represented by Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Oddly enough, Pope Benedict prior to 1968 would have been considered of the school of Martini. 1968 was a decisive year for him when Catholicism in Europe and the USA was undergoing its greatest identity crisis following the Second Vatican Council and outright rebellion was taking place as the school of rupture in terms of interpreting the Second Vatican Council was in high gear.

I would say that Cardinal Martini a progressive thinks like many traditionalists. He thinks that if the church is more liberal it will have more members and win back those who have left or are lukewarm. Whereas conservatives think that if the Church becomes like she was in the 1950's the churches will be full again. Both are extremes but built on the same philosophy and both are wrong.

One only needs to look at liberal Protestantism and in particular the Episcopal Church to realize that the progressive screed in Christianity is like a dead duck. It has not filled their churches, in fact, like many progressive religious orders in the Church, mostly LCWR, progressive Christianity is moribund except for some lively pockets here and there within Protestantism, but certainly not within the LCWR.

Look at St. Francis de Sales Church in Atlanta, of the FSSP. Atlanta has a huge Catholic population. If Catholics thought the future resided in the FSSP model of being Church, that parish should be the largest one in Atlanta. It simply isn't.

Growth in the Catholic Church lies somewhere in between traditionalism and progressivism. I've always thought of myself as theologically conservative but pastorally liberal. We need clear guidelines for living, strong laws, but we need mercy and kindness shown to people who struggle with the call to perfection which will only be realized on the other side of this life, the life of perfection found only in heaven. There are only glimpses of it on this side of life.

So we have to love the homosexual even if he or she hates the Church and we can't be shoving them off to hell, but simply call them to chastity and leave the privacy of their lives to them and God. If parents who love their homosexual children see the Church as hating their children, especially officials of the Church who have little or no empathy for the children or their parents, we need to examine just how Christ like are we?

We need to understand those who are in marriages that the Church cannot recognize and look at the good that is there and entrust the bad to God's mercy and allow them to make peace with God in the privacy of their lives.

We can speak of generalities and perfection but acknowledge we are sinners in the hands of a loving and merciful God.

But this progressivism can run a muck. Father Benedict Groschell's candid remarks about priests being seduced by teenagers is breath taking in his honesty no matter how wrong headed it is. Do you want to know why bishops gave a pass to so many priest abusers prior to 2002? Fr. Groeschell's remarks as a psychologist hits the nail on the head. The focus was on priests and finding ways to save their priesthood, thus shifting blame for their mortal sins and criminal behavior to the victims themselves, or to alcoholism or to stress and anxiety. Never mind that in 99% of the cases no matter what the cause of the abuse, the priest should have been reported to the authorities and suspended permanently from ministry, two policies which are now national and international policy in most dioceses.

What Cardinal Martini, of the old and dying school of progressivism is advocating is what the conservative Fr. Benedict Groeschell practiced and let slip in an infelicitous interview recently.

The problem is how to love the sinner and hate the sin and realize that judgement on sin sometimes means that the sinner must be punished on this side of life.

EXTRAORDINARY FORM HIGH MASS, SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, AT 2:00 PM FOR THE 14TH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST AND PRE-VATICAN II CLAIRVOYANCE ABOUT THE LITURGY OF THE FUTURE

Many foresaw in the future the Liturgy of the Word expanded, in the vernacular and facing the people and proclaimed to them in an unhurried fashion:

They foresaw even in the 1940's and earlier, the Mass facing the people:

But the norm for the 21st Century reform of the reform may well look like this again!

St. Joseph Church, Macon, will celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the High Mass on Sunday for the 14th Sunday after Pentecost. You can find the Latin/English Liturgy for this Mass by pressing this sentence!

In terms of the foment to revise the Mass that was part of the Liturgical Movement of the 20th century, I found this article from Adoremus which you can read by pressing this sentence which gives a wonderful history. Agree with it or not, the changes that resulted in the Liturgy after Vatican II come from this foment. It seems the greatest change advocated was Mass facing the people.

St. John Abbey in Collegeville, MN also built their new abbey church in the 1950's anticipating much of what would become the norm after Vatican II. One interesting historic detail was the desire by some that Holy Communion be received standing and that altar railing be eliminated. St. John's Abbey Church did not have altar railings installed and there is a wonderful opinion piece by the monk who promoted it in the Adoremus article. They decided to have table like structures that people would process to and receive Holy Communion standing. What we are now doing at St. Joseph Church resemble this, though wholly unintentional, with people now approaching a kneeler where they themselves can choose to stand to receive Holy Communion, which currently is the norm in our country, or kneel as the legitimate exception to the norm but which is clearly their choice.

Yesterday I posted an article by Father John Mannion written on the eve of the Second Vatican Council. As I reread it this morning, I am struck by how accurately he foretells what will be the revised liturgy designed after Vatican II by the Consilium.

The point I wish to make is that this did not occur overnight but had been discussed in academic circles for decades. Of course there was no internet and the laity for the most part did not know of this discussion. It was purely academic and clerical and keep in mind that academics are the most clerical of the clergy, exhibit the worst clericalism at times and think their opinions are better than anyone else's and should never be questioned by the laity. But of course, prior to Vatican II and its reforms, the laity were not to question anything that clerics did, especially academic clerics. My, how times have changed and the internet has leaped-frogged you laity into outer-space in this regard!

Let me reprint what Fr. John Mannion's clairvoyance saw for the future of the Liturgy. He seems to have been as clairvoyant as I, but only time of course will show that:

"Taking the Mass in its sequence, it seems imperative that the readings from Scripture should be presented in a manner which clearly demonstrates that this is the formal proclamation, by the Church, of God’s revealed Word to His people duly assembled. This might be accomplished by providing that the lessons be read facing the people, from lecterns or ambos (which would also serve the purpose of distinguishing between the “service of the Word” and the service of the altar).

The cycle of selections from the Bible might be expanded, say to three years, so that more of the Word could be offered the people than is now possible in a one-year cycle. Should not more Old Testament readings be included, perhaps by more frequent us e of three lessons in the Mass instead of two? And, needless to say, all such readings should be in the language of the people (more on this later), and delivered reverently, not hurriedly for the sake of satisfying an obligation. The ancient “prayer of the faithful” or litany of special intentions might be re – stored to use to conclude the first important segment of our worship service.

The offertory can easily be revised to make it clearer that the gifts come from the people. At the same time, care should be taken that the offertory rite does not seem to be anything more than a simple presentation of the materials of the sacrifice; the celebrant’s prayers at this time seem to make more of it by confusing the offering of the bread and wine with the sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood.

Why invoke Roman saints unknown to us?

Some consideration should be given to the prayers and actions of the Canon: why the Preface of the Holy Trinity as the standard Sunday preface? Why invoke Roman saints unknown to us? Why not give more prominence to the concluding elevation and doxology, not delaying the people’s response by the celebrant’s genuflection or coupling it with the Our Father before Communion? And since the Canon is the central action of the Mass, why should it not be celebrated aloud as the focus of our attention?

It would also help if more force were given to the urging of recent Popes that the people receive Hosts consecrated at the same Mass.

The relationship between Communion and the sacrificial act might be more evident if the two were not separated by so much time. Couldn’t the private prayers of the celebrant be eliminated? And shouldn’t it be stressed again that sharing the Eucharistic Food is the proper and normal conclusion of the Mass for all who are present? It would also help if more force were given to the urging of recent Popes that the people receive Hosts consecrated at the same Mass.

The “last Gospel”—like the prayers at the foot of the altar—began as a private devotion of the celebrant, not as prayer proper to public worship. There is considerable opinion that both practices might best be dropped for the sake of clarity.

Among all these changes, however, the central problem remains that of language. If it is a valid principle that changes are intended to make the forms of the liturgy conform more appropriately to their inner nature and purpose and to make them more meaningful to the people, then we cannot lightly dismiss the increasing desire for more vernacular in the rites of our public worship. Since the liturgy is a sacred sign—an external, intelligible signification of an interior, invisible reality—and since words are essential in the sacramental rites, the use of an unknown language obstructs the purpose of liturgy considered as a sign, a means of communication."

I ASK YOU, WAS FR. JOHN MANNION CLAIRVOYANT OR NOT? AND AM I LIKE HIM OR NOT?