Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Catholic archbishop emeritus of Washington, D.C., told CNSNews.com that if “someone sees the Gospel as the truth of God’s presence in our world, that person should embrace the Gospel.” He also said, however, "If a person sees the Quran as proof of God’s presence in the world, then I cannot say, ‘Don’t embrace the Quran.’”
This is one of those things that looks heavily subject to context, but it sure does sound bad as written here. Anybody know what the full speech said?
Bill Kirk, recently fired from Notre Dame, will apparently be testifying at the trial of the ND 88, the protesters who were arrested for trespassing the day of Obama's honorification.
Apparently anti-ROTC and other protesters were not charged with trespassing, which makes this a case of viewpoint discrimination by Notre Dame. Kirk would be in a position to know what the policy was.
Rorate gave us an update of this story here. It apparently wasn't as bad as initially reported, per the rector of the Cathedral:
First of all, the “Qu’ran blessed at California cathedral” was misconstrued and of course the event was not in the Cathedral building but merely on the steps allowing visibility from the square.
The term "blessed" has distinct meaning in our Catholic faith. There was no such action in that event. Unfortunately, the term which was used by a Presbyterian Minister and adopted by the media could be misunderstood. During the event some people went forward to place a rose on a table holding a copy of the Qu’ran which perhaps could mistakenly be seen by the unknowing as a "blessing." Also, it was stated that “During the ceremony, Father Michael Kiernan, rector of the cathedral, read from the Beatitudes.” I did not read anything and did not even participate in the event.
So there's that. There was this, though:
This was all the participation by the Catholic Church, except for a Franciscan priest from another parish, who read a short scripture passage.
Disturbing still. But not nearly to the degree we once thought. Our apologies to those not involved who were implicated without ever having participated.
A priest in Valencia Spain witnessed a young man during communion take the Eucharist and throw it on the floor. The priest then decided on a course of action that one could properly call old school apologetics of the corporal kind.
The priest slapped the young man across the face and dragged him from the Church and loudly pronounced him a ‘blasphemer.’
Because that's what he is.
Here's the thing. If somebody knocked down the President or your mom or spouse or pretty much anybody, you'd probably take exception to it. If you're a guy, you would probably consider it a duty to provide an attitude adjustment to the offender. If you're the Secret Service in the former scenario, you'd definitely beat the hell out of the offender and have him thrown in prison.
All of these reactions demonstrate your belief that the offended person is important and due a certain amount of respect.
If Christ is our King, should we not do the same for Him? The Word Made Flesh Who died for our sins merits some level of fealty, right?
I know what some folks are thinking. The article itself mentions the perspective that the young man should have been taken aside an counseled about his action, rather than treated in such a harsh manner. For those taking this view of things, I simply point to the last few decades as demonstrative of how such an approach works. Counseling and such has been tried and has failed. This young man clearly had an issue with the Eucharist. Would counseling have gotten his attention? Doubtful, since the natural reaction to such counseling is "I just threw God to the floor and your only response is to tell me not to do it again? Yeah, right."
Such measures are easily dismissed or forgotten. Being popped in the face and called a blasphemer will leave an impression (pun intended).
Situations like this for the Anglicans just keep popping up.
To former vicar Colin Coward, it is nothing short of a marriage made in heaven. But the 65-year-old is expected to raise a few traditional eyebrows when he walks down the aisle with the man in his life – a 25-year-old Nigerian model called Bobby.
Mr Coward and his African partner are due to hold a civil partnership later this year, followed by a service at the vicar’s church, St John the Baptist church in Devizes, Wiltshire.
Not that it matters a whole lot, I guess. These are just bits of the whole Church of England flotsam/jetsam that's left.
As 18 doves flew into the skies over the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament Saturday night, more than 100 diverse Sacramentans blessed copies of the Quran with roses of love.
Again and again they uttered the refrain, "Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me" at the entrance to the downtown church framed by white statues of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. A musician with a white guitar accompanied them.
Representatives of Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, B'hai, Mormon, Sikh, Vedic Druid and Muslim beliefs read scriptures from the great religious texts - including six verses from the Quran calling for all faiths to live in harmony. . .
Father Anthony Garibaldi of St. Francis Church said the blessing of the Quran tonight "needs to be done - on a human level you don't desecrate other peoples' holy objects. I wouldn't want my Bible burned.
If you don't like the idea of Korans being burned, then don't burn them. Tell other folks not to burn them. Why, why, why, why, though, the need to bless the Koran? Why place a blessing on a object that spreads falsehoods about God? Why call a book holy that clearly teaches blasphemy about Our Blessed Lord?
You don't want your Bible burned? Yeah, me neither. Because the Bible holds teachings of Divine Truth. That Truth mandates that I believe the Koran is false and therefore not holy.Just because Islam thinks the book is holy doesn't make it so, and their opinions to that effect shouldn't lead us to treat it that way.
The worst problem of the new translation is that it will, in fact, bring heresy into the Mass, and all because of an article.
Currently, the words over the cup during the Eucharistic Prayer speak of the Lord’s blood being spilled “for you and for all.” That translates the idea of the probable Aramaic words of Jesus and the Catholic faith that God’s will is that all be saved. The Latin text reads, “pro multis,” which also implies all-inclusiveness.
Ever since the currently-used English translation appeared, some people have objected to its inclusiveness. I have run across those who object precisely because they neither believe nor want God to desire the salvation of all.
Holy smokes. Am I a bad person because I can't stop laughing? Most folks might not recall, but there was (and in some circles, still is) a huge controversy about whether or not taking "pro multis" and translating it as "for all" invalidated the entire Mass due to the alteration of the Institution Narrative. There was a very vocal minority raising this issue, and it's died down oer the years.
The funny thing is that now we see "pro multis" again being injected into the liturgical battles, but this time it's the traditional translation that's under fire. And why? Because of HERESY of all reasons. I wonder what else this guy might find as heretical.
Not to get too theological here, but there is, of course, a sense in which God wills the salvation of all. It's right there in 1 Timothy 2:4. Such salvation would be the result of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, which is made present in the Holy Mass, hence the Institution Narrative. However, we also know (despite claims from guys like von Balthasar) that folks will wind up in hell. So we know that Christ's sacrifice is not efficient for all and can therefore is only effective for many.
Back to Fr. Grimm. Given that the phrase in question was translated as "for many" for centuries, one would think he would tread a bit more lightly here. He even admits that it's a more accurate translation:
In order to be slavishly faithful to Latin grammar, Rome is telling us that we must pray heresy, saying in effect that Jesus shed his blood for quite a few, but certainly not all.
Consider the consequences here. All these Catholics who prayed with their old missals all those years that had the "for many" translation were praying heresy. That's what he's saying. Consider what an arrogant and degrading comment that is.
Consider also the following:
If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Session XXII, Canon 6
So he admits that what the new translation says is actually a better translation. This better translation, which was standard and unchallenged for so long, is now heretical?
Who is treading closer to heresy, Fr. Grimm? Folks who will simply be doing what was done for all those years? Or you?
Louisiana health officials suspended an abortion clinic's license Friday, the first time the state has used its new authority to shut down such a facility over health and safety concerns.
The Louisiana health department ordered the Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport to immediately cease performing the procedures, saying an investigation found the clinic failed to ensure that a physician performed and documented a physical exam on each woman before a procedure. The clinic also failed to follow several procedures involving anesthesia, including not properly monitoring vital signs, the agency said.
This is good news. Don't read the comments to the article. You've been warned. Praise God for this victory. The other stuff will only get you down.
Continuing on with the Constitution on the Liturgy:
Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty, it likewise contains much instruction for the faithful [34]. For in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer.
A couple of things here. First, this is something lost in the Pauline Mass. I remember when my wife was first looking to convert to Orthodoxy, I had a lot of good conversations with our contributor Karl about the best resources for learning about it. He was absolutely correct when he told me to focus on the liturgy. With the exception of the Roman Canon, I really don't think the current Eucharistic Prayers in the West are very good at laying out the Church's beliefs. This is especially true with Prayer #2, which we all know is the most popular because it's the shortest. That should tell you something right there.
Second, the Mass is presented as God speaking to the people and the people responding to God. The number of Catholics who think the Mass is a dialogue with the priest is huge.
Third, the footnote is a Cf. to Session XXII, Chapter 8, of the Council of Trent on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To begin, how many "spirit of Vatican" types would freak out if they knew Trent was cited at VII about the liturgy.
More significant, though, is what Chapter 8 actually says about the instruction given to the laity:
Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals.
In other words, the Mass is all in Latin and is going to stay that way, so you priests had best be explaining what's going on. This will be an even bigger deal later, but I think it's interesting to check where the citation leads us on this. It certainly isn't to the cliche of "Vatican II said that we needed to understand stuff better so it switched the Mass to the vernacular."
Moving on:
Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present. And the visible signs used by the liturgy to signify invisible divine things have been chosen by Christ or the Church. Thus not only when things are read "which were written for our instruction" (Rom. 15:4), but also when the Church prays or sings or acts, the faith of those taking part is nourished and their minds are raised to God, so that they may offer Him their rational service and more abundantly receive His grace.
The best thing to take away from this is the bit about nourished faith and minds being raised to God. Somebody needs to explain how liturgical experimentation raises minds to God, rather than keeping them in the room with the committee.
Wherefore, in the revision of the liturgy, the following general norms should be observed:
Ok, this should give us specifics on what liturgical reform should look like, right?
The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.
And right out of the gate, the ambiguity shows itself. First, you've got the stuff about noble simplicity. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but check these articles from the New Liturgical Movement and Nova et Vera for the explanations on why noble simplicity doesn't mean iconoclasm. I will interject the question of how most of the Disco Liturgy that we see on YouTube and such can in any way qualify as noble or simple. Most of the abuses that we encounter are the opposite of this. Moreover, is this really something that wasn't already present? The TLM is very noble and simple, even at High Mass. As the NLM article shows, the exuberant liturgies are all in the East.
Second, I don't think anyone can gripe about the TLM not being short, clear, and non-repetitive. You have a second Confiteor, but outside of that, all the repeated stuff is just as repetitive in the Pauline Mass. So the question becomes what exactly are they talking about here?
Third, stuff is supposed to be comprehensible and without need for explanation. Didn't we just read a citation that said the opposite? The Mass is useful for instruction. Isn't it typical that people who need instruction aren't going to comprehend something and instead need it explained to them? This part is just plain weird, but you see it relied upon a lot by folks who have well-nigh Jansenist ideas on liturgy (see this article for a description of such ideas).
That the intimate connection between words and rites may be apparent in the liturgy:
In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.
So here we have the new cycle of readings. I get the intent here. I'm just not sure it worked out that way. Sometimes, it seems like having to work in more readings has made for less suitable selections for the occasion.
Because the sermon is part of the liturgical service, the best place for it is to be indicated even in the rubrics, as far as the nature of the rite will allow; the ministry of preaching is to be fulfilled with exactitude and fidelity. The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should be that of a proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history of salvation, the mystery of Christ, ever made present and active within us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy.
Nothing wrong with this. I'm just not sure how much it's actually done.
Instruction which is more explicitly liturgical should also be given in a variety of ways; if necessary, short directives to be spoken by the priest or proper minister should be provided within the rites themselves. But they should occur only at the more suitable moments, and be in prescribed or similar words.
This is basically a repetition of what we quoted from Trent above. Again, though, the weirdness is palpable since we are having to explain stuff again when it's already been said that you shouldn't have to explain anything.
Bible services should be encouraged, especially on the vigils of the more solemn feasts, on some weekdays in Advent and Lent, and on Sundays and feast days. They are particularly to be commended in places where no priest is available; when this is so, a deacon or some other person authorized by the bishop should preside over the celebration.
I'm not sure what is meant by Bible services. It is noteworthy that the Constitution again demands that whoever is leading must be someone authorized by the bishop.
Which brings us to:
Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
Boom. Vatican II actually says that Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
Let's look at the rest of the section:
But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
Note the language. "May be of great advantage." "May be extended." Start with readings and directives, then "some of the prayers and chants." In what measure of this do we find the impetus for an abolition of Latin?
These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
We're seeing this happen now with the new ICEL translation.
I'm going to stop here because the whole Latin business is usually what most people think of when VII liturgical reform is discussed. It's also the reason given for many as to why they don't like the TLM, even if they've never been to one before. There's a lot of info I think we need to go over for this to make it clear that, even with the ambiguity inserted into these passages, it's a huge stretch to claim that the Council was remotely contemplating an all-vernacular liturgy, and even more off-case to say that the vernacular was mandated. Our suggestion here is that the thing most cited as the defining characteristic of the Pauline Mass is actually nothing like the proposed conciliar reform.
As if we didn't know, the nation's most popular religion is indifferentism. And it's spread, per this recent CNN article. Yes, believe it or not, there is someone in the nation who still reads stuff from CNN.
Dean says more American teenagers are embracing what she calls "moralistic therapeutic deism." Translation: It's a watered-down faith that portrays God as a "divine therapist" whose chief goal is to boost people's self-esteem.
Dean is a minister, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and the author of "Almost Christian," a new book that argues that many parents and pastors are unwittingly passing on this self-serving strain of Christianity.
This should be shocking to a grand total of nobody. How many teens do you know? How many are in any way interesting in stuff beyond themselves? I know that such an attitude is common among teens, but I have never seen it to the degree it's exhibited these days.
Before you chide me about telling young people to get off my lawn and such, check some of the other items from the article:
Though three out of four American teenagers claim to be Christian, fewer than half practice their faith, only half deem it important, and most can't talk coherently about their beliefs, the study found.
Many teenagers thought that God simply wanted them to feel good and do good -- what the study's researchers called "moralistic therapeutic deism."
I guess my question to this is how it's limited to just young folks. This sounds like about 85% of adults I know, including Catholics, by the way. It's largely ignored by folks that this popular indifferentism is really just a symptom. Pelagianism is the disease, and it's encouraged by all of your more popular TV preachers.
Others practice a "gospel of niceness," where faith is simply doing good and not ruffling feathers. The Christian call to take risks, witness and sacrifice for others is muted, she says.
Straight up Pelagian from top to bottom.
So what do these folks suggest as a remedy?
Churches, not just parents, share some of the blame for teens' religious apathy as well, says Corrie, the Emory professor.
She says pastors often preach a safe message that can bring in the largest number of congregants. The result: more people and yawning in the pews.
"If your church can't survive without a certain number of members pledging, you might not want to preach a message that might make people mad," Corrie says. "We can all agree that we should all be good and that God rewards those who are nice."
Corrie, echoing the author of "Almost Christian," says the gospel of niceness can't teach teens how to confront tragedy.
In other words, give them a reality check. Here's what I don't get, though. Catholics are enormously guilty for the sort of suger-coated stuff mentioned here. This is in spite of the fact that we should be doing the opposite because Catholicism is uniquely capable of dealing with suffering. Pelagian TV preachers really don't deal with suffering well. In so many words, it always winds up being the victim's fault. Catholicism embraces hardship because that was The Master's way. So why aren't we proclaiming it?
Because we are too busy feeding the image of God as The Divine Therapist.
The other thing they suggest is "getting radical."
She says parents who perform one act of radical faith in front of their children convey more than a multitude of sermons and mission trips.
A parent's radical act of faith could involve something as simple as spending a summer in Bolivia working on an agricultural renewal project or turning down a more lucrative job offer to stay at a struggling church, Dean says.
I do have a minor problem with this. First of all, the bar for radicalism is pretty low these days. For Catholics, going to a TLM, participating in Adoration, or just praying the Rosary might count. Second, there is a desire to equate radical acts of faith with service projects. Atheists do service projects. The UN does service projects on a massive scale. That doesn't make it a Christian endeavor. Boniface has a great take on this over at Unam Sanctam that nails the problem 100% dead-on.
If you want to be radical, get them to go on a real retreat or some other contemplative activity. Break them out of the world's noise and give them silence for a while. That means way better odds of an encounter with God, I think.
Bill Kirk was fired rather unceremoniously. I'm sure the ND sports fans think this is a good thing, since the athletes will now be able to smoke marijuana without repercussions, but David Solomon thinks it is for daring to protest Obama's honorary degree.
If you ever think you can't, you don't have to reflect on the Apostles, Saints, or whoever. Just think of this woman.
A Chinese Catholic woman has pulled off a rare feat by encouraging a number of Buddhists to convert to Catholicism in the Sino-Tibetan province of Qinghai.
Father Joseph Li Dongsheng, parish priest of Xining Church, praised the woman’s achievement in a region that has only 4,000 Catholics in a total population of one million.
“I never even thought of converting ethnic Tibetans myself as they are so deeply rooted in Buddhism. It’s almost impossible,” he said.
The five new Catholics, aged from 20 to over 50, come from three families of the same clan and were Buddhists since childhood.
And, of course, it doesn't come without cost:
Father Li says he plans to give them ongoing care and education to help sustain their faith as “they may have to face discrimination in this Buddhist environment.”
These events suggest an emerging, systematic discrimination against the Church that now seems inevitable.
Today’s secularizers have learned from the past. They are more adroit in their bigotry; more elegant in their public relations; more intelligent in their work to exclude the Church and individual believers from influencing the moral life of society. Over the next several decades, Christianity will become a faith that can speak in the public square less and less freely. A society where faith is prevented from vigorous public expression is a society that has fashioned the state into an idol. And when the state becomes an idol, men and women become the sacrificial offering.
Here's one guy at least who has his head out of the sand. He understands what is at stake and manages to present it in a way that is urgent enough not to minimize what is going on.
That means we cannot dispense with our history out of some superficial concern over offending our non-Christian neighbors. Notwithstanding the chatter of the “new atheists,” there is no risk that Christianity will ever be forced upon people anywhere in the West. The only “confessional states” in the world today are those ruled by Islamist or atheist dictatorships -- regimes that have rejected the Christian West’s belief in individual rights and the balance of powers.
Persecution is coming, and when it gets here and knocks on the door, it will be wearing the smiley face of secular harmony and indifferentism. Basically, society will not tolerate the intolerance of Catholicism towards its collective "Non serviam." And the masses will cheer for this protection. Whatever Dawkins and Co. might say, they have it easy here in the West.
The temptation in every age of the Church is to try to get along with Caesar. And it’s very true: Scripture tells us to respect and pray for our leaders. We need to have a healthy love for the countries we call home. But we can never render unto Caesar what belongs to God. We need to obey God first; the obligations of political authority always come second. We cannot collaborate with evil without gradually becoming evil ourselves. This is one of the most vividly harsh lessons of the 20th century. And it’s a lesson that I hope we have learned.
I wonder if Father Jenkins is paying attention at ND. When you consider how stuff like this has gone down in the past, it's scary. How many bishops stood up to Henry VIII? One- St. John Fisher. How many priests and bishops will take a stand against the rising secular power? How many will instead decide to shake hands, pass out awards, and get a nice photo op in the name of secular goods and fake dialogue?
We've already seen how some will act. Pray for the priests and bishops of the world that they might stand firm.
Another sign that the Apocalypse is upon us. Baptists claiming to be bishops. Not only taking the title, but walking around with miters and zucchettos on. It seems to be all the rage, though, according to the Boston Globe via Clerical Whispers.
The title of bishop, accompanied by such emblems of authority, was uncommon among hierarchy-spurning Baptists until recently, but it is being adopted by a growing number of Baptist pastors, most of them African-American.
Borders and other new bishops have acquired some of the ceremonial garb — croziers (pastoral staffs), zucchettos (skullcaps) and chasubles (robes) — that their spiritual forefathers left behind when they broke from the Church of England in the 17th century.
Some, including Borders, have even embraced the doctrine of apostolic succession — the belief in an unbroken line from Jesus’ apostles to today’s bishops.
I wonder what the "Trail of Blood" folk are thinking about this.
The naming of Baptist bishops, which remains controversial among some traditionalists, is a departure for a church descended from the Puritans.
Baptist denominations do not have strict hierarchies; congregations are independent churches whose pastors are hired and fired by vote of the congregation.
“As late as the 19th century, a Baptist would have thought a preacher who wore a robe was being like a Catholic, and therefore terrible,’’ said Paul Harvey, a historian at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.
No freaking joke, Paul. As a guy who grew up in a predominantly Baptist family and community, I cannot put into words how freaky this development is. Or depressing. What precisely are the forces driving this push for bishoprics?
But in recent years, that has begun to change. Scholars cite a number of reasons: Baptists, like other Christian denominations, are facing heavy competition from independent churches, particularly those run by charismatic pastors who use the title of bishop to establish authority and build their personal brand.
The title is increasingly being used more formally in African-American Baptist churches, where the practice of calling senior pastors bishops has been unusual.
African-American Baptist ministers have historically been powerful figures in their communities and pillars of their congregations; some see the title as a recognition of that role.
“I think we see this emergence in spiritual leadership from a people who have known oppression,’’ Borders said. “It’s a self-identification that we’re gaining; it’s a valuing of our own leadership.’’
And in some cases now symbolic garb and elaborate rituals are accompanying the title.
That’s now possible because the 400-year-old fear of an all-powerful hierarchy has faded into a distant memory, and it now feels “safer to borrow and reappropriate historic practices that once were considered to be theologically problematic,’’ said James Farwell, professor of religious studies at Bethany College in West Virginia.
In a nutshell, it's marketing and something that is for the pastor's "self-identification." The theological problems (i.e.- the truth or falsity of the issue) are secondary. It's all about the Almighty Me.
And who governs the use of such title? Nobody seems to have a problem with the fact that no such authority exists.
With no established denominational hierarchy to bestow the title, Borders and others in the new generation of Baptist pastors look to a variety of authorities for validation.
“In my eyes, he was already bishop,’’ said Gillian Thomas, an associate minister at Morning Star.
“He has earned it. We are honoring him by recognizing in a formal way who he really is to us and who we believe he is to the city.’’
In an ornate ceremony in Memphis, where at one point he lay on the ground prostrate to demonstrate deep humility, Borders was consecrated bishop by the International Bishops Conference USA, a small and relatively new organization with members from a variety of Christian denominations.
The article mentions Paul's writings to Timothy and Titus as the Scriptural defense these guys are using for their position. It's interesting how they seem to ignore that you didn't just "become" a bishop. You had to have the authority granted to you from another who held such authority. The grant of authority here is clearly just their own. How awful to appropriate something like the episcopate simply because you feel like it.
Remember that Vatican II stuff we've been talking about? Specifically, this part from the Constitution on the Liturgy:
Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the "sacrament of unity," namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops.
That last part. The one about the people being united to their bishop. Apparently, the folks from St. Peter's (how ironic) in Cleveland would just rather not do so. Basically, their parish was closed. In response to the bishop's directive, they have decided to form their own parish.
Defying the authority of their bishop, parishioners and their priest from the closed St. Peter Catholic Church in downtown Cleveland celebrated Mass Sunday in leased commercial space they transformed into a church independent of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese.
The move by the new Community of St. Peter puts members in danger of excommunication because they had been warned by Bishop Richard Lennon, who shuttered St. Peter's in April, not to hold worship services in places without his approval.
Still, about 350 people, joined by their spiritual leader, the Rev. Robert Marrone, gathered for their first Mass and communion in their new home -- a newly renovated, century-old building on Euclid Avenue and East 71st Street.
So much for being united with the bishop. Anybody want to guess how many of these parishioners would probably use Vatican II as their justification for getting away with this? I'm betting at least 1/3 would do so. Logic and reason clearly aren't the strong points here. Note the comments/commentary provided from the Plain-Dealer article:
"This feels real good," said parishioner Bob Kloos of Cleveland Heights. "This is the handiwork of hundreds of people over many, many months."
The reporter apparently misspelled "handiwork of the Father of Lies." But, hey, if it feels good, it can't be wrong.
Group leaders emphasize that they see themselves as traditional Catholics and are challenging the closing of St. Peter's, not the tenets of their faith.
You mean except for that part about being united with the bishop, right?
"I feel wonderful at this moment," said parishioner Suzanne Joseph of Shaker Heights. "It's a little scary. We're kind of going into a new way of being within the Catholic church, but I'm very happy we're on this journey."
A new way. A journey. But not really breaking from anything. We know where this journey ends. It's not a happy thing.
Now Marrone had to decide whether to be faithful to the congregation he had inspired and nurtured for more than 20 years, or to the bishop who closed his church.
He chose . . . poorly.
"I see this as an act of disobedience, not a schism," Marrone said in an interview before the new space was opened. "But I suspect we'll get accused of schism."
Oh, well, hey then, I guess it must be ok. After all, if you don't see it as an act of schism, then things must be alright. Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder what his position on the SSPX is. All Archbishop Lefebvre claimed was a danger to the faith of the entire world. I mean, this guy's parish was closed down. He couldn't just stand by and do nothing.
"The Community of St. Peter holds to the fundamental teachings and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church," said parishioner Bob Zack of Independence.
Again, with the lies. At least be honest about what you are doing.
"We consider ourselves neither a focal point of dissent nor a schismatic organization."
Except that you are. Your opinion doesn't change reality.
"We do stand, however, in opposition to the closing of our church as well as so many others in our diocese," Zack said. "The bishop says the church is his real estate. Fine, take it. We have no control over that. But we have decided we want to keep our community together."
Together. Outside of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Unity. In a common ruin.
Asked whether the congregation fears excommunication, Zack said, "That's something each individual has to consider. I have a hard time understanding why we need the bishop's permission for us to worship together."
Did Vatican II say that? Or any other Church teaching for the last 2000 years? Have you ever tried to understand why?
Parishioner Norbert Koehn of South Euclid, a sculptor who designed and built the new altar and baptismal font, said he didn't expect the bishop to retaliate or push for excommunications.
"This is a new beginning, a new start," he said. "It has nothing to do with the bishop any more.
"Yes, there could be excommunication, but I don't think that once you've been baptized it can be taken away from you by anybody."
Who the hell has been teaching these people? Does baptism guarantee their salvation? Does he even know/care what an excommunication is?
"It's an ongoing story. It's an evolving story. In my last sermon at St. Peter's I said, 'The exodus begins. Come, let us go.'"
And so you went.
We close with some counter-proposals from St. Ignatius of Antioch:
Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ. . .
Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest. . .
Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit.- Epistle to the Magnesians
Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. . .
He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience.- Epistle to the Trallians
It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father.- Epistle to the Philadelphians
This is the old way of the saints and martyrs. The narrow gate. It is a shame that these parishioners have chosen a new way, through the broad gate.
If you're keeping up with the current series on liturgical reform, you'll note that the basic premise is that what the Council said and what was actually done are two radically different things. For more evidence of that, let's take a look at a Fr. Z entry from October of 2009. It recounts a conversation between Pope Paul VI and Fr. Louis Bouyer, who was a very prominent liturgist and member of the commission in charge of the conciliar implementation:
Father Louis Bouyer: I wrote to the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, to tender my resignation as member of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform. The Holy Father sent for me at once (and the following conversation ensued):
Paul VI: Father, you are an unquestionable and unquestioned authority by your deep knowledge of the Church’s liturgy and Tradition, and a specialist in this field. I do not understand why you have sent me your resignation, whilst your presence, is more than precious, it is indispensable!
Father Bouyer: Most Holy Father, if I am a specialist in this field, I tell you very simply that I resign because I do not agree with the reforms you are imposing! Why do you take no notice of the remarks we send you, and why do you do the opposite?
Paul VI: But I don’t understand: I’m not imposing anything. I have never imposed anything in this field. I have complete trust in your competence and your propositions. It is you who are sending me proposals. When Fr. Bugnini comes to see me, he says: "Here is what the experts are asking for." And as you are an expert in this matter, I accept your judgement.
Father Bouyer: And meanwhile, when we have studied a question, and have chosen what we can propose to you, in conscience, Father Bugnini took our text, and, then said to us that, having consulted you: "The Holy Father wants you to introduce these changes into the liturgy." And since I don’t agree with your propositions, because they break with the Tradition of the Church, then I tender my resignation.
Paul VI: But not at all, Father, believe me, Father Bugnini tells me exactly the contrary: I have never refused a single one of your proposals. Father Bugnini came to find me and said: "The experts of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform asked for this and that". And since I am not a liturgical specialist, I tell you again, I have always accepted your judgement. I never said that to Monsignor Bugnini. I was deceived. Father Bugnini deceived me and deceived you.
Father Bouyer: That is, my dear friends, how the liturgical reform was done!
Yeah, I know. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law. If it is true, though, it would explain a whole lot as to how what the Council said wound up getting completely ignored or contradicted. And there's that Bugnini name again. For what it's worth, the above conversation allegedly took place in 1974. In July of 1975, the Congregation of Divine Worship (for which he acted as secretary) was dissolved as a separate Curial office. Six months after that, Archbishop Bugnini was shipped off to Iran as papal nuncio. This was a huge fall for Bugnini. Many are convinced that he was exposed as a Mason to Paul VI.
I'm not making any judgments on such things. I'm just saying that a lot of stuff would make more sense if that was the case.
And we're back, and we're heading straight back to the Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:
In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself.
Ok, let's notice that the first thing here is that what is supposed to happen is a "restoration." I don't think it's out of bounds to say that this would have a frame of reference to something that came before. Creating something completely new is not restoring it.
For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
Sure, but might it not be a dangerous thing to just change something that was as venerable as the Mass? Something that had gone basically unchanged since the time of Gregory the Great doesn't seem a very ripe field for things that might be unsuitable. This reminds me of something Aquinas said in the First Part of the Second Part, Question 97, Article 2 of the Summa. He basically says that crappy laws might be best left alone, since changing the law all the time diminishes the power of the law in question. It habituates people to change, rather than to stability. Isn't that what happened with the Mass?
Cardinal Ottaviani warned of this very thing at the Council, per The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber:
Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal, among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation...
Anyways, onward we go.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.
Aha!, someone says. There's the impetus for ditching Latin and all that other stuff! Not really. If you recall, active participation in the Mass has already been described as a contemplative thing. Moreover, the rest of the Constitution goes into some detail as to what we're supposed to do to understand this stuff better. Just bear with us.
Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms:
A) General norms
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
Of course.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
Ugh. The good part is the bit about "certain defined limits." The bad part is that is brings up bishop conferences and ignores that unless the "limits" are defined and then enforced, bad things will happen. This phrasing might have been unwise.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Here's one of those limits right here, yet how many priests and bishops do this very thing? Without enforcement, this is a functionally worthless statement.
23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing. As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.
First, we're retaining sound tradition. Does that sound like it suggests creating an entirely new Mass?
Careful investigation. Why bother if you are just going to make something new?
Third, and please consider this carefully, no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them. What in this remotely suggests that an entire new Mass is needed? Did the good of the Church require such a thing? The Traditional Mass had nurtured the spirituality of the Latin Church for centuries. It was an instrument for converting the world. Why did it have to be shelved? What good was damaged by its continued presence?
Finally, organic development from the forms already existing. This by itself demonstrates that a Novus Ordo wasn't in the works. We also know from his comments on the current liturgy being a "banal fabrication" that the Holy Father sees it as not springing from organic development at all.
24. Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it is from scripture that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung; the prayers, collects, and liturgical songs are scriptural in their inspiration and their force, and it is from the scriptures that actions and signs derive their meaning. Thus to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony.
Nothing really to see here, I think.
25. The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world.
Yeah, this was probably a bad idea, too. Consider that the lead expert in all this was Archbishop Bugnini, who was later suspected of being a Freemason. Check this comment he made back in 1965:
We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.
Does this sound like a guy interested in restoration, organic development, or the maintenance of tradition?
B) Norms drawn from the hierarchic and communal nature of the Liturgy
26. Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the "sacrament of unity," namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops.[33]
The former item insists that the Church cannot be other than one:
That coat (Christ's garment at the Crucifixion) bore with it an unity that came down from the top, that is, that came from heaven and the Father, which was not to be at all rent by the receiver and the possessor, but without separation we obtain a whole and substantial entireness. He cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ.He cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ.
The latter item is a about excomming a schismatic and replacing him with another bishop.
Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church; they manifest it and have effects upon it; but they concern the individual members of the Church in different ways, according to their differing rank, office, and actual participation.
In other words, there are things some people can do that you can't. Like the priest. You can't do the things he does.
27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private. This applies with especial force to the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments, even though every Mass has of itself a public and social nature.
This is a reference to private Masses, which I've been told by some who deny the Mass as Sacrifice instead of a "communal supper." Clearly, though, this isn't the suppression that some folks claim. All it says is that other folks should be there if possible.
The "according to their specific nature" part makes this more likely about other things, too. It might be talking about the Divine Office.
28. In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.
Again, stick to what you are supposed to be doing. If you aren't a priest, don't pretend to be one. Otherwise, you're out of your element, Donny.
29. Servers, lectors commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function. They ought, therefore, to discharge their office with the sincere piety and decorum demanded by so exalted a ministry and rightly expected of them by God's people. Consequently they must all be deeply imbued with the spirit of the liturgy, each in his own measure, and they must be trained to perform their functions in a correct and orderly manner.
Training? For the choir? Why would a choir need training? Don't you just get up there and sing a song? That doesn't take any training.
More on that in a bit. For now, just consider the part about piety and decorum and whether or not this fits the bill:
30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.
So there are times to sing, say things, and do things. Then there are times to be quiet. In spite of what you might have heard, these are not items exclusive to the Pauline Mass, especially if we're talking about Dialogue Masses in the Extraordinary Form. Do not forget, though, that the Council has already said that the contemplative aspect of worship is the superior.
31. The revision of the liturgical books must carefully attend to the provision of rubrics also for the people's parts.
This is good. The Traditional Mass, so far as I know, never had rubrics for the people.
32. The liturgy makes distinctions between persons according to their liturgical function and sacred Orders, and there are liturgical laws providing for due honors to be given to civil authorities. Apart from these instances, no special honors are to be paid in the liturgy to any private persons or classes of persons, whether in the ceremonies or by external display.
This is noteworthy. It not only reiterates that the Mass itself emphasizes the distinction between priest and laity, but it also makes it clear that you don't change the liturgy because a Kennedy or other such person is involved.
By my reckoning, this puts us about 20% of the way through the Constitution. I will do better on this. I promise. Hopefully, this entry will get me back on track.
The USCCB has the uncanny ability to not have its crap together. Every time you think that they can't really screw up anymore, they turn things up to eleven, just to prove us wrong.
The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), the anti-poverty program run by the USCCB, came under fire this past year for funding groups who were explicitly supporting abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage.
After its internal investigation, the CCHD claimed there were problems with only five groups out of the 51 listed as problematic by the Reform CCHD Now coalition. These five groups were subsequently defunded. (The approximate total number of CCHD grants in a year is 250.)
However, new evidence has emerged that adds 16 new groups to the 51 originally listed as problematic by the Reform CCHD Now Coalition. The 2010 CCHD list of grantees has yet to be released, so we have to wait to learn how many of the problematic groups were funded once again. (The troublesome fact that the announcement of the 2010 grantee list has been delayed a month later than usual is an issue we will return to later.)
Is it too much to ask that our prelates not support infanticide?
It's basically just his homilies, but he's an ND grad himself (without losing the Faith), and a guy whose been kind enough to let me follow his journey from the world to the seminary to ontologically changed.
I'd never even heard of this guy. He was an English priest and martyred by the Elizabethan hordes at age 80. They screwed up his execution something terrible. The hanging hadn't worked half an hour later, so they just went ahead and beheaded them.
I mention this as paired with my previous post. There will be a generation of Catholics who have this sort of treatment to look forward to.
