I have been on vacation. I will be until August 1st. When I am away on vacation I attend Mass as a lay person. I know, I know, I am not a lay person, but give me a break when I'm on the road.
I won't say where I was for the Sunday Mass that I describe below. I don't want to offend anyone.
Let me point out first that the problem with the Sunday Mass I attended was not the Mass itself, but the manner in which it was celebrated, a manner that has been endorsed by way too many liturgists, bishops and priests since the 1970 missal became the normative Mass of the Church.
Let me list the problems that became distractions for me!
1. The opening hymn was well sung by all, led by a cantor. However, the official Entrance Chant was omitted. Nevertheless, the momentum of the Mass had begun, in fact the Mass began with the Entrance Hymn, although it substituted for the official Entrance Chant.
2. Despite the fact that the Mass had begun and our prayer and worship had begun with it, after the "Sign of the Cross" and the official Greeting, the priest felt compelled to use a secular greeting and welcome afterward. Then he introduced the visiting priest who would preach the homily, giving a bit of a biography of him and then he made an announcement that the second collection would be for the Church in Africa and that we should be generous. The preacher was an African priest. Then after this lengthy introduction, the celebrant then returned to the text of the Mass but first said, "Now let us begin the Mass with the "penitential act...."
Newsflash for this priest: the Mass began with the Entrance Hymn. He is the one who introduced an "intermission" to the Mass by stepping out of the Mass with his banal secular greeting and welcome and the introduction of the visiting African priest and the purpose of the homily to get people to contribute to the second collection. This intermission was an announcement for the second collection!
3. The priest made up his own rubrics that were extremely distracting to me. At the offertory, he prepared the chalice with the wine and water prior to offering the bread for consecration. This is illicit.
4. Then the priest, presumably because he could not genuflect made profound bows at the appropriate places where bows or genuflections are prescribed. But this is how he did it: he bowed with hands dropped and as though he was touching his toes with his hands. He looked like a table in doing so! It was horrible and I have never seen this kind of profound bow and he extended it in time!
5. I simply cannot stand it when any priest, including this one, prays facing the congregation as though he is proclaiming the prayer to the congregation even looking at us and establishing eye contact with as many of us as possible. His voice did not sound prayerful. It sounded like a priest reading the Gospel to the congregation.
6. He gestured to the congregation at the words of consecration. I had to close my eyes and pretend the priest was facing ad orientem. Why do I have to look at a priest who is playacting? He saw himself as the star of the show. He wanted to be a good actor. He failed because the priestly function at Mass isn't acting or putting on a show for the congregation. If he simply faced the same direction as the rest of us, this would have gone a long way in making this Mass a truly prayerful experience.
So the problem with the 1970 missal and this could be the case with the 1962 Missal as well is that the priest faces the people, thus making him an actor, not a priest, and thus tempts him to play to the congregation. Abusing the rubrics of the Mass, which technically could happen in the 1962 missal too, is the other problem.
The one thing that can't happen in the 1962 Missal but unfortunately happens way, way, way too frequently in the 1970 Missal is the ad libs after the official greeting of the Mass. I see it constantly from priests to bishops. This needs to stop. The Mass begins with the Entrance Chant, not the Penitential Act!
The other problem with the 1970 Missal not present in the 1962 Missal is the omission of the official Entrance Chant (Introit) as well as Offertory and Communion Antiphons. This is simply inexcusable and has led to so much banality in the Mass and clericalism concerning who chooses the substitutions and the reasons for it.
I love the 1970 Missal when it is celebrated properly. It was with every papal Mass I attended with Pope Francis at the Vatican. The propers were always chanted and the laity's parts were chanted in Latin. The Pope did not ad lib anywhere, and celebrated the Mass in an "ad orientem" sort of way even when facing the congregation. His voice was quiet, even subdued, not a proclamation voice, which he did use during the homily. Of course he can't genuflect but his bows were appropriate profound bows and very reverent and not overdone or theatrical.
Translate
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
THE TRUE VISION OF ECUMENISM AND CHRISTIAN UNITY AS POPE FRANCIS ENVISIONS IT AND IT IS IN CONTINUITY WITH POPE BENEDICT'S VISION!
I am all in favor of true Christian Unity. I am also in favor of increasing partial Christian Unity. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are in almost complete union with the Catholic Church except they do not acknowledge the pope as the head of the Church but I do believe they recognize him (at least most Orthodox Christians) as the Bishop of Rome. The sacrament of Holy Orders is in tact with the Orthodox and thus all of the other sacraments of the Church are in tact too. I hope one day that there will be inter-communion between the Orthodox and Catholics as well as full corporate union.
The Reformation denoninations or "communions" are further away from full communion or even partial communion with the Catholic Church. Every Protestant denomination including the Anglican Communion have an invalid Sacrament of Holy Orders. Historic Reformation denominations reject Holy Orders as a Sacrament. Anglican claim to have vaid orders but this is a fallacy. Any denomination that has invalid Holy Orders cannot have valid sacraments except for Holy Baptism if properly celebrated according to the mind of the Church and marriage.
Thus the only way to true ecumenism and Christian Unity is what Saint Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have initiated and Pope Francis is continuing. When Saint John Paul II allowed Anglican/Episcopal bishops and priests to come into the full communion and unity of the Catholic Church they need to be validly ordained in the Catholic Church, which meant they needed to be validly confirmed in the Sacrament of Confirmation, needed to make their First Holy Communion also as well as their First Confession, this was and is the way to true Christian Unity and ecumenism. As Anglicans/Episcopalians, not only were these bishops and priests not ordained, they weren't even confirmed and they have never received or celebrated a valid Holy Communion. Their confessions were not valid either.
Pope Benedict kicked St. John Paul's Pastoral Provision up a major notch when His Holiness established the Anglian Ordinariate. The ecumenism in this is that the Holy Father acknowledges the patrimony of the Anglican Heritage even after their break from Rome, and has allowed that patrimony to continue in the Ordinariate's liturgy and sacraments as well as tradition of the Liturgy of the Hours in the Book of Common Prayer.
This would never have been possible without the Second Vatican Council!
And now Pope Francis in continuity with Pope Benedict continues his tradition of being the pope of Christian unity by encouraging Anglicans and Episcopalians to come into the true unity of the true Church through the Anglican Ordinariate.
This is what Pope Francis endorsed yesterday, the Anglican Ordinariate's outreach to Anglicans/Episcopalians encouraging them to join the Anglican Ordinariate and thus continue the journey to true Christian Unity:
The endorsement was delivered in a letter from the Apostolic Nuncio to Great Britain, Archbishop Antonio Mennini, to Monsignor Keith Newton, the Ordinary of the Ordinariate.
The full text of Archbishop Mennini’s letter reads as follows:
“At the request of the Secretariat of State, I have been asked to inform you that the Holy Father Francis, on learning of the national day of exploration entitled “Called to be One”, organised by the various Groups of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and due to take place on Saturday 6 September 2014, wishes to convey his good wishes and prayers for a successful and inspiring event. The Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing upon all those persons who are participating in this significant event and working in any way for the promotion and presentation of the Catholic Faith and the Gospel in Great Britain”.
The Nuncio ends with his own prayerful good wishes for a very successful day.
Pope Francis’ blessing on the exploration day and Archbishop Mennini’s words of support for it follow a statement of welcome for the initiative from Cardinal Vincent Nichols. In his capacity as President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, the Cardinal said: “the Ordinariate both enriches the Catholic Church with Catholic aspects of the beautiful heritage and culture of Anglican patrimony and advances the cause of unity which must be the ultimate aim of all ecumenical activity… I wish you every success with this initiative. I hope it will attract many interested enquirers”.
Last week Mgr Newton warmly invited all those who are interested in the Ordinariate to attend the exploration day “whether because they are considering their future or just because they would like to see more of what we are and what we do” . Mgr Newton’s invitation came in his response to the Church of England General Synod’s decision to allow women to be ordained as bishops. In the same statement Mgr Newton said that, though that decision was a very happy one for many within the Church of England, it made the position undeniably harder for those within the Anglican Church who still longed for unity with Rome.
The Ordinariate was set up by Pope Benedict in 2011 to make it possible for Anglicans who wish to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church to do so, bringing with them much of the heritage and traditions of Anglicanism. Pope Benedict described these as “treasures to be shared”. On the exploration day, each of the 40 or so Ordinariate groups across the country will host a different event, with the common theme of the vision for Christian unity which is at the heart of the Ordinariate.
The Reformation denoninations or "communions" are further away from full communion or even partial communion with the Catholic Church. Every Protestant denomination including the Anglican Communion have an invalid Sacrament of Holy Orders. Historic Reformation denominations reject Holy Orders as a Sacrament. Anglican claim to have vaid orders but this is a fallacy. Any denomination that has invalid Holy Orders cannot have valid sacraments except for Holy Baptism if properly celebrated according to the mind of the Church and marriage.
Thus the only way to true ecumenism and Christian Unity is what Saint Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have initiated and Pope Francis is continuing. When Saint John Paul II allowed Anglican/Episcopal bishops and priests to come into the full communion and unity of the Catholic Church they need to be validly ordained in the Catholic Church, which meant they needed to be validly confirmed in the Sacrament of Confirmation, needed to make their First Holy Communion also as well as their First Confession, this was and is the way to true Christian Unity and ecumenism. As Anglicans/Episcopalians, not only were these bishops and priests not ordained, they weren't even confirmed and they have never received or celebrated a valid Holy Communion. Their confessions were not valid either.
Pope Benedict kicked St. John Paul's Pastoral Provision up a major notch when His Holiness established the Anglian Ordinariate. The ecumenism in this is that the Holy Father acknowledges the patrimony of the Anglican Heritage even after their break from Rome, and has allowed that patrimony to continue in the Ordinariate's liturgy and sacraments as well as tradition of the Liturgy of the Hours in the Book of Common Prayer.
This would never have been possible without the Second Vatican Council!
And now Pope Francis in continuity with Pope Benedict continues his tradition of being the pope of Christian unity by encouraging Anglicans and Episcopalians to come into the true unity of the true Church through the Anglican Ordinariate.
This is what Pope Francis endorsed yesterday, the Anglican Ordinariate's outreach to Anglicans/Episcopalians encouraging them to join the Anglican Ordinariate and thus continue the journey to true Christian Unity:
The endorsement was delivered in a letter from the Apostolic Nuncio to Great Britain, Archbishop Antonio Mennini, to Monsignor Keith Newton, the Ordinary of the Ordinariate.
The full text of Archbishop Mennini’s letter reads as follows:
“At the request of the Secretariat of State, I have been asked to inform you that the Holy Father Francis, on learning of the national day of exploration entitled “Called to be One”, organised by the various Groups of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and due to take place on Saturday 6 September 2014, wishes to convey his good wishes and prayers for a successful and inspiring event. The Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing upon all those persons who are participating in this significant event and working in any way for the promotion and presentation of the Catholic Faith and the Gospel in Great Britain”.
The Nuncio ends with his own prayerful good wishes for a very successful day.
Pope Francis’ blessing on the exploration day and Archbishop Mennini’s words of support for it follow a statement of welcome for the initiative from Cardinal Vincent Nichols. In his capacity as President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, the Cardinal said: “the Ordinariate both enriches the Catholic Church with Catholic aspects of the beautiful heritage and culture of Anglican patrimony and advances the cause of unity which must be the ultimate aim of all ecumenical activity… I wish you every success with this initiative. I hope it will attract many interested enquirers”.
Last week Mgr Newton warmly invited all those who are interested in the Ordinariate to attend the exploration day “whether because they are considering their future or just because they would like to see more of what we are and what we do” . Mgr Newton’s invitation came in his response to the Church of England General Synod’s decision to allow women to be ordained as bishops. In the same statement Mgr Newton said that, though that decision was a very happy one for many within the Church of England, it made the position undeniably harder for those within the Anglican Church who still longed for unity with Rome.
The Ordinariate was set up by Pope Benedict in 2011 to make it possible for Anglicans who wish to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church to do so, bringing with them much of the heritage and traditions of Anglicanism. Pope Benedict described these as “treasures to be shared”. On the exploration day, each of the 40 or so Ordinariate groups across the country will host a different event, with the common theme of the vision for Christian unity which is at the heart of the Ordinariate.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
THE RETURN OF THE VEIL AND I DON'T MEAN CHALICE VEILS
There are women's religious orders that are still recruiting new members, such as the Nashville Dominicans. All of the LCWR orders have a death wish and will soon be extinct thinking that the processes of dialogue, study and the so-called renewal of religious life was and still is the way to go. It is very sad to watch such delusion.
At any rate, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, has an article by Mother Anna Maria Canopi (what an appropriate last name!) entitled "A Royal Crown" extolling the return of the veil:
“Receive the veil and the holy habit that are the insignia of our consecration… and never forget that you are bound to the service of Christ and of his body, the Church”. With this formula the bishop gives the nun her veil and religious habit on the day of her perpetual profession and consecration. The newly consecrated religious sings: Posuit signum in faciem meam… “The Lord has set his seal upon my face, that I should admit no other spouse than him”.
In her Spiritual Exercises,in which she renews her consecration in preparation for receiving the veil spiritually, the great mystic St Gertrude prays: “O my Best-Beloved… grant me to rest beneath the shadow of thy love…. Give me with thine own hand this veil, which represents purity; rule me and lead me evermore, that I may bring it up to thy glorious judgement-seat, with the fruit of a chaste innocence increased a hundred-fold” (Spiritual Exercises, III).
The meaning of the veil is clear. The nun, consecrated in virginity to be exclusively Christ’s bride, must remove herself from the gaze of other possible pretenders and lovers. For this reason she lives retired from the world in the cloister (claustrum, from which derive the terms “cloistered/enclosed” and cloister/enclosure), to be for ever beneath God’s gaze and, through her purity and the intensity of her love, for his pleasure alone.
The veil is thus a kind of cloister within the cloister, because in the monastery too the nun has a very reserved lifestyle and way of relating with the other cloistered nuns. However, this custom has nothing oppressive about it; indeed the veil is very dear to the nun and she wears it with devotion, kissing it every time she puts it on and takes it off.
By preventing her from letting her eyes stray, the veil helps her keep the gaze of her heart more directly focused on God in the contemplation of his face that she ever seeks and longs for. The veil is also the sign of the modesty that conceals her, in a certain sense, from her spouse himself. It was in this light that the Fathers always read the Song of Songs: “Behold, you are beautiful, my love, behold, you are beautiful! Your eyes are doves behind your veil… a garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed” (4:1, 12).
These splendid verses express the admiration and moved wonder of the divine Spouse before his promised bride, totally recollected and clad in humble, delicate reserve. It is the very mystery of virginal love to ask to be delicately guarded behind a veil. With St Paul we can truly exclaim how great is “this mystery”, both virginal and nuptial (cf. Eph 5:32).
Of course the mindset and perception of our time make it hard to understand and acknowledge this tradition of nuns, yet there is no lack of vocations to the cloistered life as a testimony of the value of personal faith in our society that is so widely secularized and de-Christianized.
Actually, by a plan of God, the monastic vocation serves to compensate for the emptiness of faith that exists in the world: Indeed, it is not contempt or forgetfulness but, rather, a life that excludes compromise with all that is mundane and corrupt so as to be dedicated entirely to prayer and ascesis for the benefit of all humanity.
Nuns therefore live the nuptial and maternal mystery sublimely on the supernatural level. The vivid symbolism of the veil indicates precisely the generosity and intensity with which the cloistered religious makes a gift of herself to God for everyone, remaining hidden so as to be totally free in giving.
I cannot forget the emotion I felt at the moment when the bishop gave me the blessed veil: it was as if heaven was arching above me to envelop me in the sphere of the sacred, in the intimacy of Christ’s Heart, likening me to the Virgin Mother Mary.
When in the fourth century Pope Liberius consecrated Marcellina, the sister of Bishop Ambrose of Milan, at the moment when he placed the religious veil upon her head, all the people who thronged St Peter’s Basilica served as witnesses, applauding and proclaiming “Amen, Amen!”.
The liturgical rite of the velatio virginum is highly evocative. In ancient times red veils were also used to signify that the virgin had been redeemed by the blood of her Spouse, Christ. In one of his most beautiful homilies St Ambrose – who can be described as a “consecrator of virgins” – thus describes a consecrated woman with these words: “adorned with all the virtues, wrapped in the veil stained purple by the Blood of her Lord, she advances like a queen, ever bearing in her body the death of Christ” (De institutione virginis, 17.109).
Therefore the character of martyrdom is rightly attributed to virginity too. Indeed it is held to be a form of martyrdom, since it is a life totally given. Its royal dignity is consequently recognized and crowned by the Spouse, King of the Universe. In this way the veil also comes to mean a royal crown.
Can there be any loftier dignity for a woman? But the veil itself keeps her humble. In the Basilica of San Simpliciano in Milan there is a sepulchral inscription that says, quite simply: Hic iacet Leuteria cum capite velato. This poetic verse consigns to the memory of those to come a woman distinguished by the veil, a sign of consecration to Christ and a sign of the most exalted nobility.
In speaking of the veil it is impossible not to turn one’s attention to the Immaculate Virgin, portrayed with a veil and sometimes with a veil large enough also to enfold the Baby Jesus, whom she holds in her arms.
Around her the most beautiful poetry has flourished in every epoch; to her are addressed the most heartfelt invocations that she will stretch out her veil over all of us, over all humanity of which she was made Mother. “O Virgin Mother, daughter of thy Son”, Dante chants, “created beings all in lowliness /surpassing, as in height above them all, / term by th’eternal counsel preordained, / ennobler of thy nature, so advanc’d / in thee, that its great Maker / did not scorn, himself, in his own work enclos’d to dwell… / Here thou to us, of charity and love, / art, as the noon day torch: and art, beneath, / to mortal men, of hope a living spring. / So mighty art thou, Lady! And so great, / that he who grace desireth, and comes not / to thee for aidance, fain would have desire /fly without wings. / Nor only him who asks / thy bounty succours, but doth freely oft / forerun the asking.” (The Divine Comedy, Paradise, Canto 23, 1-18).
Veiled, but present – like the Virgin Mary – is the woman entirely dedicated to the Lord in prayer; she does not become a disembodied and impassive being far from the common people, but rather a woman who is capable of sacrifice and universal love, given completely freely because she is a virgin.
This is the mystic meaning of the veil upon the head of consecrated women. They are hidden from the world to be in the heart of the world and to bring all men and women to the Heart of Christ, the one Spouse of the Church, of humanity which he redeemed at the price of his Blood, to make it holy and immaculate in his sight; resplendent with that spiritual beauty which must be preserved from all profanation behind the sacred virginal veil.
The Benedictine Anna Maria Canopi (1931) founded Mater Ecclesiae Abbey on the Island of San Giulio on Lake Orta, Novara. A prolific writer and profoundly erudite, she is the author of many books on monastic and Christian spirituality. She collaborated in the Italian Episcopal Conference’s publication of the Bible and in the Catechismo della Chiesa cattolica. In 1993 she drafted the text of the Way of the Cross for John Paul II. The photographs on this page are by Sebastiano Papa (1932-2002).
Anna Maria Canopi
At any rate, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, has an article by Mother Anna Maria Canopi (what an appropriate last name!) entitled "A Royal Crown" extolling the return of the veil:
“Receive the veil and the holy habit that are the insignia of our consecration… and never forget that you are bound to the service of Christ and of his body, the Church”. With this formula the bishop gives the nun her veil and religious habit on the day of her perpetual profession and consecration. The newly consecrated religious sings: Posuit signum in faciem meam… “The Lord has set his seal upon my face, that I should admit no other spouse than him”.
In her Spiritual Exercises,in which she renews her consecration in preparation for receiving the veil spiritually, the great mystic St Gertrude prays: “O my Best-Beloved… grant me to rest beneath the shadow of thy love…. Give me with thine own hand this veil, which represents purity; rule me and lead me evermore, that I may bring it up to thy glorious judgement-seat, with the fruit of a chaste innocence increased a hundred-fold” (Spiritual Exercises, III).
The meaning of the veil is clear. The nun, consecrated in virginity to be exclusively Christ’s bride, must remove herself from the gaze of other possible pretenders and lovers. For this reason she lives retired from the world in the cloister (claustrum, from which derive the terms “cloistered/enclosed” and cloister/enclosure), to be for ever beneath God’s gaze and, through her purity and the intensity of her love, for his pleasure alone.
The veil is thus a kind of cloister within the cloister, because in the monastery too the nun has a very reserved lifestyle and way of relating with the other cloistered nuns. However, this custom has nothing oppressive about it; indeed the veil is very dear to the nun and she wears it with devotion, kissing it every time she puts it on and takes it off.
By preventing her from letting her eyes stray, the veil helps her keep the gaze of her heart more directly focused on God in the contemplation of his face that she ever seeks and longs for. The veil is also the sign of the modesty that conceals her, in a certain sense, from her spouse himself. It was in this light that the Fathers always read the Song of Songs: “Behold, you are beautiful, my love, behold, you are beautiful! Your eyes are doves behind your veil… a garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed” (4:1, 12).
These splendid verses express the admiration and moved wonder of the divine Spouse before his promised bride, totally recollected and clad in humble, delicate reserve. It is the very mystery of virginal love to ask to be delicately guarded behind a veil. With St Paul we can truly exclaim how great is “this mystery”, both virginal and nuptial (cf. Eph 5:32).
Of course the mindset and perception of our time make it hard to understand and acknowledge this tradition of nuns, yet there is no lack of vocations to the cloistered life as a testimony of the value of personal faith in our society that is so widely secularized and de-Christianized.
Actually, by a plan of God, the monastic vocation serves to compensate for the emptiness of faith that exists in the world: Indeed, it is not contempt or forgetfulness but, rather, a life that excludes compromise with all that is mundane and corrupt so as to be dedicated entirely to prayer and ascesis for the benefit of all humanity.
Nuns therefore live the nuptial and maternal mystery sublimely on the supernatural level. The vivid symbolism of the veil indicates precisely the generosity and intensity with which the cloistered religious makes a gift of herself to God for everyone, remaining hidden so as to be totally free in giving.
I cannot forget the emotion I felt at the moment when the bishop gave me the blessed veil: it was as if heaven was arching above me to envelop me in the sphere of the sacred, in the intimacy of Christ’s Heart, likening me to the Virgin Mother Mary.
When in the fourth century Pope Liberius consecrated Marcellina, the sister of Bishop Ambrose of Milan, at the moment when he placed the religious veil upon her head, all the people who thronged St Peter’s Basilica served as witnesses, applauding and proclaiming “Amen, Amen!”.
The liturgical rite of the velatio virginum is highly evocative. In ancient times red veils were also used to signify that the virgin had been redeemed by the blood of her Spouse, Christ. In one of his most beautiful homilies St Ambrose – who can be described as a “consecrator of virgins” – thus describes a consecrated woman with these words: “adorned with all the virtues, wrapped in the veil stained purple by the Blood of her Lord, she advances like a queen, ever bearing in her body the death of Christ” (De institutione virginis, 17.109).
Therefore the character of martyrdom is rightly attributed to virginity too. Indeed it is held to be a form of martyrdom, since it is a life totally given. Its royal dignity is consequently recognized and crowned by the Spouse, King of the Universe. In this way the veil also comes to mean a royal crown.
Can there be any loftier dignity for a woman? But the veil itself keeps her humble. In the Basilica of San Simpliciano in Milan there is a sepulchral inscription that says, quite simply: Hic iacet Leuteria cum capite velato. This poetic verse consigns to the memory of those to come a woman distinguished by the veil, a sign of consecration to Christ and a sign of the most exalted nobility.
In speaking of the veil it is impossible not to turn one’s attention to the Immaculate Virgin, portrayed with a veil and sometimes with a veil large enough also to enfold the Baby Jesus, whom she holds in her arms.
Around her the most beautiful poetry has flourished in every epoch; to her are addressed the most heartfelt invocations that she will stretch out her veil over all of us, over all humanity of which she was made Mother. “O Virgin Mother, daughter of thy Son”, Dante chants, “created beings all in lowliness /surpassing, as in height above them all, / term by th’eternal counsel preordained, / ennobler of thy nature, so advanc’d / in thee, that its great Maker / did not scorn, himself, in his own work enclos’d to dwell… / Here thou to us, of charity and love, / art, as the noon day torch: and art, beneath, / to mortal men, of hope a living spring. / So mighty art thou, Lady! And so great, / that he who grace desireth, and comes not / to thee for aidance, fain would have desire /fly without wings. / Nor only him who asks / thy bounty succours, but doth freely oft / forerun the asking.” (The Divine Comedy, Paradise, Canto 23, 1-18).
Veiled, but present – like the Virgin Mary – is the woman entirely dedicated to the Lord in prayer; she does not become a disembodied and impassive being far from the common people, but rather a woman who is capable of sacrifice and universal love, given completely freely because she is a virgin.
This is the mystic meaning of the veil upon the head of consecrated women. They are hidden from the world to be in the heart of the world and to bring all men and women to the Heart of Christ, the one Spouse of the Church, of humanity which he redeemed at the price of his Blood, to make it holy and immaculate in his sight; resplendent with that spiritual beauty which must be preserved from all profanation behind the sacred virginal veil.
The Benedictine Anna Maria Canopi (1931) founded Mater Ecclesiae Abbey on the Island of San Giulio on Lake Orta, Novara. A prolific writer and profoundly erudite, she is the author of many books on monastic and Christian spirituality. She collaborated in the Italian Episcopal Conference’s publication of the Bible and in the Catechismo della Chiesa cattolica. In 1993 she drafted the text of the Way of the Cross for John Paul II. The photographs on this page are by Sebastiano Papa (1932-2002).
Anna Maria Canopi
DOGMATISM AND LITURGISTS AND THE SCOURGE OF LITURGICAL MUSIC
Some of the most dogmatic people in the Church are liturgists and musicians. They are also some of the most clerical, controling and unrelenting.
While on this blog, there are some who prefer the 1962 Missal and are quite vocal about it, they know as well as I that they are in the minority in terms of complaining about not having the 1962 missal in their parishes. The number one complaint concerns not the form of the Mass, but the music of the Mass.
Since Vatican II and with the 1970 misssal and its subsequent reforms, there is a wide range of what style of music can be sung at Mass. If you ask most rank and file Cathoics, when they think of the music of the Mass, they think of the four hymns that most parishes sing during the Mass but in reaity are simply filler or add-on and not intrinsic to the Mass--the Processional hymn from a hymnal, either contemporary or traditional, the offertory hymn which is not required; the communion hymns and anthems, clearly filler music and the recessional hymn which is not mentioned in the GIRM or rubrics of the Mass.
If an authentic and organic revision of the 1962 Missal had occurred and the music of the Mass meant that one sang the Mass, especially the offiical Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons, I don't think we would have the problems we have today. Keep in mind the four-hymn sandwhich was applied to the post-Vatican II Sung Mass which was common in many places for the Low Mass of pre-Vatican II times. Most parishes had many low Masses on Sunday. It was allowed to sing devotional hymns at these Mass although nothing of the Mass was sung, all was spoken.
The Sung Mass of the pre-Vatican II Mass required no devotional hymns except perhaps for fillers at the offertory and Communion. What was sung was the Mass in Latin Chant, either simple or more complex chant and for those with good scholas and choirs, maaybe polyphony or theatrical settings of the Latin Mass (although this was very rare on a normal Sunday).
The biggest problem in the post-Vatican II era (that began almost immediately in the mid 1960's) was the allowance of other instruments apart from the organ for music duiring the Mass. Guitars and tambourines made their appearance. Then drums and bongos. Then banjos and cassenettes. In the 1960's many of these newly allowed instruments were encouraged to keep the young interested in the Church. Rock and Roll was the in-thing and somehow folk music became a trend also.
This divided families. Parents despised the rock and roll Masses and so children went to that particular Mass while parents went to the organ Mass.
This trend continues with the so-called Lifeteen Masses geared toward the young.
Don't get me wrong. While I have no desire to begin a "folk group" in 2014, I can tolerate "folk or contemporary" muisc at Mass. I have filled in on Sunday at our two other Macon parishes which have contemporary groups leading the music and I don't find it off-putting but I do find the Catholic spirituality of the Mass compromised a bit by this style of music that for the most part is difficult to sing and usually only the group is singing and not the congregation.
But this is true also of our St. Michael's Hymnal at St. Joseph Church. While there are many traditional hymns in it with a few contemporary ones, some are difficult to sing and some are real clunkers.
Should we narrow the types of instruments used at Mass and once again recover the Low Mass/ High Mass terms as they were understood prior to Vatican II and be strict about it. This means at a low Mass, nothing of the Mass is chanted but all of the Mass is spoken. Hymns may be allowed as filler. The high Mass is the Mass itself sung, every part of it with no substitutions of any part with hymns.
So, should we go back to the low Mass, high Mass concepts and rigidly so? Will this solve the problems?
While on this blog, there are some who prefer the 1962 Missal and are quite vocal about it, they know as well as I that they are in the minority in terms of complaining about not having the 1962 missal in their parishes. The number one complaint concerns not the form of the Mass, but the music of the Mass.
Since Vatican II and with the 1970 misssal and its subsequent reforms, there is a wide range of what style of music can be sung at Mass. If you ask most rank and file Cathoics, when they think of the music of the Mass, they think of the four hymns that most parishes sing during the Mass but in reaity are simply filler or add-on and not intrinsic to the Mass--the Processional hymn from a hymnal, either contemporary or traditional, the offertory hymn which is not required; the communion hymns and anthems, clearly filler music and the recessional hymn which is not mentioned in the GIRM or rubrics of the Mass.
If an authentic and organic revision of the 1962 Missal had occurred and the music of the Mass meant that one sang the Mass, especially the offiical Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons, I don't think we would have the problems we have today. Keep in mind the four-hymn sandwhich was applied to the post-Vatican II Sung Mass which was common in many places for the Low Mass of pre-Vatican II times. Most parishes had many low Masses on Sunday. It was allowed to sing devotional hymns at these Mass although nothing of the Mass was sung, all was spoken.
The Sung Mass of the pre-Vatican II Mass required no devotional hymns except perhaps for fillers at the offertory and Communion. What was sung was the Mass in Latin Chant, either simple or more complex chant and for those with good scholas and choirs, maaybe polyphony or theatrical settings of the Latin Mass (although this was very rare on a normal Sunday).
The biggest problem in the post-Vatican II era (that began almost immediately in the mid 1960's) was the allowance of other instruments apart from the organ for music duiring the Mass. Guitars and tambourines made their appearance. Then drums and bongos. Then banjos and cassenettes. In the 1960's many of these newly allowed instruments were encouraged to keep the young interested in the Church. Rock and Roll was the in-thing and somehow folk music became a trend also.
This divided families. Parents despised the rock and roll Masses and so children went to that particular Mass while parents went to the organ Mass.
This trend continues with the so-called Lifeteen Masses geared toward the young.
Don't get me wrong. While I have no desire to begin a "folk group" in 2014, I can tolerate "folk or contemporary" muisc at Mass. I have filled in on Sunday at our two other Macon parishes which have contemporary groups leading the music and I don't find it off-putting but I do find the Catholic spirituality of the Mass compromised a bit by this style of music that for the most part is difficult to sing and usually only the group is singing and not the congregation.
But this is true also of our St. Michael's Hymnal at St. Joseph Church. While there are many traditional hymns in it with a few contemporary ones, some are difficult to sing and some are real clunkers.
Should we narrow the types of instruments used at Mass and once again recover the Low Mass/ High Mass terms as they were understood prior to Vatican II and be strict about it. This means at a low Mass, nothing of the Mass is chanted but all of the Mass is spoken. Hymns may be allowed as filler. The high Mass is the Mass itself sung, every part of it with no substitutions of any part with hymns.
So, should we go back to the low Mass, high Mass concepts and rigidly so? Will this solve the problems?
Monday, July 21, 2014
NOSTALGIA FOR THE WAY WE HOPE TO BE--NOT!
Yesterday I reported that the new bishop of Rocheshter has eliminated lay preaching in his diocese which had become common there since the 1970's. This caused me to reflect on things that I have tried to suppress from the 1970's when I was in the seminary.
Don't get me wrong. I actually loved the 1970's and the seminary that I attended which was St. Mary's in Baltimore. As a 22 year old, I thought the academics there had an inside track on what would be the Church of the future. I thought they actually were clairvoyant and that was exciting for this clairvoyant.
They taught us that they were clairvoyant indirectly of course. They knew better than the bishops of the Church and the Magisterium (sounds like the ultr-conservatives today, doesn't it?) In fact the academic theologians of the 1970's thought and taught that they were a part of the Magisterium and that their loyal opposition to the bishops was the plan of God. Some would call their loyal opposition dissent, heterodoxy and heresy, but let's not split hairs.
But the lay preachers in Rocheshter, implemented in the inglorious 1970's reminds me of the direction that these aging hippies hoped the Church would take, but failed to realize that their road was but a detour that most Catholics left after Pope Saint John Paul II was elected to the papacy in 1978.
Those of us stuck in the 1970's promoted an ideology that was all part of what is called the clericalization of the laity and thw laizing of the clergy that was in full swing in the 1970's. This is how this ideology developed with an overall plan to replace the ordained priesthood with a corps of laity that would be chosen to celebrate Mass and the other sacraments without the need for ordination.
It started with lay lectors. At first this was a benign decision to allow laity to enter the sanctuary and perform a litugical function of those preparing for the clerical state. This seem logical as boys who are laity would function as "lay" acolytes, altar boys.
Then to facilitate a speedier distribution of Holy Communion (but the real motive, to truly clericalize the laity) extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion came about). But along the way to EMHC's there was the experimentation with the laity simply helping themselves to Holy Communion, both the paten and chalice on the altar without any minister the point being if priests self-communicated why not the laity, but this was short lived and the EMHC's won out in the end.
Then by the mid 1970's when I was in the seminary, the phenomenon of lay preachers was reaching its zenith. Our rector even invited laity from outside the seminary to preach at Mass. They weren't half bad and I liked the novelty at the time and wondered how it would work in the Diocese of Savannah when I would implement it after I was ordained.
Then of course gender neutral language was implemented paving the way for female ordination and same sex marriage and of course the Church as mother or bride was not allowed to be used as a methaphor as it was sexist.
But ultimately the Dutch (and to this day too, like the lay preachers in Rochester) were paving the way to a lay priesthood which would celebrate Mass and the other sacraments. All that was needed is the ability to preside well and be a good president of the assembly. They would simply be chosen ad hoc, prepared like we prepare lectors, altar servers and EMHC's and then scheduled to celebrate this or that Mass.
To pave the way for this, priests would only enter the sanctuary to do their functioin and then sit with the laity in the congregation at other times.
That's the way we hoped we would be and some my age and older still think it can be that way. Time will tell, but I don't think so.
Don't get me wrong. I actually loved the 1970's and the seminary that I attended which was St. Mary's in Baltimore. As a 22 year old, I thought the academics there had an inside track on what would be the Church of the future. I thought they actually were clairvoyant and that was exciting for this clairvoyant.
They taught us that they were clairvoyant indirectly of course. They knew better than the bishops of the Church and the Magisterium (sounds like the ultr-conservatives today, doesn't it?) In fact the academic theologians of the 1970's thought and taught that they were a part of the Magisterium and that their loyal opposition to the bishops was the plan of God. Some would call their loyal opposition dissent, heterodoxy and heresy, but let's not split hairs.
But the lay preachers in Rocheshter, implemented in the inglorious 1970's reminds me of the direction that these aging hippies hoped the Church would take, but failed to realize that their road was but a detour that most Catholics left after Pope Saint John Paul II was elected to the papacy in 1978.
Those of us stuck in the 1970's promoted an ideology that was all part of what is called the clericalization of the laity and thw laizing of the clergy that was in full swing in the 1970's. This is how this ideology developed with an overall plan to replace the ordained priesthood with a corps of laity that would be chosen to celebrate Mass and the other sacraments without the need for ordination.
It started with lay lectors. At first this was a benign decision to allow laity to enter the sanctuary and perform a litugical function of those preparing for the clerical state. This seem logical as boys who are laity would function as "lay" acolytes, altar boys.
Then to facilitate a speedier distribution of Holy Communion (but the real motive, to truly clericalize the laity) extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion came about). But along the way to EMHC's there was the experimentation with the laity simply helping themselves to Holy Communion, both the paten and chalice on the altar without any minister the point being if priests self-communicated why not the laity, but this was short lived and the EMHC's won out in the end.
Then by the mid 1970's when I was in the seminary, the phenomenon of lay preachers was reaching its zenith. Our rector even invited laity from outside the seminary to preach at Mass. They weren't half bad and I liked the novelty at the time and wondered how it would work in the Diocese of Savannah when I would implement it after I was ordained.
Then of course gender neutral language was implemented paving the way for female ordination and same sex marriage and of course the Church as mother or bride was not allowed to be used as a methaphor as it was sexist.
But ultimately the Dutch (and to this day too, like the lay preachers in Rochester) were paving the way to a lay priesthood which would celebrate Mass and the other sacraments. All that was needed is the ability to preside well and be a good president of the assembly. They would simply be chosen ad hoc, prepared like we prepare lectors, altar servers and EMHC's and then scheduled to celebrate this or that Mass.
To pave the way for this, priests would only enter the sanctuary to do their functioin and then sit with the laity in the congregation at other times.
That's the way we hoped we would be and some my age and older still think it can be that way. Time will tell, but I don't think so.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
POPE BENEDICT PUTS THE HISTORICAL CRITICAL METHOD AND NUTTING IN THEIR PLACE!
This scholarly article speaks for itself and is quite timely for this blog!
Marcus Holden FAITH Magazine January-February 2009
Fr Holden, assistant priest in St Augustine's, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, and co-author of the popular Evangelium catechetical resource brings out the traditional context in which Pope Benedict is trying to place modern scriptural exegesis, and the great enrichening for all this could involve.
The Historical-Critical method of biblical exegesis has dominated scripture study for more than a hundred years. Despite the uneasiness of many theologians, and especially the faithful, about the way this method has been conducted, few have dared to challenge its presuppositions, implications and exclusivity. One figure who has consistently called for a re-evaluation, purification and augmentation of the prevalent method of biblical exegesis is Joseph Ratzinger. Now as Pope Benedict XVI his contribution in this crucial area of theology will be all the more influential.
In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph Ratzinger calls us to move beyond mere historical-criticism to a more profoundly theological reading of Scripture.[1] He acknowledges that a truly historical approach is necessary, but while it only deals with the isolated past as past it "does not exhaust the interpretive task for someone who sees the biblical writings as a single corpus of Holy Scripture inspired by God".[2] In expressing this point Ratzinger subtly shifts the debate away from an assessment of what the historical-critical method has achieved or not to a new openness for something which goes much further than historical-criticism itself.
Critical historical exegesis during the past hundred years has undoubtedly aided unprecedented advancements in our biblical knowledge: in the better understanding of literary genres, source history and textual composition; in etymology and archaeology; in the penetration of ancient languages and cultural settings. Nevertheless, at no other time has there been such a crisis in relating our faith to the findings of modern research. This problem is felt most acutely in relation to the person of Jesus Christ himself. Many scholars have separated the 'Jesus of history' from the 'Christ of faith' and in doing so have severed theology and doctrine from reason and reality. The potential fall-out from this trend is worrying: "Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is indanger of clutching at thin air".[3]
Against the background of scepticism it is not surprising that the perennial Christian method of discovering theological truth and spiritual meaning in the Scriptures was virtually eclipsed in the second half of the 20th century. Ratzinger comments that the great synthesis found in the traditional Christian interpretation, "would become problematic when historical consciousness developed rules of interpretation that made Patristic exegesis appear non-historical and so objectively indefensible".[4]
Reflecting upon this peculiar impasse, Joseph Ratzinger has noted that the crisis in biblical understanding feeds off and fuels a broader predicament in theological hermeneutics. Almost twenty years ago Joseph Ratzinger observed:
Modern exegesis, as we have seen, completely relegated God to the incomprehensible, the otherworldly, and the inexpressible in order to be able to treat the biblical text itself as an entirely worldly reality according to natural-scientific methods.[5]
The secularisation of exegesis stems from a more general anti-supernatural rationalism that has been present and growing since the "Enlightenment". If one denies the reality of God and his active guidance of creation, then it follows that one will deny the concept of an inspired Scripture that gives us objective divine revelation and the key to understanding history. A theological and supernatural view of exegesis is then automatically dismissed, thought unworthy of serious scholarship, or easily reduced to a footnote in the history of ideas.
The issue at stake, which Ratzinger has picked up on, is not one of defending or attacking biblical historicity but rather a more fundamental one. What the rationalist, with his particular philosophy, could not accept was the claim inherent in traditional Christian exegesis that there is a privileged knowledge about the meaning of history that comes from the transcendent God himself. The properly theological and revelatory sense of Scripture, which was always an essential part of traditional exegesis, could never be considered as "religion within the confines of pure reason" and was therefore unacceptable.
When historical criticism, whose "specific object is the human word as human",[6] is used by a rationalist scholar as the exclusive approach to Scripture, then faith is necessarily banished out of exegesis. Furthermore, when dogmatic belief in a unified corpus of Scripture is excluded any connection between the Old and New Testaments is rendered utterly tenuous. As Ratzinger has noted:
The triumph of historical-critical exegesis seemed to sound the death knell for the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament initiated by the New Testament itself. It is not a question here of historical details, as we have seen, it is the very foundations of Christianity that are being questioned.[7]
Even the greatest aids in discovering the surface meaning of an isolated text of Scripture are of little use if the meaning and implications of that literal passage can be neither contextualised within the whole biblical corpus nor allowed to be mined for revealed theological truth. Historical-criticism always deals with Scripture as a series of fragmented works from different periods and by definition remains at the basic level of human hypothesis. If this becomes the exclusive endeavour of the biblical scholar then theology has been excluded categorically and has been replaced by an essentially secular philosophy and world view.
The Ratzinger Solution
Joseph Ratzinger has indicated two clear ways by which we can help foster a solution to the exegetical crisis.
1. Refocusing Through Faith and Reason
The first is to purify the historical-critical method itself. The purification of the historical-critical method can take place by off-loading the philosophical baggage that has weighed it down in suspicion of faith. There is no reason why we cannot conduct perfectly rigorous and impartial historical research on the history of ancient peoples and texts while believing at the same time in God, providence and divine inspiration. In Jesus of Nazareth, Ratzinger cuts through so much of the paper thin scepticism of the critics both with cogent arguments and above all with that devastatingly simple alternative open to every enquirer, "I trust the gospels".[8] By this masterful stroke the philosophically loaded hermeneutic of suspicion isreplaced by a hermeneutic of faith.
Joseph Ratzinger has often called theologians and exegetes to be wary of implicit philosophical presuppositions that carry an innate bias against faith and the supernatural dimension of revelation. He has stated very clearly that, "at its core, the debate about modern exegesis is not a dispute among historians: it is rather a philosophical debate".[9] In practice he calls us to reverse the hermeneutic of suspicion from Holy Scripture back upon the exegetes themselves. In his work Behold the Pierced One he states the thesis:
"The historical-critical method and other modern scientific methods are important for an understanding of Holy Scripture and Tradition. Their value, however, depends on the hermeneutical (philosophical) context in which they are applied."
Reservations regarding minimalist pre-suppositions need not be seen as an attack on the historical-critical method itself. What is being called for here is that the critics practice a little more self-criticism and self-limitation with a greater hermeneutical honesty and philosophical awareness.[10]
A purified historical critical method can, according to Ratzinger, be open to and work with a truly theological understanding of Scripture. This openness is akin to the receptivity of reason before faith. From the merely human standpoint, "the individual writings (Schrifte) of the Bible point somehow to the living process that shapes the one Scripture (Schrift)".u ;.[11]We begin to see, even without theological faith, the marvellous inter-connectedness of these documents and the events described therein.[12] When faith begins to see that inter-connectedness as coming from Christ and as supernaturally founded then we enter into the realm of theology proper. "But this act offaith is based upon reason -historical reason - and so makes it possible to see the internal unity of Scripture".[13]
Throughout the work, Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict gives us a practical exegetical example of a purified historical approach to Scripture. He reads the sacred text with faith and reverence, with a motive of seeking the true "face of Christ",
in the context of the Church's divinely guaranteed doctrine, while at the same time employing to the full modern historical tools for understanding the original context, languages and construction of the biblical text. Just as the scribe of the Kingdom, as put before us by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, Ratzinger brings out of his treasures, "things both new and old" (Mt 13:52). In a recent audience Pope Benedict said:
"We must never forget that the Word of God transcends time. Human opinions come and go. What is very modern today will be very antiquated tomorrow. On the other hand, the Word of God is the Word of eternal life, it bears within it eternity and is valid for ever. By carrying the Word of God within us, we therefore carry within us eternity, eternal life".[14]
2. A Return to the Spiritual Sense of Scripture
Against a background of new theological openness Joseph Ratzinger offers a second way towards solving our exegetical crisis, namely, to revive a truly theological exegesis as exhibited by the Fathers of the Church. In his important preface to the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1993 document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, he praises "new attempts to recover patristic exegesis and to include renewed forms of a spiritual interpretation of Scripture".[15] One need only survey his many theological writings to see just how steeped he is in Patristic theology. He himself has described very explicitly his love of the Fathers of the Church and the theological influence they have had upon him. For a renewal of exegesis hespeaks of the need "to introduce into the discussion the great proposals of patristic and medieval thought".[16] In his work Jesus of Nazareth and in his unprecedented audience addresses on the Fathers of the Church he has been putting this ideal into practice.
Almost all the Fathers of the Church, to a greater or lesser extent, employed in their writings a particular method of scriptural exegesis which they believed to have been established by the Lord Jesus himself and passed down through the Apostles.[17] This method uncovers a "mystical meaning" of the Scriptures founded on God's perfect plan for the history and salvation of the world. This "mystical meaning" came to be called the spiritual sense of Scripture. It was practiced in homilies, commentaries, theological tomes and in the teaching of catechumens. This exegetical method was bequeathed to later centuries as the common inheritance of East and West and was at the heart of theology throughout the medieval period.
The spiritual sense pertains to the Christological significance of the persons, objects, events, images and symbols referred to by the human authors of the bible. These significations are not extrinsically or retrospectively applied but rather God himself has established them in his far reaching providence. Words signify things, but when God inspires, the things signified by the words, also signify other important eternal and invisible things. St. Thomas Aquinas writes, "In the other sciences handed down by men, in which only words can be employed to signify, the words alone signify. But it is peculiar to Scripture that words and the very things signified by them signify something".[18] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, whichwas compiled under Ratzinger's supervision, states, "Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture, but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs".[19] This depth of meaning manifests the uniqueness of the Bible, no other book could have this kind of second order signification.
During a general audience in April 2007, Pope Benedict, when speaking of the theological contribution of the third century writer Origen, once again emphasised that while the literal sense is indispensable it opens itself to something more. He wrote:
"The purification of the historical-critical method can take place by off-loading its philosophical baggage."
"But this sense transcends us, moving us towards God in the light of the Holy Spirit, and shows us the way, shows us how to live. Mention of it is found, for example, in the ninth Homily on Numbers, where Origen likens Scripture to [fresh] walnuts: "The doctrine of the Law and the Prophets at the school of Christ is like this", the homilist says; "the letter is bitter, like the [green-covered] skin; secondly, you will come to the shell, which is the moral doctrine; thirdly, you will discover the meaning of the mysteries, with which the souls of the saints are nourished in the present life and the future" (Horn. Num. 9, 7)".[20]
In inspiring the letter of Scripture, God was also revealing in types and figures the full meaning of history and salvation in Jesus Christ. The signifying things that God has chosen are attuned to reinforce truths and refute falsehoods.[21] Furthermore, they are objects for contemplation by which God elucidates the many facets of the mysteries of faith. The significations of the spiritual sense regard matters pertaining to revealed faith, morality and glorification (and therefore fall into three distinct categories: allegory; tropology; anagogy).[22]
When the literal sense is put alongside the three spiritual senses we speak of the Quadriga. Perhaps the best-known summary of this comes from Augustine of Denmark as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny".[23] A good and classic example of the different senses relating to the scriptural reference "Jerusalem" in Psalm 137 is taken from St. John Cassian:
These four previously mentioned figures coalesce, if we desire, in one subject, so that the one and the same Jerusalem can be taken in four senses: historically as the city of the Jews; allegorically as the Church of Christ; anagogically as the heavenly city of God, which is the mother of us all; tropologically, as the soul of man, which is frequently subject to praise or blame from the Lord under this title.[24]
God himself, the Lord of history, can alone guarantee this unique form of signification. Through his special providence and inspiration God ensures that the two great Testaments have a particular relationship to Christ's coming and saving action. In fact, God has ensured that the Scriptures are radically focused as one on Christ. In Jesus of Nazareth we read that "all the currents of Scripture come together in him, that he is the focal point in terms of which the overall coherence of Scripture comes to light - everything is waiting for him, everything is moving towards him".[25] If these foundational principles are rejected a priori, as has happened in post-Enlightenment exegesis, then clearly the spiritual understandingremains closed.
Discovery of the spiritual sense of Scripture is theological exegesis par excellence. It opens up to us vast tomes of neglected Patristic and Medieval writings and gives a new appreciation of why we posses such a lavish gift as an inspired Scripture. The method comes from the New Testament itself and is not an invention of later theology. Ratzinger writes, "The Fathers of the Church created nothing new when they gave a Christological interpretation to the Old Testament; they only systematised what they themselves had already discovered in the New Testament".[26] While the New Testament itself, particularly through St. Paul, gave the formal unity and common foundation of the spiritual sense, it is to the great elaborators andpractitioners of the method to which a biblical theologian must turn for more specific guidance. Origen, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, St. Bede, amongst many others, must therefore play the primary roles in any investigation but always viewed within the context of the entire Catholic theological Tradition.[27] This return to the sources is an integral part of Joseph Ratzinger's vision of a wide-ranging hermeneutic of continuity.
Conclusion
If Pope Benedict XVI is right then the way forward for modern exegesis is in upholding history and authentic historical investigation while at the same time perceiving the theological import of that same history revealed through the providence of God. In other words, Catholic exegetes and theologians need to pursue both the precise literal sense of Scripture as well as the three spiritual senses. The Holy Father made this point very explicitly in his discourse to the Swiss Bishops in 2006:
"I would very much like to see theologians learn to interpret and love Scripture as the Council desired, in accordance with Dei Verbum: may they experience the inner unity of Scripture - something that today is helped by 'canonical exegesis' (still to be found, of course, in its timid first stages) - and then make a spiritual interpretation of it that is not externally edifying but rather an inner immersion into the presence of the Word. It seems to me a very important task to do something in this regard, to contribute to providing an introduction to living Scripture as an up-to-date Word of God, beside, with and in historical-critical exegesis".[28]
At the recent XII Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in Rome the themes of good exegetical practice so close to the Holy Father's heart were enunciated. In the preface to the preparatory document Instrumentum Laboris we hear an explicit call for a "dual, complementary approach to the Word of God"[29] which includes both critical engagement with the text and a truly Christological exegesis. The task for the biblical theologian therefore is to move "from the letter to the spirit and from the words to the Word of God".
It appears that the hard work and profound insights of the theologian Joseph Ratzinger are becoming, through the providence of God, the platform for the reform and renewal
of the Church's whole theological mission beyond the era of hermeneutical scepticism.[30]
"The reflection process was guided by the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, the Universal Pastor of the Church, who has often made reference to the topic of the synod in his discourses. In doing so, he, together with others, has voiced his desire that by rediscovering the Word of God, which is always timely and never out-of-date, the Church might rejuvenate herself and experience a new springtime. She will then be able to undertake with renewed vigour her mission of evangelisation and human promotion in today's world, which thirsts for God and his words of faith, hope and charity".[31]
Marcus Holden FAITH Magazine January-February 2009
Fr Holden, assistant priest in St Augustine's, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, and co-author of the popular Evangelium catechetical resource brings out the traditional context in which Pope Benedict is trying to place modern scriptural exegesis, and the great enrichening for all this could involve.
The Historical-Critical method of biblical exegesis has dominated scripture study for more than a hundred years. Despite the uneasiness of many theologians, and especially the faithful, about the way this method has been conducted, few have dared to challenge its presuppositions, implications and exclusivity. One figure who has consistently called for a re-evaluation, purification and augmentation of the prevalent method of biblical exegesis is Joseph Ratzinger. Now as Pope Benedict XVI his contribution in this crucial area of theology will be all the more influential.
In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph Ratzinger calls us to move beyond mere historical-criticism to a more profoundly theological reading of Scripture.[1] He acknowledges that a truly historical approach is necessary, but while it only deals with the isolated past as past it "does not exhaust the interpretive task for someone who sees the biblical writings as a single corpus of Holy Scripture inspired by God".[2] In expressing this point Ratzinger subtly shifts the debate away from an assessment of what the historical-critical method has achieved or not to a new openness for something which goes much further than historical-criticism itself.
Critical historical exegesis during the past hundred years has undoubtedly aided unprecedented advancements in our biblical knowledge: in the better understanding of literary genres, source history and textual composition; in etymology and archaeology; in the penetration of ancient languages and cultural settings. Nevertheless, at no other time has there been such a crisis in relating our faith to the findings of modern research. This problem is felt most acutely in relation to the person of Jesus Christ himself. Many scholars have separated the 'Jesus of history' from the 'Christ of faith' and in doing so have severed theology and doctrine from reason and reality. The potential fall-out from this trend is worrying: "Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is indanger of clutching at thin air".[3]
Against the background of scepticism it is not surprising that the perennial Christian method of discovering theological truth and spiritual meaning in the Scriptures was virtually eclipsed in the second half of the 20th century. Ratzinger comments that the great synthesis found in the traditional Christian interpretation, "would become problematic when historical consciousness developed rules of interpretation that made Patristic exegesis appear non-historical and so objectively indefensible".[4]
Reflecting upon this peculiar impasse, Joseph Ratzinger has noted that the crisis in biblical understanding feeds off and fuels a broader predicament in theological hermeneutics. Almost twenty years ago Joseph Ratzinger observed:
Modern exegesis, as we have seen, completely relegated God to the incomprehensible, the otherworldly, and the inexpressible in order to be able to treat the biblical text itself as an entirely worldly reality according to natural-scientific methods.[5]
The secularisation of exegesis stems from a more general anti-supernatural rationalism that has been present and growing since the "Enlightenment". If one denies the reality of God and his active guidance of creation, then it follows that one will deny the concept of an inspired Scripture that gives us objective divine revelation and the key to understanding history. A theological and supernatural view of exegesis is then automatically dismissed, thought unworthy of serious scholarship, or easily reduced to a footnote in the history of ideas.
The issue at stake, which Ratzinger has picked up on, is not one of defending or attacking biblical historicity but rather a more fundamental one. What the rationalist, with his particular philosophy, could not accept was the claim inherent in traditional Christian exegesis that there is a privileged knowledge about the meaning of history that comes from the transcendent God himself. The properly theological and revelatory sense of Scripture, which was always an essential part of traditional exegesis, could never be considered as "religion within the confines of pure reason" and was therefore unacceptable.
When historical criticism, whose "specific object is the human word as human",[6] is used by a rationalist scholar as the exclusive approach to Scripture, then faith is necessarily banished out of exegesis. Furthermore, when dogmatic belief in a unified corpus of Scripture is excluded any connection between the Old and New Testaments is rendered utterly tenuous. As Ratzinger has noted:
The triumph of historical-critical exegesis seemed to sound the death knell for the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament initiated by the New Testament itself. It is not a question here of historical details, as we have seen, it is the very foundations of Christianity that are being questioned.[7]
Even the greatest aids in discovering the surface meaning of an isolated text of Scripture are of little use if the meaning and implications of that literal passage can be neither contextualised within the whole biblical corpus nor allowed to be mined for revealed theological truth. Historical-criticism always deals with Scripture as a series of fragmented works from different periods and by definition remains at the basic level of human hypothesis. If this becomes the exclusive endeavour of the biblical scholar then theology has been excluded categorically and has been replaced by an essentially secular philosophy and world view.
The Ratzinger Solution
Joseph Ratzinger has indicated two clear ways by which we can help foster a solution to the exegetical crisis.
1. Refocusing Through Faith and Reason
The first is to purify the historical-critical method itself. The purification of the historical-critical method can take place by off-loading the philosophical baggage that has weighed it down in suspicion of faith. There is no reason why we cannot conduct perfectly rigorous and impartial historical research on the history of ancient peoples and texts while believing at the same time in God, providence and divine inspiration. In Jesus of Nazareth, Ratzinger cuts through so much of the paper thin scepticism of the critics both with cogent arguments and above all with that devastatingly simple alternative open to every enquirer, "I trust the gospels".[8] By this masterful stroke the philosophically loaded hermeneutic of suspicion isreplaced by a hermeneutic of faith.
Joseph Ratzinger has often called theologians and exegetes to be wary of implicit philosophical presuppositions that carry an innate bias against faith and the supernatural dimension of revelation. He has stated very clearly that, "at its core, the debate about modern exegesis is not a dispute among historians: it is rather a philosophical debate".[9] In practice he calls us to reverse the hermeneutic of suspicion from Holy Scripture back upon the exegetes themselves. In his work Behold the Pierced One he states the thesis:
"The historical-critical method and other modern scientific methods are important for an understanding of Holy Scripture and Tradition. Their value, however, depends on the hermeneutical (philosophical) context in which they are applied."
Reservations regarding minimalist pre-suppositions need not be seen as an attack on the historical-critical method itself. What is being called for here is that the critics practice a little more self-criticism and self-limitation with a greater hermeneutical honesty and philosophical awareness.[10]
A purified historical critical method can, according to Ratzinger, be open to and work with a truly theological understanding of Scripture. This openness is akin to the receptivity of reason before faith. From the merely human standpoint, "the individual writings (Schrifte) of the Bible point somehow to the living process that shapes the one Scripture (Schrift)".u ;.[11]We begin to see, even without theological faith, the marvellous inter-connectedness of these documents and the events described therein.[12] When faith begins to see that inter-connectedness as coming from Christ and as supernaturally founded then we enter into the realm of theology proper. "But this act offaith is based upon reason -historical reason - and so makes it possible to see the internal unity of Scripture".[13]
Throughout the work, Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict gives us a practical exegetical example of a purified historical approach to Scripture. He reads the sacred text with faith and reverence, with a motive of seeking the true "face of Christ",
in the context of the Church's divinely guaranteed doctrine, while at the same time employing to the full modern historical tools for understanding the original context, languages and construction of the biblical text. Just as the scribe of the Kingdom, as put before us by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, Ratzinger brings out of his treasures, "things both new and old" (Mt 13:52). In a recent audience Pope Benedict said:
"We must never forget that the Word of God transcends time. Human opinions come and go. What is very modern today will be very antiquated tomorrow. On the other hand, the Word of God is the Word of eternal life, it bears within it eternity and is valid for ever. By carrying the Word of God within us, we therefore carry within us eternity, eternal life".[14]
2. A Return to the Spiritual Sense of Scripture
Against a background of new theological openness Joseph Ratzinger offers a second way towards solving our exegetical crisis, namely, to revive a truly theological exegesis as exhibited by the Fathers of the Church. In his important preface to the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1993 document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, he praises "new attempts to recover patristic exegesis and to include renewed forms of a spiritual interpretation of Scripture".[15] One need only survey his many theological writings to see just how steeped he is in Patristic theology. He himself has described very explicitly his love of the Fathers of the Church and the theological influence they have had upon him. For a renewal of exegesis hespeaks of the need "to introduce into the discussion the great proposals of patristic and medieval thought".[16] In his work Jesus of Nazareth and in his unprecedented audience addresses on the Fathers of the Church he has been putting this ideal into practice.
Almost all the Fathers of the Church, to a greater or lesser extent, employed in their writings a particular method of scriptural exegesis which they believed to have been established by the Lord Jesus himself and passed down through the Apostles.[17] This method uncovers a "mystical meaning" of the Scriptures founded on God's perfect plan for the history and salvation of the world. This "mystical meaning" came to be called the spiritual sense of Scripture. It was practiced in homilies, commentaries, theological tomes and in the teaching of catechumens. This exegetical method was bequeathed to later centuries as the common inheritance of East and West and was at the heart of theology throughout the medieval period.
The spiritual sense pertains to the Christological significance of the persons, objects, events, images and symbols referred to by the human authors of the bible. These significations are not extrinsically or retrospectively applied but rather God himself has established them in his far reaching providence. Words signify things, but when God inspires, the things signified by the words, also signify other important eternal and invisible things. St. Thomas Aquinas writes, "In the other sciences handed down by men, in which only words can be employed to signify, the words alone signify. But it is peculiar to Scripture that words and the very things signified by them signify something".[18] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, whichwas compiled under Ratzinger's supervision, states, "Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture, but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs".[19] This depth of meaning manifests the uniqueness of the Bible, no other book could have this kind of second order signification.
During a general audience in April 2007, Pope Benedict, when speaking of the theological contribution of the third century writer Origen, once again emphasised that while the literal sense is indispensable it opens itself to something more. He wrote:
"The purification of the historical-critical method can take place by off-loading its philosophical baggage."
"But this sense transcends us, moving us towards God in the light of the Holy Spirit, and shows us the way, shows us how to live. Mention of it is found, for example, in the ninth Homily on Numbers, where Origen likens Scripture to [fresh] walnuts: "The doctrine of the Law and the Prophets at the school of Christ is like this", the homilist says; "the letter is bitter, like the [green-covered] skin; secondly, you will come to the shell, which is the moral doctrine; thirdly, you will discover the meaning of the mysteries, with which the souls of the saints are nourished in the present life and the future" (Horn. Num. 9, 7)".[20]
In inspiring the letter of Scripture, God was also revealing in types and figures the full meaning of history and salvation in Jesus Christ. The signifying things that God has chosen are attuned to reinforce truths and refute falsehoods.[21] Furthermore, they are objects for contemplation by which God elucidates the many facets of the mysteries of faith. The significations of the spiritual sense regard matters pertaining to revealed faith, morality and glorification (and therefore fall into three distinct categories: allegory; tropology; anagogy).[22]
When the literal sense is put alongside the three spiritual senses we speak of the Quadriga. Perhaps the best-known summary of this comes from Augustine of Denmark as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny".[23] A good and classic example of the different senses relating to the scriptural reference "Jerusalem" in Psalm 137 is taken from St. John Cassian:
These four previously mentioned figures coalesce, if we desire, in one subject, so that the one and the same Jerusalem can be taken in four senses: historically as the city of the Jews; allegorically as the Church of Christ; anagogically as the heavenly city of God, which is the mother of us all; tropologically, as the soul of man, which is frequently subject to praise or blame from the Lord under this title.[24]
God himself, the Lord of history, can alone guarantee this unique form of signification. Through his special providence and inspiration God ensures that the two great Testaments have a particular relationship to Christ's coming and saving action. In fact, God has ensured that the Scriptures are radically focused as one on Christ. In Jesus of Nazareth we read that "all the currents of Scripture come together in him, that he is the focal point in terms of which the overall coherence of Scripture comes to light - everything is waiting for him, everything is moving towards him".[25] If these foundational principles are rejected a priori, as has happened in post-Enlightenment exegesis, then clearly the spiritual understandingremains closed.
Discovery of the spiritual sense of Scripture is theological exegesis par excellence. It opens up to us vast tomes of neglected Patristic and Medieval writings and gives a new appreciation of why we posses such a lavish gift as an inspired Scripture. The method comes from the New Testament itself and is not an invention of later theology. Ratzinger writes, "The Fathers of the Church created nothing new when they gave a Christological interpretation to the Old Testament; they only systematised what they themselves had already discovered in the New Testament".[26] While the New Testament itself, particularly through St. Paul, gave the formal unity and common foundation of the spiritual sense, it is to the great elaborators andpractitioners of the method to which a biblical theologian must turn for more specific guidance. Origen, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, St. Bede, amongst many others, must therefore play the primary roles in any investigation but always viewed within the context of the entire Catholic theological Tradition.[27] This return to the sources is an integral part of Joseph Ratzinger's vision of a wide-ranging hermeneutic of continuity.
Conclusion
If Pope Benedict XVI is right then the way forward for modern exegesis is in upholding history and authentic historical investigation while at the same time perceiving the theological import of that same history revealed through the providence of God. In other words, Catholic exegetes and theologians need to pursue both the precise literal sense of Scripture as well as the three spiritual senses. The Holy Father made this point very explicitly in his discourse to the Swiss Bishops in 2006:
"I would very much like to see theologians learn to interpret and love Scripture as the Council desired, in accordance with Dei Verbum: may they experience the inner unity of Scripture - something that today is helped by 'canonical exegesis' (still to be found, of course, in its timid first stages) - and then make a spiritual interpretation of it that is not externally edifying but rather an inner immersion into the presence of the Word. It seems to me a very important task to do something in this regard, to contribute to providing an introduction to living Scripture as an up-to-date Word of God, beside, with and in historical-critical exegesis".[28]
At the recent XII Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in Rome the themes of good exegetical practice so close to the Holy Father's heart were enunciated. In the preface to the preparatory document Instrumentum Laboris we hear an explicit call for a "dual, complementary approach to the Word of God"[29] which includes both critical engagement with the text and a truly Christological exegesis. The task for the biblical theologian therefore is to move "from the letter to the spirit and from the words to the Word of God".
It appears that the hard work and profound insights of the theologian Joseph Ratzinger are becoming, through the providence of God, the platform for the reform and renewal
of the Church's whole theological mission beyond the era of hermeneutical scepticism.[30]
"The reflection process was guided by the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, the Universal Pastor of the Church, who has often made reference to the topic of the synod in his discourses. In doing so, he, together with others, has voiced his desire that by rediscovering the Word of God, which is always timely and never out-of-date, the Church might rejuvenate herself and experience a new springtime. She will then be able to undertake with renewed vigour her mission of evangelisation and human promotion in today's world, which thirsts for God and his words of faith, hope and charity".[31]
DEPARTING THE 1970'S, THE TRAIN TO ROCHESTER IN 2014 HAS ARRIVED!
The Diocese of Rochester wholeheartedly embracing the hermeneutic of the Historical/Critical method of post-Catholic biblical malarkey has been stuck in the silly season of post-Catholicism a la the 1970's. In fact ROCHESTER was a caricature of 1970's Catholicism time warp.
But in January a new sheriff entered town and he is restoring law and order of authentic 2014 Catholicism.
The new bishop is enforcing only bishops, priests and deacons preaching at Mass. Lay preachers began in the 1970's and the tome warp frozen in the Rochester tundra is only now thawing!
READ ON:
But in January a new sheriff entered town and he is restoring law and order of authentic 2014 Catholicism.
The new bishop is enforcing only bishops, priests and deacons preaching at Mass. Lay preachers began in the 1970's and the tome warp frozen in the Rochester tundra is only now thawing!
READ ON:
For the better part of 40 years in churches across the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester, clergy ceded the floor to laypeople for the delivery of the homily — the sermon that follows the reading of the Gospel at Mass.
The practice, which dated to the mid-1970s and was simultaneously derided by the faithful for running afoul of church law and praised for its inclusiveness, has come to an end.
In an extensive interview, Bishop Salvatore Matano said he has been confronting the issue on a case-by-case basis since his installation in January and is now drafting guidelines to clarify that homilies are reserved for ordained priests and deacons, as prescribed by canon law.
"It is not a policy shift as regards to the universal law of the church," Matano said. "I am trying to help the faithful understand what is the universal law of the church and how important it is that in the celebration of Mass, we do what the church asks of us."
The reversal is perhaps the starkest example yet of the contrasting stewardship of Matano with his predecessor, Bishop Matthew Clark, under whom the diocese earned a reputation as among the most liberal in the country.
Although laypeople were giving the homily before Clark's time as bishop, it was during his tenure from 1979 to 2012 that such preaching blossomed into a regular occurrence in multiple churches.
Matano called the ubiquity of the practice "a bit perplexing" and attributed it to a misinterpretation of canon law.
"In the life of the church today, there are many interpretations that people might give to a particular ruling with no malintent present, but that do need clarification," Matano said.
Many in the church have welcomed the shift as a long-awaited return to doctrine. Indeed, Matano said he began addressing the matter in response to complaints from parishioners.
But it also has been received with disappointment, particularly among women, who made up the majority of lay homilists and viewed the practice as a way to play a more active role in their faith.
"It really enriched me, and I have to say I'm struggling with it," said Diane Porcelli of Gates, who did not preach but is active at St. Mary's Church in downtown Rochester. "It's challenging my faith and I'm struggling with the exclusion."
It is estimated that 20 women, most of them pastoral administrators or associates in the diocese with divinity and theology degrees, comprised the bulk of lay homilists.
No one, including Matano, could pinpoint precisely how many churches permitted the practice, but Matano said he has corresponded with "a significant number" from which he fielded parishioner complaints.
On the matter of homilies, canon law is straightforward. "Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is pre-eminent," the law states.
Citing the law, lay homilists were careful to describe their preaching at Mass as a "reflection" on scripture rather than a homily. For all intents and purposes, however, their preaching served as a homily.
It was why Diane Harris, a writer for cleansingfiredor.com, a website that has been critical of what many Catholics view as lapses in orthodoxy in the Diocese of Rochester, avoided churches at which it was practiced.
"It made me very uncomfortable because I knew it was against church law," Harris said of lay homilists. "It felt like I could be talking to this person anywhere else, and it was taking time away from what I really wanted to hear: Preaching from a priest or deacon."
The change comes as Pope Francis is calling for both broader opportunities "for a more incisive female presence in the church" and for priests to spice up their homilies.
Last year, Francis lamented that clergy and laypeople suffer through homilies: "The laity from having to listen to them, and the clergy from having to preach them!"
Supporters of lay homilies described them as often being more attuned to modern families than those delivered by priests, who take a vow of celibacy and are prohibited from marrying.
"It was a way to have a woman's voice and a woman's experience reflect on the readings for the day," said Gloria Ulterino, an author and religious scholar who gave reflections in various churches for 30 years. "Everybody knows that not every priest has a gift for preaching."
Matano acknowledged that many women share pastoral responsibilities with priests and numerous ministries across the diocese. He said he encourages women and laypeople to preach at prayer groups and other parish functions outside the homily.
Cathy Kamp, the pastoral associate at St. Joseph's Church in Penfield, announced in a church bulletin in March that she would no longer preach during the homily but wrote that she was grateful for the experience and looked forward to preaching in other capacities.
"Humbly, I seek your prayers as I reflect on what this change means for me and other lay ministers in the Catholic church," she wrote.
Like other lay homilists, Nancy DeRycke, the pastoral associate at Our Lady of Lourdes and St. Anne Church in Brighton, said she remains committed to the church but questions whether it can and should be more flexible.
"It's a 40-year-old custom that's been part of the tradition of our local church, and people are saddened, people are frustrated and people are asking, 'Why can't you do this?' " DeRycke said. "They're not satisfied with saying, 'Because it's the law.' "
DANDREATTA@Gannett.com
Twitter.com/david_andreatta
Saturday, July 19, 2014
CONTRADICTING OR CORRECTING THE POPE ON CELIBACY BUT ACCOMPLISHED IN AN ORTHODOX, DIPLOMATIC WAY: INDIRECTLY
"The current dispute over celibacy would be overcome through a deepened understanding of what it means to be a priest. And if it were understood and taught that the priesthood is not a function of service exercised in the name of the community, but that the priest - by virtue of the sacrament received - teachers, guides, and sanctifies “in persona Christi," all the more so would it be understood that it is precisely for this reason that he also takes on Christ's way of life. And a priesthood understood and lived in this way would once again exercise a power of attraction over the finest of the young."--Cardinal Walter Brandmüller
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller a Church of historian, wisely contradicts a statement attributed to Pope Francis by the atheist journalist Eugenio Scalfari. Scalfari's interview attributes to His Holiness' mouth the following words concerning the law of celibacy:
"Perhaps you do not know that celibacy was established in the 10th century, 900 years after the death of our Lord. The Eastern Catholic Church even now has the option for its priests to marry. The problem certainly exists, but it is not large in scope. It will take time, but the solutions are there and I will find them."
My Comments first: When I was in the seminary in the 1970's there was much foment for changing the celibacy requirement of the Latin Rite Church (Western Church). The same statement attributed to Pope Francis by the journalist Scalfari was used. Yet there was no real critical analysis of this statement meant to manipulate an outcome in the 1970's period.
Further, when this specious statement is used to undermine the Church's celibacy rule, it is done so without distinction of which priests in the Eastern Rite and by exception in the Western Rite are allowed to be married. Of course only married men can be ordained priests in the East, both in the Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church. A priest who is not married and thus vowed or promised to celibacy may not marry in the East or the West. To omit this truth is a deception to further an agenda.
The following is Cardinal Brandmuller's brilliant rebuttal of Pope Francis, no I mean, Eugenio Scalfari:

WE PRIESTS, CELIBATE LIKE CHRIST
by Walter Brandmüller
Dear Mr. Scalfari,
Although I have not enjoyed the privilege of meeting you in person, I would like to revisit your statements concerning celibacy contained in the account of your conversation with Pope Francis, published on July 13, 2014 and immediately disputed in their authenticity by the director of the Vatican press office. As an “old professor” who for thirty years taught Church history at the university, I would like to bring to your attention the current state of the research in this field.
In particular, it must be emphasized in the first place that celibacy by no means dates back to a law invented 900 years after the death of Christ. It is instead the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke that report the words of Jesus in this regard.
Matthew writes (19:29): "And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life."
What Mark writes (10:29) is very similar: “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold."
Luke (18:29ff.) is even more precise: "Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."
Jesus does not address these words to the masses, but rather to those whom he sends out to spread his Gospel and proclaim the coming of the kingdom of God.
In order to fulfill this mission it is necessary to free oneself from any earthly and human attachment. And seeing that this separation signifies the loss of what is taken for granted, Jesus promises a "recompense" that is more than appropriate.
At this point it is often highlighted that “leaving everything” referred only to the duration of the voyage of proclaiming his Gospel, and that once they had finished their task the disciples would return to their families. But there is no trace of this. The text of the Gospels, in referring to eternal life, are speaking of something definitive.
Now, seeing that the Gospels were written between 40 and 70 A.D., their redactors would have been brought into a bad light if they had attributed to Jesus words that did not correspond to their conduct of life. Jesus, in fact, demands that those who have been made participants in his mission must also adopt his way of life.
But what does Paul mean, when in the first letter to the Corinthians (9:1, 4-6) he writes: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? . . . Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?" Do not these questions and statements take it for granted that the apostles were accompanied by their wives?
One must proceed with caution here. The apostle's rhetorical questions referred to the right of the one who proclaims the Gospel to live at the expense of the community, and this also applies to the one who accompanies him.
And this obviously brings up the question of who this companion may be. The Greek expression "adelphén gynaìka" requires an explanation. "Adelphe" means sister. And here sister in the faith means a Christian, while "gyne" indicates - more generically - a woman, whether virgin or wife. In short, a female person. This makes it impossible to demonstrate that the apostles were accompanied by wives. Because if this were a case one would be unable to understand why an "adelphe" is distinctly spoken of as a sister, and therefore a Christian. As for the wife, it must be understood that the apostle left her at the time when he became part of the circle of disciples.
Chapter 8 of the Gospel of Luke helps to clarify this. It states: "The twelve were with [Jesus], and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means." From this description it seems logical to deduce that the apostles followed the example of Jesus.
Attention must also be called to the stirring appeal for celibacy or conjugal abstinence made by the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7:29ff.): " I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none." And again: "The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided." It is clear that Paul is addressing these words in the first place to bishops and priests. And he himself would have adhered to this ideal.
In order to prove that Paul or the Church of apostolic times did not acknowledge celibacy, the letters to Timothy and Titus, the “pastoral letters,” are sometimes brought out as evidence. And in effect, in the first letter to Timothy (3:2) a married bishop is mentioned. And the original Greek text is repeatedly translated in the following way: “Let the bishop be the husband of a woman," which is taken to be a precept. But one needs only a rudimentary knowledge of Greek to translate this correctly: "For this the bishop must be above reproach, married only once (and he must be the husband of a woman!), sober and judicious." And also in the letter to Titus we read: "An elder (meaning a priest or bishop) must be blameless and married only once."
These are indications that tend to rule out the possibility that a priest or bishop should be ordained who has remarried after the death of his wife (successive bigamy). Because apart from the fact that at that time a remarried widower was not looked upon kindly, for the Church there was also the consideration that in this way a man could never give any guarantee to respect abstinence, to which a bishop or priest would have to devote himself.
THE PRACTICE OF THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH
The original form of celibacy therefore allowed the priest or bishop to continue his family life, but not his conjugal life. For this reason as well the preference was to ordain men who had reached an advanced age.
The fact that all of this can be traced back to ancient and sacred apostolic traditions is testified to by the works of ecclesiastical writers like Clement of Alexandria and the north African Tertullian, who lived in the 2nd-3rd century after Christ. Another witness of the high consideration bestowed on abstinence among Christians is a series of edifying tales of the apostles, the apocryphal 'Acts of the Apostles' composed in the 2nd century and widely read.
In the 3rd century the literary documentation on the abstinence of the clergy multiplied and became increasingly explicit, especially in the East. For example, here is a passage from the Syrian 'Didascalia': "The bishop, before he is ordained, must be put to the test to establish if he is chaste and has raised his children in the fear of God." The great theologian Origen of Alexandria (3rd century) also recognized the celibacy of abstinence as binding; a celibacy that he explains and explores theologically in various works. And obviously there are other documents that could be brought forward in support, something that obviously is not possible here.
THE FIRST LAW ON CELIBACY
It was the Council of Elvira in 305-306 that put this practice of apostolic origin into the form of a law. With canon 33, the Council prohibited bishops, priests, deacons, and all other clergy from having conjugal relations with their wives, and likewise prohibited them from having children. At the time it was therefore thought that conjugal abstinence was compatible with family life. Thus even the sainted pope Leo I, called Leo the Great, wrote around 450 that ordained men did not have to repudiate their wives. They were to remain together with them, but as if "they did not have them," as Paul writes in the first letter to the Corinthians (7:29).
With the passing of time there was an increasing tendency to ordain only celibate men. The codification would come in the Middle Ages, an era in which it was taken for granted that the priest and bishop would be celibate. It was another matter that the canonical discipline was not always followed to the letter, but this should not come as a surprise. And, as is in the nature of things, the observance of celibacy has seen highs and lows over the course of the centuries.
There is, for example, the famous and fiery dispute in the 11th century, at the time of what is called the Gregorian reform. At that juncture one witnessed a split that was so stark - especially in the German and French churches - as to lead the German prelates who were contrary to celibacy to forcibly expel from his diocese the bishop Altmann of Passau. In France, the pope's emissaries who were charged with insisting on the discipline of celibacy were threatened with death, and at a synod held in Paris the sainted abbot Walter of Pontoise was beaten by bishops opposed to celibacy and was thrown in prison. In spite of this the reform succeeded and a renewed religious springtime took place.
It is interesting to note that the contestation of the precept of celibacy has always coincided with signs of decadence in the Church, while in times of renewed faith and cultural blossoming one has noted a strengthened observance of celibacy.
And it is certainly not difficult to draw historical parallels with the current crisis from these observations.
THE PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH OF THE EAST
Two questions that are frequently posed still remain open. There is the one concerning the practice of celibacy on the part of the Catholic Church of the Byzantine empire and of the Eastern rite, which does not admit marriage for bishops and monks but grants it for priests on the condition that they be married before they receive the sacrament. And taking precisely this practice as their example, there are some who ask if it could not be adopted by the Latin West as well.
In this regard must be emphasized in the first place that it was precisely in the East that the practice of abstinent celibacy was held to be binding. And it was only during the Council of 691, called "Quinisextum" or "Trullanum," when the religious and cultural decadence of the Byzantine empire was evident, that the rupture with the apostolic patrimony was reached. This Council, influenced to a great extent by the emperor, who wanted new legislation to restore order in relations, was never recognized by the popes. It was precisely then that the Church of the East adopted its practice. When later, beginning in the 16th and 17th centuries, and afterward, various Orthodox Churches returned to the Church of the West, the problem was posed in Rome about how to deal with the married clergy of those Churches. The various popes decided, for the good and unity of the Church, not to require any modification in their way of life for priests who had returned to the mother Church.
THE EXCEPTION IN OUR TIME
There is a similar motivation behind the papal dispensation from celibacy granted - beginning with Pius XII - to the Protestant pastors who convert to the Catholic Church and want to be ordained priests. This rule was recently applied by Benedict XVI to the numerous Anglican prelates who wanted to unite, in conformity with the apostolic constitution “Anglicanorum Coetibus," with the Catholic mother Church. With this extraordinary concession, the Church recognizes the long and sometimes painful religious journey of these men of faith who have reached their destination with conversion. A destination that in the name of truth leads those directly concerned to renounce even the financial support realized until that moment. It is the unity of the Church, a good of immense value, that justifies these exceptions.
BINDING PATRIMONY?
But apart from these exceptions, the other fundamental question is raised, and that is: can the Church be authorized to renounce an evident apostolic patrimony?
This is an option that is continually taken into consideration. Some think that this decision could not be taken only by a part of the Church, but by a general Council. In this way it is thought that in spite of not involving all the ecclesiastical ranks, at least for some the obligation of celibacy could be relaxed if not abolished outright. And what appears inopportune today could be the reality tomorrow. But if there were the desire to do this one would have to bring back to the forefront the binding element of the apostolic traditions. And one could also ask if, with a decision made in the assembly of a Council, it would be possible to abolish the celebration of Sunday, which, if one wished to be meticulous, has fewer biblical foundations than celibacy.
To conclude, allow me to advance a consideration projected into the future: if it is still valid to contend that every ecclesiastical reform worthy of this definition must emerge from a profound understanding of the ecclesiastical faith, then the current dispute over celibacy would be overcome through a deepened understanding of what it means to be a priest. And if it were understood and taught that the priesthood is not a function of service exercised in the name of the community, but that the priest - by virtue of the sacrament received - teachers, guides, and sanctifies “in persona Christi," all the more so would it be understood that it is precisely for this reason that he also takes on Christ's way of life. And a priesthood understood and lived in this way would once again exercise a power of attraction over the finest of the young.
As for the rest, it must be taken into account that celibacy, just like virginity in the name of the Kingdom of Heaven, will always be troublesome for those who have a secularized conception of life. But as Jesus said in this regard: “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller a Church of historian, wisely contradicts a statement attributed to Pope Francis by the atheist journalist Eugenio Scalfari. Scalfari's interview attributes to His Holiness' mouth the following words concerning the law of celibacy:
"Perhaps you do not know that celibacy was established in the 10th century, 900 years after the death of our Lord. The Eastern Catholic Church even now has the option for its priests to marry. The problem certainly exists, but it is not large in scope. It will take time, but the solutions are there and I will find them."
My Comments first: When I was in the seminary in the 1970's there was much foment for changing the celibacy requirement of the Latin Rite Church (Western Church). The same statement attributed to Pope Francis by the journalist Scalfari was used. Yet there was no real critical analysis of this statement meant to manipulate an outcome in the 1970's period.
Further, when this specious statement is used to undermine the Church's celibacy rule, it is done so without distinction of which priests in the Eastern Rite and by exception in the Western Rite are allowed to be married. Of course only married men can be ordained priests in the East, both in the Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church. A priest who is not married and thus vowed or promised to celibacy may not marry in the East or the West. To omit this truth is a deception to further an agenda.
The following is Cardinal Brandmuller's brilliant rebuttal of Pope Francis, no I mean, Eugenio Scalfari:
WE PRIESTS, CELIBATE LIKE CHRIST
by Walter Brandmüller
Dear Mr. Scalfari,
Although I have not enjoyed the privilege of meeting you in person, I would like to revisit your statements concerning celibacy contained in the account of your conversation with Pope Francis, published on July 13, 2014 and immediately disputed in their authenticity by the director of the Vatican press office. As an “old professor” who for thirty years taught Church history at the university, I would like to bring to your attention the current state of the research in this field.
In particular, it must be emphasized in the first place that celibacy by no means dates back to a law invented 900 years after the death of Christ. It is instead the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke that report the words of Jesus in this regard.
Matthew writes (19:29): "And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life."
What Mark writes (10:29) is very similar: “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold."
Luke (18:29ff.) is even more precise: "Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."
Jesus does not address these words to the masses, but rather to those whom he sends out to spread his Gospel and proclaim the coming of the kingdom of God.
In order to fulfill this mission it is necessary to free oneself from any earthly and human attachment. And seeing that this separation signifies the loss of what is taken for granted, Jesus promises a "recompense" that is more than appropriate.
At this point it is often highlighted that “leaving everything” referred only to the duration of the voyage of proclaiming his Gospel, and that once they had finished their task the disciples would return to their families. But there is no trace of this. The text of the Gospels, in referring to eternal life, are speaking of something definitive.
Now, seeing that the Gospels were written between 40 and 70 A.D., their redactors would have been brought into a bad light if they had attributed to Jesus words that did not correspond to their conduct of life. Jesus, in fact, demands that those who have been made participants in his mission must also adopt his way of life.
But what does Paul mean, when in the first letter to the Corinthians (9:1, 4-6) he writes: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? . . . Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?" Do not these questions and statements take it for granted that the apostles were accompanied by their wives?
One must proceed with caution here. The apostle's rhetorical questions referred to the right of the one who proclaims the Gospel to live at the expense of the community, and this also applies to the one who accompanies him.
And this obviously brings up the question of who this companion may be. The Greek expression "adelphén gynaìka" requires an explanation. "Adelphe" means sister. And here sister in the faith means a Christian, while "gyne" indicates - more generically - a woman, whether virgin or wife. In short, a female person. This makes it impossible to demonstrate that the apostles were accompanied by wives. Because if this were a case one would be unable to understand why an "adelphe" is distinctly spoken of as a sister, and therefore a Christian. As for the wife, it must be understood that the apostle left her at the time when he became part of the circle of disciples.
Chapter 8 of the Gospel of Luke helps to clarify this. It states: "The twelve were with [Jesus], and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means." From this description it seems logical to deduce that the apostles followed the example of Jesus.
Attention must also be called to the stirring appeal for celibacy or conjugal abstinence made by the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7:29ff.): " I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none." And again: "The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided." It is clear that Paul is addressing these words in the first place to bishops and priests. And he himself would have adhered to this ideal.
In order to prove that Paul or the Church of apostolic times did not acknowledge celibacy, the letters to Timothy and Titus, the “pastoral letters,” are sometimes brought out as evidence. And in effect, in the first letter to Timothy (3:2) a married bishop is mentioned. And the original Greek text is repeatedly translated in the following way: “Let the bishop be the husband of a woman," which is taken to be a precept. But one needs only a rudimentary knowledge of Greek to translate this correctly: "For this the bishop must be above reproach, married only once (and he must be the husband of a woman!), sober and judicious." And also in the letter to Titus we read: "An elder (meaning a priest or bishop) must be blameless and married only once."
These are indications that tend to rule out the possibility that a priest or bishop should be ordained who has remarried after the death of his wife (successive bigamy). Because apart from the fact that at that time a remarried widower was not looked upon kindly, for the Church there was also the consideration that in this way a man could never give any guarantee to respect abstinence, to which a bishop or priest would have to devote himself.
THE PRACTICE OF THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH
The original form of celibacy therefore allowed the priest or bishop to continue his family life, but not his conjugal life. For this reason as well the preference was to ordain men who had reached an advanced age.
The fact that all of this can be traced back to ancient and sacred apostolic traditions is testified to by the works of ecclesiastical writers like Clement of Alexandria and the north African Tertullian, who lived in the 2nd-3rd century after Christ. Another witness of the high consideration bestowed on abstinence among Christians is a series of edifying tales of the apostles, the apocryphal 'Acts of the Apostles' composed in the 2nd century and widely read.
In the 3rd century the literary documentation on the abstinence of the clergy multiplied and became increasingly explicit, especially in the East. For example, here is a passage from the Syrian 'Didascalia': "The bishop, before he is ordained, must be put to the test to establish if he is chaste and has raised his children in the fear of God." The great theologian Origen of Alexandria (3rd century) also recognized the celibacy of abstinence as binding; a celibacy that he explains and explores theologically in various works. And obviously there are other documents that could be brought forward in support, something that obviously is not possible here.
THE FIRST LAW ON CELIBACY
It was the Council of Elvira in 305-306 that put this practice of apostolic origin into the form of a law. With canon 33, the Council prohibited bishops, priests, deacons, and all other clergy from having conjugal relations with their wives, and likewise prohibited them from having children. At the time it was therefore thought that conjugal abstinence was compatible with family life. Thus even the sainted pope Leo I, called Leo the Great, wrote around 450 that ordained men did not have to repudiate their wives. They were to remain together with them, but as if "they did not have them," as Paul writes in the first letter to the Corinthians (7:29).
With the passing of time there was an increasing tendency to ordain only celibate men. The codification would come in the Middle Ages, an era in which it was taken for granted that the priest and bishop would be celibate. It was another matter that the canonical discipline was not always followed to the letter, but this should not come as a surprise. And, as is in the nature of things, the observance of celibacy has seen highs and lows over the course of the centuries.
There is, for example, the famous and fiery dispute in the 11th century, at the time of what is called the Gregorian reform. At that juncture one witnessed a split that was so stark - especially in the German and French churches - as to lead the German prelates who were contrary to celibacy to forcibly expel from his diocese the bishop Altmann of Passau. In France, the pope's emissaries who were charged with insisting on the discipline of celibacy were threatened with death, and at a synod held in Paris the sainted abbot Walter of Pontoise was beaten by bishops opposed to celibacy and was thrown in prison. In spite of this the reform succeeded and a renewed religious springtime took place.
It is interesting to note that the contestation of the precept of celibacy has always coincided with signs of decadence in the Church, while in times of renewed faith and cultural blossoming one has noted a strengthened observance of celibacy.
And it is certainly not difficult to draw historical parallels with the current crisis from these observations.
THE PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH OF THE EAST
Two questions that are frequently posed still remain open. There is the one concerning the practice of celibacy on the part of the Catholic Church of the Byzantine empire and of the Eastern rite, which does not admit marriage for bishops and monks but grants it for priests on the condition that they be married before they receive the sacrament. And taking precisely this practice as their example, there are some who ask if it could not be adopted by the Latin West as well.
In this regard must be emphasized in the first place that it was precisely in the East that the practice of abstinent celibacy was held to be binding. And it was only during the Council of 691, called "Quinisextum" or "Trullanum," when the religious and cultural decadence of the Byzantine empire was evident, that the rupture with the apostolic patrimony was reached. This Council, influenced to a great extent by the emperor, who wanted new legislation to restore order in relations, was never recognized by the popes. It was precisely then that the Church of the East adopted its practice. When later, beginning in the 16th and 17th centuries, and afterward, various Orthodox Churches returned to the Church of the West, the problem was posed in Rome about how to deal with the married clergy of those Churches. The various popes decided, for the good and unity of the Church, not to require any modification in their way of life for priests who had returned to the mother Church.
THE EXCEPTION IN OUR TIME
There is a similar motivation behind the papal dispensation from celibacy granted - beginning with Pius XII - to the Protestant pastors who convert to the Catholic Church and want to be ordained priests. This rule was recently applied by Benedict XVI to the numerous Anglican prelates who wanted to unite, in conformity with the apostolic constitution “Anglicanorum Coetibus," with the Catholic mother Church. With this extraordinary concession, the Church recognizes the long and sometimes painful religious journey of these men of faith who have reached their destination with conversion. A destination that in the name of truth leads those directly concerned to renounce even the financial support realized until that moment. It is the unity of the Church, a good of immense value, that justifies these exceptions.
BINDING PATRIMONY?
But apart from these exceptions, the other fundamental question is raised, and that is: can the Church be authorized to renounce an evident apostolic patrimony?
This is an option that is continually taken into consideration. Some think that this decision could not be taken only by a part of the Church, but by a general Council. In this way it is thought that in spite of not involving all the ecclesiastical ranks, at least for some the obligation of celibacy could be relaxed if not abolished outright. And what appears inopportune today could be the reality tomorrow. But if there were the desire to do this one would have to bring back to the forefront the binding element of the apostolic traditions. And one could also ask if, with a decision made in the assembly of a Council, it would be possible to abolish the celebration of Sunday, which, if one wished to be meticulous, has fewer biblical foundations than celibacy.
To conclude, allow me to advance a consideration projected into the future: if it is still valid to contend that every ecclesiastical reform worthy of this definition must emerge from a profound understanding of the ecclesiastical faith, then the current dispute over celibacy would be overcome through a deepened understanding of what it means to be a priest. And if it were understood and taught that the priesthood is not a function of service exercised in the name of the community, but that the priest - by virtue of the sacrament received - teachers, guides, and sanctifies “in persona Christi," all the more so would it be understood that it is precisely for this reason that he also takes on Christ's way of life. And a priesthood understood and lived in this way would once again exercise a power of attraction over the finest of the young.
As for the rest, it must be taken into account that celibacy, just like virginity in the name of the Kingdom of Heaven, will always be troublesome for those who have a secularized conception of life. But as Jesus said in this regard: “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
Friday, July 18, 2014
FROM THE NCR! MARGARET NUTTING RALPH, SCRIPTURE SCHOLAR FIRED FROM "LITURGY TRAINING PUBLICATIONS"
My comments first: Is there more to this and what about Catholics locally who have used her for the basis of their Scripture Study? I have never used her materials, but I do know of some Macon Catholics who have. I wonder if they then joined "Called to Action?" Just wondering!
Liturgy Training Publications, owned by the Chicago archdiocese, had hired Margaret Nutting Ralph to write short daily Scripture commentaries for its Sourcebook for Sundays, Seasons, and Weekdays 2015, a resource for lectors.
Ralph had previously written marginal notes and commentaries on Sunday Lectionary readings for the Advent, Lent and Easter seasons for Liturgy Training Publications' 2011 and 2013 Workbook for Lectors, Gospel Readers, and Proclaimers of the Word.
But in January, Ralph was informed in a letter from the publishing house's director, John Thomas, that her work would not be used.
"Our archdiocesan censor has requested that we withhold the Scripture Commentaries that you wrote," the letter stated. "The request was made because of your recent presentation at Call to Action."
Call To Action is a Chicago-based lay organization that works for progressive reform of the Catholic church.
Thomas' Jan. 30 letter to Ralph pointed out that Liturgy Training Publications "retains copyright and ownership of the commentaries per the work for hire contract," and that the publisher "will keep them on file in the event that we are able to publish them at some time in the future."
Ralph, author of Why the Catholic Church Must Change: A Necessary Conversation, presented a workshop at the November 2013 Call To Action conference on how to be a biblical contextualist as opposed to a biblical literalist.
Ralph told NCR in a telephone interview April 17 that the presentation aimed at answering two questions: "If we're faithful to the Catholic church, which teaches us to be nourished and ruled by Scripture, and to interpret Scripture as contextualists, can we continue to use Scripture in the way it has been used in regard to some contemporary issues?" and "How do we interpret Scripture as contextualists?"
Ralph gave the presentation twice. She told NCR that she and her audience discussed Dei Verbum (a Second Vatican Council document that focuses on Scripture and divine revelation), homosexuality and contraception. They also spent a very short time on women's ordination, she said.
After she received the letter, she emailed Thomas and asked to speak with the decision-makers. Thomas arranged for a conference call in February with Ralph, Thomas and Fr. Robert Tuzik, a Chicago priest.
Ralph said she wasn't told if Tuzik was the one who decided to censor her work. She said that Thomas told her he could not reveal a censor's identity to censored authors. According to Ralph, Thomas told her at the beginning of the call that the decision was not up for discussion.
"I would simply receive an explanation. The decision was firm," Ralph said in an email toNCR.
"The priest told me that refusing to publish my commentaries was called for because he wanted to avoid any public perception that the Archdiocese of Chicago is not firm on doctrine, especially the doctrine against women's ordination," she wrote. "He explained that by accepting an invitation to speak at Call To Action, even though my topic was on how to be a biblical contextualist, I had 'passively supported this unorthodox group's whole agenda.' "
In the phone interview with NCR, Ralph elaborated: "He kept bringing up women's ordination over and over and over. And I said my talk was about being a biblical contextualist -- it wasn't about challenging the church on women's ordination. ... He just felt that my name shouldn't be associated with any publication that was diocesan-sponsored because it would make the diocese appear weak on doctrine."
Ralph, who served as secretary of educational ministries for the diocese of Lexington, Ky., for 16 years, said she told Tuzik that she understood the importance of doctrine, and that she could not use her position within the church to say anything contrary to church teaching.
"So we're not having an argument here about whether or not a censor should protect the Catholic church from teachings that aren't faithful representations of what the church teaches," Ralph told NCR. "But the commentaries were [faithful to church teaching]. What [was] censored had nothing to do with the issue that he was so concerned about, had absolutely nothing to do with true doctrine and, particularly, the Catholic church's posture on the ordination of women."
NCR asked Tuzik and Thomas for comment. Each responded with similar, short email messages saying this was a personnel issue upon which they could not comment.
Ralph sent a letter in late March to Chicago Cardinal Francis George, summarizing the event and pleading her case. She received a typed card acknowledging that the office had received her correspondence and forwarded it to the cardinal. No name was included, just "Office of the Archbishop, Archdiocese of Chicago."
[Mick Forgey is an NCR Bertelsen editorial intern. His email address ismforgey@ncronline.org.]
WHILE THERE IS PLENTY WRONG ABOUT THE POST-VATICAN II CHURCH, WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE PRE-VATICAN II CHURCH?
Let's face it, the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II and after Vatican II is infiltrated with sinners! Yes, there are sinners galore in the Catholic Church, some of them mortal sinners destined for hell if they didn't or don't repent and go to confession.
Who are we to judge previous generations of Catholics? Well, that has been done for the past 50 years as a sort of examination of conscience to promote Vatican II theology.
I can only speak from personal experience being a cusp Catholic, one who recalls as a child what the pre-Vatican II Church was like, one who lived through the tumultuous changes in the Church an society in the 1960's as a pre-teen and teenager and one who graduated from high school in 1971 and entered young adulthood in that period often called the silly season.
I remember vividly the Cuban Missal Crisis, the duck and cover strategy to survive an atomic bomb and the digging of fall out shelters in backyards.
I remember the assassination of President Kennedy (and added that term to my vocabulary on November 22, 1963). I remember the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King.
I remember the changes in the Church beginning around 1964 in my home parish of St. Joseph in Augusta. It was called an updating of the Church making us more modern, which in 1964 was an important word, becoming modern. It was a good term to hear even when referring to what would happen in the Church.
This modernization would bring about stronger Roman Catholics. We would become more adult and take our place in striving to live holy lives along with the priests and nuns who were considered the truly holy people of the Catholic Church.
Authority would be shared by the laity on the parish level. Parish councils would vote on important issues concerning the Church. All would be made perfect because of this.
But what was wrong with the old, unmodern ways?
There was rigidity in Catholicism and being a good Catholic meant that one prayed, supported the Church/parish/diocese, and obeyed legitimate authority, especially ecclesiastical authority. One went to Mass each Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation, made their morning and night offering, examined one's conscience at the end of the day, went to confession regularly, did penance and fasted before Holy Communion, abstained from eating meat on Fridays and fasted on the appointed days.
Catholics loved their externals too in the pre-Vatican II days. Nuns, priests, monks and sisters and brothers wore distinctive garb, habits and one could tell which order they were by the habit. Laity wore Sunday best to Mass, women/girls covered their heads in Church and there was respect and deference to the clergy and religious.
Catholic institutions were very strong, parishes, schools and hospitals flourished with nuns for the most part running not parishes, but their schools and hospitals. There were religious galore in most cities even in predominantly non-Catholic communities such as Macon, Valdosta and Augusta, Georgia.
Vatican II called the laity to holiness and to take their rightful place in the liturgy, in parishes and in the public square.
To assist the laity in the liturgy, the vernacular soon became the norm for all liturgies. Catholics were taught to think for themselves and not rely on blind obedience. Catholics were called to update themselves and not rely only on the Baltimore Catechism they studied until they completed Catholic school or CCD programs.
Catholics were taught to read the bible, join bible study groups and be ecumenical.
Most of all Catholics were called to be activists, joining the anti-war movements, hammering nuclear weapons after breaking into military installations and joining in other acts of civil disobedience to make their political and religious points.
Catholics were called to pray before abortion facilities.
Catholics were called to use their conscience in making moral decisions. This meant consulting the Church, seeking counsel and then making their decision. Fierce individualism was promoted in this decision of conscience and not always based upon the common good if it went against the individual's good.
Prior to Vatican II Catholics supported slavery and racism. After Vatican II this all ended.
Prior to Vatican II Catholics supported virginity and chastity. After Vatican II this all ended
Prior to Vatican II Catholics did not practice artificial birth control and had large families. After Vatican II this all ended.
Prior to Vatican II all Catholics were pro-life. After Vatican II this all ended.
Prior to Vatican II convents, monasteries and seminaries were full. After Vatican II this all ended.
Prior to Vatican II Catholic laity were very pietistic. After Vatican II this all ended.
Prior to Vatican II Catholics were very humble and believed in their unworthiness. After Vatican II this all ended.
Prior to Vatican II Catholics did not participate in the Mass or sing. After Vatican II this all ended.
Prior to Vatican II, apart from providing vocations galore to the priesthood and religious life, did not participate in the institutional aspects of the Church such as parishes, schools and hospitals. After Vatican II, the laity stopped providing vocations who would become non human (not laity).
Prior to Vatican II, non humans, those who are not laity, ran everything. After Vatican II this all ended as non humans (those not laity) no longer ran institutions which then shut-down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
