They are the 'Springtime' - let them blossom!

Dominican's - Prov. St. Joseph | Source

Young Catholics are embracing the faith, not of their parents or their grandparents, but that of their forefathers. This might be a little bit more of an illustrative point, than one of technical accuracy, but I think many can understand what I am getting at before I even begin to explain. There is a resurgence of tradition, and dare I say orthodoxy, amongst younger Catholics. And it isn't just me that is saying this, in fact this message is being proclaimed not by the older generation of Catholics in hopes of maintaining a legacy, but instead it is being shouted by the youth themselves. Sometimes, they are even shouting it in defiance of what their parents and grandparents are trying to leave behind as their legacy.

Youth aren't just rejecting the relativism of their parents to be different, they are actually trying to conform to something that transcends the ideals of rampant individualism. Take for example Anna Williams, an intern for USA Today, who wrote a piece piece today about how young Catholics (18-29yr olds) are rejecting that relativism of their parents and grandparents and embracing a more traditional and orthodox faith instead. She writes:

Sometime in the past century, a new creed emerged, saying everyone should make his own creed. This tolerant, open-minded ethos seemed to promise freedom: safe sex with many partners, drugs and alcohol galore and quick, no-fault divorce. So our Baby Boomer parents partied hard, yet in so many cases left us only the hangover: heartbreak, addiction and broken homes, plus rising rates of teenage depression and suicide.

The anything-goes religion of the late 20th century cannot prevent nor even explain these consequences. (After all, if I'm OK, you're OK, and we can do whatever we want, why are so many people unhappy?) When every member of a society does whatever makes him feel good, the inevitable results are not personal fulfillment and communal harmony but selfishness and social breakdown.

With these realizations in mind, many millennials reject the assumptions of 1960s liberationists in favor of something more substantial: the creeds, practices and moral codes that defined religious life for centuries. Unlike reductionistic scientism or vague romanticism, traditional religions propose specific, compelling explanations for the world in front of us — broken, fraught with suffering, enslaved to sin, but nonetheless revealing glimpses of beauty and greatness.

More intellectually coherent than relativism, orthodoxy is also more demanding. It makes us place others above ourselves, the truth above what we'd like to be true, the fight for virtue above the pursuit of pleasure. In a word, it preaches sacrifice.

If this is the future of the Catholic faith, we are all in very good hands. This isn't some isolated strain of thought either, in fact it is actually backed by research and studies (which are very close to the heart of boomers - what the masses think). It seems that the young aren't just practicing their faith in a more orthodox fashion, but also choosing to live it in a more orthodox one as well. Where did I find the report on this research? Not some bastion of Catholic thought, but the New York Times; "New Nuns and Priests Opting for Tradition":

Sisters of Life |  Source

“We’ve heard anecdotally that the youngest people coming to religious life are distinctive, and they really are,” said Sister Mary Bendyna, executive director of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. “They’re more attracted to a traditional style of religious life, where there is community living, common prayer, having Mass together, praying the Liturgy of the Hours together. They are much more likely to say fidelity to the church is important to them. And they really are looking for communities where members wear habits.”  [emphasis mine] 

The problem then isn't our future. The problem is who is currently trying to lead us, and trying to preserve a legacy in order to validate their efforts. Now I am not talking about the Pope or the Bishops who attempt to lead in a manner which sees the faith as timeless. Instead I am speaking of those that seek to make a statement about the changes they made and the turn towards modernity that happened a few decades ago; those that are clinging to that which the youth are rejecting.

This split isn't just in some theoretical and amorphous cloud either. It is playing out in very tangible and stark ways. We in the pews see it, the blogs are writing about it, and the orders, themselves, are feeling the effects. The Son Rise Morning Show recently blogged about the contrast between those orders that cling to their own ideals and those that are seeking something beyond themselves.:

The CMSWR web site, for instance, is full of news about World Youth Day and pictures of smiling young women in habits. LCWR's web site is all about legislation, social justice, and photos of smiling older women in street clothes. The young women have voted with their feet and their lives; it's obvious where they want to be. Yes, LCWR represents 90 percent of sisters and nuns, but size isn't everything. Ten years from now, which organization will still be going strong? And what is the LCWR going to do?

With some estimates putting the median age of LCWR's sisters at 75, this situation might be figuring itself out. But what about our parishes where those people with this same mentality are currently Religious Ed coordinators, instructors, and where the pastors and parish administrators share the mentality that the youth are explicitly rejecting? Should they get to rule through a theory of "might makes right?" Should their values, which are seemingly a flash in the pan, get to endure beyond their tenure simply because they ascended into power? I argue that we should not let these ideals, which have no buy in from our younger generation, have any ascendency into "power" or let them carve out any longevity.

WYD - Madrid | Source

Cruise the blogs, Twitter, and Facebook and see what the kids are saying. These are the new editorial pages, these are the new parish bulletins, the new Catholic papers, and what you will find there is an allegiance to the Pope, a fidelity to the Church, and a harkening back to the virtues and practices rooted in organic tradition. Traditional Liturgy, Chant, Polyphony, habits, sacrifice, the Catechism, and a dying of self for the faith. Of course the boomers who currently control the AmChurch wont be found reading things like Facebook, Twitter, and the blogs, not just because most of them don't know how to use them but because they don't like what is found there.

This isn't just about making sure certain orders have a lasting existence, but it is instead ultimately about the glorifying of God and the proclamation of His Kingdom. If we really care about our youth, we will listen to them. If we really care about our Church, we will listen to the youth. If we really care about God, we will let the little children come to him, and not stand in their way. Let the dead bury their dead, and let the youth go and proclaim the Kingdom of God.

AP Photo: WYD | Source

†††

Updates:

• Elizabeth Scalia aka The Anchoress has a vocations round-up. Look at all the new young habit-wearing religious men and women; see, it isn't like I make this stuff up folks.


• One of my favorite new blogs: Shameless Popery wrote on the very same article and subject. Again, I don't make this stuff up, other people think it too!


• Father Z on the other hand, has the other side of the story. His pictorial seems to speak for itself.

Kneeling & Communion: Cardinal Canizares Llovera, Voris & Akin

There has been a lot of talk about "Kneeling for Communion" and it all happened while I was "away" for a few days. I am someone that has knelt for Communion most of my time as a reverted Catholic.[1] I would guess that during the past 5 years I have knelt for Communion about 85%-95% of the time. There was a period at the beginning and a few periods of questioning and discernment in there where I was trying to figure out why I was kneeling and what the mind of the Church was regarding it. This process was very difficult for me and is in major part why I am writing this post.

What brought this subject into the Catholic Blogosphere, again, was a comment by Spanish Cardinal Canizares Llovera, in an article by the Catholic News Agency that quoted him in somewhat awkward way. The reason this got attention is that Cardinal Canizares Llovera is the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which in simpler terms is the Vatican's Department of the Liturgy & Liturgical Practices. So in other words, you have the guy at the Vatican charged with overseeing the Liturgy talking about the reception of communion, not the first time this happened but the first by a Pope Benedict appointed prefect.[2]

The Cardinal's discussion as reported by Catholic News Agency:

The cardinal’s remarks came in response to a question on whether Catholics should receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue.

He recommended that Catholics “receive Communion on the tongue and while kneeling.”

Receiving Communion in this way, the cardinal continued, “is the sign of adoration that needs to be recovered. I think the entire Church needs to receive Communion while kneeling.”

“In fact,” he added, “if one receives while standing, a genuflection or profound bow should be made, and this is not happening.”

“If we trivialize Communion, we trivialize everything, and we cannot lose a moment as important as that of receiving Communion, of recognizing the real presence of Christ there, of the God who is the love above all loves, as we sing in a hymn in Spanish.”

Now this statement isn't that ground-breaking or revolutionary, as the Prefect before him, Cardinal Arinze, made similar comments.[3] The reason that these comments have garnered such attention is three-fold:

1. Pope Benedict XVI has been advocating, and requiring in some instances, the reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling. This has been in effect for over 3 years now.[4] The statement by Cardinal Canizares Llovera seems to have solidified this idea as a central one of Pope Benedict's pontificate regarding the liturgy.[5]
2. Michael Voris and Jimmy Akin both produced media clips surrounding this statement. Voris painted the statement as saying a tad more than it seemingly did, and also somewhat stretching the situation here in the United States, while Akin tried to reel in what Voris said and probably pulled things back a tad further than necessary. If nothing else, these clips have gotten people to talk and think about the issue.
3. As we approach the new Missal translation, the portion of the GIRM that deals with the reception of Communion will have a new wording and will therefore have a new understanding as it relates to the norm in this country for the reception of Communion.[6]

When this statement came out, it got a lot of play on the blogs. What made it even more heavily discussed was the video Michael Voris put out in his Vortex series:


This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

[You can read the script here: Script Link]

As you know, I am supportive of Voris and the Vortex.  I think his commentary is usually pretty on target and he is needed voice in the American Church; this is especially true in places like where I live and others that have faced years and decades of liturgical abuse, oppressive lay parish regimes, and modernist heterodox chanceries. At the same time, I know his presentation is not everyone's cup of tea, that he sometimes paints with a broad-brush, and he (like everyone else in this world) makes mistakes. That being said, I would gladly take a few over-statements by someone driving towards orthodoxy as opposed to silence and watered down theology from those attempting to make the Church more "inclusive" and "accessible" for the sake of those not accepting of the Church's teachings.

All that being said, I do think that there were one or two over-statements and possibly even an incorrect statement in Voris' video. Yet, if you listen to the actual words of Voris (or better yet, read them) what you get is his message that for the past few years there has been a campaign by some priests and bishops against the practices of "on the tongue" and "kneeling" reception of Communion.[7] Voris has made several other videos touching on this subject, and taken together a viewer will hear a message that closely aligns with what the Cardinal said in the CNA article, as well as the message being conveyed by Cardinal Arinze, the Pope, Msgr. Marini, and others. In the end, I do think that Voris took an extra liberty or two, and maybe appealed a little too much to emotion and preached to "the choir" and thereby overstated his case a bit.

Therefore, I will admit that taken on its own, this video does have some loose ends that seem to over-state Voris' position and he conveys a message that conflates what the Church ultimately teaches regarding the reception of Communion in this country. Jimmy Akin felt the same way and felt compelled to put out a quick "PodCast" to explain his point of view. I think he did a good job, as he always does, but like Voris, I think he is guilty of over-stating his case and pulls back too hard on Voris' comments. Ultimately I think the truth lies somewhere between what the two men said. Therefore, I think you should likewise listen to what Akin has to say:

Jimmy Akin - Podcasts

Ultimately I think that what we have is a disagreement about what Voris meant and what he is trying to argue. Kneeling for Communion has been opposed by some bishops and priests in this country for years, if not decades. You can see, just in the changes and development of the GIRM alone as well as letters coming from the Vatican, that there has been a tension between what the Vatican desires and what the USCCB and priests in this country think is best. Now, that might be an overstatement there on my behalf, but I think the line of demarcation is fair to draw between the US and the Vatican and that the two sides have historically been on opposite sides of this issue. As Msgr. Marini explained though, when the Holy Father instituted the norm of kneeling to receive at Papal liturgies, the idea that hand reception is the 'norm' in the US is an exemption from the universal requirement of the Church

When you take the Pope's statements and the Cardinals' together, you have a continuity of thought that desires for the Church to receive Communion while kneeling, for various reasons. So why not just mandate it? Well, because the Church doesn't work that way, and because of the respect for the wishes of the bishops in this country who originally requested the indult.  As we move into the new Missal translation we do take a step closer to a return to kneeling and tongue reception. For someone such as myself who has tried to follow the lead in Rome and at the same time remain obedient to my bishop and local bishops conference I feel some what at ease with the change in wording. Not only that, but I can now more easily explain and advocate my practice to others.

What I have found is that kneeling draws me into an understanding and reverence of the TRUE PRESENCE. It doesn't make me better, holier, or make my Adoration more than those that stand. Instead, what it does for me personally and for God is to show my understanding, and write that understanding more easily on my heart. As Marini explained:

Kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue highlights "the truth of the real presence (of Christ) in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful and introduces the sense of mystery more easily."

 To me, the Eucharist is the source and summit of my life. One of those periods where I didn't kneel, to receive was shortly after graduating from Ave Maria (where we knelt always for reception) and moving to Alaska where no one knelt. I thought I was being disobedient, and I was confused as to what the who "pastoral" climate was here. I started to worry that folks were looking at me, judging me, or that I was making a "statement" during a time when we should be as "dead to self" as possible. Then I realized that what I did at Mass wasn't about me, but about God. Anything I did that could be seen by others needed to be a reflection not of me, but of how I felt about God and what the Mass meant objectively. So I returned to kneeling. I also was moved greatly once, shortly after my return to this practice when someone knelt right beside me to receive Communion, and that person was wearing a chapel veil. There was smile on the face of one of the EMHC's that told me that how we acted had an effect on others and that it was important that effect lead folks towards a belief in the real presence. Again, not that I think I am better because I kneel, but it does have an effect on those that choose to worship in that way. Maybe it is a change from the 'norm' or maybe there is something intrinsic about it. Regardless, I do agree that the Church should return to this practice and that it would ultimately lead to more Catholics believing and accepting the True Presence in the Eucharist.

†††

===============================================

NOTES:

1. People have asked what I mean by "Revert"; what I mean is that I was Baptized Catholic as an infant, but never practiced the Faith or received the other Sacraments of Initiation. I became "Active" and received First Communion and Confirmation on Easter 2006. 
2. The previous Prefect for CDW&DS was Cardinal Francis Arinze. He too made statements about kneeling and communion reception but many discounted his statements because he was not American and for other more political reasons having to deal with Pope John Paul II and the USCCB. Cardinal Arinze was appointed by Pope John Paul in 2002. 
3. See Note [2]; See also, Cardinal Arinze Video.
4. CNS: Vatican - Receiving Eucharist while kneeling will be norm at papal liturgies, 2008. 
5. NB: In the above mentioned news article, Msgr. Marini explained that the decision by the Pope "aims to highlight the force of the valid norm for the whole church."
6. For a discussion the changed wording of GIRM 160 please see: Father Z - GIRM 160 (2011 ed.)
7. The progression of language in the GIRM, and the various developments in acceptence regarding these practices show a tension between D.C. and Rome regarding both tongue and kneeling reception. At one point denial of Communion occurred for many attempting to receive while kneeling. The fact that it is considered an 'exemption' comes from Msgr. Marini and not myself, see Note [4].

The hermeneutic of rupture: The reason why modernists hate the Usus Antiquior

For a long time I have always wondered, "Why do modernist¹Catholics hate the Tridentine Latin Mass and other more Traditional practices?" In fact, someone, a more recent convert at my parish asked me this weekend, "Why don't people at our Church like saying the Rosary?" Now this question seems loaded, and in fact it might even be loaded to put it in here like this - but it serves to make a good point: there are those that really, really, don't like traditional practices, but why?

Pope Benedict XVI - Link

I have always had my theories. Some stemmed from deeply analytical reasoning based in social history, theological evolution, and community constructs -in other words I made a bunch of stuff up. But I never had that "Aha!" moment where it all came together in a nice clean package. You know, the kind of nice clean package where it all adds up and makes sense? Sort of like in a movie, where the bad guy has some secret to his guilt, and the good guys are putting together clues, interviewing the bad guy, letting him walk out of the station knowing he is guilty but they don't have that one perfect clue? Do you know what I am talking about? Well I never had that, until now.

Let's go back to my analogy real quick. So in those movies, there finally comes the climatic moment when everything finally adds up. Every director does it a little different, but I am thinking of the version where the bad guy is sitting in a police station or courtroom, acting all smug and full of himself because he knows, that the good guys know, that unless he reveals the secret, he won't be found guilty. Then one of the good guys says something, seemingly harmless which fills the bad guy with two things: fear and anger. Then, in a seemingly incongruent act, the bad guy completely looses his cool and reveals the secret like he is being tortured with hot pokers to the eyes. Crime solved, criminal arrested, case closed.

Well, like I said, I had one of those moments reading a Damian Thompson article.²  Thompson found a thread on the Commonweal Blog, where Bobbie Mickens threw a conniption over Universæ Ecclesiæ. It is a quick humorous take, on a rather silly topic, but inside of this article is that nugget, that reveal, the secret to why those modernists believe in the hermeneutic of rupture. Here is the Mickens comment from Commonweal in Thompson's article from the Telegraph:

Letting aside the dubious validity of Summorum Pontificum for a moment (I’m happy to debate that with anyone in another moment), par. 13 of the newly released Instruction says that diocesan bishops are to “monitor liturgical matters” in their sees “always in agreement with the MENS of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio”.

The mentality/intention/spirit (you choose the best word) of the Holy Father? What of the “mens” of the Council?

The very fact that the Council Fathers, by overwhelming majority, voted to reform the Tridentine Rite certainly means that – regardless of how one today judges the final result of that reform – the bishops realized that the pre-conciliar liturgy (lex orandi) no longer responded to the ecclesiology (lex credendi) that had developed over the preceding century and came to fruition at Vatican Council II.

Thus, to return to the pre-reform Roman Rite does not correspond – indeed, it is a betrayal – of the “mens” of the Council.

Never in the history of the Church were there two forms of the one Roman Rite. There were various Latin and Western liturgies, which in the post-Trent reform were cobbled into the Tridentine Rite. The Mass of Gregory the Great? The Ancient Roman Rite? Not according to the historical facts. It was as post-Reformation or Counter Reformation liturgy. And it certainly has no place in an ecumenical post-Vatican II Church.

So, if you would kindly pay attention to the yellow highlighted portions of Mickens statement. In there you will find a few things:

1. That the Vatican II council is supreme, even as compared to the Pope.
2. The Church is better served by the council because it was democratic.
3. The smoking gun though is: that Vatican II created rupture and a new Church has emerged - one that is ecumenical and Protestant focused. 

Number three is why modernists hate tradition, especially the Tridentine Rite. You see, I never understood why people would want to stay and claim to be Catholic, but push for things like Female Priests, Homosexual Marriage within the Church, Liturgical Innovation, and other modernist novelties. I thought maybe it was faulty theological understanding. Maybe it was a desire for one specific thing, which had at its root some faulty theological understanding. This comment has made me realize that it isn't that folks want what Catholicism is, they want something different. They want a Protestantized version of Catholicism. To them, the teachings of Catholicism are not rooted in theology. To them, the Faith is malleable and capable of change - through a democratic process. To them, everything is should be Protestant-American centric. 

This is why our Masses look like Protestant Services. This is why our Churches look Protestant. This is why our Homilies sound Protestant. This is why our theology sounds Protestant. This is why our music not only sounds Protestant, but is Protestant in many places.  We are trying to be ecumenical in everything we do. These modernists, whether they are clerical, religious, or lay, have been transforming the Catholic faith into their idea of an American-Protestantesque version of it. Why? Well because when you look at the Protestant faiths across this country - they have beliefs and theologies that mirror what these modernist Catholics push for. Women clerics, "gay marriage", lay administration, democratic bodies of decision making, shifting theology determined by "votes", and "Social Justice" causes that barely resemble their scriptural basis. 

•••••†•••••

Bobbie Mickens, sitting in the police interrogation room revealed the secret. In his fear that the Ancient Liturgy of the Usus Antiquior was finally reclaiming its proper place in the Hermeneutic of Continuity he went batty. You see, the Catholic faith in its true and authentic form, easily seen and experienced in the Sacred 'precious treasure' of the Extraordinary Form, is a testament to the theology and beliefs of the Catholic faith. As Father Z. says:

Faith, doctrine, liturgy, identity are all interlocked. They are facets reflecting the bright core of the same jewel of our beautiful and true Catholic Thing. At the core of the jewel, and any doctrinal formulation or definition which can be taught and memorized and studied, or within in any prayer or oration of our liturgical worship there is a single content convered to us: Jesus Christ, speaking, teaching, revealing, healing, raising, forgiving, saving.

So one of the biggest threats to these modernists is the Liturgy. When we reformat the Liturgy, and thereby the Mass, what we experience changes us. It also then changes how we encounter the Eucharist. This makes us long for and desire for more of the Sacred, which eventually will have an affect on our theology and doctrine. So you see, this is why the modernists fear the Usus Antiquior. It is more than a form of the Mass. This is about theology and doctrine as well. It is also about their existence and belief. Maybe Father Z. is right - Save the Liturgy, Save the World. 

Notes:   ___________________________________________________________

1. I don't like using the term "liberal" here because of the political connotation. I think you get what I mean - Spirit of Vatican II type of people.
2. Some of you may have read the article at Father Z's place.

†††

'Recovering our sense of the Sacred'

Another gem from Fr. Acervo's blog. I am mining there today and discovering riches that we all could use. From his talk about Recovering our sense of the Sacred:

But we can’t blame all of our problems on the culture. Not only have we lost the sense of the sacred in terms of our senses being dulled. We’ve lost the sense of the sacred in the sense that we’ve let the culture influence the Church when it should be the other way around. As the secular creeps into the Church, the sacred is pushed away. The Church looks more and more like the culture until suddenly, the Church has lost her identity. The salt of the earth has lost its flavor, and it is no longer good for anything (cf. Mt 5:13).

This is an area near and dear to my heart. I pray for this daily, I strive and work towards this in my own personal ways. We must do this to ensure that those who are seeking the Faith and don't know it through reason can find the faith through... the Sacred in a spiritual way, through faith.

» •••†••• «

does the external...the Sacred, matter?

Some say that the way we believe, our theology, our form, these external things don't matter, because it is substance that matters more, and without substance form is meaningless. They sometimes argue that the Catholic church, especially behind the reform of the reform of Pope Benedict, is merely striving for form over substance. Yet, I couldn't disagree more. The reason to solidify our theology and our Liturgical prayer is to place our hearts into the Heart of the Church. Fr. Acervo explains [my emphasis]:

“For in the Blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church”. If we really believe this, then we must also hold that what we do in church, what we believe happens in a church makes an enormous difference. If the Eucharist (and again this also refers to the Mass) is the source and summit of the Christian life, then what we’re doing with regards to the Eucharist must make an enormous difference. The attitude that we bring to the Mass, our gestures and our postures, make a difference. For the priest, the way he celebrates the Mass makes a difference.

As Father explains, the Mass is the source and summit of our lives. Therefore it logically follows that it is the Heart from which all substance of our belief and action springs. Father correctly reiterates over and over, that what we do at Mass, everything that we impose on the Mass makes a differences, it matters, it has a direct connection to our belief and helps to create our substance. Good form springs good substance, Fr. Acervo explains through an example:

If I receive Communion well, I grow in grace, which has a positive effect on the whole Church. A bad reception of Holy Communion does harmful things to me and then to the entire Body by extension.

So then, we must understand that the efforts to reclaim a proper form is actually a desire to reclaim a proper substance. When we read the Pope, if we read him, we gain an understanding of his total overall purpose. To judge his reforms and discussions of form solely as a discussion over style, we lose the meaning and substance behind their purpose. Of course then we will argue that it is form over substance, because we ourselves are the ones that have ignored the substance. So, it is incumbent upon us to strive for a good attitude, proper posture, proper understanding of what we are to think and do about the Mass.

» •••†••• «

the Mass as the heart of the Catholic faith - the source and Summit

So how should we think about the Mass? What should be our focus and what is the focus of the Mass? We need to remember the Mass is about God and the Church. As individuals, we are asked to come, but our attendance, participation, and even our actions are not required. Even more importantly, what the priests do, and what is done at Mass Fr. Acervo explains better than I:

"...The Mass does not belong to the priest. It is Christ’s Mass which He entrusted to the Church, and the Church in turn entrusts it to priests. It is the priest’s obligation and duty to be obedient. And as we’ve been talking about, it makes a difference..."

Important in the explanation of what the Mass is, concerns what it is for us the faithful. What the Mass is and then our relationship to it through our participation of prayer will exemplify what we believe; both about the Mass and our calling as a Catholic in the world. As I always say, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi - we pray what we believe. This means that we can only pray or participate in the Mass and thereby our greater vocation as a Catholic to that point which we believe. How we choose to pray will be the extent of our beliefs, and no further. So in that understanding, we cannot commit to substance or action of faith unless we are capable and willing to pray and participate in the faith to the extent of our beliefs. Our form in Mass (as individuals, priests, and as a community) is a mirror of our totality of belief. That totality of belief is then a benchmark, a high-water mark for our action and substance. This is because of what the Mass is and what role it plays in our Christian life.

Mass is not merely a “teaching moment” or a “celebration of unity” or a “tedious obligation”. Do this in memory of me: we are fulfilling the Lord’s command and to the degree that we are faithful, blessings are bestowed on the Church. To the degree that we are not faithful, blessings are withheld from the Church. I think we could all agree that we live in a time when the Church needs all the blessings that she can get.

« •••†••• »

I really could go on and on, commenting on all that Father Acervo has to say on this matter, but he said it first and said it much better than I ever could. I have said much of this at other times, but never so well and so concise. He captures beautifully what we need to do in regard to our understanding of the Mass and the Sacred. So I urge you to go and read his full talk: Recovering the Sense of the Sacred.  He lays out what we need to do as the Body of Christ to recover the Heart of our Faith - the Church.

I will leave you with one last paragraph to entice you to read the whole thing:

But for all of us, we must strive to approach the Mass reverently with great love and care being faithful to what the Church gives us without gimmicks, novelty, or innovation. It means that we must participate at Mass properly, which for most doesn’t mean doing something or keeping busy. It means being receptive of God. Despite popular belief, this is anything but passive. It takes great strength to push away all the distractions and tune in to what is sacred. And if each of us does our part, it becomes evident that, you know, something divine not human is going on here. Something sacred. Then we will find what our hearts are truly looking for.

††† 

O Antiphons - a quick recap...

I haven't talked about the "O Antiphons" on here. Because I am in a place where latin, chant, and the Tridentine Rite are not used sometimes these things slip past my radar.

For info on 'O Antiphons' & 'more O Antiphons' info.

I would be remiss if I let the season pass without some mention. While reading Catholic Eye Candy today, I realized how much I miss the Tridentine Rite and more traditional aspects of the faith especially around HOLY days like Christmas. [Please don't get me wrong... I love the New Mass (Novus Ordo) and think that when it is said validly and licitly it carries with it the Mystery and the Glory of God just as the Tridentine, Dominican, and all the other more ancient rites.] They are essentially chants from the Liturgy of the Hours. They relate to different names of Christ and give us a glimpse as to He which is about to come.

The final O Antiphon is "Emmanuel." Check out the link Catholic Eye Candy for a taste of the Chant. It really is beautiful - please go check it out and have a listen.

Here are all the O Antiphons (from: Women for Faith & Family):

The "O Antiphons"

O WISDOM, who came from the mouth of the Most High, reaching from end to end and ordering all things mightily and sweetly: Come, and teach us the way of prudence.
Sirach 24:2; Wisdom 8:1. Symbols: oil lamp, open book.

O LORD AND RULER of the House of Israel, who appeared to Moses in the flame of the burning bush and gave him the law on Sinai: Come, and redeem us with outstretched arm.
Exodus 3:2, 20:1. Symbols: burning bush, stone tablets.

O ROOT OF JESSE, who stands for an ensign of the people, before whom kings shall keep silence and unto whom the Gentiles shall make supplication: Come to deliver us, and tarry not.
Isaiah 11:1-3. Symbol: vine or plant with flower (especially a rose).

O KEY OF DAVID, and Scepter of the House of Israel, who opens and no man shuts, who shuts and no man opens: Come, and bring forth the captive from his prison, he who sits in darkness and in the shadow of death.
Isaiah 22:22. Symbols: key; broken chains.

O DAWN OF THE EAST, brightness of the light eternal, and Sun of Justice: Come, and enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.
Psalm 19:6-7. Symbol: rising sun.

O KING OF THE GENTILES and their desired One, the Cornerstone that makes both one: Come, and deliver man, whom You formed out of the dust of the earth.
Psalm 2:7-8, Ephesians 2:14-20. Symbols, Crown, scepter.

O EMMANUEL, God with us, our King and Lawgiver, the expected of the nations and their Savior: Come to save us, O Lord our God.
Isaiah 7:14; 33:22. Symbols: tablets of stone, Chalice and Host.

Gaudete Sunday

Rejoice! It is Gaudete Sunday.

Oh.. how I miss the EF...

(The pics above are from: Te Deum laudamus)

I think both the Novus Ordo and the Extraordinary Form are both beautiful in their own respect. One of the reasons that I like the Tridentine Mass though is that because the Mass is said in Latin, the translation into English in most missals is quite literal. The Novus Missals and the ICEL translation for what is said at mass is a more vernacularized [I made up that word] translation. Father Z does a good job of showing how the translations differ and what is "lost in translation."

What is really hard for me to be in an area that doesn't have a Tridentine Mass is days like today, Gaudete Sunday, where there is a beautiful meaning to the day that has been lost since the new Mass has developed. Here are the readings in both forms (Taken from Fr. Z's blog):

COLLECT – (2002MR)
Deus, qui conspicis populum tuum nativitatis dominicae
festivitatem fideliter exspectare, praesta, quaesumus,
ut valeamus ad tantae salutis gaudia pervenire,
et ea votis sollemnibus alacri laetitia celebrare.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, who attentively do watch Your people
look forward faithfully to the feast of the Lord’s birth,
grant, we entreat,
that we may be able to attain the to joys of so great a salvation
and celebrate them with eager jubilation in solemn festive rites.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord God,
may we, your people,
who look forward to the birthday of Christ
experience the joy of salvation
and celebrate that feast with love and thanksgiving.

Clearly there is a big difference between the two. Fr. Z. explains that the ICEL version lacks the "impact" of the latin and literal translation. I think that he is right, the ICEL seems to be looking to Christmas and beyond and out of Advent. The literal/latin translation does a much better job of setting the scene of Advent. It is a prayer about where we are currently within Advent. At this point we are in penitential mindset, but it turns to jubilation this week because we sense the great coming of Christ on Christmas. It isn't simply a "looking beyond."

So as we head to Mass today let us be jubilant, while penitent. Let us be eager for Christmas, but let us also celebrate our faith in a way that is solemn and appropriate. Our mission in Advent is to prepare ourselves for the coming of the Lord!

Note:
Gaudete is translated loosely to Rejoice! It comes from the first chant of the Mass in the Tridentine form. It is one of two days which priestly vestments may be Rose [not pink] in color. The pictures above are representative of this.

Alice, Wonderland, and The Reform of the Reform..

There is a mini-series which started on the Syfy channel tonight called: ALICE. It is a re-imagine of Lewis Carroll's classic with a syfy - modern - totalitarian twist. I am only about 40 minutes in but so far I like it. It is pretty "family" friendly so far [I would label it 16+]. It is a sort of Alice meets 1984 sprinkled with the Matrix.

One line that instantly caught my attention was the King of Hearts of the totalitarian-esque wonderland who says:

If our people don't feel what they want to feel when they want to feel it - well the whole system breaks down!! Instant gratification, it's a very complex business.

If that isn't a summation of our society I don't know what is. At some point we become dependent on instant-gratification. Once we have it... and then start to lose it, we begin to rebel. But where does that rebellion take us?

Think about the Church as we see it today. We have lived in a sort of WONDERLAND since the 1970's. We felt and worshipped how we wanted, when we wanted it. Then, as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have begun to remove that instant-gratification we have rebelled. But against what? And where do we hope to get? What is our ultimate end?

Likewise, what about our culture? When we no longer can feel what we want to feel... what will we rebel against? And what will we hope to "win"? Has right and wrong been destroyed only to leave fun and boring as our "moral poles"?

The show seems REALLY good, at least on an allegorical level... and I look forward to doing a full post about it after I watch the full thing and take some notes. And survive doing so w/o my wife killing me. So until then....

"The People Not in the Pews"

A recent posting over at the "New Liturgical Movement" has prompted several postings on other blogs, and hits at the core of conversation my wife and I have been having about our children and the Church. You can read the article that inspired all the postings at: The People Not in the Pews

The centerpiece of the article is shows how Mass Attendance is down amongst young people. I know that this isn't breaking news, and I know that this has been a problem for a while, but the article does a good job at describing why. This study was done in 2004, and since then there has arguably been a resurgence in same churches and a revitalization. In no small part it is obvious that the "Reform of the Reform" has helped.

Jeffrey Tucker, the author of the article explains that the conclusion that the "modernist" trend in Churches and the Mass is often dismissed, the explanation given is that it is too simplistic, not driven by any "hard facts" and is merely coincidental. He further explains [with my commentary in red]:

"...In the United States, most people have encountered many who left the Church after the Council. I've had several dozen or so conversations over the years with people who have left and sought out the reasons. Yes, these people are glad to dismiss Catholic teaching on moral and doctrinal issues, but what stands out time and again are the tales of how the ghastly aesthetic trends of the time invaded their Churches. They tell o[f] guitar strummers and faux-folk music and bongos and beat poets and hippy bands and, later, saccharine sweety-sweet tunes and felt banners, liturgical dancers, flag wavers, and bare-footed incense bowl carriers and the like. [Add to this the ones that stayed in spite of such things. Sure these things may have brought some to Church, but how many left because of it, and how many would have come despite such things? Worse yet and impossible to determine, how many more would have come without it?]

At some point, these people just couldn't take it anymore. Having left, it becomes easier to manufacture reasons why the Catholics are wrong on just about everything else from morality to priestly celibacy to the role of the Pope and the financial corruption of the whole apparatus. [It is much harder to appreciate or defend something that has nothing worthwhile to cling to.] They read the novels of Dan Brown and think: I was right to leave! At this point, people are just looking for good excuses to justify their unwillingness to be subjected week after week to Woodstock Lite.

Now let us turn to the question of how we are going to get these people back. I'm not under any illusions here. Turning the clock back to recreate the world of 1958 is not going to suddenly create a massive influx into the Catholic Church. Even a widespread proliferation of extraordinary form Masses is not a magic bullet to cause the pews to fill up next week. A widespread availability of the old form of Mass is probably the best step that can be taken but it is not the whole answer. [Many of us that attend EF/TLM's when we can do so because of its beauty. Helping that decision though is the "experimentation" that occurs in many churches in their NO masses. Properly done, regardless of the church or the type of Mass you attend, reverence and purpose would be found equally across the board.]

What needs to happen is a consistent embrace of solemnity and mystery in the liturgy, whether it in the ordinary or extraordinary form, week after week, backed by strong educational programs and a parish culture that is not shy to embrace the glories and beauties of the faith and its capacity for creating lasting social bonds. [Rather than experimentation we as a Church need to return to those tested and true practices that work. In an age of modernity and upheaval, where the only thing old is change, a Church that is tradition and constants would be well received by those young, and old, that wander in the wasteland of relativism.]

This article reiterates a lot of what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his Spirit of the Liturgy book. Change is necessary sometimes and there is little doubt about that. But change simply for changes sake is always wrong. Our religion is build both on faith and reason. We must not simply do things for the sake of the faith without firm reason.

Take this Rain Sticks and Tambourines!

So while some Parishes like to "spice" up their liturgy with Rain Sticks and Tambourines... other parishes do this:

Although this is from an Eastern Rite tradition... it is still sweet. [For more Traditional Mass info visit: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/]

TRADITION 1.... Modernistic Creativity in the Mass -0. [Yes, NEGATIVE zero.] I bet The Crescat would love this.

TLM / EF Mass: Informational & Instructional Website - "Sancta Missa"

Unfortunately I live in a diocese where the Tridentine Latin Mass or Extra Ordinary Form (TLM/EF) is only offered occasionally. On top of that it is offered 3 hours away - which in the winter is a very precarious drive.

Several people I know have asked me though for information about the Mass itself. I have found a resource which is a great jumping off point. It has videos, pictures, and even the rubrics. Click on the pic below for the site:

I don't have a lot of resources up here in Alaska in terms of Catholic classes, groups, or literature so websites are becoming my best friend. I have two goals this winter on top of bringing a baby into this world which are to take up the study of latin again, and to familiarize myself [as opposed to saying "learn"] to serve the mass in the NO and the EF via online tutorials. Some of you may be laughing at the prospect considering my wife and I have a baby due in the middle of January. But... you don't know how long Alaskan winters are!

Stuck in the middle

So I was pondering a question in my head last night and this morning and I don't know if has an answer. The question is essentially, "As the Church "reforms the reform" and trends back to tradition where does that leave the current "average" Catholic that finds them-self in the middle of the Catholic Religious spectrum?"

There seem to be three groups: Cafeteria & Lukewarm Catholics, Middle of the Road Modern American Catholics, and Traditionalists. These groups do not have bright lines between them, and seem to blend into one another.

Obviously the traditionalists are growing, and the Church is trending towards them. Even those that wouldn't consider themselves arch-tradionalist are finding comfort and favor in the direction the Church is heading.

On the other end, you have those Cafeteria (pick what they like from the religion) Catholics that are trying to figure out how this traditionalist movement is going to affect them. Some will leave, deciding the "Church left them." Others will stick around and resist the reform, either by ignoring it or moving to a parish that is less traditional.

The real question is the Middle of the Faith. The people that go to Church every Sunday regardless of what kind of Mass it is. They like some of the traditions but also feel the change in the 1970's wasn't as bad as some make it out to be. They might be in a traditional Church and find themselves singing a lot more songs in latin, and wondering if they can find their chapel veil because it seems to be "back in fashion." Or they could be in a modernist Church, where all of a sudden there seem to be a lot more guitars and bongos at Church. Either way Church seems to be a little uncomfortable for them lately.
This group seems to be a big chunk of Catholics right now. I don't think there is anything wrong with it either, but I do feel for them. Since the reform of the 1970's they have tried to live their faith and go with all the changes. Now that the "reform of the reform" is here... they feel a little confused, lost, or unsure. Understandbly so.

The main question is how will American Parishes and Churches respond to this "reform of the reform?" I don't think that it can be ignored, and I think the move to the traditional is inevitable, unless of course your Church pulls back the other way. So then what will parishes do? Will they try and find a happy medium between this American version of Catholicism and the traditional? It seems like that would make sense. Or will Parishes reject this new movement and stick to their... "Vatican II meant this..." attitude?

I think that each of us are called to be loving and welcoming at this time. I think it is vital that we all look to the focal point of our faith to ask the questions that lay on our mind. When we find ourselves wondering if something new in our parish is good, we should ask if it ultimately leads to more reverent and glorious worship of God, or if it something instituted to make us as people feel better. If it is the former we should conclude it is good, and if it is the latter then we should reject it. Although I like some of the tradionalist things which are being rejuvinated in the Church, I don't think that we all must embrace it. I think there is a place for both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass. I think there is a place for traditionalists and more modern American Catholics in the Church and in the same parish. It might be a delicate balance, but we are called to be universal. Therefore we must all look "across the aisle" and make sure that wherever we fall on the spectrum that we are reaching out to embrace our Catholic brothers and sisters. We have to ensure that no sheep are lost... because we all have been stuck in the middle at some point in our life, and we know how uncomfortable it is.

Big Tent Catholicism: Towards or Away from?

There was an intersting commentary on the radio today about politics. The theory went essentially like this:

Conservatism flourished in the late 90's and early 00's because the Conservative base revitalized the Republican party. Then, as they became the "entrenched" party and started to lose a hold on polititical positions there was an appeal to moderates, liberal Republicans, and others. The "Big Tent" idea came about to include "more people" with some core set of beliefs. But then what happened instead of "growing" the party, they essentially ushered everyone out. That social conservatives wouldn't vote for McCain, and more seasoned elitist style Republicans began to push back against an "outsider" like Palin. You also saw people like Colin Powell, George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger all of a sudden all found themselves in the same party but espousing VERY different ideas from one another. This all occured amidst the call for "A NEW REAGAN!" As Conservatives realized that Conservative no longer was synonymous with Republican, the party, the big tent, began to empty, and it had the opposite effect. So now what? Well... as you see in NY#23, the Conservatives are grabbing the party back. The Republican dropped out after Palin came in and endorsed the Conservative Party candidate.

Does this sound familiar? Doesn't this sound like the Catholic Church? How do we make it better, well let's round off the corners and be more "inclusive." Instead of making "them" conform to "us," we can bend a little, get them in under the tent and it will slowly all blend together. And then what happened?

• Liturgical Dance
• Illicit Practices
• Rain Sticks
• Carpet Floors
• The Removal of Kneelers
• Etc...

Just like Republicans didn't win more elections, practicing Catholics didn't grow in number. Yet, as Summorum Pontificum was released and more traditional elements were reclaimed, the faith grew. Catholics came back, and the base was revitalized. Some would argue, "But isn't the new Anglican situation a version of BIG TENT?" The simple answer is, NO, it isn't. The Church didn't CHANGE its core beliefs to accomodate, instead it said, "if you want to be a part of us, you need to change." The important question is, Why did the Anglicans want to come back? Because of the return to the traditional and core beliefs. Therefore, the furth the Church gets away from the Big Tent mentality the stronger the faith will be. Now this doesn't mean it shouldn't pursue relations with SSPX, Anglicans, the Orthodox, etc... The very opposite really. The Church should puruse these relations, because as it reclaims its traditional roots, it will "reform the reform" on the inside. Then it can trully attract these groups to a pure and more authentic Catholic faith. Rather than a watered down amorphous version of what it is supposed to be.

So you see... even though more are flocking to the Church, it is because the Tent is shrinking. But dont fret... there is plenty of room for everyone, and a better tent it will be.

Why some people join a Protestant "Parish"...

... is that often times they are more "welcoming" and "friendly." I don't mean the religion, I mean the people. This isn't to say ALL churches either, it is a general statement.

For example, if you go to a BIG Catholic church you probably won't ever be NOTICED as a new member just by attendance. Even if you go to a small one, you "must be a visitor."

For example, we have lived in our new city since August. Of the 12 Sundays which the same Masses are celebrated, we have attended the Mass we now go to (the 9am) at least 6-8 of those times. The parish has about 200 members. We are just starting to get the "are you new?" Even after introducing ourselves to many people. We also can't seem to find the 2 young adult groups or any of the other groups that allegedly exist!

If we were new members of some of the protestant churches that I am familiar with, we would already be on 4 committees, be leading a thursday night small group, and be in charge of children's activities at the quarterly family night.

Again, this isn't true ACROSS the board... but more of a GENERALIZED observation. Why can't smaller Catholic churches foster better "parish life" situations? C'mon Catholics!

Side Note: This isn't to say that some parishes don't have lots of great opportunities. I believe even ours does... somewhere. Unfortunately, it is often just difficult to find. Plus, if something does technically "exist" but is either dormant or seldom used... it is near IMPOSSIBLE to start it up, jumpstart it, or reformat the group.

Bp. Trautman thinks the new Missal translation is 'elitist'...

...or he thinks that Catholics can't read well. Those are essentially the ideas he espoused at a recent talk at CUA (Catholic Univ. of America). You can find the full article at... wait for it... NCR of course! "Slavishly Literal translation of Missal criticized" ...

I can't do a full analysis because I am at work, but I have to quote one part, my Comments are in [Blue]:

He said the "sacred language" used by translators "tends to be elitist [Big words = elitist??]and remote from everyday speech [No one has ever said "everyday language" is the best language to learn things in... they sure don't use it at universities] and frequently not understandable" and could lead to a "pastoral disaster."[Did he just call "everyday" Catholics dumb? Of course he didn't, but did he imply something?]
"The vast majority of God's people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like 'ineffable,' 'consubstantial,' 'incarnate,' 'inviolate,' 'oblation,' 'ignominy,' 'precursor,' 'suffused' and 'unvanquished.' The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic," Trautman said.[Where is Fr. Z - 'ineffable'!!!] [Also... He again implies the average Catholic can't read these words, or use the internet, or a dictionary, or expand their knowledge - we don't want THAT! Isn't that the mentality of the days gone past when Catholics were told not to read their bible for fear of "reading it wrong?"]
"The [Second Vatican Council's] Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated vernacular language, not sacred language," he added. "Did Jesus ever speak to the people of his day in words beyond their comprehension? Did Jesus ever use terms or expressions beyond his hearer's understanding?" [He contradicts himself here... YES Jesus used terms beyond peoples expression, hence nobody understanding what was meant by the Temple, or the Son of God, or how he was the Messiah! Had they understood he wouldn't have been CRUCIFIED!]

The rest of the article is pretty much the same... I will try and do more later... hopefully Fr. Z or someone else smarter than I am can give a more complete and intellectual analysis or response. Someone ask him... I really want to hear what Fr. Z has to say about Bp. Trautman's take on the "admittance to Heaven" thing... I'll get to that later if I can.

[[**UPDATE**]]:
So of course... I should have checked WDTPRS?.com before I posted, because I should have known that Fr. Z would be all over this. Read his excellent commentary:
Wherein Bp. Trautman runs down new translation and Fr. Z responds

Question: Should lay women or religious women run parishes?

The reason I ask is because that is the situation that my family has found itself in. There are problems in our parish just like there are in any other parish, but some seem specific to the fact that lay people "run" the parishes. Some seem specific to the fact that they are female... but that is more difficult for me to "KNOW" and I have to really on others, specifically other females, to explain why that seems to be the case.

I ask this for two reasons: First, I had a conversation about this with a woman who has been a member of these parishes for quite a while and seems to think it is very problematic. Second, is based on a lot of talk about the Anglican situation, the Rome visitation on American Nun's, and the general liberal dislike for the "Reform of the Reform." Fr. Z has a great post about this general subject:
"The Nun's Story"

So I was just wondering everyone's view. I know it is hard to have this converation in today's "equality minded" society. Trust me, I am married to a very intelligent and strong woman. I also grew up around women who could run things better than most of the men I know. But I also have seen that men and women are very different, in both positive and negative ways and that one gender can do somethings not necessarily better than the other, but in a more efficient or positive way. I wonder if those is one of them? Or is this more of a perspective issue?

Making waves, speaking out, saving souls, and reforming the reform!

Oringinally Posted at: Orthometer: Why Do You Do It? Why Do You Make Waves?

So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way; he shall die in his iniquity, but you will have saved your life.
--Ezekiel 33: 7-9

I came home and this was posted over at Orthometer... and boy did I need it. I had just come from a chance meeting with someone from my new parish area, and had a talk about this very subject. I was worried that I was not on the right path or mind-track, but I realized that we are called to uphold the commands of God. Sometimes it isn't popular but it is always required.