This past weekend at St. Joseph Church in Macon, we began to eliminate the "lame duck" English translation of the Mass for the people's parts. As Latin Rite Catholics, we are learning the Latin parts. We are doing this incrementally. Currently, all of the "Dominus vobiscum" responses as well as the preface dialogue will be in Latin. During Lent we will say goodbye to the English Sanctus and Mystery of faith. St. Joseph already knows the Sanctus and Agnus Dei in Latin. During the Easter season we will teach them Gloria. I'm doubtful of the Creed, but am tempted to paste the new translation of it on the inside cover of our hymnal and start doing it now, but I hate being illicit!
I had the 9:30 AM and 5:00 PM Sunday Masses and both of the congregations did exceptionally well. We sang the preface dialogue, which we have commonly done with the old English form. I was very heartened by the people's embrace of this. Not everyone likes it, but I think everyone is trying and they understand. Catholics I have found are smart and we are the most educated Catholics in the history of the Catholic Church, or so we are told!
I think the use of Latin for these lame duck English parts will make it easier for us to change over to the new English when it is finally allowed. I hope the Bishops will allow us to do it as soon as possible. If the priests of the parish are positive about the new translation and convey that to the people and show them where they can find it and study it, it will go more smoothly. But so far, changing overnight to the Latin parts I mention above went extremely smoothly. I can't imagine changing the English would be more difficult. I didn't have a lenghty catechesis for the people for the Latin transition. We won't really need a lengthy one for the new English--let's get it done and soon!!!!!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
WEEK OF PRAYER FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY
Why can't my Protestant brothers and sisters receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church? Wouldn't that be a sign of Christian unity?
The reason we have the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and ecumenical dialogue is that Christians are not unified. The Great Schism began the first major division or "disunity" and the Protestant Reformation was the second. There have been smaller and larger divisions along the way to this day.
The reception of Holy Communion is the clearest sign and symbol that we are in unity with our Lord, the Church He founded and those He has placed to guide and lead His Church, namely the Pope and bishops who are the successors of St. Peter and the other apostles. Complete unity, which receiving Holy Communion implies, is that we believe the same things as well, not only about the Most Holy Trinity, but also about Sacred Scripture and Tradition, the seven sacraments and Christian morality. Orthodoxy in other words (right teaching) must always lead to ortho-praxis or (right practice) of the Faith.
We are far from the unity that being one in Christ implies. Being one in Christ implies being in Full Communion with Him, which receiving Holy Communion is the clearest sign. Therefore let us pray for the full, visible and corporate unity that our Lord desires. Let us not make Holy Communion a gimmick to make it look like we are unified. Your thoughts?
The reason we have the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and ecumenical dialogue is that Christians are not unified. The Great Schism began the first major division or "disunity" and the Protestant Reformation was the second. There have been smaller and larger divisions along the way to this day.
The reception of Holy Communion is the clearest sign and symbol that we are in unity with our Lord, the Church He founded and those He has placed to guide and lead His Church, namely the Pope and bishops who are the successors of St. Peter and the other apostles. Complete unity, which receiving Holy Communion implies, is that we believe the same things as well, not only about the Most Holy Trinity, but also about Sacred Scripture and Tradition, the seven sacraments and Christian morality. Orthodoxy in other words (right teaching) must always lead to ortho-praxis or (right practice) of the Faith.
We are far from the unity that being one in Christ implies. Being one in Christ implies being in Full Communion with Him, which receiving Holy Communion is the clearest sign. Therefore let us pray for the full, visible and corporate unity that our Lord desires. Let us not make Holy Communion a gimmick to make it look like we are unified. Your thoughts?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
School of Thought that my Generation of Priests were schooled in
When I was in the seminary at St. Mary's in Baltimore between 1976-80, Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx was one of the main theologians studied and his context of faith was seen as the "spirit of Vatican II" force shaping the Church of the future. While this article from the New York Times, which is an obituary, does not go into a great deal of depth, it does reveal many of the theological points of this theologian which if taken to the extreme is really the "deconstruction" of the Catholic Church in order to pave the way for something else altogether different, much like what the Episcopal Church has become. Fortunately, his theology is quite discredited today and by Papa Ratzinger in particular. We also studied Joseph Ratzinger's writing during the period immediately following the Second Vatican Council. His writing were solid! The paradigm that Fr. Schillebeeckx developed and we studied is responsible for the loss of faith of a number of our seminarians. By loss, I mean, loss of Catholic faith. But it certainly did call us to be good social workers. But as Catholics, Orthodox teaching and good works are what go hand in hand. He helped to develop the "New Dutch Catechism" in 1966. It is partially responsible for the heterodoxy of many Catholics in Holland today. The Church there barely exists because of it!
Edward Schillebeeckx, Catholic Theologian, Dies at 95
By PETER STEINFELS, NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 16, 2010
The Rev. Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent member of a wave of Roman Catholic theologians who helped reshape Catholicism during the Second Vatican Council and whose writings were later investigated for heresy, died on Dec. 23 in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. He was 95.
He died after a short illness, according to the Edward Schillebeeckx Foundation in Nijmegen, which preserves his work.
Although born and raised in Belgium, where he entered the Dominican religious order, Father Schillebeeckx (pronounced SKIL-uh-bakes) joined the theological faculty at the Catholic University of Nijmegen (now Radboud University) in 1958. He soon became a leading adviser to the Dutch bishops, especially during the four sessions of the Second Vatican Council, a marathon reassessment of Catholic life held in Rome from 1962 to 1965.
There he entered into discussions of the council’s documents, which eventually allowed celebration of the Mass in today’s languages rather than only in Latin, endorsed religious freedom, removed many barriers between Catholics, Protestants and other faiths and promoted a positive engagement with contemporary culture.
After the council, Father Schillebeeckx continued pressing for the kind of changes it had initiated. He published and lectured widely on basic theological matters like the nature of revelation and salvation, and on issues of church discipline he argued for democratic procedures in church governance and the ordination of married people, both men and women, to the priesthood.
He helped prepare the “New Dutch Catechism,” which the Dutch bishops published in 1966 and which sold widely.
From 1968 to 1981, the Vatican began three investigations of his writings for heresy. They all ended inconclusively with admonitions, complaints and requests for clarification but with no formal censures or penalties.
Like many Catholic theologians who influenced the council, Father Schillebeeckx had reacted against the neo-scholastic theology that the church adopted in the 19th century as a bulwark against hostile modern ideas. Distilled from the thought of Thomas Aquinas but frequently handed on without any examination of Aquinas’s writings or their medieval context, this neo-scholasticism articulated the faith in series of abstract concepts and propositions presented as absolute, ahistorical and immutable.
Father Schillebeeckx found alternative intellectual resources in modern phenomenology, with its meticulous attention to the actual experience of consciousness. And by studying Aquinas in his medieval context, he recovered a Thomism that expounded the presence and mystery of God in far less rationalistic and conceptual ways than did its neo-scholastic versions.
Strong emphases on human experience and on the importance of examining church teaching in historical context became hallmarks of Father Schillebeeckx’s work.
His early writing on the sacraments, for example, portrayed them as personal encounters with God rather than mechanisms for the distribution of grace. In two books — “Jesus: An Experiment in Christology” (1974) and “Christ: The Christian Experience in the Modern World” (1977) — he recast classical Catholic teachings about Christ around the experiences that gave rise to his followers’ faith in Jesus as messiah and the son of God.
These were groundbreaking attempts at rethinking church doctrine in light of the scholarly research about the historical Jesus that had accumulated in previous decades. But the fact that Father Schillebeeckx did not begin with Christianity’s great creedal statements about Jesus and the Trinity but instead focused on the subjective experience of the first generations of believers, as expressed in the New Testament accounts, stirred considerable controversy and a Vatican investigation.
Critics asked, for example, whether Father Schillebeeckx, by treating the resurrection largely in terms of the “conversion” experiences that Jesus’ disciples underwent after his death, was either denying that Jesus actually rose from the dead or suggesting that it did not matter.
Father Schillebeeckx said he was doing neither. His intention, he said, was to help contemporary people on a journey to belief by portraying the parallel journeys of Jesus’ first followers.
Not all of Father Schillebeeckx’s critics were theological conservatives. Some simply thought that he fell short in his ambitious efforts to master huge amounts of biblical scholarship or philosophical theory and that he consequently opted for arresting but unwarranted positions.
An emphasis on experience led Father Schillebeeckx to much reflection on large-scale human suffering and on salvation as liberation from it. For him, faith in Jesus required not just a mental assent but also a this-worldly response to suffering.
Edward Cornelius Florentius Schillebeeckx was born on Nov. 12, 1914, in Antwerp, Belgium. He was the sixth of 14 children in a middle-class Flemish family.
He attended a Jesuit-run secondary school, and joined the Dominicans in 1934. After a brief military service, he was ordained to the priesthood in 1941. In 1946, postgraduate studies took him to the Sorbonne in Paris and to Le Saulchoir, a nearby Dominican house of studies, where he encountered Marie-Dominique Chenu and Yves Congar, pioneers of the “new theology” that would be a major influence at the Second Vatican Council.
Father Schillebeeckx was variously described as “reserved” and “charming.” Mary Catherine Hilkert, a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame who edited a volume of essays on Father Schillebeeckx, described him as “utterly gracious.”
Edward Schillebeeckx, Catholic Theologian, Dies at 95
By PETER STEINFELS, NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 16, 2010
The Rev. Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent member of a wave of Roman Catholic theologians who helped reshape Catholicism during the Second Vatican Council and whose writings were later investigated for heresy, died on Dec. 23 in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. He was 95.
He died after a short illness, according to the Edward Schillebeeckx Foundation in Nijmegen, which preserves his work.
Although born and raised in Belgium, where he entered the Dominican religious order, Father Schillebeeckx (pronounced SKIL-uh-bakes) joined the theological faculty at the Catholic University of Nijmegen (now Radboud University) in 1958. He soon became a leading adviser to the Dutch bishops, especially during the four sessions of the Second Vatican Council, a marathon reassessment of Catholic life held in Rome from 1962 to 1965.
There he entered into discussions of the council’s documents, which eventually allowed celebration of the Mass in today’s languages rather than only in Latin, endorsed religious freedom, removed many barriers between Catholics, Protestants and other faiths and promoted a positive engagement with contemporary culture.
After the council, Father Schillebeeckx continued pressing for the kind of changes it had initiated. He published and lectured widely on basic theological matters like the nature of revelation and salvation, and on issues of church discipline he argued for democratic procedures in church governance and the ordination of married people, both men and women, to the priesthood.
He helped prepare the “New Dutch Catechism,” which the Dutch bishops published in 1966 and which sold widely.
From 1968 to 1981, the Vatican began three investigations of his writings for heresy. They all ended inconclusively with admonitions, complaints and requests for clarification but with no formal censures or penalties.
Like many Catholic theologians who influenced the council, Father Schillebeeckx had reacted against the neo-scholastic theology that the church adopted in the 19th century as a bulwark against hostile modern ideas. Distilled from the thought of Thomas Aquinas but frequently handed on without any examination of Aquinas’s writings or their medieval context, this neo-scholasticism articulated the faith in series of abstract concepts and propositions presented as absolute, ahistorical and immutable.
Father Schillebeeckx found alternative intellectual resources in modern phenomenology, with its meticulous attention to the actual experience of consciousness. And by studying Aquinas in his medieval context, he recovered a Thomism that expounded the presence and mystery of God in far less rationalistic and conceptual ways than did its neo-scholastic versions.
Strong emphases on human experience and on the importance of examining church teaching in historical context became hallmarks of Father Schillebeeckx’s work.
His early writing on the sacraments, for example, portrayed them as personal encounters with God rather than mechanisms for the distribution of grace. In two books — “Jesus: An Experiment in Christology” (1974) and “Christ: The Christian Experience in the Modern World” (1977) — he recast classical Catholic teachings about Christ around the experiences that gave rise to his followers’ faith in Jesus as messiah and the son of God.
These were groundbreaking attempts at rethinking church doctrine in light of the scholarly research about the historical Jesus that had accumulated in previous decades. But the fact that Father Schillebeeckx did not begin with Christianity’s great creedal statements about Jesus and the Trinity but instead focused on the subjective experience of the first generations of believers, as expressed in the New Testament accounts, stirred considerable controversy and a Vatican investigation.
Critics asked, for example, whether Father Schillebeeckx, by treating the resurrection largely in terms of the “conversion” experiences that Jesus’ disciples underwent after his death, was either denying that Jesus actually rose from the dead or suggesting that it did not matter.
Father Schillebeeckx said he was doing neither. His intention, he said, was to help contemporary people on a journey to belief by portraying the parallel journeys of Jesus’ first followers.
Not all of Father Schillebeeckx’s critics were theological conservatives. Some simply thought that he fell short in his ambitious efforts to master huge amounts of biblical scholarship or philosophical theory and that he consequently opted for arresting but unwarranted positions.
An emphasis on experience led Father Schillebeeckx to much reflection on large-scale human suffering and on salvation as liberation from it. For him, faith in Jesus required not just a mental assent but also a this-worldly response to suffering.
Edward Cornelius Florentius Schillebeeckx was born on Nov. 12, 1914, in Antwerp, Belgium. He was the sixth of 14 children in a middle-class Flemish family.
He attended a Jesuit-run secondary school, and joined the Dominicans in 1934. After a brief military service, he was ordained to the priesthood in 1941. In 1946, postgraduate studies took him to the Sorbonne in Paris and to Le Saulchoir, a nearby Dominican house of studies, where he encountered Marie-Dominique Chenu and Yves Congar, pioneers of the “new theology” that would be a major influence at the Second Vatican Council.
Father Schillebeeckx was variously described as “reserved” and “charming.” Mary Catherine Hilkert, a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame who edited a volume of essays on Father Schillebeeckx, described him as “utterly gracious.”
The Reform of the Reform is indeed in motion
From Catholic World Report: This is an interview with Cardinal Arinze who once headed the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome. He certainly makes sense and like others, he continues to outline Pope Benedict's vision of the "Reform of the Reform."
In the Name of the Church
Interview
Cardinal Arinze on the liturgy as public prayer.
Interview by Matthew A. Rarey
Cardinal Francis Arinze has enjoyed a meteoric career, from becoming the youngest bishop in the world in 1965 at the age of 32, to serving in several of the most vital posts in the Vatican. The native Nigerian currently is prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, having served as prefect from 2002 to 2008. In that position, he helped oversee the process of preparing translations of the liturgy that are truer to the original Latin.
In November, Cardinal Arinze made a visit to Chicago, principally to give the keynote address at the annual fundraiser for the Chastity Education Initiative of the Archdiocese of Chicago’s Respect Life Office. He spoke with CWR during the visit.
CWR: Upon sending to Rome the proposed new English translation of the Roman Missal, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, “There is a tremendous moment of religious renewal that is possible now.” What do you hope would be some of the fruits of the new translation, however it is finalized?
Cardinal Francis Arinze: My hope is that those who want the Mass in English will have a text which would be as near to the original Latin as possible. A faithful translation of the Latin, respecting also the character of English, helping the people to pray with the spirit of piety characteristic of the Latin rite. The best text that can be offered today to the English speaking world—that is my hope. Because the text of the public prayer of the Church guides our prayer—communal prayer, liturgical prayer—it should also inspire our personal prayer.
CWR: How do you hope the new translation will help priests and the faithful better understand the meaning of the Roman rite and participate more fully in the liturgy?
Cardinal Arinze: If priests, religious, and lay faithful give this translation an open-hearted welcome; if they will read it carefully; if the person leading the celebration would do it in the best spirit of what the synod of bishops in 2005 called ars celebrandi, the “art of celebrating” (that means that way of celebrating which manifests our Catholic faith—shows it, encourages it in the people, wakens those whose faith is getting a bit cold, sends the people home on fire to live this faith and to share it, joyful in the faith); if this all happened, that would be good!
CWR: Is the legacy of liturgical abuse following the Second Vatican Council becoming a thing of the past as the “reform of the reform” presses onward under the present Pope? I’m thinking of more faithful liturgical translations, unprecedented support for those who prefer to worship under the Tridentine rite, and a renewed emphasis upon the restoration of such pious acts as taking Communion on the tongue rather than in the hand.
Cardinal Arinze: That is our hope. But the world is big. Who can tell what happens in every corner of the world today among the 440,000 or so priests? The Church has no army. We do not send the Swiss Guard from Rome to police every priest. But of course the Church achieves more by appeal to the human heart, to our spirit of faith: love for Christ, love for the Church, which means, also, obedience to the Church. And it is the Church that tells us how to pray when it is the public prayer of the Church, that is, the liturgy. If it were my private prayer, then nobody is going to tell me how to pray.… But when it is the public prayer of the Church, then the Church is going to tell me what to do…because this is in the name of the Church.
CWR: So the temptation for a celebrant to privatize the liturgy, if you will, is one which ought to be conscientiously resisted?
Cardinal Arinze: The liturgy is not private prayer.… So we follow the guidance which Holy Mother Church has indicated for that celebration—not what I think. Otherwise you might come to Mass and one priest says, “I think there should be 12 lessons in the Mass because I like Holy Scripture very much”.… Another says, “I don’t want to read any lesson at all because the people want to go home.” So we can’t have that! Then another one goes to the altar and begins to behave like a showman, Reverend Showman. He becomes now the center of the celebration. He is no longer drawing attention to Christ, when we are in fact called to celebrate the mysteries of Christ: not myself, not the congregation, not to provoke their applause.
A mirror works very well when the mirror is not seen. But if the mirror is seen, then it is dirty. The priest should mirror Christ. Christ should be at the center. Christ must increase, we must decrease. The more the priest is convinced of being a minister of Christ and the Church, the better the liturgical celebration will be.
CWR: Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has begun celebrating the Novus Ordo in his cathedral ad orientem, facing the altar rather than the congregation. This move would be a show-stopper for a Reverend Showman. What is your position on restoring this ancient position of the priest at Mass?
Cardinal Arinze: As the Holy Father has said and written often, the most important thing at the Mass isn’t whether the priest faces the people or not, but whether the priest and the people are celebrating while facing God—that we realize we don’t come to Mass to celebrate one another, but to celebrate the mysteries of Christ. You will notice the Holy Father insists now to have the crucifix at the central place, on the altar or very near it at the center. In some places, the arrangement of the altar allows for that. In others, it doesn’t.
Take St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The way the main papal altar is arranged, the pope will face the people. But not all altars are like that. And in any case, what you call ad orientem has never been forbidden. The Second Vatican Council did not make any law saying that the priest has to say Mass facing the people. And what people call the priest having his back to the people is not correct. We should say that he is facing the Lord.
CWR: Are there any differences between Pope Benedict’s approach and Pope John Paul’s approach to evangelization?
Cardinal Arinze: John Paul II often spoke of “new evangelization,” which will never change in content but should be fresh in the method, the ardor, the commitment of the evangelizer. Pope Benedict speaks of fidelity to Christ, to the whole truth—not relativism, picking and choosing within the faith handed down to us from the apostles. So to hold on to that faith and be faithful to it is the same message, though the approach may be different.
CWR: Speaking of a new evangelization, are Muslims off-limits or does evangelizing among them merely impose special challenges?
Cardinal Arinze: When you say evangelization, what we mean is the message of the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ: that Christ is the Savior for all. The Church has no other business.… Now evangelizing means bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ to every human being. If that human being embraces faith in Christ, we do catechesis. We baptize. We set up a Christian community.
If that human being does not believe in Christ, at least we can approach the person: listen to that person, try to understand. And we can try to help that other person understand us. If you are doing that, you are doing what is called interreligious dialogue.… This is part of evangelization, but not the whole. If at some stage that human being gets more interested and wants to listen to Christ and the Gospel, then openly we discuss that. But we never use force. We never use tactics. We never impose, but we propose. Because Christ sent us to bring the Gospel to everyone. And the Good News of Jesus Christ is not a contraband good which we smuggle across customs. In religious matters, we deal straight. We have no hidden agenda in our pocket.
If, of course, a Muslim wants to become a Christian, we are very happy. Why not? And if everybody in the world wants to become a Christian, excellent! Then the Holy Father will close that office for interreligious dialogue in the Vatican. But we have not come to that day yet. So, if others don’t believe in Christ, we still remain friends and collaborate. If they believe in Christ, excellent, we have a catechism. It’s only 700 pages.
CWR: Given your own roots, we must have a question about Africa. Vis-à-vis Africa, the Pope said that the Church cannot be a healing and reconciling force in society unless it’s a “community of persons reconciled with God and with themselves.” How does this caveat situate the Church not only in Africa, but in the entire world?
Cardinal Arinze: Exactly what the Pope said. The Church must continue to preach conversion of heart and reconciliation. Matthew, chapter 5: “If you bring your gifts to the altar, and there you remember your brother has something against you, leave your gifts there and go and be reconciled with your brother. Then you come and offer your gift.” Very clear. Indeed, that was the topic for the Synod of Bishops on Africa held in October: “Reconciliation, Justice, and Peace,” in Africa and the role of the Church.
CWR: What would you most like to see happen before you exit this earthly life?
Cardinal Arinze: I would like everybody to believe in Jesus Christ the Savior; not just to believe, but to live their faith. No à la carte Christianity will do: choosing what elements of faith you like, leaving the others. I would like to see those who already are Christians to be more fervent, and for those who aren’t, to begin to believe in Jesus Christ. The more that happens, the happier I shall be.
Matthew A. Rarey is a journalist based in Chicago.
In the Name of the Church
Interview
Cardinal Arinze on the liturgy as public prayer.
Interview by Matthew A. Rarey
Cardinal Francis Arinze has enjoyed a meteoric career, from becoming the youngest bishop in the world in 1965 at the age of 32, to serving in several of the most vital posts in the Vatican. The native Nigerian currently is prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, having served as prefect from 2002 to 2008. In that position, he helped oversee the process of preparing translations of the liturgy that are truer to the original Latin.
In November, Cardinal Arinze made a visit to Chicago, principally to give the keynote address at the annual fundraiser for the Chastity Education Initiative of the Archdiocese of Chicago’s Respect Life Office. He spoke with CWR during the visit.
CWR: Upon sending to Rome the proposed new English translation of the Roman Missal, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, “There is a tremendous moment of religious renewal that is possible now.” What do you hope would be some of the fruits of the new translation, however it is finalized?
Cardinal Francis Arinze: My hope is that those who want the Mass in English will have a text which would be as near to the original Latin as possible. A faithful translation of the Latin, respecting also the character of English, helping the people to pray with the spirit of piety characteristic of the Latin rite. The best text that can be offered today to the English speaking world—that is my hope. Because the text of the public prayer of the Church guides our prayer—communal prayer, liturgical prayer—it should also inspire our personal prayer.
CWR: How do you hope the new translation will help priests and the faithful better understand the meaning of the Roman rite and participate more fully in the liturgy?
Cardinal Arinze: If priests, religious, and lay faithful give this translation an open-hearted welcome; if they will read it carefully; if the person leading the celebration would do it in the best spirit of what the synod of bishops in 2005 called ars celebrandi, the “art of celebrating” (that means that way of celebrating which manifests our Catholic faith—shows it, encourages it in the people, wakens those whose faith is getting a bit cold, sends the people home on fire to live this faith and to share it, joyful in the faith); if this all happened, that would be good!
CWR: Is the legacy of liturgical abuse following the Second Vatican Council becoming a thing of the past as the “reform of the reform” presses onward under the present Pope? I’m thinking of more faithful liturgical translations, unprecedented support for those who prefer to worship under the Tridentine rite, and a renewed emphasis upon the restoration of such pious acts as taking Communion on the tongue rather than in the hand.
Cardinal Arinze: That is our hope. But the world is big. Who can tell what happens in every corner of the world today among the 440,000 or so priests? The Church has no army. We do not send the Swiss Guard from Rome to police every priest. But of course the Church achieves more by appeal to the human heart, to our spirit of faith: love for Christ, love for the Church, which means, also, obedience to the Church. And it is the Church that tells us how to pray when it is the public prayer of the Church, that is, the liturgy. If it were my private prayer, then nobody is going to tell me how to pray.… But when it is the public prayer of the Church, then the Church is going to tell me what to do…because this is in the name of the Church.
CWR: So the temptation for a celebrant to privatize the liturgy, if you will, is one which ought to be conscientiously resisted?
Cardinal Arinze: The liturgy is not private prayer.… So we follow the guidance which Holy Mother Church has indicated for that celebration—not what I think. Otherwise you might come to Mass and one priest says, “I think there should be 12 lessons in the Mass because I like Holy Scripture very much”.… Another says, “I don’t want to read any lesson at all because the people want to go home.” So we can’t have that! Then another one goes to the altar and begins to behave like a showman, Reverend Showman. He becomes now the center of the celebration. He is no longer drawing attention to Christ, when we are in fact called to celebrate the mysteries of Christ: not myself, not the congregation, not to provoke their applause.
A mirror works very well when the mirror is not seen. But if the mirror is seen, then it is dirty. The priest should mirror Christ. Christ should be at the center. Christ must increase, we must decrease. The more the priest is convinced of being a minister of Christ and the Church, the better the liturgical celebration will be.
CWR: Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has begun celebrating the Novus Ordo in his cathedral ad orientem, facing the altar rather than the congregation. This move would be a show-stopper for a Reverend Showman. What is your position on restoring this ancient position of the priest at Mass?
Cardinal Arinze: As the Holy Father has said and written often, the most important thing at the Mass isn’t whether the priest faces the people or not, but whether the priest and the people are celebrating while facing God—that we realize we don’t come to Mass to celebrate one another, but to celebrate the mysteries of Christ. You will notice the Holy Father insists now to have the crucifix at the central place, on the altar or very near it at the center. In some places, the arrangement of the altar allows for that. In others, it doesn’t.
Take St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The way the main papal altar is arranged, the pope will face the people. But not all altars are like that. And in any case, what you call ad orientem has never been forbidden. The Second Vatican Council did not make any law saying that the priest has to say Mass facing the people. And what people call the priest having his back to the people is not correct. We should say that he is facing the Lord.
CWR: Are there any differences between Pope Benedict’s approach and Pope John Paul’s approach to evangelization?
Cardinal Arinze: John Paul II often spoke of “new evangelization,” which will never change in content but should be fresh in the method, the ardor, the commitment of the evangelizer. Pope Benedict speaks of fidelity to Christ, to the whole truth—not relativism, picking and choosing within the faith handed down to us from the apostles. So to hold on to that faith and be faithful to it is the same message, though the approach may be different.
CWR: Speaking of a new evangelization, are Muslims off-limits or does evangelizing among them merely impose special challenges?
Cardinal Arinze: When you say evangelization, what we mean is the message of the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ: that Christ is the Savior for all. The Church has no other business.… Now evangelizing means bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ to every human being. If that human being embraces faith in Christ, we do catechesis. We baptize. We set up a Christian community.
If that human being does not believe in Christ, at least we can approach the person: listen to that person, try to understand. And we can try to help that other person understand us. If you are doing that, you are doing what is called interreligious dialogue.… This is part of evangelization, but not the whole. If at some stage that human being gets more interested and wants to listen to Christ and the Gospel, then openly we discuss that. But we never use force. We never use tactics. We never impose, but we propose. Because Christ sent us to bring the Gospel to everyone. And the Good News of Jesus Christ is not a contraband good which we smuggle across customs. In religious matters, we deal straight. We have no hidden agenda in our pocket.
If, of course, a Muslim wants to become a Christian, we are very happy. Why not? And if everybody in the world wants to become a Christian, excellent! Then the Holy Father will close that office for interreligious dialogue in the Vatican. But we have not come to that day yet. So, if others don’t believe in Christ, we still remain friends and collaborate. If they believe in Christ, excellent, we have a catechism. It’s only 700 pages.
CWR: Given your own roots, we must have a question about Africa. Vis-à-vis Africa, the Pope said that the Church cannot be a healing and reconciling force in society unless it’s a “community of persons reconciled with God and with themselves.” How does this caveat situate the Church not only in Africa, but in the entire world?
Cardinal Arinze: Exactly what the Pope said. The Church must continue to preach conversion of heart and reconciliation. Matthew, chapter 5: “If you bring your gifts to the altar, and there you remember your brother has something against you, leave your gifts there and go and be reconciled with your brother. Then you come and offer your gift.” Very clear. Indeed, that was the topic for the Synod of Bishops on Africa held in October: “Reconciliation, Justice, and Peace,” in Africa and the role of the Church.
CWR: What would you most like to see happen before you exit this earthly life?
Cardinal Arinze: I would like everybody to believe in Jesus Christ the Savior; not just to believe, but to live their faith. No à la carte Christianity will do: choosing what elements of faith you like, leaving the others. I would like to see those who already are Christians to be more fervent, and for those who aren’t, to begin to believe in Jesus Christ. The more that happens, the happier I shall be.
Matthew A. Rarey is a journalist based in Chicago.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE OLDER! THEN COMES THE NEW!
This weekend at St.Joseph Church, we are phasing out the old, "lame duck" ICEL translation of the English Mass. But we are not yet implementing the new English translation. Rather, we are substituting the Latin responses. We will do this gradually over the next several months.
This weekend we are replacing, "The Lord be with you" and "also with you" with, "Dominus Vobiscum" "Et cum spiritu tuo." We will also replace the current English Preface Dialogue with the Latin Responses.
During Lent we will say good-bye to the "lame duck" English Sanctus, and Mystery of Faith, using the Latin ones. Eventually, during the season of Easter, we will sing the Latin Gloria. I'm not too sure about the Credo yet. It might be a bit much for the congregation in Latin, but we'll see. We'll do this only gradually.
When the new English translation of the Mass is allowed, we will return to the English. But by then, our entire congregation will be familiar with all of the Latin parts of the Mass.
Do you think this is a good way to phase out the lame duck English parts of the Mass in order to introduce sometime later the new English translations with Latin in the interim?
This weekend we are replacing, "The Lord be with you" and "also with you" with, "Dominus Vobiscum" "Et cum spiritu tuo." We will also replace the current English Preface Dialogue with the Latin Responses.
During Lent we will say good-bye to the "lame duck" English Sanctus, and Mystery of Faith, using the Latin ones. Eventually, during the season of Easter, we will sing the Latin Gloria. I'm not too sure about the Credo yet. It might be a bit much for the congregation in Latin, but we'll see. We'll do this only gradually.
When the new English translation of the Mass is allowed, we will return to the English. But by then, our entire congregation will be familiar with all of the Latin parts of the Mass.
Do you think this is a good way to phase out the lame duck English parts of the Mass in order to introduce sometime later the new English translations with Latin in the interim?
Friday, January 15, 2010
HORRAY FOR THE RETRANSLATED ENGLISH MASS! Catholics really are smart enough for it!
There are many people who are really, really opposed to the newly revised English Translation of the Mass. The following article which appeared in America Magazine is the best I have read on the topic. I'm looking forward to the new translation. It has to be an improvement over what we have and it is.
Defending the New Roman Missal
A response to Father Michael Ryan
Peter M. J. Stravinskas | FEBRUARY 1, 2010
the cover of America, the Catholic magazine
I n his essay “Why Don’t We Say, ‘Wait?’” (Dec. 14), Father Michael Ryan describes his involvement in the liturgical renewal following the Second Vatican Council. Let me begin my response to his article by doing the same.
I was a freshman in high school when the “vernacularization” of the liturgy began and a junior in college seminary when the process reached its climax. Having majored in classical languages, I naturally was quite interested in the process and flattered when I was invited by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) to participate in the translation effort. Frankly, I was also surprised that someone of my thin experience had been asked to take part in a project that would influence the spiritual lives of millions of Catholics for decades to come.
When I first reviewed the translation guidelines sent by ICEL, I was disappointed. Ideology, it seemed, had taken precedence over accuracy. Anima was not to be rendered as “soul,” I was informed, because doing so would set up an unnecessary dichotomy between body and soul. No feminine pronouns were to be used for the church, and common words were favored over precise theological or liturgical vocabulary. The goal was to capture the general meaning of the text, rather than a faithful rendering of a rich and historically layered Latin prose. I tried to work within these parameters, but I found it difficult to do and still remain true to the original text. My translations were evidently unsatisfactory because, upon submitting them, I was politely but firmly uninvited from serving on the commission.
When the English Missale Romanum appeared in 1970, it was clear we had been handed a paraphrase instead of a translation. As a young priest required to use these texts, I quickly determined that something needed to be done to return to the people of God what Father Ryan dubs “their baptismal birthright”—that is, an English liturgy that seeks to convey all the depth, truth and beauty of the original Latin. By 1992, I had assembled a team of scholars who produced an alternative translation of the Ordinary of the Mass and presented that effort to the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy in Washington, D.C., and the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome. Hostility was the response from Washington—copies of our draft were gathered and destroyed at the bishops’ meeting—while Rome expressed a guarded interest in our project.
Ultimately, the Holy See came to the realization that many of the vernacular translations of the liturgy were problematic. (English was not the only example, just one of the more egregious.) In 2001 the Congregation for Divine Worship promulgated Liturgiam Authenticam setting forth a coherent philosophy of translation. The document called for revised translations in keeping with these norms and the establishment of an oversight committee, Vox Clara, to ensure the fidelity of future translations.
A new, reconstituted ICEL set to work immediately on a new English missal. The level of input was such that many complained that the project would never be completed because of the painstakingly sensitive consultative process. Yet with guidance from Vox Clara and experts in Rome, the new text was completed and was approved by the U.S. bishops in 2009.
Reclaiming the Council’s Vision
The Jesuit Refugee Service affirms to accompany, serve and defend the rights of vulnerable and often forgotten people.
In his essay, Father Ryan argues that not enough consultation has taken place, and that “we should just say, “Wait’” before implementing the new translations. I disagree. As a Web site set up to defend the new translation proclaims, “We've waited long enough!”
Ryan argues that the Roman Curia and other parties are involved in a “systematic dismantling of the great vision of the Council’s decree” and that the Congregation for Divine Worship is raising “rubricism to an art form,” with liturgy being used “as a weapon—to advance specific agendas.” In my view, present efforts are precisely seeking to reclaim “the great vision of the council’s” constitution. Over the years my various apostolates have provided me with a vantage point from which to consider liturgical life in this country and abroad. So much of what I have witnessed or had described to me by eyewitnesses has been nothing shy of a betrayal of the council’s great vision and, in my judgment, largely responsible for the rapid emptying of the pews.
What curial officials and the pope are arguing for, with the enthusiastic support of junior clergy, is not a moribund “rubricism” but a genuine ars celebrandi that makes the sacred mysteries palpable. Not a few observers have noted that much of the liturgical change that occurred after the council—both officially sanctioned as well as in explicit violation of church law—would have been unthinkable to the council fathers. What is required now is a careful re-building process. Is this “turning back the clock”? In some sense, it is. Permit me a mundane example. If a man is told by his physician that he must lose 50 pounds or face serious problems, he must “turn back the clock” to the time when he was lighter in order to save his life. Mutatis mutandis—that is what the church at the highest levels is calling us to do.
Father Ryan writes that “before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program…” The author makes such efforts sound almost sinister, but in my book he is simply describing the process of catechesis. I hope that this process will be better handled than the “carefully orchestrated education program” that followed the postconciliar liturgical changes. In 1977 priests throughout the country were required to preach for three consecutive weekends, not simply on the issue of Communion-in-the-hand, but on why it should be done. Many priests who balked at the historically inaccurate catechetical materials were harassed by liturgical directors and even threatened by bishops with suspension. It seems that many of those who pushed for the reforms are waking up to find their program repudiated and have now become conservatives, opposed to change.
Father Ryan shares the concern of Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., the former chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, who has complained that the U.S.C.C.B. did not have a direct hand in the antiphons of the Missale Romanum. In a speech to the bishops conference in November, Bishop Trautman cited paragraph 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which he argued gave the episcopal conferences the authority to produce and approve liturgical translations. Yet the paragraph in question in no way calls for what Bishop Trautman demands: it stipulates that episcopal conferences are to approve translations (not produce them), with subsequent approval by the Holy See.
Ironically, the very same paragraph of the conciliar constitution also states that, “The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites....Care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” In other words, if paragraph 36 had been followed in regard to the primacy of Latin, the Ordinary of the Mass would not have been translated into the vernacular in the first place!
Examining the Translation
Finally, Father Ryan highlights as examples of a liturgical agenda “at best trivial and at worst hopelessly out-of-touch” several new texts that are products of “flawed principles of translation.” I am delighted with the examples he proffers because each is, in fact, an exemplar of what is so important about the new translation project.
And with your spirit. The earliest translation of the Mass from 1965 actually used this wording. St. John Chrysostom explains that when the people respond in this way they are affirming the ontological change that has taken place in the priest by virtue of the Sacrament of Order, thus enabling him to call down the Spirit upon the elements of bread and wine, transforming them into the body and blood of Christ.
Consubstantial. There is nothing inherently wrong with the present “one in being” in the Nicene Creed; it is not unfaithful to the meaning of either homoousios or consubstantialis. However, one of the underlying principles of the new translation was to use explicitly sacral and theological vocabulary whenever possible. Does the average Catholic know what “consubstantial” means? Probably not. But that same Catholic probably does not know what “one in being” means, either. However, because the latter phrase contains three very common English words, that person in the pew thinks he knows its meaning and thus passes over it without a thought. Coming upon “consubstantial,” that same person will be forced to pause over the significance of the term; it will give the priest the opportunity to preach about its profound meaning.
Incarnate. The present version is plainly inaccurate (“He was born of the Virgin Mary”). The Latin reads: Et incarnatus est...ex Maria Virgine; the moment of the Incarnation was not when He was born (liturgically celebrated on December 25), but when He was conceived (March 25). The translators could have given us “He was made flesh,” but, again, seeking to use more precise language, they gave us “incarnate,” thus giving the clergy yet another “preachable” moment. Several years ago Archbishop Rembert Weakland boasted that the church in the United States was home to the most intelligent and theologically astute Catholics in the history of the church. Surely, then, our congregations should be able to comprehend words like “consubstantial” and “incarnate.”
Joseph, spouse of the same Virgin. This line comes from the Roman Canon. The Latin speaks of Joseph as eiusdem Virginis sponsi, which is exactly “spouse of the same Virgin.” One reason the church was reluctant to highlight St. Joseph until relatively recent centuries was the fear that his relationship to Mary would or could be misunderstood. And so when Pope John XXIII added Joseph’s name to the Canon, it was determined that no one should be led into error or confusion, thus giving us “of the same Virgin.” Which is to say, that while Joseph and Mary were indeed husband and wife, Mary remained a virgin—a critical theological point.
We are warned by Father Ryan to expect “discredit to the church” and “disillusionment to the people” if the new translation sees the light of day. He tells us of the “chilling reception” it has received in South Africa, in spite of a “careful program of catechesis in the parishes.” I beg to differ. There was no “program of catechesis” to speak of in South Africa and, in fact, some liturgical observers even argue that the translation was thrust onto the faithful precisely to cause a negative reaction. Having conducted several workshops on the new texts over the past year, I can only attest to very positive reactions, from clergy and laity alike.
How did the final texts receive such overwhelming support from the American bishops, if they are so bad? Father Ryan contends that the bishops were just “worn down” by the Holy See and so caved in. I disagree. The majority of the bishops saw the merit of the work and were tired of the delaying tactics of a vocal if tiny minority of opponents. Is this translation perfect? Of course not. No translation is, but we ought never make the best the enemy of the good. It is a vast improvement over the uninspiring, banal and all-too-often theologically problematic texts we have been using for nearly 40 years. The New Testament speaks of chairos, an especially fortuitous moment. We are approaching a liturgical chairos for English-speaking Catholics, which we should embrace with gusto.
In addition to Father Ryan’s article and the Web site he set up to summon support for further delays, he has also written to the rectors of all the cathedrals in the country seeking to rally them to his cause. His campaign has provoked a counterreaction among younger clergy and seminarians who have helped to set up the site “We’ve waited long enough.” The site has already garnered thousand of signatures and should give pause to Ryan and his supporters. It is these young priests, after all, who will be using these texts when our generation (God willing) will be participating in the Liturgy of Heaven, where language will not be an issue.
Rev. Peter Stravinskas is the editor of The Catholic Response, publisher of Newman House Press and executive director of the Catholic Education Foundation.
Defending the New Roman Missal
A response to Father Michael Ryan
Peter M. J. Stravinskas | FEBRUARY 1, 2010
the cover of America, the Catholic magazine
I n his essay “Why Don’t We Say, ‘Wait?’” (Dec. 14), Father Michael Ryan describes his involvement in the liturgical renewal following the Second Vatican Council. Let me begin my response to his article by doing the same.
I was a freshman in high school when the “vernacularization” of the liturgy began and a junior in college seminary when the process reached its climax. Having majored in classical languages, I naturally was quite interested in the process and flattered when I was invited by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) to participate in the translation effort. Frankly, I was also surprised that someone of my thin experience had been asked to take part in a project that would influence the spiritual lives of millions of Catholics for decades to come.
When I first reviewed the translation guidelines sent by ICEL, I was disappointed. Ideology, it seemed, had taken precedence over accuracy. Anima was not to be rendered as “soul,” I was informed, because doing so would set up an unnecessary dichotomy between body and soul. No feminine pronouns were to be used for the church, and common words were favored over precise theological or liturgical vocabulary. The goal was to capture the general meaning of the text, rather than a faithful rendering of a rich and historically layered Latin prose. I tried to work within these parameters, but I found it difficult to do and still remain true to the original text. My translations were evidently unsatisfactory because, upon submitting them, I was politely but firmly uninvited from serving on the commission.
When the English Missale Romanum appeared in 1970, it was clear we had been handed a paraphrase instead of a translation. As a young priest required to use these texts, I quickly determined that something needed to be done to return to the people of God what Father Ryan dubs “their baptismal birthright”—that is, an English liturgy that seeks to convey all the depth, truth and beauty of the original Latin. By 1992, I had assembled a team of scholars who produced an alternative translation of the Ordinary of the Mass and presented that effort to the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy in Washington, D.C., and the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome. Hostility was the response from Washington—copies of our draft were gathered and destroyed at the bishops’ meeting—while Rome expressed a guarded interest in our project.
Ultimately, the Holy See came to the realization that many of the vernacular translations of the liturgy were problematic. (English was not the only example, just one of the more egregious.) In 2001 the Congregation for Divine Worship promulgated Liturgiam Authenticam setting forth a coherent philosophy of translation. The document called for revised translations in keeping with these norms and the establishment of an oversight committee, Vox Clara, to ensure the fidelity of future translations.
A new, reconstituted ICEL set to work immediately on a new English missal. The level of input was such that many complained that the project would never be completed because of the painstakingly sensitive consultative process. Yet with guidance from Vox Clara and experts in Rome, the new text was completed and was approved by the U.S. bishops in 2009.
Reclaiming the Council’s Vision
The Jesuit Refugee Service affirms to accompany, serve and defend the rights of vulnerable and often forgotten people.
In his essay, Father Ryan argues that not enough consultation has taken place, and that “we should just say, “Wait’” before implementing the new translations. I disagree. As a Web site set up to defend the new translation proclaims, “We've waited long enough!”
Ryan argues that the Roman Curia and other parties are involved in a “systematic dismantling of the great vision of the Council’s decree” and that the Congregation for Divine Worship is raising “rubricism to an art form,” with liturgy being used “as a weapon—to advance specific agendas.” In my view, present efforts are precisely seeking to reclaim “the great vision of the council’s” constitution. Over the years my various apostolates have provided me with a vantage point from which to consider liturgical life in this country and abroad. So much of what I have witnessed or had described to me by eyewitnesses has been nothing shy of a betrayal of the council’s great vision and, in my judgment, largely responsible for the rapid emptying of the pews.
What curial officials and the pope are arguing for, with the enthusiastic support of junior clergy, is not a moribund “rubricism” but a genuine ars celebrandi that makes the sacred mysteries palpable. Not a few observers have noted that much of the liturgical change that occurred after the council—both officially sanctioned as well as in explicit violation of church law—would have been unthinkable to the council fathers. What is required now is a careful re-building process. Is this “turning back the clock”? In some sense, it is. Permit me a mundane example. If a man is told by his physician that he must lose 50 pounds or face serious problems, he must “turn back the clock” to the time when he was lighter in order to save his life. Mutatis mutandis—that is what the church at the highest levels is calling us to do.
Father Ryan writes that “before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program…” The author makes such efforts sound almost sinister, but in my book he is simply describing the process of catechesis. I hope that this process will be better handled than the “carefully orchestrated education program” that followed the postconciliar liturgical changes. In 1977 priests throughout the country were required to preach for three consecutive weekends, not simply on the issue of Communion-in-the-hand, but on why it should be done. Many priests who balked at the historically inaccurate catechetical materials were harassed by liturgical directors and even threatened by bishops with suspension. It seems that many of those who pushed for the reforms are waking up to find their program repudiated and have now become conservatives, opposed to change.
Father Ryan shares the concern of Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., the former chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, who has complained that the U.S.C.C.B. did not have a direct hand in the antiphons of the Missale Romanum. In a speech to the bishops conference in November, Bishop Trautman cited paragraph 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which he argued gave the episcopal conferences the authority to produce and approve liturgical translations. Yet the paragraph in question in no way calls for what Bishop Trautman demands: it stipulates that episcopal conferences are to approve translations (not produce them), with subsequent approval by the Holy See.
Ironically, the very same paragraph of the conciliar constitution also states that, “The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites....Care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” In other words, if paragraph 36 had been followed in regard to the primacy of Latin, the Ordinary of the Mass would not have been translated into the vernacular in the first place!
Examining the Translation
Finally, Father Ryan highlights as examples of a liturgical agenda “at best trivial and at worst hopelessly out-of-touch” several new texts that are products of “flawed principles of translation.” I am delighted with the examples he proffers because each is, in fact, an exemplar of what is so important about the new translation project.
And with your spirit. The earliest translation of the Mass from 1965 actually used this wording. St. John Chrysostom explains that when the people respond in this way they are affirming the ontological change that has taken place in the priest by virtue of the Sacrament of Order, thus enabling him to call down the Spirit upon the elements of bread and wine, transforming them into the body and blood of Christ.
Consubstantial. There is nothing inherently wrong with the present “one in being” in the Nicene Creed; it is not unfaithful to the meaning of either homoousios or consubstantialis. However, one of the underlying principles of the new translation was to use explicitly sacral and theological vocabulary whenever possible. Does the average Catholic know what “consubstantial” means? Probably not. But that same Catholic probably does not know what “one in being” means, either. However, because the latter phrase contains three very common English words, that person in the pew thinks he knows its meaning and thus passes over it without a thought. Coming upon “consubstantial,” that same person will be forced to pause over the significance of the term; it will give the priest the opportunity to preach about its profound meaning.
Incarnate. The present version is plainly inaccurate (“He was born of the Virgin Mary”). The Latin reads: Et incarnatus est...ex Maria Virgine; the moment of the Incarnation was not when He was born (liturgically celebrated on December 25), but when He was conceived (March 25). The translators could have given us “He was made flesh,” but, again, seeking to use more precise language, they gave us “incarnate,” thus giving the clergy yet another “preachable” moment. Several years ago Archbishop Rembert Weakland boasted that the church in the United States was home to the most intelligent and theologically astute Catholics in the history of the church. Surely, then, our congregations should be able to comprehend words like “consubstantial” and “incarnate.”
Joseph, spouse of the same Virgin. This line comes from the Roman Canon. The Latin speaks of Joseph as eiusdem Virginis sponsi, which is exactly “spouse of the same Virgin.” One reason the church was reluctant to highlight St. Joseph until relatively recent centuries was the fear that his relationship to Mary would or could be misunderstood. And so when Pope John XXIII added Joseph’s name to the Canon, it was determined that no one should be led into error or confusion, thus giving us “of the same Virgin.” Which is to say, that while Joseph and Mary were indeed husband and wife, Mary remained a virgin—a critical theological point.
We are warned by Father Ryan to expect “discredit to the church” and “disillusionment to the people” if the new translation sees the light of day. He tells us of the “chilling reception” it has received in South Africa, in spite of a “careful program of catechesis in the parishes.” I beg to differ. There was no “program of catechesis” to speak of in South Africa and, in fact, some liturgical observers even argue that the translation was thrust onto the faithful precisely to cause a negative reaction. Having conducted several workshops on the new texts over the past year, I can only attest to very positive reactions, from clergy and laity alike.
How did the final texts receive such overwhelming support from the American bishops, if they are so bad? Father Ryan contends that the bishops were just “worn down” by the Holy See and so caved in. I disagree. The majority of the bishops saw the merit of the work and were tired of the delaying tactics of a vocal if tiny minority of opponents. Is this translation perfect? Of course not. No translation is, but we ought never make the best the enemy of the good. It is a vast improvement over the uninspiring, banal and all-too-often theologically problematic texts we have been using for nearly 40 years. The New Testament speaks of chairos, an especially fortuitous moment. We are approaching a liturgical chairos for English-speaking Catholics, which we should embrace with gusto.
In addition to Father Ryan’s article and the Web site he set up to summon support for further delays, he has also written to the rectors of all the cathedrals in the country seeking to rally them to his cause. His campaign has provoked a counterreaction among younger clergy and seminarians who have helped to set up the site “We’ve waited long enough.” The site has already garnered thousand of signatures and should give pause to Ryan and his supporters. It is these young priests, after all, who will be using these texts when our generation (God willing) will be participating in the Liturgy of Heaven, where language will not be an issue.
Rev. Peter Stravinskas is the editor of The Catholic Response, publisher of Newman House Press and executive director of the Catholic Education Foundation.
HAITI: A PLACE OF GREAT SUFFERING AND GREAT MIRACLES
I have just returned from my South Florida vacation. Of course the big news in south Florida is the devastation of Haiti. Many of the hotel workers where I stayed are Haitian. There certainly was a somber mood.
Miami has a very large Haitian community. Mass was offered at the Cathedral. Family members here are rightly fearful of what has happened to their loved ones in Haiti. Please continue to pray for everyone involved.
As Catholics, the best way to channel our money to help with the ongoing relief is through Catholic Relief Services.
This weekend, my parish, St. Joseph Church in Macon will make an announcement that our second collection for the weekend of January 23/24 will be for Haiti relief. This will give our parishioners time to prayerfully consider what they will give. However, this doesn't stop anyone from giving directly to Catholic Relief Services.
We live in a world that is not our true home and often is not friendly towards us. If old age or disease do not take us, accident, natural disasters and other unforeseen events will. All we can do is to pray for a happy death. A happy death is dying a practicing Christian after having lived a repentant life, striving to follow Jesus by carrying our cross in union with Him. No matter how gruesome our death might be, it is happy when we have participated in God's gifts of faith, hope and love during the short time of our earthly pilgrimage.
It is hard not to question God when people who have suffered so much, are made to suffer even more in the face of a devastating natural disaster such as an earthquake. For now, it is best to focus on the love that is being poured out on Haiti through the prayers of so many, the actual assistance that is taking place and the many small miracles that are occurring even as we read. We recognize that many are trapped in the most desperate of situations and we pray that God will ease their suffering and carry them with His abiding grace to peace, healing and comfort.
God bless Haiti and the Haitian people at this most horrible time.
Miami has a very large Haitian community. Mass was offered at the Cathedral. Family members here are rightly fearful of what has happened to their loved ones in Haiti. Please continue to pray for everyone involved.
As Catholics, the best way to channel our money to help with the ongoing relief is through Catholic Relief Services.
This weekend, my parish, St. Joseph Church in Macon will make an announcement that our second collection for the weekend of January 23/24 will be for Haiti relief. This will give our parishioners time to prayerfully consider what they will give. However, this doesn't stop anyone from giving directly to Catholic Relief Services.
We live in a world that is not our true home and often is not friendly towards us. If old age or disease do not take us, accident, natural disasters and other unforeseen events will. All we can do is to pray for a happy death. A happy death is dying a practicing Christian after having lived a repentant life, striving to follow Jesus by carrying our cross in union with Him. No matter how gruesome our death might be, it is happy when we have participated in God's gifts of faith, hope and love during the short time of our earthly pilgrimage.
It is hard not to question God when people who have suffered so much, are made to suffer even more in the face of a devastating natural disaster such as an earthquake. For now, it is best to focus on the love that is being poured out on Haiti through the prayers of so many, the actual assistance that is taking place and the many small miracles that are occurring even as we read. We recognize that many are trapped in the most desperate of situations and we pray that God will ease their suffering and carry them with His abiding grace to peace, healing and comfort.
God bless Haiti and the Haitian people at this most horrible time.
Friday, January 8, 2010
REFORM OF THE REFORM, WE ARE ON TRACK!
This article reprinted from the National Catholic Reporter says it all. The reform of the reform is not opposed to the Ordinary Form of the Mass, it just wants it to be as sacred as it can be. Ways to do this are to pay attention to detail, choreography of movements, music, adoration, meaning kneeling for Holy Communion and less emphasis on the priest's abilities and improvizations. If you scroll to the next entry concerning the EF Nuptial Mass at my parish, you would never know that I was the celebrant. It could have been any good looking priest in the world. All I had to do in this Nuptial Mass was follow the rubrics, nothing was left to my creativity or the bride and groom's. That's call "catholic" or universal.
Papal liturgist endorses 'reform of the reform'
Cites 'the necessity of a new liturgical renewal'
Jan. 07, 2010
By Father Matthew Gamber, Catholic News Service
Vatican
VATICAN CITY -- The pope's chief liturgist, Msgr. Guido Marini, endorsed calls in the church for a "reform of the reform" of Catholic liturgy.
"For some years now, several voices have been heard within church circles talking about the necessity of a new liturgical renewal," Marini said.
A fresh renewal movement would be "capable of operating a reform of the reform, or rather, move one more step ahead in understanding the authentic spirit of the liturgy and its celebration," he said.
Marini, who has served as master of papal liturgical ceremonies since late 2007, spoke Jan. 6 to a conference of priests from English-speaking countries gathered in Rome to mark the Year for Priests. The conference was sponsored by the Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and the U.S.- based Confraternity of Catholic Clergy.
The papal liturgist said the goal of the new reform movement "would be to carry on that providential reform of the liturgy that the conciliar fathers had launched" but which has "not always, in its practical implementation, found a timely and happy fulfillment."
Marini stressed that the liturgy celebrated by the church should be marked by historical continuity.
"I purposefully use the word continuity, a word very dear to our present Holy Father," Marini said. "He has made it the only authoritative criterion whereby one can correctly interpret the life of the church."
Marini said that an appreciation of continuity would help bring together divergent schools of thought regarding the liturgy.
"The liturgy cannot and must not be an opportunity for conflict between those who find good only in that which came before us, and those who, on the contrary, almost always find wrong in what came before," he said.
The way forward for any liturgical renewal is "to regard both the present and the past liturgy of the church as one patrimony in continuous development," he said.
He offered suggestions for showing continuity in the liturgy and gave examples from current papal liturgical celebrations.
The tradition of praying while facing East, and so symbolically facing the Lord, is now seen in the placement of a crucifix on the altar of St. Peter's Basilica, he said. "Hence the reason for the proposal made by then-Cardinal Ratzinger and presently reaffirmed during the course of his pontificate, to place the crucifix on the center of the altar, in order that all, during the celebration of the liturgy, may concretely face and look upon the Lord, in such a way as to orient also their prayer and hearts," he said.
A renewed emphasis on "adoration," explained by Marini as "union with God," also will foster continuity with the past and should be a criterion for future liturgical practices, he said. Everything in the liturgy must be conducive to adoration, Marini said, including the music, the singing, the periods of silence, the way of proclaiming the Scriptures as well as the liturgical vestments and the sacred vessels.
He said it was this same desire to renew a sense of adoration that prompted Pope Benedict to make it the norm in papal liturgies for the pope to distribute Communion on the tongue to people kneeling.
"By the example of this action, the Holy Father invites us to render visible the proper attitude of adoration before the greatness of the mystery of the eucharistic presence of our Lord," Marini said. He said the same attitude of adoration "must be fostered all the more when approaching the most holy Eucharist in the other forms permitted today."
Throughout his talk Marini quoted extensively from the writings of Pope Benedict concerning the liturgy.
"I have learned to deepen my knowledge these past two years in service to our Holy Father, Benedict XVI. He is an authentic master of the spirit of the liturgy, whether by his teaching or by the example he gives in the celebration of the sacred rites," Marini said
Papal liturgist endorses 'reform of the reform'
Cites 'the necessity of a new liturgical renewal'
Jan. 07, 2010
By Father Matthew Gamber, Catholic News Service
Vatican
VATICAN CITY -- The pope's chief liturgist, Msgr. Guido Marini, endorsed calls in the church for a "reform of the reform" of Catholic liturgy.
"For some years now, several voices have been heard within church circles talking about the necessity of a new liturgical renewal," Marini said.
A fresh renewal movement would be "capable of operating a reform of the reform, or rather, move one more step ahead in understanding the authentic spirit of the liturgy and its celebration," he said.
Marini, who has served as master of papal liturgical ceremonies since late 2007, spoke Jan. 6 to a conference of priests from English-speaking countries gathered in Rome to mark the Year for Priests. The conference was sponsored by the Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and the U.S.- based Confraternity of Catholic Clergy.
The papal liturgist said the goal of the new reform movement "would be to carry on that providential reform of the liturgy that the conciliar fathers had launched" but which has "not always, in its practical implementation, found a timely and happy fulfillment."
Marini stressed that the liturgy celebrated by the church should be marked by historical continuity.
"I purposefully use the word continuity, a word very dear to our present Holy Father," Marini said. "He has made it the only authoritative criterion whereby one can correctly interpret the life of the church."
Marini said that an appreciation of continuity would help bring together divergent schools of thought regarding the liturgy.
"The liturgy cannot and must not be an opportunity for conflict between those who find good only in that which came before us, and those who, on the contrary, almost always find wrong in what came before," he said.
The way forward for any liturgical renewal is "to regard both the present and the past liturgy of the church as one patrimony in continuous development," he said.
He offered suggestions for showing continuity in the liturgy and gave examples from current papal liturgical celebrations.
The tradition of praying while facing East, and so symbolically facing the Lord, is now seen in the placement of a crucifix on the altar of St. Peter's Basilica, he said. "Hence the reason for the proposal made by then-Cardinal Ratzinger and presently reaffirmed during the course of his pontificate, to place the crucifix on the center of the altar, in order that all, during the celebration of the liturgy, may concretely face and look upon the Lord, in such a way as to orient also their prayer and hearts," he said.
A renewed emphasis on "adoration," explained by Marini as "union with God," also will foster continuity with the past and should be a criterion for future liturgical practices, he said. Everything in the liturgy must be conducive to adoration, Marini said, including the music, the singing, the periods of silence, the way of proclaiming the Scriptures as well as the liturgical vestments and the sacred vessels.
He said it was this same desire to renew a sense of adoration that prompted Pope Benedict to make it the norm in papal liturgies for the pope to distribute Communion on the tongue to people kneeling.
"By the example of this action, the Holy Father invites us to render visible the proper attitude of adoration before the greatness of the mystery of the eucharistic presence of our Lord," Marini said. He said the same attitude of adoration "must be fostered all the more when approaching the most holy Eucharist in the other forms permitted today."
Throughout his talk Marini quoted extensively from the writings of Pope Benedict concerning the liturgy.
"I have learned to deepen my knowledge these past two years in service to our Holy Father, Benedict XVI. He is an authentic master of the spirit of the liturgy, whether by his teaching or by the example he gives in the celebration of the sacred rites," Marini said
EF NUPTIAL MASS at ST. JOSEPH CHURCH
This wedding on January 2nd was for David Bushey and Stephanie Howe. It was the first of its nature at St. Joseph in over 40 years and my first ever, even as a Catholic, let alone a priest:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Happy Epiphany Season!
I'm away on my winter vacation and won't be blogging until I return, the weekend of the 17th of January. God bless you.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
THE HOLY NAME OF JESUS!
In the Extraordinary Form of the Calendar, this Sunday is not Epiphany Sunday, that solemnity will be celebrated on the correct date, January 6, thus uniting us with the Orthodox and millions of other Catholics and Christians elsewhere, but rather the "Most Holy Name of Jesus." I've never given a homily on this Solemnity. I'm celebrating it this afternoon for the first time ever at 2:00 PM with the EF High or Sung Mass. So I went looking for some resources on the internet to help me develop a homily for today and I found the following by Fr. Hathaway of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. I may read this homily or use it in part for this afternoon's Mass, but of course giving credit where credit is due.
“His name was called Jesus.” By Fr. Hathaway, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
+
We have begun a New Year. Make this New Year’s resolution: the daily resolution to grow more holy. For not to go forward in the spiritual life - is to fall backwards.
One excellent way to advance in the spiritual life is by invoking the Holy Name of the Savior. Throughout history, Christians have called upon the Holy Name to ward off evil, resist temptation, cure bodily ills.
The Acts of the Apostles records St Peter’s response to a lame beggar, “Gold and silver I have not, but what I have I will give thee, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ arise and walk.’ And the man arose and walked glorifying God.”
In the fourth century, St John Chrysostom beseeched Christians to carry the holy Name as a staff. “As you would not go abroad without clothes or shoes, so neither go forth without this Holy Name... speak it as you cross your threshold. It will be for you a staff, armor, and tower of defense.”
In 1943, a terrible plague broke out in Lisbon, Portugal. Thousands of people were dying in the streets and marketplaces. So many died so quickly that the dead could not be buried properly. Ravening dogs ate the flesh of exposed corpses causing disease to advance all the more.
A holy Bishop, Monsignor Andre Dias, despairing of human help, urged the unhappy people to call upon the Holy Name of Jesus. He implored the sick to say often: “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus”; he asked they write this name on cards and carry them around, place them under their pillow at night... but mostly, to constantly invoke the Holy Name on the lips.
At one point, Monsignor Dias summoned all to the Church of St Dominic. There, he preached to them of the Holy Name of Jesus, blessed water with this name, then sprinkled the water upon the sick and dying. The sick were restored to health; the dying rose from their agony.
News of this event spread and soon all Portugal was freed of the plague. From Portugal came numerous associations dedicated to spreading devotion to the Holy Name.
Am I plagued by a certain temptation? Is my flesh prone to a particular vice? Is my imagination an easy prey by which the devil leads me into sin?
We may not always have holy water to bless ourselves with, a church to run to, a priest to confide in... but we can always invoke the name, “Jesus” to rout the enemies of our salvation.
Sacred scripture calls this Name “holy and terrible”; St Paul tells us that every knee must bow to the Name “those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.”
Do I have nightmares? Do I get impatient or angry? Do I suffer from impure thoughts? Then I must train myself to frequently invoke the holy Name of Jesus. “Jesus, come to my aid”; “Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner”; “Jesus, Thou hast purchased me by Thy Most Precious Blood, do not loose me.” This Holy Name will scatter my fears and overcome my weakness.
St Bernard tells us, “Nothing so restrains the violence of anger, eases the swellings of pride, heals the wounds of spite, checks the flow of sensuality, extinguishes the flame of lust, restricts the thirst of greed, and puts to flight the craving for whatever is unbecoming” as the Name: Jesus.
Moreover, habitual use of the Holy Name is a sign of predestination.
St Francis de Sales says those who have a habit of repeating the Holy Name may feel certain of dying a holy death. For the saint tells us, “every time we say ‘Jesus’ we apply to ourselves the saving blood of the Redeemer to our souls.”
The name ‘Jesus’ means ‘savior.’ Holy scripture tells us it is a name of power, “There is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12); scripture comforts us to its effectiveness, “Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee.” (Ps 49:15)
But the power and effectiveness of the Holy Name will only really be known by us if we practice invoking It often both in, and out of our necessities.
We have begun a New Year. What the future holds we do not know... but we know it depends on us.
For if we want this world to be a better place - we must become more holy.
So let us go forth determined to increase the life of Christ in our souls by avoiding sin and doing good works. To help us in this holy endeavor, there is no more easy a practice than of frequently and affectionately invoking the Holy Name. By simply repeating the Holy Name of the Prince of Peace: “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,” we shall bring a little more peace into this poor world of ours. For if we but open our soul more to Christ, He will have a little more room on earth to put His peace.
“His name was called Jesus.” By Fr. Hathaway, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
+
We have begun a New Year. Make this New Year’s resolution: the daily resolution to grow more holy. For not to go forward in the spiritual life - is to fall backwards.
One excellent way to advance in the spiritual life is by invoking the Holy Name of the Savior. Throughout history, Christians have called upon the Holy Name to ward off evil, resist temptation, cure bodily ills.
The Acts of the Apostles records St Peter’s response to a lame beggar, “Gold and silver I have not, but what I have I will give thee, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ arise and walk.’ And the man arose and walked glorifying God.”
In the fourth century, St John Chrysostom beseeched Christians to carry the holy Name as a staff. “As you would not go abroad without clothes or shoes, so neither go forth without this Holy Name... speak it as you cross your threshold. It will be for you a staff, armor, and tower of defense.”
In 1943, a terrible plague broke out in Lisbon, Portugal. Thousands of people were dying in the streets and marketplaces. So many died so quickly that the dead could not be buried properly. Ravening dogs ate the flesh of exposed corpses causing disease to advance all the more.
A holy Bishop, Monsignor Andre Dias, despairing of human help, urged the unhappy people to call upon the Holy Name of Jesus. He implored the sick to say often: “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus”; he asked they write this name on cards and carry them around, place them under their pillow at night... but mostly, to constantly invoke the Holy Name on the lips.
At one point, Monsignor Dias summoned all to the Church of St Dominic. There, he preached to them of the Holy Name of Jesus, blessed water with this name, then sprinkled the water upon the sick and dying. The sick were restored to health; the dying rose from their agony.
News of this event spread and soon all Portugal was freed of the plague. From Portugal came numerous associations dedicated to spreading devotion to the Holy Name.
Am I plagued by a certain temptation? Is my flesh prone to a particular vice? Is my imagination an easy prey by which the devil leads me into sin?
We may not always have holy water to bless ourselves with, a church to run to, a priest to confide in... but we can always invoke the name, “Jesus” to rout the enemies of our salvation.
Sacred scripture calls this Name “holy and terrible”; St Paul tells us that every knee must bow to the Name “those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.”
Do I have nightmares? Do I get impatient or angry? Do I suffer from impure thoughts? Then I must train myself to frequently invoke the holy Name of Jesus. “Jesus, come to my aid”; “Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner”; “Jesus, Thou hast purchased me by Thy Most Precious Blood, do not loose me.” This Holy Name will scatter my fears and overcome my weakness.
St Bernard tells us, “Nothing so restrains the violence of anger, eases the swellings of pride, heals the wounds of spite, checks the flow of sensuality, extinguishes the flame of lust, restricts the thirst of greed, and puts to flight the craving for whatever is unbecoming” as the Name: Jesus.
Moreover, habitual use of the Holy Name is a sign of predestination.
St Francis de Sales says those who have a habit of repeating the Holy Name may feel certain of dying a holy death. For the saint tells us, “every time we say ‘Jesus’ we apply to ourselves the saving blood of the Redeemer to our souls.”
The name ‘Jesus’ means ‘savior.’ Holy scripture tells us it is a name of power, “There is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12); scripture comforts us to its effectiveness, “Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee.” (Ps 49:15)
But the power and effectiveness of the Holy Name will only really be known by us if we practice invoking It often both in, and out of our necessities.
We have begun a New Year. What the future holds we do not know... but we know it depends on us.
For if we want this world to be a better place - we must become more holy.
So let us go forth determined to increase the life of Christ in our souls by avoiding sin and doing good works. To help us in this holy endeavor, there is no more easy a practice than of frequently and affectionately invoking the Holy Name. By simply repeating the Holy Name of the Prince of Peace: “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,” we shall bring a little more peace into this poor world of ours. For if we but open our soul more to Christ, He will have a little more room on earth to put His peace.
HOW SWEET IT WAS!
As mentioned in an earlier blog, I celebrated the Extraordinary Form of the Nuptial Mass yesterday for now married, Mr. and Mrs. David (Stephanie Howe) Bushey. Here are some of my reflections on this form of the wedding and Nuptial Mass.
There were a good number of young people there from Christendom College. Apart from the EF of the Mass, they have a very traditional reverence and piety. Many in attendance were familiar with the EF Mass and participated in an active verbal way with the sung and spoken Latin responses. This was marvelous.
But getting back to the traditional reverence and piety of the congregation; this is what I remember growing up as a Catholic in the pre-Vatican II Church. Even as a very young child, let's say before I even turned five, I can remember the hushed reverence of the congregation and how pious people were after they received Holy Communion. I can remember people returning from Holy Communion, kneeling with their face buried in their hands. As a child I thought they were upset, but my parents reassured me they were just grateful to Jesus and His divine mercy.
Reverence, reverence, reverence marked this form of the celebration of the Mass including the Nuptial liturgies. This is in marked contrast with so many of our OF forms of nuptials where there is a giddiness and a total ignorance of what our form of prayer and reverence are all about. If all of our wedding liturgies were as reverent as the one yesterday, I think most priests would begin to favor once again the celebration of weddings over funerals. At least today, for funerals, people seem to be in a more reverent mood and hunger for spiritual meaning in the face of death, but not so much for weddings!
There was no room in the EF Nuptials for the congregation to acknowledge the bride and groom with applause or cat calls. And there is no place for the bride and groom to kiss. So often in the OF form of Nuptials as soon as the bride and groom kiss, there is loud applause and yes,(and I have experienced this many times) cat calls from the congregation. At the recession in OF nuptials, there is not only loud and sustained applause, but a hooting, guttural groaning and the like that you might see and hear on the "Tonight Show." It's down right silly and stupid but because of the loss of the sense of the sacred that is what our nuptials in the OF liturgies have disintegrated into.
The EF form of the Nuptials was so serious, so prayerful and so solemn everyone knew that applause and guttural groaning in this form was totally out of place. The sense of the sacred was too profound and solemn to add anything profane to the Liturgy. I understand now, more than ever, why older people (most of whom are now dead) use to tell me when I was first ordained how much they missed the reverent silence and the sense of the sacred they experienced prior to the reforms of the Liturgy. I didn't really understand their lament until recently and they were right to lament. We have lost the sense of the sacred in our reform liturgies and I'm more and more convinced it is the reform and dumbing down of ritual and sacred actions that has contributed to it. The way you pray is the way your believe and if you pray with a flawed translation of the vernacular, rubrics that are not followed or worse yet spontaneously made up and a giddiness about things sacred, it only follows that the profane will be incorporated into the liturgy and people will lose all respect for that which is sacred thinking their giddy silliness and entertainment form of participation will adequately replace true spirituality and reverence.
While I do love the Latin and think our Catholic people are smart enough to actively participate in this language, even verbally, I do appreciate the vernacular also and see accurate translations of the Latin to be a blessing for the Church. I still contend though, if the form of the Mass and the other sacraments had simply been left alone and good, accurate translations of the rubrics and texts of these sacraments been accomplished without changing the order, gestures or bodily postures of these Sacraments, true renewal and an increase of devotion and reverence would have remained with us and just maybe, (I'm not clairvoyant) we would have maintained the high level of active participation in our Church and at Sunday Mass.
By high level of active participation, I mean almost 90% of Catholics attending Mass on Sunday as was the case prior to the Second Vatican Council. Today, we consider it a blessing if we have at least 20% attending. This is truly shocking and it should be sobering to those who think the renewal of the last 45 years has actually been renewal. Why go to Mass if one does not believe what the Church believes about the Mass, if our celebrations betray that belief through banalities, entertainment forms of participation, and downright profane activities in the church and her celebrations? Why should the nearly 70% who absent themselves from Sunday Mass and active participation take seriously what we do if the outward signs of what we do, do not inspire or lead to true worship, reverence and spirituality--that sense of the sacred that was so characteristic of Catholic parishes of a by-gone era?
Let's get with it and continue the reform of the reform. Pope Benedict knows what he is doing and we need to support him. Perhaps in another 45 years the liturgical landscape will have improved and the absence of Catholic people in our pews and the loss of the sense of the sacred will have all been truly reformed.
Your thoughts?
There were a good number of young people there from Christendom College. Apart from the EF of the Mass, they have a very traditional reverence and piety. Many in attendance were familiar with the EF Mass and participated in an active verbal way with the sung and spoken Latin responses. This was marvelous.
But getting back to the traditional reverence and piety of the congregation; this is what I remember growing up as a Catholic in the pre-Vatican II Church. Even as a very young child, let's say before I even turned five, I can remember the hushed reverence of the congregation and how pious people were after they received Holy Communion. I can remember people returning from Holy Communion, kneeling with their face buried in their hands. As a child I thought they were upset, but my parents reassured me they were just grateful to Jesus and His divine mercy.
Reverence, reverence, reverence marked this form of the celebration of the Mass including the Nuptial liturgies. This is in marked contrast with so many of our OF forms of nuptials where there is a giddiness and a total ignorance of what our form of prayer and reverence are all about. If all of our wedding liturgies were as reverent as the one yesterday, I think most priests would begin to favor once again the celebration of weddings over funerals. At least today, for funerals, people seem to be in a more reverent mood and hunger for spiritual meaning in the face of death, but not so much for weddings!
There was no room in the EF Nuptials for the congregation to acknowledge the bride and groom with applause or cat calls. And there is no place for the bride and groom to kiss. So often in the OF form of Nuptials as soon as the bride and groom kiss, there is loud applause and yes,(and I have experienced this many times) cat calls from the congregation. At the recession in OF nuptials, there is not only loud and sustained applause, but a hooting, guttural groaning and the like that you might see and hear on the "Tonight Show." It's down right silly and stupid but because of the loss of the sense of the sacred that is what our nuptials in the OF liturgies have disintegrated into.
The EF form of the Nuptials was so serious, so prayerful and so solemn everyone knew that applause and guttural groaning in this form was totally out of place. The sense of the sacred was too profound and solemn to add anything profane to the Liturgy. I understand now, more than ever, why older people (most of whom are now dead) use to tell me when I was first ordained how much they missed the reverent silence and the sense of the sacred they experienced prior to the reforms of the Liturgy. I didn't really understand their lament until recently and they were right to lament. We have lost the sense of the sacred in our reform liturgies and I'm more and more convinced it is the reform and dumbing down of ritual and sacred actions that has contributed to it. The way you pray is the way your believe and if you pray with a flawed translation of the vernacular, rubrics that are not followed or worse yet spontaneously made up and a giddiness about things sacred, it only follows that the profane will be incorporated into the liturgy and people will lose all respect for that which is sacred thinking their giddy silliness and entertainment form of participation will adequately replace true spirituality and reverence.
While I do love the Latin and think our Catholic people are smart enough to actively participate in this language, even verbally, I do appreciate the vernacular also and see accurate translations of the Latin to be a blessing for the Church. I still contend though, if the form of the Mass and the other sacraments had simply been left alone and good, accurate translations of the rubrics and texts of these sacraments been accomplished without changing the order, gestures or bodily postures of these Sacraments, true renewal and an increase of devotion and reverence would have remained with us and just maybe, (I'm not clairvoyant) we would have maintained the high level of active participation in our Church and at Sunday Mass.
By high level of active participation, I mean almost 90% of Catholics attending Mass on Sunday as was the case prior to the Second Vatican Council. Today, we consider it a blessing if we have at least 20% attending. This is truly shocking and it should be sobering to those who think the renewal of the last 45 years has actually been renewal. Why go to Mass if one does not believe what the Church believes about the Mass, if our celebrations betray that belief through banalities, entertainment forms of participation, and downright profane activities in the church and her celebrations? Why should the nearly 70% who absent themselves from Sunday Mass and active participation take seriously what we do if the outward signs of what we do, do not inspire or lead to true worship, reverence and spirituality--that sense of the sacred that was so characteristic of Catholic parishes of a by-gone era?
Let's get with it and continue the reform of the reform. Pope Benedict knows what he is doing and we need to support him. Perhaps in another 45 years the liturgical landscape will have improved and the absence of Catholic people in our pews and the loss of the sense of the sacred will have all been truly reformed.
Your thoughts?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
WE THREE KINGS: WHAT AN EPIPHANY!
A rabbi posed this question to his students: “How can you tell when the night has ended and the day is beginning to dawn?” One student replied, “Could it be at that moment when you can see an animal in the distance and tell whether it is a sheep or a goat?” “No,” said the rabbi. Another student offered, “Could it be when you can look at a tree in the distance and tell whether it is a fig tree or a sycamore?” Again, the rabbi said, “No.” “Well then,” asked his students, “when can you tell when night has ended and day is dawning?” In response, the rabbi explained, “It is when you can look into the face of another and see that he is your brother. If you cannot do this, then no matter what time it is, it is still night.”
Many Christians will celebrate the Feast of the Epiphany tomorrow on January 3rd while a significant number will celebrate on the traditional date of January 6 concluding the twelve days of Christmas. The angels, the shepherds and the magi at the birth of Jesus comprise not just a cute story about the birth of Jesus, but signify the dawn of a new day in the history of all humankind. The dawn of this new day shows vividly that in Jesus Christ, God embraces all people.
One of the most memorable movies of 1984 was “Places in the Heart,” a beautifully told story about life in a small Texas town during the Great Depression. The main character, played by Sally Field, is a young wife whose husband dies in a tragic accident, and it is up to her to raise her children and harvest the cotton crop in time to save the farm. Along with a very realistic portrayal of life during this time period, including some intense scenes depicting racial violence and the degradations of poverty, what many movie goers found most memorable was the last scene. We see all the main characters of the story at a church communion service. In the course of that communion, all differences or race and class are gone and even those characters who died violent deaths in the story are restored to the community. Reconciliation had been established at this “Lord’s Supper” which in fact is meant to be a foretaste of the life of heaven. (It was an amazing example of Hollywood getting theology right in a movie.)
What the Angels, shepherds and Magi experience and proclaim is a new age of love and reconciliation between God and humanity. We now see everything from the best vantage point, where tragedy is resolved, reconciliation accomplished in a moment of all encompassing love from God. A cute story that captures the imagination is all about God embracing not just the chosen people, the Jews, but embracing astrologers, pagans and all sorts of people and bringing them into the kingdom of God too. The Magi represent the response that all of us should give to God’s initiative in the world, a new way of living life, filled with faith in Jesus, hope and love.
The Gospel proclamation about the birth of Jesus and the exotic characters that are made aware of this unusual birth is meant to challenge us to wonder in amazement at what God is doing in the world and in our own personal lives. In a sermon for Epiphany from a 5th century bishop and saint of the Church, Peter Chrysologus, known as Peter of the Golden Word, he states, “Today, the Magi find in the manger the one they have followed as he shone in the sky. Today, the Magi see clearly the one they have long awaited, as he lay hidden among the stars. Today, the Magi gaze in deep wonder at what they see: heaven on earth, earth in heaven, man in God, God in man, and the One whom the whole universe cannot contain now enclosed in a tiny body. As they look, they believe and do not question, as their symbolic gifts bear witness: incense for God, gold for a king, myrrh for one who is to die.”
First, the poor in the persons of the Shepherds are made aware of the birth of the Messiah. Lastly kings, exotic and rich astrologers acknowledge Jesus appearance as decisive. Everything is changed because Jesus has come among us. We can ignore him and turn away, but we cannot avoid the fact of his coming, which has redefined the purpose of life itself. If we do not follow him we will be moving away from the dawn of new light, away from the homecoming God has planned for us. To move toward the light is to take up a lifelong discipleship. God has disturbed our comfort, challenged our prejudices, and forced us to consider the demands of love by taking His place among the poor first and lastly all of humanity in need, symbolized by the rich astrologers. How difficult it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, yet with God in the Person of a Baby, all things are possible. What an Epiphany!
Many Christians will celebrate the Feast of the Epiphany tomorrow on January 3rd while a significant number will celebrate on the traditional date of January 6 concluding the twelve days of Christmas. The angels, the shepherds and the magi at the birth of Jesus comprise not just a cute story about the birth of Jesus, but signify the dawn of a new day in the history of all humankind. The dawn of this new day shows vividly that in Jesus Christ, God embraces all people.
One of the most memorable movies of 1984 was “Places in the Heart,” a beautifully told story about life in a small Texas town during the Great Depression. The main character, played by Sally Field, is a young wife whose husband dies in a tragic accident, and it is up to her to raise her children and harvest the cotton crop in time to save the farm. Along with a very realistic portrayal of life during this time period, including some intense scenes depicting racial violence and the degradations of poverty, what many movie goers found most memorable was the last scene. We see all the main characters of the story at a church communion service. In the course of that communion, all differences or race and class are gone and even those characters who died violent deaths in the story are restored to the community. Reconciliation had been established at this “Lord’s Supper” which in fact is meant to be a foretaste of the life of heaven. (It was an amazing example of Hollywood getting theology right in a movie.)
What the Angels, shepherds and Magi experience and proclaim is a new age of love and reconciliation between God and humanity. We now see everything from the best vantage point, where tragedy is resolved, reconciliation accomplished in a moment of all encompassing love from God. A cute story that captures the imagination is all about God embracing not just the chosen people, the Jews, but embracing astrologers, pagans and all sorts of people and bringing them into the kingdom of God too. The Magi represent the response that all of us should give to God’s initiative in the world, a new way of living life, filled with faith in Jesus, hope and love.
The Gospel proclamation about the birth of Jesus and the exotic characters that are made aware of this unusual birth is meant to challenge us to wonder in amazement at what God is doing in the world and in our own personal lives. In a sermon for Epiphany from a 5th century bishop and saint of the Church, Peter Chrysologus, known as Peter of the Golden Word, he states, “Today, the Magi find in the manger the one they have followed as he shone in the sky. Today, the Magi see clearly the one they have long awaited, as he lay hidden among the stars. Today, the Magi gaze in deep wonder at what they see: heaven on earth, earth in heaven, man in God, God in man, and the One whom the whole universe cannot contain now enclosed in a tiny body. As they look, they believe and do not question, as their symbolic gifts bear witness: incense for God, gold for a king, myrrh for one who is to die.”
First, the poor in the persons of the Shepherds are made aware of the birth of the Messiah. Lastly kings, exotic and rich astrologers acknowledge Jesus appearance as decisive. Everything is changed because Jesus has come among us. We can ignore him and turn away, but we cannot avoid the fact of his coming, which has redefined the purpose of life itself. If we do not follow him we will be moving away from the dawn of new light, away from the homecoming God has planned for us. To move toward the light is to take up a lifelong discipleship. God has disturbed our comfort, challenged our prejudices, and forced us to consider the demands of love by taking His place among the poor first and lastly all of humanity in need, symbolized by the rich astrologers. How difficult it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, yet with God in the Person of a Baby, all things are possible. What an Epiphany!
Friday, January 1, 2010
A HAPPY AND BLESSED NEW YEAR TO YOU IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2010!
A HAPPY AND BLESSED NEW YEAR TO YOU IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2010!
Today, January 1, 2010 we will celebrate two Masses in honor of The Blessed Virgin Mary, The Mother of God. These will be at 8:00 AM and 10:00 AM. As well, we will commend the world to God's grace and peace on this World Day of Prayer for Peace.
Our Catholic identity is very much united to our veneration and love for our Blessed Mother, the Mother of God. It is a sweet relationship and she always directs us to her Son who is the Savior of the world.
This is the 8th Day of the Octave of Christmas. Since Christmas Day, time has stood still liturgically. These eight days are in effect one long day. This is a marvelous way to extend our celebration of Christmas and to savor its joy. Like a kid who does not want Christmas Day to end because 24 hours goes by so fast, the Church gives us "one day" that last 192 hours. I think I'm ready now for the day after Christmas!
And what a day the day after Christmas will be. I will be celebrating my first Nuptial Mass in the Extraordinary Form! The main difference between it and the Ordinary Form of the Nuptial Mass is that after the bridal procession, everyone, including the bridal party kneels for prayer. There is the traditional versicle "+Our help is in the name of the Lord" with the congregational responses and a concluding prayer. Then the priest is allowed to say some of his own remarks. The couple and their two witnesses then come forward for a very simple exchange of vows and rings. After the vows, the priest sprinkles the married couple with Holy Water, then he blesses the rings, they exchange them there are some concluding versicles and prayers and the wedding party returns to their kneelers for the beginning of the Nuptial Mass.
In other words, they are married prior to the Mass beginning. They attend their very first Mass, from its beginning, as a married couple. The couple to be married are David Bushey and Stephanie Howe. They both met at Christendom College. Stephanie is a member of a Catholic parish in the Diocese of Richmond that is completely "Extraordinary Form" oriented for all the sacraments. David is a long time member of St. Joseph Church. The marriage prelude to the Nuptial Mass may be done in English.
In the Ordinary Form of the Nuptial Mass, the couple actually exchanges vows after the homily. So they are not married for the Introductory Rite and the Liturgy of the Word. I didn't realize that the EF Nuptial Mass celebrated the vows as a prelude to the Nuptial Mass. It makes sense to me to have the EF way of celebrating the Nuptial Mass. It is powerfully symbolic for them to listen to the Word of God and hearing the homily as a married couple for the very first time at their Nuptial Mass.
In addition, in the EF form of the vows, the priest must ratify the "consent" given in their public vows with a blessing, "I join you in Matrimony, in the Name of the Father + and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This blessing is omitted in the OF form of consent. I do believe this omission should be revisited. In the uniate Eastern Rites of the Church, the priest must ratify the consent with this type of blessing or the marriage vows are not valid. The Latin Rite states that the Nuptial Blessing accomplishes this now, but it is not as clear as it is in the EF Rite which also has a nuptial blessing, in fact two, one after the Lord's Prayer and one immediately following the "Ite Missa est" and prior to the Placeat and final Blessing of Mass. The Eastern Rite does not emphasize as the Latin Rite has done, since Vatican II only, that it is necessary for the priest to ratify the marriage vows for the validity of the ceremony. We now teach that the couple "marries" themselves as an exercise of their baptismal priestly rights--a rather vague and peculiar theologizing. The Eastern Rite in union with us doesn't buy it!
Then on Sunday, St. Joseph will have its monthly Latin High Mass in the Extraordinary Form at 2:00 PM--back to back Extraordinary Masses! I really love celebrating this form of the Mass and find its beauty to be truly edifying, inspirational and beneficial to my priestly spirituality and growth. I also love the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Having these two forms as possibilities in one parish is truly an enrichment, so much so that I think I'm getting tooth decay because it is indeed so sweet. In fact I feel just like Jackie Gleason! "HOW SWEET IS IS!"
May your New Year in our Lord be sweet too! God bless you.
Today, January 1, 2010 we will celebrate two Masses in honor of The Blessed Virgin Mary, The Mother of God. These will be at 8:00 AM and 10:00 AM. As well, we will commend the world to God's grace and peace on this World Day of Prayer for Peace.
Our Catholic identity is very much united to our veneration and love for our Blessed Mother, the Mother of God. It is a sweet relationship and she always directs us to her Son who is the Savior of the world.
This is the 8th Day of the Octave of Christmas. Since Christmas Day, time has stood still liturgically. These eight days are in effect one long day. This is a marvelous way to extend our celebration of Christmas and to savor its joy. Like a kid who does not want Christmas Day to end because 24 hours goes by so fast, the Church gives us "one day" that last 192 hours. I think I'm ready now for the day after Christmas!
And what a day the day after Christmas will be. I will be celebrating my first Nuptial Mass in the Extraordinary Form! The main difference between it and the Ordinary Form of the Nuptial Mass is that after the bridal procession, everyone, including the bridal party kneels for prayer. There is the traditional versicle "+Our help is in the name of the Lord" with the congregational responses and a concluding prayer. Then the priest is allowed to say some of his own remarks. The couple and their two witnesses then come forward for a very simple exchange of vows and rings. After the vows, the priest sprinkles the married couple with Holy Water, then he blesses the rings, they exchange them there are some concluding versicles and prayers and the wedding party returns to their kneelers for the beginning of the Nuptial Mass.
In other words, they are married prior to the Mass beginning. They attend their very first Mass, from its beginning, as a married couple. The couple to be married are David Bushey and Stephanie Howe. They both met at Christendom College. Stephanie is a member of a Catholic parish in the Diocese of Richmond that is completely "Extraordinary Form" oriented for all the sacraments. David is a long time member of St. Joseph Church. The marriage prelude to the Nuptial Mass may be done in English.
In the Ordinary Form of the Nuptial Mass, the couple actually exchanges vows after the homily. So they are not married for the Introductory Rite and the Liturgy of the Word. I didn't realize that the EF Nuptial Mass celebrated the vows as a prelude to the Nuptial Mass. It makes sense to me to have the EF way of celebrating the Nuptial Mass. It is powerfully symbolic for them to listen to the Word of God and hearing the homily as a married couple for the very first time at their Nuptial Mass.
In addition, in the EF form of the vows, the priest must ratify the "consent" given in their public vows with a blessing, "I join you in Matrimony, in the Name of the Father + and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This blessing is omitted in the OF form of consent. I do believe this omission should be revisited. In the uniate Eastern Rites of the Church, the priest must ratify the consent with this type of blessing or the marriage vows are not valid. The Latin Rite states that the Nuptial Blessing accomplishes this now, but it is not as clear as it is in the EF Rite which also has a nuptial blessing, in fact two, one after the Lord's Prayer and one immediately following the "Ite Missa est" and prior to the Placeat and final Blessing of Mass. The Eastern Rite does not emphasize as the Latin Rite has done, since Vatican II only, that it is necessary for the priest to ratify the marriage vows for the validity of the ceremony. We now teach that the couple "marries" themselves as an exercise of their baptismal priestly rights--a rather vague and peculiar theologizing. The Eastern Rite in union with us doesn't buy it!
Then on Sunday, St. Joseph will have its monthly Latin High Mass in the Extraordinary Form at 2:00 PM--back to back Extraordinary Masses! I really love celebrating this form of the Mass and find its beauty to be truly edifying, inspirational and beneficial to my priestly spirituality and growth. I also love the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Having these two forms as possibilities in one parish is truly an enrichment, so much so that I think I'm getting tooth decay because it is indeed so sweet. In fact I feel just like Jackie Gleason! "HOW SWEET IS IS!"
May your New Year in our Lord be sweet too! God bless you.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Five Most Postive Developments of 2009?
Do you agree with this analysis or would you suggest something else?
In Depth Analysis
The 5 most positive developments of 2009 Facebook Twitter by Phil Lawler, December 30, 2009
5. The Vatican investigation of American women’s religious communities.
“For many years,” Cardinal Franc Rodé disclosed in November, “this dicastery [the Congregation for Religious] had been listening to concerns expressed by American Catholics—religious, laity, clergy, and hierarchy—about the welfare of religious women and consecrated life in general.” Finally, this year the Vatican took action.
In February, the Holy See announced an apostolic visitation of American women’s religious orders. That inquiry is being conducted under the auspices of the Congregation for Religious, by Mother Clare Millea, ASCJ—who has gently made the point that she is making a serious, rigorous study.
While some unhappy leaders of women’s religious orders were protesting the Vatican’s involvement, a second shoe dropped: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has begun a separate “doctrinal investigation” of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the umbrella group representing “mainstream” religious orders.
During the years since Vatican II, American nuns have becoming a vanishing breed. The number of women religious in the US today is less than half what it was in 1965. The average age of the remaining nuns is soaring. Yet in some orders—the contemplative communities and the ones most rigorously committed to traditional models of religious life—vocations remain plentiful. It is the “mainstream” orders—the ones that once staffed parochials schools and hospitals across the nation—that are now disappearing. And it is growing ever more evident that their wounds are self-inflicted; they are unable to attract young women because they no longer have a clear sense of their own religious purpose. As Cardinal Rodé put it, in an unusually candid talk to an American audience in 2008, some nuns “have simply acquiesced to the disappearance of religious life or at least of their community.”
If the statistical portrait of American religious life was enough to demonstrate the need for a serious inquiry, the angry reactions of prominent American nuns confirmed the nature of the problem. One influential women religious called for “non-violent resistance” to the Vatican probe, and the National Catholic Reporter confirmed in November that the mainstream orders had mounted “almost complete resistance” to the apostolic visitation, with only 1% meeting a deadline for the return of questionnaires. The leaders of the largest religious orders seem to view the Holy See as their adversary. That fact underlines the need for Rome to rein in the dissident nuns.
4. The Irish bishops “get it.”
The damaging revelations about abuse in the Irish Catholic Church were, as I noted yesterday, the most depressing story of 2009. But the agony of the Irish Church has already produced one very positive result. Unlike their brethren in the US, the Irish bishops have acknowledged their own culpability.
Within a month after the release of the Murphy Commission report, four Irish bishops had resigned. They stepped down under heavy pressure from public opinion, at the clear prompting of Dublin’s Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, who stated that any bishop involved in the Dublin cover-up should seriously re-assess his position. (Archbishop Martin did not openly call for resignations, but his intent was clear enough.)
One of the outgoing prelates, Bishop James Moriarty, denied that he himself had ignored complaints of sexual abuse, but conceded: “I should have challenged the prevailing culture.” Exactly. Any bishop who could tolerate sexual abuse—or even stand by while others in authorities tolerated it—thereby showed himself incapable of sound pastoral judgment. A bishop who responds to a scandal by covering up the evidence must have either a complete indifference to the welfare of the souls assigned to his care or a severely warped vision of what constitutes the good of the Church. In either case he has disgraced himself, and made it impossible to maintain confidence in his pastoral leadership. Resignation is his best option.
In the US, where literally dozens of dioceses have been dogged by sex-abuse scandals for the better part of a decade, only one bishop has resigned because of his mishandling of the crisis. In Ireland, four have taken that step in less than a month, after the problems of a single diocese were exposed. The Irish bishops are showing a pastoral sensitivity that their American counterparts lack.
There is one more positive aspect to this unhappy story. Pope Benedict has promised a pastoral letter in response to the Irish crisis. The Holy Father’s deft handling of the sex-abuse scandal in America, during his trip to this country in April 2008, encourages the hope that the Pontiff will draw important new lessons from the Irish problem.
3. The moves to reconcile the Society of St. Pius X
This story, too, can be paired with one of the year’s five ugliest developments. But whereas in one case there are a few positive aspects to a very sad story, in this case a happy story has nearly been overshadowed by one unfortunate facet. The positive signs from Ireland were only the silver lining that shone through a heavy cloud, but in this case the controversy surrounding Bishop Williamson (#3 on yesterday’s list) deflected attention from the palpable benefits of a bold papal initiative.
In January, Pope Benedict lifted the decrees of excommunication that had been imposed on four bishops of the traditionalist SSPX after they were illicitly ordained in July 1988 by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. By doing so the Pope—who had already welcomed the wide use of the traditional Latin liturgy—eliminated the last important remaining obstacle to reconciliation of the SSPX with the Holy See.
The Pope’s bold gesture was soon submerged beneath the negative publicity aroused by Bishop Williamson. The initial impact of the papal move was vitiated; both the Vatican and the SSPX were thrown into a defensive posture. Veteran Vatican-watcher Sandro Magister of L’Espresso remarked that the episode illustrated “the isolation of Pope Benedict, the ineptitude of the Curia, and the misfires of the Secretariat of State.” All too true.
Showing remarkable humility and patience, Pope Benedict followed up with a letter clarifying the purpose of his move, and virtually pleading with the world’s bishops to support his plans for reconciliation. This second papal statement also underlined Benedict’s determination. He explained that he had seen first-hand how the reconciliation of a wayward Catholic group can serve the universal Church: “how the return to the great, wide, and common Church overcame one-sidedness and lessioned tensions, so that now they have become positive forces for the whole.”
Pope Benedict obviously sees just such a role for the SSPX. And despite the hostility that greeted his first move, the progress toward reconciliation continues. In October, representatives of the traditionalist group met with Vatican officials for the first of a projected series of discussions about disputed doctrinal questions. These discussions can only help to clarify the proper interpretation of Vatican II. In the long run, by helping to establish the limits of what Catholics must accept, and what remains open to debate, the discussions could help many thousands of traditionalists return to full and active participation in the Church.
2. The outreach to Anglicans
In October, Pope Benedict loosed another bombshell, with the announcement that he would soon release an apostolic exhortation establishing the conditions for Anglicans to enter into the Catholic Church while preserving their own communities and their own cherished liturgical traditions. Again the Pontiff explained the initiative as a means of enriching the universal Church by achieving reconciliation with those who had been separated.
But in this case the separation was a matter of centuries. And in light of the severe internal problems facing the Anglican communion, the Pope’s invitation was extremely well timed—and extremely well received.
The Pope’s plan was simple; his act was decisive. For years, tradition-minded Anglicans had been inquiring about the prospects for corporate entry into the Catholic fold. But their appeals were counterbalanced by the concerns of professional ecumenists (who feared an angry reaction from Canterbury) and English bishops (who were lukewarm at best toward the prospect of receiving thousands of theologically conservative new Catholics into their dioceses). With a single stroke the Pope sliced through these concerns; it was noteworthy that neither the Vatican’s top ecumenist nor the English bishops’ conference were intimately involved in the final preparation of the papal statement.
The apostolic constitution, when it was made public, showed a remarkable sensitivity toward the Anglican audience, a respect and deference for the Anglican tradition. Those attitudes will surely make an impression on other Christians—notably the Orthodox—who find themselves wondering about the possibility for achieving reunion with Rome.
As with the SSPX, so too the Pope’s bid for unity with Anglicans may proceed slowly; there are many details to work out. But after a wait of 400 years, the process of reconciliation has begun.
1. The American bishops find their public voice
The decision by America’s most famous Catholic university to honor President Barack Obama with an honorary degree was outrageous. Fortunately, dozens of American bishops labeled it as such.
The local ordinary, Bishop John D’Arcy, opened the criticism, complaining that the Notre Dame invitation was a “terrible breach” in what should be a united Catholic front against. When the school’s president declined to reconsider the honorary degree, Bishop D’Arcy announced that he would boycott the ceremony. This in itself was remarkable; never before had an American Catholic bishop been so direct in his criticism of a major Catholic university.
But Bishop D’Arcy did not carry the battle alone; more than 70 other American bishops joined in the criticism of Notre Dame. And the US bishops’ conference passed a resolution of support for Bishop D’Arcy’s stand.
One other story from 2009 deserves special mention. When Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, called Congressman Patrick Kennedy to “conversion and repentance”-- when he questioned whether the young lawmaker from America’s most prominent political dynasty fulfills the basic requirements of being Catholic—his unprecedented bold statements were a tonic to those Catholics who have been waiting for decades to hear such a challenge.
Bishop Tobin did not pick this fight with Kennedy; the Rhode Island Congressman began the exchange with a pre-emptive attack on the hierarchy, and escalated it later with the revelation that the bishop had asked him to abstain from Communion. But Bishop Tobin did not shrink from the confrontation, either. His courageous public witness made it evident that the American bishops are prepared to take a tougher line in their conflicts with Catholic politicians who support the “culture of death.”
[Phil Lawler] Phil Lawler - Director of the Catholic Culture Project If you found this helpful, please subscribe to newsletter and support our work.
Receive a weekly digest! | Make a pledge or one-time donation now!
In Depth Analysis
The 5 most positive developments of 2009 Facebook Twitter by Phil Lawler, December 30, 2009
5. The Vatican investigation of American women’s religious communities.
“For many years,” Cardinal Franc Rodé disclosed in November, “this dicastery [the Congregation for Religious] had been listening to concerns expressed by American Catholics—religious, laity, clergy, and hierarchy—about the welfare of religious women and consecrated life in general.” Finally, this year the Vatican took action.
In February, the Holy See announced an apostolic visitation of American women’s religious orders. That inquiry is being conducted under the auspices of the Congregation for Religious, by Mother Clare Millea, ASCJ—who has gently made the point that she is making a serious, rigorous study.
While some unhappy leaders of women’s religious orders were protesting the Vatican’s involvement, a second shoe dropped: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has begun a separate “doctrinal investigation” of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the umbrella group representing “mainstream” religious orders.
During the years since Vatican II, American nuns have becoming a vanishing breed. The number of women religious in the US today is less than half what it was in 1965. The average age of the remaining nuns is soaring. Yet in some orders—the contemplative communities and the ones most rigorously committed to traditional models of religious life—vocations remain plentiful. It is the “mainstream” orders—the ones that once staffed parochials schools and hospitals across the nation—that are now disappearing. And it is growing ever more evident that their wounds are self-inflicted; they are unable to attract young women because they no longer have a clear sense of their own religious purpose. As Cardinal Rodé put it, in an unusually candid talk to an American audience in 2008, some nuns “have simply acquiesced to the disappearance of religious life or at least of their community.”
If the statistical portrait of American religious life was enough to demonstrate the need for a serious inquiry, the angry reactions of prominent American nuns confirmed the nature of the problem. One influential women religious called for “non-violent resistance” to the Vatican probe, and the National Catholic Reporter confirmed in November that the mainstream orders had mounted “almost complete resistance” to the apostolic visitation, with only 1% meeting a deadline for the return of questionnaires. The leaders of the largest religious orders seem to view the Holy See as their adversary. That fact underlines the need for Rome to rein in the dissident nuns.
4. The Irish bishops “get it.”
The damaging revelations about abuse in the Irish Catholic Church were, as I noted yesterday, the most depressing story of 2009. But the agony of the Irish Church has already produced one very positive result. Unlike their brethren in the US, the Irish bishops have acknowledged their own culpability.
Within a month after the release of the Murphy Commission report, four Irish bishops had resigned. They stepped down under heavy pressure from public opinion, at the clear prompting of Dublin’s Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, who stated that any bishop involved in the Dublin cover-up should seriously re-assess his position. (Archbishop Martin did not openly call for resignations, but his intent was clear enough.)
One of the outgoing prelates, Bishop James Moriarty, denied that he himself had ignored complaints of sexual abuse, but conceded: “I should have challenged the prevailing culture.” Exactly. Any bishop who could tolerate sexual abuse—or even stand by while others in authorities tolerated it—thereby showed himself incapable of sound pastoral judgment. A bishop who responds to a scandal by covering up the evidence must have either a complete indifference to the welfare of the souls assigned to his care or a severely warped vision of what constitutes the good of the Church. In either case he has disgraced himself, and made it impossible to maintain confidence in his pastoral leadership. Resignation is his best option.
In the US, where literally dozens of dioceses have been dogged by sex-abuse scandals for the better part of a decade, only one bishop has resigned because of his mishandling of the crisis. In Ireland, four have taken that step in less than a month, after the problems of a single diocese were exposed. The Irish bishops are showing a pastoral sensitivity that their American counterparts lack.
There is one more positive aspect to this unhappy story. Pope Benedict has promised a pastoral letter in response to the Irish crisis. The Holy Father’s deft handling of the sex-abuse scandal in America, during his trip to this country in April 2008, encourages the hope that the Pontiff will draw important new lessons from the Irish problem.
3. The moves to reconcile the Society of St. Pius X
This story, too, can be paired with one of the year’s five ugliest developments. But whereas in one case there are a few positive aspects to a very sad story, in this case a happy story has nearly been overshadowed by one unfortunate facet. The positive signs from Ireland were only the silver lining that shone through a heavy cloud, but in this case the controversy surrounding Bishop Williamson (#3 on yesterday’s list) deflected attention from the palpable benefits of a bold papal initiative.
In January, Pope Benedict lifted the decrees of excommunication that had been imposed on four bishops of the traditionalist SSPX after they were illicitly ordained in July 1988 by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. By doing so the Pope—who had already welcomed the wide use of the traditional Latin liturgy—eliminated the last important remaining obstacle to reconciliation of the SSPX with the Holy See.
The Pope’s bold gesture was soon submerged beneath the negative publicity aroused by Bishop Williamson. The initial impact of the papal move was vitiated; both the Vatican and the SSPX were thrown into a defensive posture. Veteran Vatican-watcher Sandro Magister of L’Espresso remarked that the episode illustrated “the isolation of Pope Benedict, the ineptitude of the Curia, and the misfires of the Secretariat of State.” All too true.
Showing remarkable humility and patience, Pope Benedict followed up with a letter clarifying the purpose of his move, and virtually pleading with the world’s bishops to support his plans for reconciliation. This second papal statement also underlined Benedict’s determination. He explained that he had seen first-hand how the reconciliation of a wayward Catholic group can serve the universal Church: “how the return to the great, wide, and common Church overcame one-sidedness and lessioned tensions, so that now they have become positive forces for the whole.”
Pope Benedict obviously sees just such a role for the SSPX. And despite the hostility that greeted his first move, the progress toward reconciliation continues. In October, representatives of the traditionalist group met with Vatican officials for the first of a projected series of discussions about disputed doctrinal questions. These discussions can only help to clarify the proper interpretation of Vatican II. In the long run, by helping to establish the limits of what Catholics must accept, and what remains open to debate, the discussions could help many thousands of traditionalists return to full and active participation in the Church.
2. The outreach to Anglicans
In October, Pope Benedict loosed another bombshell, with the announcement that he would soon release an apostolic exhortation establishing the conditions for Anglicans to enter into the Catholic Church while preserving their own communities and their own cherished liturgical traditions. Again the Pontiff explained the initiative as a means of enriching the universal Church by achieving reconciliation with those who had been separated.
But in this case the separation was a matter of centuries. And in light of the severe internal problems facing the Anglican communion, the Pope’s invitation was extremely well timed—and extremely well received.
The Pope’s plan was simple; his act was decisive. For years, tradition-minded Anglicans had been inquiring about the prospects for corporate entry into the Catholic fold. But their appeals were counterbalanced by the concerns of professional ecumenists (who feared an angry reaction from Canterbury) and English bishops (who were lukewarm at best toward the prospect of receiving thousands of theologically conservative new Catholics into their dioceses). With a single stroke the Pope sliced through these concerns; it was noteworthy that neither the Vatican’s top ecumenist nor the English bishops’ conference were intimately involved in the final preparation of the papal statement.
The apostolic constitution, when it was made public, showed a remarkable sensitivity toward the Anglican audience, a respect and deference for the Anglican tradition. Those attitudes will surely make an impression on other Christians—notably the Orthodox—who find themselves wondering about the possibility for achieving reunion with Rome.
As with the SSPX, so too the Pope’s bid for unity with Anglicans may proceed slowly; there are many details to work out. But after a wait of 400 years, the process of reconciliation has begun.
1. The American bishops find their public voice
The decision by America’s most famous Catholic university to honor President Barack Obama with an honorary degree was outrageous. Fortunately, dozens of American bishops labeled it as such.
The local ordinary, Bishop John D’Arcy, opened the criticism, complaining that the Notre Dame invitation was a “terrible breach” in what should be a united Catholic front against. When the school’s president declined to reconsider the honorary degree, Bishop D’Arcy announced that he would boycott the ceremony. This in itself was remarkable; never before had an American Catholic bishop been so direct in his criticism of a major Catholic university.
But Bishop D’Arcy did not carry the battle alone; more than 70 other American bishops joined in the criticism of Notre Dame. And the US bishops’ conference passed a resolution of support for Bishop D’Arcy’s stand.
One other story from 2009 deserves special mention. When Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, called Congressman Patrick Kennedy to “conversion and repentance”-- when he questioned whether the young lawmaker from America’s most prominent political dynasty fulfills the basic requirements of being Catholic—his unprecedented bold statements were a tonic to those Catholics who have been waiting for decades to hear such a challenge.
Bishop Tobin did not pick this fight with Kennedy; the Rhode Island Congressman began the exchange with a pre-emptive attack on the hierarchy, and escalated it later with the revelation that the bishop had asked him to abstain from Communion. But Bishop Tobin did not shrink from the confrontation, either. His courageous public witness made it evident that the American bishops are prepared to take a tougher line in their conflicts with Catholic politicians who support the “culture of death.”
[Phil Lawler] Phil Lawler - Director of the Catholic Culture Project If you found this helpful, please subscribe to newsletter and support our work.
Receive a weekly digest! | Make a pledge or one-time donation now!
Is a strong Catholic identity snobbery?
First, let me offer a disclaimer. I am very much in favor of ecumenism and interfaith dialogue. The Church asks us to honor the faith of other people and not proselytize those who do not wish to have the Church's complete truth proclaimed to them.
With that said, though, I do believe there is a "true" ecumenism and a "false" ecumenism. The true ecumenism of the Catholic Church recognizes that the Church that Jesus Christ founded is the Catholic Church headed by the Christ's visible vicar on earth, the successor to St. Peter, the Pope. As such, the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. The Catholic Church also safeguards this truth, what is called by many as the "Deposit of Faith." As such, we see all validly baptized Christians as members of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Depending on their status in the line of the denominations that evolved after the Protestant Reformation, they are more or less in communion with us, but not in full communion. Again their status depends on how much of the Deposit of Faith they accept and the degree to which their sacraments are either valid or invalid according to the mind of the Magisterium.
False ecumenism believes that all Christian denominations are more or less equal.Many would even refer to the Catholic Church as one among many different denominations. It really doesn't matter which one you belong to as long as you believe in Jesus and try to follow Him as your conscience directs you. This is especially tempting for Catholics who are the minority in the communities in which they live or are in "ecumenical marriages." We don't want to offend the religious sensibilities of those who are close to us, so we tend to buy into a false egalitarianism.
We must be clear, though, that the Catholic Church is precisely that the Church. Eastern Orthodoxy can also be viewed as a Church not a denomination. Protestants, though are denominational. In the technical sense they can only call themselves the "Church" only in reference to the Church they separated from, the Catholic Church.
Three areas that many Catholics today are susceptible are "the cult of the personality" of the priest or minister and the power of inspirational preaching and the strong bonds of fellowship that many Protestant denominations are quite good at developing. If a preacher has a pleasant and winning personality, knows how to speak from his heart and to touch the hearts of those who listen to him combined with a powerful sense of friendship and fellowship among fellow worshipers, Catholics may think that their needs are being fulfilled. This is especially true if their own Catholic parish lacks a charismatic priest, who is deficient in preaching and personality and the congregation is cold and unfriendly. Why not then join a denomination that satisfies?
The three main reason not to leave the full communion of the Catholic Church that are relevant here:
1. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and He said the gates of hell would not prevail against her. Why in the world would a Christian intentionally join another denomination founded by a mere mortal, like Martin Luther, John Calvin or the vast variety of non-denominational congregations founded by individuals who turn it into a corporation in which they are the CEO and power is handed down to family members? It is a family business in other words.
2. The validity of our Sacraments. For most Protestant denominations, they have only two valid sacraments, Holy Baptism and in some cases Holy Matrimony. Since the Sacrament of Baptism is essential for Church membership and thus salvation the Catholic Church has always taught that in an emergency a lay person can baptize if they use water and the correct formula, "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of Protestants if done according the criteria above. Since marriage is a divine right if there are no impediments, the marriages of two baptized Christians who are Protestant is a valid sacramental marriage as it is not dependent on the one who witness the marriage for its sacramentality. However, with few exceptions, Protestants do not have any other valid sacraments including first of all Holy Orders (deacons, priests and bishops) the latter two necessary for the valid celebration of the other sacraments including the Mass or the Most Holy Eucharist, not to mention Confirmation, Penance, Anointing of the Sick and Holy Orders. Why would anyone give up the Sacramental system of the Church that Jesus Christ Himself instituted for a simulated sacrament or no sacraments at all? Leaving the full communion of the Church means no Holy Communion and if it is celebrated by the Protestant denomination it is only a symbol or simulated sacrament. It is not valid.
Thirdly, if one departs the practice of the Catholic Church for a denomination that is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, one must also divest themselves of many other teachings such as the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Communion of saints, Purgatory and the finer nuances concerning dogma and doctrine.
Who wants incomplete Christianity when the complete package is available in the Roman Catholic Church? Only those who do not think there is any difference amongst the various Protestant denominations and that all religions are equal.
True ecumenism does recognize that God's grace is present in these Protestant denominations and that what is lacking in them can be made up by God and His grace. Certainly good preaching, a love for the Scriptures, lives built upon the moral principals of the Bible are all signs of God's grace actively bestowed upon the well-intentioned and good of heart. As well friendly congregations, great fellowship and social activism are signs of God's grace freely given to these denominations that at times puts us Catholics to shame. So we do not disparage the gracious love that God bestows upon those denominations. While deficient in so many essentials of the Church, God nonetheless enables them to experience an abundance of good will and love.Where ever two or three are gathered in the Lord's name, Jesus is there! In terms of ecumenical dialogue, we can learn much from their fine preaching, their fellowship and working with them in serving the needs of the poor rather than competing in this arena.
Your thoughts?
With that said, though, I do believe there is a "true" ecumenism and a "false" ecumenism. The true ecumenism of the Catholic Church recognizes that the Church that Jesus Christ founded is the Catholic Church headed by the Christ's visible vicar on earth, the successor to St. Peter, the Pope. As such, the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. The Catholic Church also safeguards this truth, what is called by many as the "Deposit of Faith." As such, we see all validly baptized Christians as members of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Depending on their status in the line of the denominations that evolved after the Protestant Reformation, they are more or less in communion with us, but not in full communion. Again their status depends on how much of the Deposit of Faith they accept and the degree to which their sacraments are either valid or invalid according to the mind of the Magisterium.
False ecumenism believes that all Christian denominations are more or less equal.Many would even refer to the Catholic Church as one among many different denominations. It really doesn't matter which one you belong to as long as you believe in Jesus and try to follow Him as your conscience directs you. This is especially tempting for Catholics who are the minority in the communities in which they live or are in "ecumenical marriages." We don't want to offend the religious sensibilities of those who are close to us, so we tend to buy into a false egalitarianism.
We must be clear, though, that the Catholic Church is precisely that the Church. Eastern Orthodoxy can also be viewed as a Church not a denomination. Protestants, though are denominational. In the technical sense they can only call themselves the "Church" only in reference to the Church they separated from, the Catholic Church.
Three areas that many Catholics today are susceptible are "the cult of the personality" of the priest or minister and the power of inspirational preaching and the strong bonds of fellowship that many Protestant denominations are quite good at developing. If a preacher has a pleasant and winning personality, knows how to speak from his heart and to touch the hearts of those who listen to him combined with a powerful sense of friendship and fellowship among fellow worshipers, Catholics may think that their needs are being fulfilled. This is especially true if their own Catholic parish lacks a charismatic priest, who is deficient in preaching and personality and the congregation is cold and unfriendly. Why not then join a denomination that satisfies?
The three main reason not to leave the full communion of the Catholic Church that are relevant here:
1. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and He said the gates of hell would not prevail against her. Why in the world would a Christian intentionally join another denomination founded by a mere mortal, like Martin Luther, John Calvin or the vast variety of non-denominational congregations founded by individuals who turn it into a corporation in which they are the CEO and power is handed down to family members? It is a family business in other words.
2. The validity of our Sacraments. For most Protestant denominations, they have only two valid sacraments, Holy Baptism and in some cases Holy Matrimony. Since the Sacrament of Baptism is essential for Church membership and thus salvation the Catholic Church has always taught that in an emergency a lay person can baptize if they use water and the correct formula, "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of Protestants if done according the criteria above. Since marriage is a divine right if there are no impediments, the marriages of two baptized Christians who are Protestant is a valid sacramental marriage as it is not dependent on the one who witness the marriage for its sacramentality. However, with few exceptions, Protestants do not have any other valid sacraments including first of all Holy Orders (deacons, priests and bishops) the latter two necessary for the valid celebration of the other sacraments including the Mass or the Most Holy Eucharist, not to mention Confirmation, Penance, Anointing of the Sick and Holy Orders. Why would anyone give up the Sacramental system of the Church that Jesus Christ Himself instituted for a simulated sacrament or no sacraments at all? Leaving the full communion of the Church means no Holy Communion and if it is celebrated by the Protestant denomination it is only a symbol or simulated sacrament. It is not valid.
Thirdly, if one departs the practice of the Catholic Church for a denomination that is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, one must also divest themselves of many other teachings such as the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Communion of saints, Purgatory and the finer nuances concerning dogma and doctrine.
Who wants incomplete Christianity when the complete package is available in the Roman Catholic Church? Only those who do not think there is any difference amongst the various Protestant denominations and that all religions are equal.
True ecumenism does recognize that God's grace is present in these Protestant denominations and that what is lacking in them can be made up by God and His grace. Certainly good preaching, a love for the Scriptures, lives built upon the moral principals of the Bible are all signs of God's grace actively bestowed upon the well-intentioned and good of heart. As well friendly congregations, great fellowship and social activism are signs of God's grace freely given to these denominations that at times puts us Catholics to shame. So we do not disparage the gracious love that God bestows upon those denominations. While deficient in so many essentials of the Church, God nonetheless enables them to experience an abundance of good will and love.Where ever two or three are gathered in the Lord's name, Jesus is there! In terms of ecumenical dialogue, we can learn much from their fine preaching, their fellowship and working with them in serving the needs of the poor rather than competing in this arena.
Your thoughts?
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
TABLE OF GOD'S WORD AND THE TABLE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
I've always found it fascinating that the EF Mass has two major parts, the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful. With the reforms of the OF Mass, these were changed to the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. What is fascinating about this change is that prior to the reforms, catechumens were not dismissed from Mass after the Mass of the Catechumens. But since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and the revival of the Order of Catechumens, catechumens are dismissed prior to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It seems we should have just kept the Mass of the Catechumens title for the Liturgy of the Word or kept both.
Also, one of the things that many liturgical theologians taught after Vatican II is that we now have two tables at Mass, "the Table of the Word" and "the Table of the Eucharist." I bought into this line of thinking, hook, line and sinker! But this really is a part of the theology of rupture that so many promoted after Vatican II concerning the Mass and it needs to be revisited.
What I have learned since I've been celebrating the EF Mass frequently is that God feeds us from one table, the altar, from which the Word of God is proclaimed and the Most Holy Eucharist celebrated. The ambo in the OF Mass becomes an extension of the altar for God's people to be nourished by His Holy Word, not a separate table, just as the altar railing in the EF form of distributing Holy Communion is an extension of the one altar, not a separate table.
The Mass is like a formal banquet in an Italian home. You don't eat appetizers apart from sitting at the main table. It is called the antipasto. Then you have the first plate and the second plate, the salad and dessert. It is all served at the one table. So it is with the Mass, both the Word of God and the Most Holy Eucharist are served from the one, undivided table, the altar, not two separate tables. I believe the EF Mass certainly makes this abundantly clear, whereas the OF Mass has made this ambiguous to the point that many think there are two separate tables.
I prefer the more holistic and unified approach to Word and Sacrament that is presented in the EF Mass, although, to be quite frank, I prefer the OF's lectionary. Catholics today are exposed to a very rich fare of Scripture which they are not in the EF lectionary. In fact in pre-Vatican II times the accurate description of Catholics was that they were Biblically illiterate. I think we as Catholics have come a long way with the revision of the NO lectionary and a hunger for Scripture and understanding it properly. We don't want to turn the clock back to just the EF's brief lectionary. Your thoughts.
Also, one of the things that many liturgical theologians taught after Vatican II is that we now have two tables at Mass, "the Table of the Word" and "the Table of the Eucharist." I bought into this line of thinking, hook, line and sinker! But this really is a part of the theology of rupture that so many promoted after Vatican II concerning the Mass and it needs to be revisited.
What I have learned since I've been celebrating the EF Mass frequently is that God feeds us from one table, the altar, from which the Word of God is proclaimed and the Most Holy Eucharist celebrated. The ambo in the OF Mass becomes an extension of the altar for God's people to be nourished by His Holy Word, not a separate table, just as the altar railing in the EF form of distributing Holy Communion is an extension of the one altar, not a separate table.
The Mass is like a formal banquet in an Italian home. You don't eat appetizers apart from sitting at the main table. It is called the antipasto. Then you have the first plate and the second plate, the salad and dessert. It is all served at the one table. So it is with the Mass, both the Word of God and the Most Holy Eucharist are served from the one, undivided table, the altar, not two separate tables. I believe the EF Mass certainly makes this abundantly clear, whereas the OF Mass has made this ambiguous to the point that many think there are two separate tables.
I prefer the more holistic and unified approach to Word and Sacrament that is presented in the EF Mass, although, to be quite frank, I prefer the OF's lectionary. Catholics today are exposed to a very rich fare of Scripture which they are not in the EF lectionary. In fact in pre-Vatican II times the accurate description of Catholics was that they were Biblically illiterate. I think we as Catholics have come a long way with the revision of the NO lectionary and a hunger for Scripture and understanding it properly. We don't want to turn the clock back to just the EF's brief lectionary. Your thoughts.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Are You Keeping Any Christmas Decorations up until Candlemas, February 2nd?
There is a custom in many places in the Catholic world to keep the Creche and some of the garland up in churches and homes until February 2, the Solemnity of the Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple. It is also known as Candlemas as lighted candles and all liturgical candles are blessed on this day as well. In the secular world, February 2nd is also Groundhog Day linked to the lighted candles in the dark of that morning and the groundhog seeing his shadow because of it. February 2nd is also 40 days after Christmas Day. In the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Calendar, there is an Epiphany Season which is not observed, unfortunately, in the Ordinary Form of the Calendar. In the OF form of the calendar Christmas ends and Ordinary Time begins with the Solemnity of the Baptism of the Lord. In any reform of the reform, I would hope to see the Epiphany season restored to the Church's calendar. In a way it has been with Summorum Pontificum. The following is a good article on Candlemas as the end of the Christmas/Epiphany season:
Candlemas
February 2. Also groundhog day / hedgehog day
Candlemas is the last festival in the Christian year that is dated by reference to Christmas; subsequent holidays are calculated with reference to Easter, so Candlemas marks the end of the Christmas and Epiphany season.
Candlemas is observed on February 2nd in the Western churches and February 15th in the Eastern churches. Its formal name is either the festival of the Purification of the Virgin (especially in the uniate rites of the Roman Catholic Church), the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple (especially in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church). In the Orthodox Church it is known as the Feast of the Presentation of our Lord and Savior in the Temple.
The date of Candlemas is established by the date set for the Nativity of Jesus, for it comes 40 days afterwards. Under Mosaic law, a mother who had given birth to a man-child was considered unclean for seven days; moreover she was to remain for three and thirty days "in the blood of her purification." Candlemas therefore corresponds to the day on which Mary, according to Jewish law (see Leviticus 12:2 - 8), should have attended a ceremony of ritual purification. The gospel of Luke 2:22-39 relates that Mary attended such a ceremony in the Jerusalem temple, and this explains the formal names given to the festival.
In the West, the date of Christmas is now fixed at December 25, and Candlemas therefore falls the following February 2. The dating is identical among Orthodox Christians, except that the ecclesiastic December 25th of most Orthodox Christians falls on January 6th of the civil calendar, meaning that most Orthodox Christians celebrate the fest on February 14th.
History
The earliest reference to a celebration was when the intrepid pilgrim nun Egeria, travelling in the Holy Land, 381 - 384, reported that February 14th was a day solemnly kept in Jerusalem with a procession to Constantine's Basilica of the Resurrection, a homily on Luke 2:22— which makes the occasion perfectly clear— and a mass. This so-called Itinerarium Peregrinatio ("Pilgrimage Itinerary") of Egeria does not offer a name for the Feast, however. The date, February 14 proves that in Jerusalem at that time, Christ's birth was celebrated on January 6, Epiphany. Egeria writes for her beloved fellow nuns at home:
"XXVI The fortieth day after the Epiphany is undoubtedly celebrated here with the very highest honour, for on that day there is a procession, in which all take part, in the Anastasis, and all things are done in their order with the greatest joy, just as at Easter. All the priests, and after them the bishop, preach, always taking for their subject that part of the Gospel where Joseph and Mary brought the Lord into the Temple on the fortieth day, and Symeon and Anna the prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, saw Him, treating of the words which they spake when they saw the Lord, and of that offering which His parents made. And when everything that is customary has been done in order, the sacrament is celebrated, and the dismissal takes place."
In 542 the feast was established throughout the Eastern Empire by Justinian. In Rome, the feast appears in the Gelasian Sacramentary, a manuscript collection of the 7th and 8th centuries associated with Pope Gelasius I, but with many interpolations and some forgeries. There it carries for the first time the new title of the feast of Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Late in time though it may be, Candlemas is still the most ancient of all the festivals in honor of the Virgin Mary. The date of the feast in Rome was moved forward to the 2nd of February, since during the late 4th century the Roman feast of Christ's nativity been introduced as December 25th.
Though modern laypeople picture Candlemas as an important feast throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, in fact it spread slowly in the West; it is not found in the Lectionary of Silos (650) nor in the Calendar (731-741) of Sainte-Genevieve of Paris. Later, however, Candlemas did become important, and therefore found its way into the secular calendar. References to it are common in later medieval and early Modern literature; Shakespeare's Twelfth Night is recorded as having its first performance on Candlemas Day, 1602. It remains one of the Scottish quarter days, at which debts are paid and law courts are in session.
Candlemas is chiefly observed nowadays in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions. In the Roman Catholic tradition it is the day on which believers bring beeswax candles to their local church to blessed for use in the church or in the home.
Relation to non-Christian celebrations
The actual date of Candlemas depends on the date for Christmas: Candlemas follows 40 days after. Thus there is no independent meaningfulness to the date of Candlemas. It is plausible that some features of pagan observances were incorporated into Christian rites of Candlemas, when the celebration of Candlemas spread to north-west Europe.
Modern neopagans have argued that Candlemas is a Christianization of an ancient pagan festival, Imbolc, which was celebrated in pre-Christian Ireland at about the same time of year; this festival marked the mid-way point between the Winter Solstice and the Spring Equinox, and was celebrated with lights to hasten the coming of spring. This is close to the date of Candlemas in the eastern Church. There is however no evidence that this festival was widespread, and there is no reason to suppose that an Irish festival would have influenced the practice of the Jerusalem church in the late fourth century.
Secular historians have sometimes argued that the Roman church introduced Candlemas celebrations in opposition to the pagan feast of Lupercalia. The Catholic Encyclopedia is definite in its rejection of this argument: "The feast was certainly not introduced by Pope Gelasius to suppress the excesses of the Lupercalia," (referencing J.P. Migne, Missale Gothicum, 691). The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 agrees: the association with Gelasius "has led some to suppose that it was ordained by Pope Gelasius I in 492 as a counter-attraction to the heathen Lupercalia; but for this there is no warrant." Since the two festivals are both concerned with the ritual purification of women, not all historians are convinced that the connection is purely coincidental. Gelasius' certainly did write a treatise against Lupercalia, and this still exists (see Lupercalia.) Nevertheless it is clear that Candlemas merely follows by forty days whatever day is celebrated as Christ's Nativity.
The tradition that some modern Christians observe, of lighting a candle in each window (or in each room), does not appear to be ancient. It is not the origin of the name "Candlemas" which refers to a blessing of candles.
Superstitions
"Down with the rosemary, and so
Down with the bays and misletoe ;
Down with the holly, ivy, all,
Wherewith ye dress'd the Christmas Hall"
— Robert Herrick (1591-1674), "Ceremony upon Candlemas Eve"
As the poem by Robert Herrick records, the eve of Candlemas was the day on which Christmas decorations of greenery were removed from people's homes; for traces of berries, holly and so forth will bring death among the congregation before another year is out.
Hedgehog Day was observed by the Romans during the Festival of Februa on February 2. It is believed that when a hibernating hedgehog emerges from its den on Hedgehog Day and sees its shadow, there is a clear moon and six more weeks of winter. This is also the date bears emerge from their winter hibernation to inspect the weather; and wolves who choose to return to their lairs on this day know that the severe weather will continue for another forty days at least. In the British Isles, good weather at Candlemas is taken to indicate severe winter weather later:
If Candlemas Day is bright and clear,
there'll be two winters in the year.
In the United States, Candlemas evolved into Groundhog Day celebrated on the same date. replacing the hedgehog with a groundhog since there are no native hedgehogs in the Americas.
The earliest American reference to Groundhog Day can be found at the Pennsylvania Dutch Folklore Center at Franklin and Marshall College:
February 4, 1841 - from Morgantown, Berks County (Pennsylvania) storekeeper James Morris' diary..."Last Tuesday, the 2nd, was Candlemas day, the day on which, according to the Germans, the Groundhog peeps out of his winter quarters and if he sees his shadow he pops back for another six weeks nap, but if the day be cloudy he remains out, as the weather is to be moderate."
In France, Candlemas is celebrated with pancakes, which must be eaten only after eight p.m.
Sailors are often reluctant to set sail on Candlemas Day, believing that any voyage begun then will end in disaster.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia and from ShiningRise.com
Candlemas
February 2. Also groundhog day / hedgehog day
Candlemas is the last festival in the Christian year that is dated by reference to Christmas; subsequent holidays are calculated with reference to Easter, so Candlemas marks the end of the Christmas and Epiphany season.
Candlemas is observed on February 2nd in the Western churches and February 15th in the Eastern churches. Its formal name is either the festival of the Purification of the Virgin (especially in the uniate rites of the Roman Catholic Church), the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple (especially in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church). In the Orthodox Church it is known as the Feast of the Presentation of our Lord and Savior in the Temple.
The date of Candlemas is established by the date set for the Nativity of Jesus, for it comes 40 days afterwards. Under Mosaic law, a mother who had given birth to a man-child was considered unclean for seven days; moreover she was to remain for three and thirty days "in the blood of her purification." Candlemas therefore corresponds to the day on which Mary, according to Jewish law (see Leviticus 12:2 - 8), should have attended a ceremony of ritual purification. The gospel of Luke 2:22-39 relates that Mary attended such a ceremony in the Jerusalem temple, and this explains the formal names given to the festival.
In the West, the date of Christmas is now fixed at December 25, and Candlemas therefore falls the following February 2. The dating is identical among Orthodox Christians, except that the ecclesiastic December 25th of most Orthodox Christians falls on January 6th of the civil calendar, meaning that most Orthodox Christians celebrate the fest on February 14th.
History
The earliest reference to a celebration was when the intrepid pilgrim nun Egeria, travelling in the Holy Land, 381 - 384, reported that February 14th was a day solemnly kept in Jerusalem with a procession to Constantine's Basilica of the Resurrection, a homily on Luke 2:22— which makes the occasion perfectly clear— and a mass. This so-called Itinerarium Peregrinatio ("Pilgrimage Itinerary") of Egeria does not offer a name for the Feast, however. The date, February 14 proves that in Jerusalem at that time, Christ's birth was celebrated on January 6, Epiphany. Egeria writes for her beloved fellow nuns at home:
"XXVI The fortieth day after the Epiphany is undoubtedly celebrated here with the very highest honour, for on that day there is a procession, in which all take part, in the Anastasis, and all things are done in their order with the greatest joy, just as at Easter. All the priests, and after them the bishop, preach, always taking for their subject that part of the Gospel where Joseph and Mary brought the Lord into the Temple on the fortieth day, and Symeon and Anna the prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, saw Him, treating of the words which they spake when they saw the Lord, and of that offering which His parents made. And when everything that is customary has been done in order, the sacrament is celebrated, and the dismissal takes place."
In 542 the feast was established throughout the Eastern Empire by Justinian. In Rome, the feast appears in the Gelasian Sacramentary, a manuscript collection of the 7th and 8th centuries associated with Pope Gelasius I, but with many interpolations and some forgeries. There it carries for the first time the new title of the feast of Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Late in time though it may be, Candlemas is still the most ancient of all the festivals in honor of the Virgin Mary. The date of the feast in Rome was moved forward to the 2nd of February, since during the late 4th century the Roman feast of Christ's nativity been introduced as December 25th.
Though modern laypeople picture Candlemas as an important feast throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, in fact it spread slowly in the West; it is not found in the Lectionary of Silos (650) nor in the Calendar (731-741) of Sainte-Genevieve of Paris. Later, however, Candlemas did become important, and therefore found its way into the secular calendar. References to it are common in later medieval and early Modern literature; Shakespeare's Twelfth Night is recorded as having its first performance on Candlemas Day, 1602. It remains one of the Scottish quarter days, at which debts are paid and law courts are in session.
Candlemas is chiefly observed nowadays in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions. In the Roman Catholic tradition it is the day on which believers bring beeswax candles to their local church to blessed for use in the church or in the home.
Relation to non-Christian celebrations
The actual date of Candlemas depends on the date for Christmas: Candlemas follows 40 days after. Thus there is no independent meaningfulness to the date of Candlemas. It is plausible that some features of pagan observances were incorporated into Christian rites of Candlemas, when the celebration of Candlemas spread to north-west Europe.
Modern neopagans have argued that Candlemas is a Christianization of an ancient pagan festival, Imbolc, which was celebrated in pre-Christian Ireland at about the same time of year; this festival marked the mid-way point between the Winter Solstice and the Spring Equinox, and was celebrated with lights to hasten the coming of spring. This is close to the date of Candlemas in the eastern Church. There is however no evidence that this festival was widespread, and there is no reason to suppose that an Irish festival would have influenced the practice of the Jerusalem church in the late fourth century.
Secular historians have sometimes argued that the Roman church introduced Candlemas celebrations in opposition to the pagan feast of Lupercalia. The Catholic Encyclopedia is definite in its rejection of this argument: "The feast was certainly not introduced by Pope Gelasius to suppress the excesses of the Lupercalia," (referencing J.P. Migne, Missale Gothicum, 691). The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 agrees: the association with Gelasius "has led some to suppose that it was ordained by Pope Gelasius I in 492 as a counter-attraction to the heathen Lupercalia; but for this there is no warrant." Since the two festivals are both concerned with the ritual purification of women, not all historians are convinced that the connection is purely coincidental. Gelasius' certainly did write a treatise against Lupercalia, and this still exists (see Lupercalia.) Nevertheless it is clear that Candlemas merely follows by forty days whatever day is celebrated as Christ's Nativity.
The tradition that some modern Christians observe, of lighting a candle in each window (or in each room), does not appear to be ancient. It is not the origin of the name "Candlemas" which refers to a blessing of candles.
Superstitions
"Down with the rosemary, and so
Down with the bays and misletoe ;
Down with the holly, ivy, all,
Wherewith ye dress'd the Christmas Hall"
— Robert Herrick (1591-1674), "Ceremony upon Candlemas Eve"
As the poem by Robert Herrick records, the eve of Candlemas was the day on which Christmas decorations of greenery were removed from people's homes; for traces of berries, holly and so forth will bring death among the congregation before another year is out.
Hedgehog Day was observed by the Romans during the Festival of Februa on February 2. It is believed that when a hibernating hedgehog emerges from its den on Hedgehog Day and sees its shadow, there is a clear moon and six more weeks of winter. This is also the date bears emerge from their winter hibernation to inspect the weather; and wolves who choose to return to their lairs on this day know that the severe weather will continue for another forty days at least. In the British Isles, good weather at Candlemas is taken to indicate severe winter weather later:
If Candlemas Day is bright and clear,
there'll be two winters in the year.
In the United States, Candlemas evolved into Groundhog Day celebrated on the same date. replacing the hedgehog with a groundhog since there are no native hedgehogs in the Americas.
The earliest American reference to Groundhog Day can be found at the Pennsylvania Dutch Folklore Center at Franklin and Marshall College:
February 4, 1841 - from Morgantown, Berks County (Pennsylvania) storekeeper James Morris' diary..."Last Tuesday, the 2nd, was Candlemas day, the day on which, according to the Germans, the Groundhog peeps out of his winter quarters and if he sees his shadow he pops back for another six weeks nap, but if the day be cloudy he remains out, as the weather is to be moderate."
In France, Candlemas is celebrated with pancakes, which must be eaten only after eight p.m.
Sailors are often reluctant to set sail on Candlemas Day, believing that any voyage begun then will end in disaster.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia and from ShiningRise.com
DON'T FORGET TO CELEBRATE THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS!
Because our secular culture and much of our religious culture celebrates Christmas with reckless abandon during the season of Advent, the actual celebration of the 12 Days of Christmas which begins December 25th is anti-climatic. More importantly, the Catholic Church celebrates the Octave of Christmas which concludes on January 1st with the Solemnity of The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God. In the Extraordinary Calendar it is the Circumcision of the Lord. These eight liturgical days form only one day but extended over eight days. In a sense time stands still for those eight days, a taste of eternity. The following article on the 12 Days of Christmas is very interesting:
The Twelve Days of Christmas
The twelve days of Christmas are not the twelve days before Christmas, but are instead the twelve days from Christmas until the beginning of Epiphany (January 6th; the 12 days count from December 25 until January 5), which is when the three Wise Men or Magi arrived on the scene.
In some families, it was and still is traditional to give Christmas gifts for each of those twelve days, much as gifts are given to children on each of the days of Hanukkah. Some have suggested that the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" is actually a song of instruction with hidden meanings to the basic teachings of the Faith. The "true love" mentioned in the song is not an earthly suitor, but refers to God Himself. The "me" who receives the presents refers to every baptized person who is part of the Christian Faith [see note below].
On the 1st day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 1, Christmas Day, December 25
A Partridge in a Pear Tree
The partridge in a pear tree is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. In the song, Christ is symbolically presented as a mother partridge that feigns injury to decoy predators from her helpless nestlings, much in memory of the expression of Christ's sadness over the fate of Jerusalem: "Jerusalem! Jerusalem! How often would I have sheltered you under my wings, as a hen does her chicks, but you would not have it so . . . ." (Luke 13:34)
On the 2nd day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 2, December 26
Two Turtle Doves
The Old and New Testaments, which together bear witness to God's self-revelation in history and the creation of a people to tell the Story of God to the world.
On the 3rd day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 3, December 27
Three French Hens
The Three Theological Virtues: 1) Faith, 2) Hope, and 3) Love (1 Corinthians 13:13)
On the 4th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 4, December 28
Four Calling Birds
The Four Gospels: 1) Matthew, 2) Mark, 3) Luke, and 4) John, which proclaim the Good News of God's reconciliation of the world to Himself in Jesus Christ.
On the 5th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 5, December 29
Five Gold Rings
The first Five Books of the Old Testament, known as the Torah or the Pentateuch: 1) Genesis, 2) Exodus, 3) Leviticus, 4) Numbers, and 5) Deuteronomy, which gives the history of humanity's sinful failure and God's response of grace in the creation of a people to be a light to the world.
On the 6th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 6, December 30
Six Geese A-laying
The six days of creation that confesses God as Creator and Sustainer of the world (Genesis 1).
On the 7th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 7, December 31
Seven Swans A-swimming
The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: 1) prophecy, 2) ministry, 3) teaching, 4) exhortation, 5) giving, 6) leading, and 7) compassion (Romans 12:6-8; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:8-11)
On the 8th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 8, January 1
Eight Maids A-milking
The eight Beatitudes: 1) Blessed are the poor in spirit, 2) those who mourn, 3) the meek, 4) those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, 5) the merciful, 6) the pure in heart, 7) the peacemakers, 8) those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake. (Matthew 5:3-10)
On the 9th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 9, January 2
Nine Ladies Dancing
The nine Fruit of the Holy Spirit: 1) love, 2) joy, 3) peace, 4) patience, 5) kindness,
6) generosity, 7) faithfulness, 8) gentleness, and 9) self-control. (Galatians 5:22)
On the 10th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 10, January 3
Ten Lords A-leaping
The ten commandments: 1) You shall have no other gods before me; 2) Do not make an idol; 3) Do not take God's name in vain; 4) Remember the Sabbath Day; 5) Honor your father and mother; 6) Do not murder; 7) Do not commit adultery; 8) Do not steal; 9) Do not bear false witness; 10) Do not covet. (Exodus 20:1-17)
On the 11th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 11, January 4
Eleven Pipers Piping
The eleven Faithful Apostles: 1) Simon Peter, 2) Andrew, 3) James, 4) John, 5) Philip, 6) Bartholomew, 7) Matthew, 8) Thomas, 9) James bar Alphaeus, 10) Simon the Zealot, 11) Judas bar James. (Luke 6:14-16). The list does not include the twelfth disciple, Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus to the religious leaders and the Romans.
On the 12th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 12, January 5
Twelve Drummers Drumming
The Twelve points of doctrine in the Apostles' Creed: 1) I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. 2) I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. 3) He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. 4) He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell [the grave]. 5) On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. 6) He will come again to judge the living and the dead. 7) I believe in the Holy Spirit, 8) the holy catholic Church, 9) the communion of saints, 10) the forgiveness of sins, 11) the resurrection of the body, 12) and life everlasting.
[Note: The popular song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" is usually seen as simply a nonsense song for children with secular origins. However, some have suggested that it is a song of Christian instruction, perhaps dating to the 16th century religious wars in England, with hidden references to the basic teachings of the Christian Faith. They contend that it was a mnemonic device to teach the catechism to youngsters. The "true love" mentioned in the song is not an earthly suitor, but refers to God Himself. The "me" who receives the presents refers to every baptized person who is part of the Christian Faith. Each of the "days" represents some aspect of the Christian Faith that was important for children to learn.
However, many have questioned the historical accuracy of this origin of the song The Twelve Days of Christmas. While some have trying to debunk this as an "urban myth" out of personal agendas, others have tried to deal with this account of the song's origin in the name of historical accuracy (see Snopes on The 12 Days of Christmas). There is little "hard" evidence available either way. Some church historians affirm this account as basically accurate, while others point out apparent historical and logical discrepancies.
However, we need to acknowledge that the "evidence" on both sides is mostly in logical deduction and probabilities. Lack of positive evidence does not automatically provide negative evidence. One internet site devoted to debunking hoaxes and legends says that, "there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the song 'The Twelve Days of Christmas' was created or used as a secret means of preserving tenets of the Catholic faith, or that this claim is anything but a fanciful modern day speculation. . .." What is omitted is that there is no "substantive evidence" that will disprove it either.
It is certainly possible, in fact probable, that this view of the song is legendary or anecdotal. Without corroboration and in the absence of "substantive evidence," we probably should not take rigid positions on either side and turn the song into a crusade for personal opinions. That would do more to violate the spirit of Christmas than the song is worth. So, for the sake of historical accuracy, we need to acknowledge the likelihood that the song had secular origins.
However, on another level, this should not prevent us from using the song in celebration of Christmas. Many of the symbols of Christianity were not originally religious, including even the present date of Christmas, but were appropriated from contemporary culture by the Christian Faith as vehicles of worship and proclamation. Perhaps, when all is said and done, historical accuracy is not really the point. Perhaps more important is that Christians can celebrate their rich heritage, and God's grace, through one more avenue this Christmas. Now, when they hear what they once thought was a secular "nonsense song," they will be reminded in one more way of the grace of God working in transforming ways in their lives and in our world. After all, is that not the meaning of Christmas anyway? -Dennis R. Bratcher]
The Twelve Days of Christmas
The twelve days of Christmas are not the twelve days before Christmas, but are instead the twelve days from Christmas until the beginning of Epiphany (January 6th; the 12 days count from December 25 until January 5), which is when the three Wise Men or Magi arrived on the scene.
In some families, it was and still is traditional to give Christmas gifts for each of those twelve days, much as gifts are given to children on each of the days of Hanukkah. Some have suggested that the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" is actually a song of instruction with hidden meanings to the basic teachings of the Faith. The "true love" mentioned in the song is not an earthly suitor, but refers to God Himself. The "me" who receives the presents refers to every baptized person who is part of the Christian Faith [see note below].
On the 1st day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 1, Christmas Day, December 25
A Partridge in a Pear Tree
The partridge in a pear tree is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. In the song, Christ is symbolically presented as a mother partridge that feigns injury to decoy predators from her helpless nestlings, much in memory of the expression of Christ's sadness over the fate of Jerusalem: "Jerusalem! Jerusalem! How often would I have sheltered you under my wings, as a hen does her chicks, but you would not have it so . . . ." (Luke 13:34)
On the 2nd day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 2, December 26
Two Turtle Doves
The Old and New Testaments, which together bear witness to God's self-revelation in history and the creation of a people to tell the Story of God to the world.
On the 3rd day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 3, December 27
Three French Hens
The Three Theological Virtues: 1) Faith, 2) Hope, and 3) Love (1 Corinthians 13:13)
On the 4th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 4, December 28
Four Calling Birds
The Four Gospels: 1) Matthew, 2) Mark, 3) Luke, and 4) John, which proclaim the Good News of God's reconciliation of the world to Himself in Jesus Christ.
On the 5th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 5, December 29
Five Gold Rings
The first Five Books of the Old Testament, known as the Torah or the Pentateuch: 1) Genesis, 2) Exodus, 3) Leviticus, 4) Numbers, and 5) Deuteronomy, which gives the history of humanity's sinful failure and God's response of grace in the creation of a people to be a light to the world.
On the 6th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 6, December 30
Six Geese A-laying
The six days of creation that confesses God as Creator and Sustainer of the world (Genesis 1).
On the 7th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 7, December 31
Seven Swans A-swimming
The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: 1) prophecy, 2) ministry, 3) teaching, 4) exhortation, 5) giving, 6) leading, and 7) compassion (Romans 12:6-8; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:8-11)
On the 8th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 8, January 1
Eight Maids A-milking
The eight Beatitudes: 1) Blessed are the poor in spirit, 2) those who mourn, 3) the meek, 4) those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, 5) the merciful, 6) the pure in heart, 7) the peacemakers, 8) those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake. (Matthew 5:3-10)
On the 9th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 9, January 2
Nine Ladies Dancing
The nine Fruit of the Holy Spirit: 1) love, 2) joy, 3) peace, 4) patience, 5) kindness,
6) generosity, 7) faithfulness, 8) gentleness, and 9) self-control. (Galatians 5:22)
On the 10th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 10, January 3
Ten Lords A-leaping
The ten commandments: 1) You shall have no other gods before me; 2) Do not make an idol; 3) Do not take God's name in vain; 4) Remember the Sabbath Day; 5) Honor your father and mother; 6) Do not murder; 7) Do not commit adultery; 8) Do not steal; 9) Do not bear false witness; 10) Do not covet. (Exodus 20:1-17)
On the 11th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 11, January 4
Eleven Pipers Piping
The eleven Faithful Apostles: 1) Simon Peter, 2) Andrew, 3) James, 4) John, 5) Philip, 6) Bartholomew, 7) Matthew, 8) Thomas, 9) James bar Alphaeus, 10) Simon the Zealot, 11) Judas bar James. (Luke 6:14-16). The list does not include the twelfth disciple, Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus to the religious leaders and the Romans.
On the 12th day of Christmas my true love sent to me...
Day 12, January 5
Twelve Drummers Drumming
The Twelve points of doctrine in the Apostles' Creed: 1) I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. 2) I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. 3) He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. 4) He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell [the grave]. 5) On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. 6) He will come again to judge the living and the dead. 7) I believe in the Holy Spirit, 8) the holy catholic Church, 9) the communion of saints, 10) the forgiveness of sins, 11) the resurrection of the body, 12) and life everlasting.
[Note: The popular song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" is usually seen as simply a nonsense song for children with secular origins. However, some have suggested that it is a song of Christian instruction, perhaps dating to the 16th century religious wars in England, with hidden references to the basic teachings of the Christian Faith. They contend that it was a mnemonic device to teach the catechism to youngsters. The "true love" mentioned in the song is not an earthly suitor, but refers to God Himself. The "me" who receives the presents refers to every baptized person who is part of the Christian Faith. Each of the "days" represents some aspect of the Christian Faith that was important for children to learn.
However, many have questioned the historical accuracy of this origin of the song The Twelve Days of Christmas. While some have trying to debunk this as an "urban myth" out of personal agendas, others have tried to deal with this account of the song's origin in the name of historical accuracy (see Snopes on The 12 Days of Christmas). There is little "hard" evidence available either way. Some church historians affirm this account as basically accurate, while others point out apparent historical and logical discrepancies.
However, we need to acknowledge that the "evidence" on both sides is mostly in logical deduction and probabilities. Lack of positive evidence does not automatically provide negative evidence. One internet site devoted to debunking hoaxes and legends says that, "there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the song 'The Twelve Days of Christmas' was created or used as a secret means of preserving tenets of the Catholic faith, or that this claim is anything but a fanciful modern day speculation. . .." What is omitted is that there is no "substantive evidence" that will disprove it either.
It is certainly possible, in fact probable, that this view of the song is legendary or anecdotal. Without corroboration and in the absence of "substantive evidence," we probably should not take rigid positions on either side and turn the song into a crusade for personal opinions. That would do more to violate the spirit of Christmas than the song is worth. So, for the sake of historical accuracy, we need to acknowledge the likelihood that the song had secular origins.
However, on another level, this should not prevent us from using the song in celebration of Christmas. Many of the symbols of Christianity were not originally religious, including even the present date of Christmas, but were appropriated from contemporary culture by the Christian Faith as vehicles of worship and proclamation. Perhaps, when all is said and done, historical accuracy is not really the point. Perhaps more important is that Christians can celebrate their rich heritage, and God's grace, through one more avenue this Christmas. Now, when they hear what they once thought was a secular "nonsense song," they will be reminded in one more way of the grace of God working in transforming ways in their lives and in our world. After all, is that not the meaning of Christmas anyway? -Dennis R. Bratcher]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)