When we turn our attention to the Latin Mass, the Extraordinary Form is frequently criticized for lacking "participation." Upon hearing this, the traditionalist offers a riposte about different theologies of participation, the deficiencies of this or that, you know the drill. Very rarely does anybody have success convincing either side.
I would like to do something different. I will freely concede that for a decent number of people, they are not participating properly at Mass. I myself have been guilty of this. I bet you have as well. My mind has spaced out when a priest speaks in English and in Latin. I have words I "understand" come off flat from my mouth, and a phrase spoken in Latin carry more meaning, and vice versa. Whenever the issue of participation comes up, we should just simply point out one fact. Catholics behaving badly is not the fault of this or that liturgical form. After stating that, we must then dismiss the issue at hand. Instead, let us focus on what true participation is. In order to do that, we must first focus on what we are as individuals.
Each and every person truly is a complex work of art. For one, we have a body. We also have deep knowledge of our bodies. Therefore in worshipping God, we use what we know best. That body conducts different motions that convey certain expressions and attitudes. When Moses encountered God, he is instructed to remove his sandals, for he was stepping on Holy Ground. What he did with his feet was significant in how he worshipped God. With feet and tongue, David worshipped God in dancing around the ark, and composing some of the most beautiful Psalms. Yet God also said that in true worship of him "all flesh will keep silence", as the prophet Habakkuk relates.
To add to this complexity we have our intellect. With our intellect comes reason, and with reason we find a path to God. Our God wants to be known and in many ways understood by man. Just as we use our intellect to ponder the depths of a friendship with someone, we can do likewise with God, coming to a greater understanding and love of Him by thinking of things concerning Him. Yet sometimes God appears in ways the intellect cannot fathom. The author of Ecclesiastes had knowledge surpassing all man, and yet found knowledge vanity when contemplating God. Paul spent his life plunging deeper and deeper intellectually into understanding God and His Holy Law. Yet the closest encounter he had with God involved him being struck dumbfounded and on the ground.
Finally, we can add emotional sentiments onto this complexity. Many times these are a mix of physical and intellectual things. These are also used in finding God. When King David recognized his sinful ways, he was overwhelmed with emotion. These emotions are also caused by gladness, such as when Zechariah proclaimed his joy in God's wonders upon the birth of his son John the Baptist. Yet for all the importance of emotions, St. John of the Cross describes encountering Christ, whose very touch suspended all senses and emotions.
Knowing all these facts, what can we say about worship? First and foremost, there is no one singular way to worship. As with all things human, there are limitations. The Mass overcomes these limitations by including all the different forms of worship. Not only is there something for everybody, everybody will experience the full spectrum of worship.
Considered from this perspective, the question about whether or not we are participating properly at Mass takes on new meaning. Not by mistake did the Council of Vatican II call for participation which is not just "active", but "full and active", that is, spanning the entirety of the human condition. If you approach every part of mass every time with nothing but stoic contemplation, you are missing the chances where we publicly and vocally affirm our faith in God. Yet on the other side of that coin, we cannot focus so much on the vocal aspect of things that we neglect the times when silent adoration is called for. Neither is inherently superior, rather both are superior in their own proper times.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Why Latin?
When people find out you attend a Latin Mass, they always get hung up on the Latin part. I remember taking a trip down to Franciscan University of Stuebenville, and spending the evening with a group of otherwise perfectly orthodox Catholics. When a young lady learned I went to the Latin Mass, her response sticks with me to this day. "Why Latin? Don't you believe in the Holy Spirit and Vatican II?" Crazy as it sounds, she didn't mean anything ill by it.
To many, the Latin Mass is constructed as follows. The congregation sits with their faces buried in a missal (or fingers thumbing on a Rosary) while the priest has his back turned to the faithful praying in silence so you can't hear him. When you can hear him, it's in a language you deliberately cannot understand. If that's how it has been taught to you, one would certainly think there's nothing about the Holy Spirit there!
From a certain perspective, there are elements of truth to each of these statements. Yet that doesn't change the fact this characterization of the Churches ancient liturgy couldn't be any further from the truth. Let us consider the use of the Latin language.
In my regular career, I work in a data center for a global corporation. That data center is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The servers in that data center are accessed by individuals in over 40 countries. In those countries exist people speaking even more languages. Many times, I have to be in touch with these individuals speaking a variety of languages. We need to speak in a language we both understand. In this case, every global support contact for our company has to be fluent in English. Whether I am speaking to Jaromir in Kostelec, Azmat in Russia, Ignacio in Mexico City, we communicate in and are understood in one language. If one prefers a nerdier example, a physicist in Tokyo and a physicist in New York can communicate to each other in their work even if neither knows the language the other speaks. They speak through the language of mathematics.
The Catholic Church is like the business I work for in the aspect of its size. She spans countless cultures and languages. Whenever Catholic leaders from across the globe put together things having to do with the Catholic Faith, they as well have a universal language. The documents of an Ecumenical Council are worthless from a doctrinal point of view unless in Latin. The official liturgical books are only authoritative in the Latin. Attempt to write something authoritative on canon law in your native tongue with no reference to the Latin, and your likely to get laughed out of whatever venue you are in. Precisely because the Church exists here on earth on a global scale, you need that universal language.
"Well that is the Church on a greater level. What about the individual Church?" You will frequently hear that question asked. I will only say one thing. If you look at the Mass you celebrate as different from the Mass celebrated in other Churches, you are doing it wrong. There is only one sacrifice of the Mass. That is celebrated in heaven, outside of time. This one offering is made present on the altars throughout the world, due to a miracle. No matter which day we attend Mass, we are attending the same Mass, the same sacrifice. It was for this symbolic reason that masses were in a universal language.
Yet why Latin? Why not English, or Swahili for that matter? In short, it is what worked best throughout history. There's no divine or theological reasoning behind it. Latin was the language of all of Christianity for at least the first several centuries. Latin was the language of the Roman Empire. When the Empire fell, the Latin language influenced countless languages. Most importantly, it fell out of use. The meanings of the phrases became fixed. In our English language, one need only look at such terms like "liberal" or "conservative" at the founding of our country, to how they are used today. That dead language is one that can be reasonably learned by the greatest amount of people and the meaning of those words will be consistent and reliable.
Yet most importantly, this language links you to a greater tradition and patrimony. When Christ celebrated the Passover Seder, he did not do so in the common language. He said it in the dialect and tongue of those first Hebrews as they left Egypt. In the thousands of years since, the language had developed. By using the same words in the same language, it was yet another way to make present the anamnesis of the Seder. Our defecient English language translates anamnesis as "remembrance." To the Jew celebrating Passover (and the Catholic celebrating Mass), the "remembrance" or "memorial offering" is something far deeper. When they partake in the rituals of the Passover, they are living what is symbolized by them. When we Catholics of the Roman Rite assist at or celebrate Mass, we use that Latin language as a way to unite ourselves to those first Roman priests who celebrated Mass on the tombs of martyrs. We unite ourselves with the Popes who carefully through the years developed organically that liturgy.
Does this mean that a Mass not done in Latin is somehow less of a Mass? Certainly not! Yet when dealing with such sublime mysteries, we go as far as possible in immersing ourselves in them. When dealing with the Mass, one cannot immerse themselves in it enough.
To many, the Latin Mass is constructed as follows. The congregation sits with their faces buried in a missal (or fingers thumbing on a Rosary) while the priest has his back turned to the faithful praying in silence so you can't hear him. When you can hear him, it's in a language you deliberately cannot understand. If that's how it has been taught to you, one would certainly think there's nothing about the Holy Spirit there!
From a certain perspective, there are elements of truth to each of these statements. Yet that doesn't change the fact this characterization of the Churches ancient liturgy couldn't be any further from the truth. Let us consider the use of the Latin language.
In my regular career, I work in a data center for a global corporation. That data center is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The servers in that data center are accessed by individuals in over 40 countries. In those countries exist people speaking even more languages. Many times, I have to be in touch with these individuals speaking a variety of languages. We need to speak in a language we both understand. In this case, every global support contact for our company has to be fluent in English. Whether I am speaking to Jaromir in Kostelec, Azmat in Russia, Ignacio in Mexico City, we communicate in and are understood in one language. If one prefers a nerdier example, a physicist in Tokyo and a physicist in New York can communicate to each other in their work even if neither knows the language the other speaks. They speak through the language of mathematics.
The Catholic Church is like the business I work for in the aspect of its size. She spans countless cultures and languages. Whenever Catholic leaders from across the globe put together things having to do with the Catholic Faith, they as well have a universal language. The documents of an Ecumenical Council are worthless from a doctrinal point of view unless in Latin. The official liturgical books are only authoritative in the Latin. Attempt to write something authoritative on canon law in your native tongue with no reference to the Latin, and your likely to get laughed out of whatever venue you are in. Precisely because the Church exists here on earth on a global scale, you need that universal language.
"Well that is the Church on a greater level. What about the individual Church?" You will frequently hear that question asked. I will only say one thing. If you look at the Mass you celebrate as different from the Mass celebrated in other Churches, you are doing it wrong. There is only one sacrifice of the Mass. That is celebrated in heaven, outside of time. This one offering is made present on the altars throughout the world, due to a miracle. No matter which day we attend Mass, we are attending the same Mass, the same sacrifice. It was for this symbolic reason that masses were in a universal language.
Yet why Latin? Why not English, or Swahili for that matter? In short, it is what worked best throughout history. There's no divine or theological reasoning behind it. Latin was the language of all of Christianity for at least the first several centuries. Latin was the language of the Roman Empire. When the Empire fell, the Latin language influenced countless languages. Most importantly, it fell out of use. The meanings of the phrases became fixed. In our English language, one need only look at such terms like "liberal" or "conservative" at the founding of our country, to how they are used today. That dead language is one that can be reasonably learned by the greatest amount of people and the meaning of those words will be consistent and reliable.
Yet most importantly, this language links you to a greater tradition and patrimony. When Christ celebrated the Passover Seder, he did not do so in the common language. He said it in the dialect and tongue of those first Hebrews as they left Egypt. In the thousands of years since, the language had developed. By using the same words in the same language, it was yet another way to make present the anamnesis of the Seder. Our defecient English language translates anamnesis as "remembrance." To the Jew celebrating Passover (and the Catholic celebrating Mass), the "remembrance" or "memorial offering" is something far deeper. When they partake in the rituals of the Passover, they are living what is symbolized by them. When we Catholics of the Roman Rite assist at or celebrate Mass, we use that Latin language as a way to unite ourselves to those first Roman priests who celebrated Mass on the tombs of martyrs. We unite ourselves with the Popes who carefully through the years developed organically that liturgy.
Does this mean that a Mass not done in Latin is somehow less of a Mass? Certainly not! Yet when dealing with such sublime mysteries, we go as far as possible in immersing ourselves in them. When dealing with the Mass, one cannot immerse themselves in it enough.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Why a Latin Wedding?
Whenever people here of our engagement, people always ask "So where are you going to be married?" When they hear St. Josaphat in Detroit, a lot of people know how beautiful the Church is. Seriously, its reputation precedes itself. When they hear that we are having the nuptial mass according to the Extraordinary Form (or a Latin Mass Wedding), the reactions are mainly mixed, in and of itself a good thing.
That the reaction is simply "mixed" and not outright scorn and ostracizing is a sign that yes, the Latin Mass has found itself a place in today's Catholicism. Is some of that scorn still present? Indeed, yet for the most part that scorn is kept silent. The far more likely reaction is either curiosity or confusion. A lot of non-catholics (or those no longer practicing) have given most of the curiosity. In an irony of ironies, traditionalism is a novelty today, and they are fascinated by the novelty if nothing else. Others love the beauty. To those curious, they can only attend our wedding and find out.
My focus today (and for quite some time) is on the confused. It isn't that they are hostile to the idea of a Latin Mass Wedding. They just don't understand what the big deal is. I do not know if I can accurately convey why I view it a big deal. Yet I hope to offer an explantion for why I love this way of celebrating Mass.
Throughout 2011 I did a series here at Common Sense Catholicism explaining various facets of the Extraordinary Form. I'd like to revisit those works and reboot them with these considerations in mind. The first section of postings will center around various questions about the Latin Mass and some basic answers, while the second portion will focus on the individual prayers contained in the Mass and the great meaning behind them. Even if one attends nothing but the Ordinary Form, I hope this helps you in achieving a greater understanding of the one Mass, no matter how it be celebrated here on Earth, for it is the same in heaven.
That the reaction is simply "mixed" and not outright scorn and ostracizing is a sign that yes, the Latin Mass has found itself a place in today's Catholicism. Is some of that scorn still present? Indeed, yet for the most part that scorn is kept silent. The far more likely reaction is either curiosity or confusion. A lot of non-catholics (or those no longer practicing) have given most of the curiosity. In an irony of ironies, traditionalism is a novelty today, and they are fascinated by the novelty if nothing else. Others love the beauty. To those curious, they can only attend our wedding and find out.
My focus today (and for quite some time) is on the confused. It isn't that they are hostile to the idea of a Latin Mass Wedding. They just don't understand what the big deal is. I do not know if I can accurately convey why I view it a big deal. Yet I hope to offer an explantion for why I love this way of celebrating Mass.
Throughout 2011 I did a series here at Common Sense Catholicism explaining various facets of the Extraordinary Form. I'd like to revisit those works and reboot them with these considerations in mind. The first section of postings will center around various questions about the Latin Mass and some basic answers, while the second portion will focus on the individual prayers contained in the Mass and the great meaning behind them. Even if one attends nothing but the Ordinary Form, I hope this helps you in achieving a greater understanding of the one Mass, no matter how it be celebrated here on Earth, for it is the same in heaven.
Allow Myself to Reintroduce Myself
It certainly has been an interesting eleven months. A lot has changed since then in my life and I'm sure those readers who were around before. I went from being a rather busy blogger to disappearing. Why? A combination of marathon Skyrim sessions (getting the game to 95% complete takes a lot longer than you might think, and you might think it takes pretty darn long!) and the relationship I've been in for now almost two years. That relationship has now led to an engagement set for June 1st, 2013.
Fast forward to today. I've burned myself out on Skyrim, and PC gaming in general. Even if I haven't been writing actively, I haven't completely disappeared. The TOB debates still ravaged in the background, and I managed to participate when my advice was asked. My traditionalism remained as always. Indeed, I simply found different ways of expressing a lot of the things that I've written about, this time through actions instead of words.
Yet all exiles end eventually, and this one is no different. For awhile I lacked a reason to write. I now have a reason, which I hope to make clear throughout the following posts. Yet in the end, there is one reason above all to write. I once again enjoy doing so. This isn't a career for me. I had that chance yet felt called elsewhere. Yet if it is not a career, it is still a huge part of my life. That I have fun doing this I hope will come across in these writings. Far too often my ideological kindred are doom and gloom. It is hard not to be. Yet the grace of God is meant to liberate human nature, and that liberation also comes from gloom and despair. We represent a way of looking at the world that has lifted billions out of despair and sin, and guided them towards true and eternal happiness. Why on earth would anyone belonging to such a patrimony be gloomy?
A lot of the projects I worked on in the past will resurface or be rebooted with the freshness these past eleven months have provided. With that let us continue on our journey..... at least until The Elder Scrolls VI, future children, or a Detroit Tigers championship come upon us, whichever come first.
Fast forward to today. I've burned myself out on Skyrim, and PC gaming in general. Even if I haven't been writing actively, I haven't completely disappeared. The TOB debates still ravaged in the background, and I managed to participate when my advice was asked. My traditionalism remained as always. Indeed, I simply found different ways of expressing a lot of the things that I've written about, this time through actions instead of words.
Yet all exiles end eventually, and this one is no different. For awhile I lacked a reason to write. I now have a reason, which I hope to make clear throughout the following posts. Yet in the end, there is one reason above all to write. I once again enjoy doing so. This isn't a career for me. I had that chance yet felt called elsewhere. Yet if it is not a career, it is still a huge part of my life. That I have fun doing this I hope will come across in these writings. Far too often my ideological kindred are doom and gloom. It is hard not to be. Yet the grace of God is meant to liberate human nature, and that liberation also comes from gloom and despair. We represent a way of looking at the world that has lifted billions out of despair and sin, and guided them towards true and eternal happiness. Why on earth would anyone belonging to such a patrimony be gloomy?
A lot of the projects I worked on in the past will resurface or be rebooted with the freshness these past eleven months have provided. With that let us continue on our journey..... at least until The Elder Scrolls VI, future children, or a Detroit Tigers championship come upon us, whichever come first.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Shame is Good
Whenever discussions arise surrounding how to understand Blessed John Paul's Theology of the Body, the topic of shame frequently comes up. It is good this happens. The proper understanding of shame not only unlocks a proper understanding of the Pope's popular speeches, but unlocks the proper understanding of everything surrounding Christianity.
Unfortunately, shame is almost entirely presented in a rather negative way. Shame is something wrong, that occurs because we feel we have done something wrong. There are some writers and thinkers who have made a veritable cottage industry out of mocking the "shame" of those they disagree with, implying that the existence of shame demonstrates how backwards they are in the Gospel. Such an approach is misplaced and betrays a lack of familiarity not only with God's word, but human nature itself.
To acquire a better understanding of shame, we must turn our attention to the Wisdom literature of the Old Testament. I have in mind specifically the book of Sirach. In the fourth chapter (the verse itself varies depending on your translation), the wise man states:
Yet what does Sirach mean when he says that there is a shame that brings "glory and grace?" I submit the answer to this question comes in the key to all wisdom literature. King Solomon tells us, before any of his proverbs, that "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of all wisdom." While it might seem so, I am not exchanging one cryptic passage for another. Like shame, fear is something often misunderstood. Far from terror, the Bible understands this fear to be a sense of reverence and awe.
Take a young boy to a baseball game. He will stand in amazement at the green of the grass, the sheer size of the stadium. He might not understand the intricacies of the WHIP statistic (many adults don't), yet he can still just take the grandeur of the game in. When it comes to dealing with God, we are that little boy. The beauty and grandeur of his works are something so beyond us, we can simply sit there and stare, taking it all in.
The more you take in the great things that God gives, the more you come to a realization. That is a recognition of your own smallness. Man, being the progressive being he is, always wants to better himself. Yet this advancement only makes our limitations more apparent. King Solomon acquired more wealth than hundreds of his descendants could possibly spend, yet Christ tells us a simply lily flower was adorned even greater than the King in all his majesty.
The just and the wicked alike come to this conclusion. Both have that experience of shame within them. (Sometimes you may have to dig deep!) The question becomes: how does one respond to it? The shame which brings sin responds to such inadequacy through pride. Solomon magnified his status to an absurd degree (gold everything, 700 wives, etc). A man may see a woman of virtue reject his advances, and feel a sense of being diminished.. The shame that leads to sin tries to seize what needs to be offered as a gift by force. The idea he should be denied anything is absurd. Rather than recognizing the limits of humanity, they strive against them, believing they can change them. Even worse, those limits come to be viewed as a hindrance towards what you can truly be, so they must be dismissed.
So how does the shame which leads to grace come about? That shame comes from an acceptance of one's limitations, and of their smallness. Standing before what they perceive such a great mystery, they simply accept it. Indeed, to add anything to it of their own accord would just screw everything up. Only when this attitude is adopted can God begin the real work within. When such a person sins, they do not despair at it. Yet they do not ignore it. They realize all the better what they were called for, and how far short they fell. It is at this point grace is at its strongest.
That is why it is absurd to speak of doing away with shame, and being without shame. If one were without shame, one would be without humility. If one were without humility, one could not possibly love. As for a world without love, well, I think we see where this is going.
Unfortunately, shame is almost entirely presented in a rather negative way. Shame is something wrong, that occurs because we feel we have done something wrong. There are some writers and thinkers who have made a veritable cottage industry out of mocking the "shame" of those they disagree with, implying that the existence of shame demonstrates how backwards they are in the Gospel. Such an approach is misplaced and betrays a lack of familiarity not only with God's word, but human nature itself.
To acquire a better understanding of shame, we must turn our attention to the Wisdom literature of the Old Testament. I have in mind specifically the book of Sirach. In the fourth chapter (the verse itself varies depending on your translation), the wise man states:
For there is a shame that bringeth sin, and there is a shame that bringeth glory and graceFor Sirach, shame is something that simply exists. It is not something you can do away with. Indeed, in this context, he speaks about the futility of trying to fight the current of a river. If one fights to eliminate shame entirely, one is engaging in a pointless battle. Since the fall of Adam, shame has existed, and will always exist on the earth.
Yet what does Sirach mean when he says that there is a shame that brings "glory and grace?" I submit the answer to this question comes in the key to all wisdom literature. King Solomon tells us, before any of his proverbs, that "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of all wisdom." While it might seem so, I am not exchanging one cryptic passage for another. Like shame, fear is something often misunderstood. Far from terror, the Bible understands this fear to be a sense of reverence and awe.
Take a young boy to a baseball game. He will stand in amazement at the green of the grass, the sheer size of the stadium. He might not understand the intricacies of the WHIP statistic (many adults don't), yet he can still just take the grandeur of the game in. When it comes to dealing with God, we are that little boy. The beauty and grandeur of his works are something so beyond us, we can simply sit there and stare, taking it all in.
The more you take in the great things that God gives, the more you come to a realization. That is a recognition of your own smallness. Man, being the progressive being he is, always wants to better himself. Yet this advancement only makes our limitations more apparent. King Solomon acquired more wealth than hundreds of his descendants could possibly spend, yet Christ tells us a simply lily flower was adorned even greater than the King in all his majesty.
The just and the wicked alike come to this conclusion. Both have that experience of shame within them. (Sometimes you may have to dig deep!) The question becomes: how does one respond to it? The shame which brings sin responds to such inadequacy through pride. Solomon magnified his status to an absurd degree (gold everything, 700 wives, etc). A man may see a woman of virtue reject his advances, and feel a sense of being diminished.. The shame that leads to sin tries to seize what needs to be offered as a gift by force. The idea he should be denied anything is absurd. Rather than recognizing the limits of humanity, they strive against them, believing they can change them. Even worse, those limits come to be viewed as a hindrance towards what you can truly be, so they must be dismissed.
So how does the shame which leads to grace come about? That shame comes from an acceptance of one's limitations, and of their smallness. Standing before what they perceive such a great mystery, they simply accept it. Indeed, to add anything to it of their own accord would just screw everything up. Only when this attitude is adopted can God begin the real work within. When such a person sins, they do not despair at it. Yet they do not ignore it. They realize all the better what they were called for, and how far short they fell. It is at this point grace is at its strongest.
That is why it is absurd to speak of doing away with shame, and being without shame. If one were without shame, one would be without humility. If one were without humility, one could not possibly love. As for a world without love, well, I think we see where this is going.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
The Extraordinary Form: The Meaning of the Sanctus
At the end of the Preface (depending on the Preface), various invocations of the angels and saints in Heaven are made. We are then called to join their song humbly. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is something very important to remember. When we begin the Sanctus, we are not simply saying it alone. We are moved outside of time, united to heaven in a very mystical way.
The Sanctus is a very rich prayer when we consider what exactly is going on. Two scenes are called to mind in this prayer, both of which were introductions. The first is from the Prophet Isaiah:
The priest finds himself in a similar situation. After that purification (which we all receive in the Sacraments of Initiation), God asks for people to accept the calling of the priesthood. Not everyone will answer that call. When the priest does, he may ask, like Isaiah does, how long must he preach the Gospel? How long must he offer the Mass? The answer God provides is instructive:
Yet what makes the Canon such a holy thing? It is more than just our participation at Calvary. Through the Roman Canon, Holy Week itself is retraced.
The Sanctus is a very rich prayer when we consider what exactly is going on. Two scenes are called to mind in this prayer, both of which were introductions. The first is from the Prophet Isaiah:
I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated: and his train filled the temple. Upon it stood the seraphims: the one had six wings, and the other had six wings: with two they covered his face, and with two they covered his feet, and with two they hew. And they cried one to another, and said: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of his glory. And the lintels of the doors were moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: Woe is me, because I have held my peace; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people that hath unclean lips, and I have seen with my eyes the King the Lord of hosts.
And one of the seraphims flew to me, and in his hand was a live coal, which he had taken with the tongs off the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: Behold this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniquities shall be taken away, and thy sin shall be cleansed. And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: Whom shall I send? and who shall go for us? And I said: Lo, here am I, send me.I would like to submit that when Isaiah saw this vision, Isaiah saw the Mass. Remember, heaven cannot be measured via time, because it is outside of time. God is timeless. When he saw the angels in their chant, he was seeing yesterday, his present time, and several millennia later, right up to the present day. He states that he was in the temple. Temples are the place of sacrifice. The smoke from the incense filled the temple, and God himself was present. What he saw (but perhaps could not explain), was that God was present as both priest and victim. Recognizing the amazing event he witnessed, he saw how unworthy he was. Not only because he saw God, but rather that he saw God accomplish his ultimate plan, the salvation of the human race. As a result of this, an angel comes and purifies him, so that he can prepare worthily for the event he is about to witness.
The priest finds himself in a similar situation. After that purification (which we all receive in the Sacraments of Initiation), God asks for people to accept the calling of the priesthood. Not everyone will answer that call. When the priest does, he may ask, like Isaiah does, how long must he preach the Gospel? How long must he offer the Mass? The answer God provides is instructive:
Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land shall be left desolate. And the Lord shall remove men far away, and she shall be multiplied that was left in the midst of the earth. And there shall be still a tithing therein, and she shall turn, and shall be made a shew as a turpentine tree, and as an oak that spreadeth its branches: that which shall stand therein, shall be a holy seedIn short, the priest is meant to act until the end of the world. Likewise, from the saying of the first Mass until the end of time, there will always be a priest somewhere, at some hour of the day, fulfilling the Lord’s request throughout the earth. This call remains equally true to the faithful, albeit in a different way. The Sanctus is a reminder that we too must live according to the Gospel to the end of the earth. The worship of God was meant for all creation. If one iota of creation is not yet participating in it, the job of a Christian is never done. Like Isaiah, we must realize our unworthiness to partake in the mystery of God’s redemption. This task is perfectly suited towards God. God is Holy. His very name is called Holy. When something was said three times in ancient times, it was a very special confirmation of what was being said.
Yet what makes the Canon such a holy thing? It is more than just our participation at Calvary. Through the Roman Canon, Holy Week itself is retraced.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
On True Holiness
Stop me if you've heard this one before. (Actually don't, as this is my blog, I make the rules.) Whenever extolling someone, you hear "he is so holy!" This is one of the most dangerous statements around. If one doesn't understand what true holiness is, they are giving a false assessment, and that has the potential to mislead others. While some might view this a hard assessment, I would object.
The beauty about God is He has no desire to hide all of His works from His creation. Sure, some things might be clouded a bit in mystery, but he points us the way to something, and faith makes up for what we lack. So it is with holiness. We have seen many priests disgrace their priesthood. The shocked faithful always say "but he was so holy!" Perhaps we need to do a more in-depth examination of what holiness is.
Our first mistake is to define holiness as something we do. That is alien to the Biblical world. Rather, being holy was what we are. In being holy, we are set apart. Holiness is what we do to represent our being set apart. Through our bodies, we carry out certain actions, and these actions can be judged as to whether they are in accord with a state of being set apart from the ordinary. If they are not, and we are all too ordinary (like the world), that being set apart is used in our condemnation.
So in judging holiness, we must look at acts that are set apart from the "normal" ways of the world, or of our nature. Our nature was corrupted by sin. As a result, we stopped acting as if we were set apart to give God glory, and acted to the contrary. Right away this eliminates marks of being holy such as eloquence in speech, or the ability to repeat intellectual propositions that can be turned into talk points. The mouth can preach orthodoxy with great eloquence. Yet the heart can also use that mouth to manipulate, even under the appearance of orthodoxy. When Marc Antony spoke in Julius Caesar, he was assenting to the orthodoxy of the day from the powers that be. Yet through manipulation, he managed to undermine those very figures.
Likewise, when Satan approaches our Lord in the desert, everything he says is true and orthodox. He indeed was able to quote scripture with the best of them. Yet he was using orthodoxy to undermine proper practice, or orthopraxy. He was tempting Christ towards vanity and arrogance. If he hooked Christ on those things, he could break Him later on the orthodoxy stuff.
That is why when we are measuring holiness, we must look for those traits and virtues which are not "of this world." Anyone can speak with eloquence, but true Christian charity is hard to fake. Authentic Christian faith, hope, and charity cannot come from within. They can only come from externally. The world cannot fake these things.
We are given a second tool outside of these main virtues, in that they are measured by how we live our vocation. In the secular world, our profession defines who we are. A businessman is concerned with striking the balance of making their business efficient yet still profitable. To the extent they are both efficient and profitable, we can measure how successful a businessman they are.
God gives each and every human person a vocation, a calling. Those vocations have certain requirements to them. A priest is called to a life (if not always a vow) of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Poverty comes about in not relying on the things of this world, even if we have them. Chastity (by extension celibacy) is in accordance with the fact that they are living a life in anticipation of the Kingdom of heaven, a sign for all of us of our eventual destination. Finally, obedience is the recognition that they are priests of something other than themselves, so what they want is not always what is best.
Another vocation exists for the married life which people are called to. While many might not realize it, they have the same requirements, they just carry them out in a different manner. The life of poverty calls them to cling to their spouses, the greatest created gift God has given them. Material possessions should never take the place of primary devotion over their spouse. In chastity, they are called to realize that they can be with their spouse only, and no other. To the extent the eyes (and person) set themselves upon another, they are not living chastely. Finally they submit in obedience to their spouse by realizing that their needs are no longer of paramount importance. The benefit of their spouse is their business, and more importantly, the benefit of the family as a whole trumps all. A businessman who increases his own efficiency and profit at the expense of the company he works for will either find himself fired or in jail for fraud. Likewise a spouse who puts their own needs above that of the company he works for (their family) will place their souls in mortal danger.
Like those authentic virtues, they are incredibly tough to fake when viewed properly. They are something that must be continually done. They define who we are. One may be able to trick themselves into leading a double life. Yet they will be found out eventually by others, who can examine their actions over a lifetime. Since they are not living towards their vocation in their double life, they cannot be considered as practicing holiness, even if they do great things. Indeed, those great things become condemnations. A husband cannot practice marital chastity for long when he places the needs of himself as paramount. Eventually, those needs will lead to his own fulfillment. What does his wife think? Who cares! He is looking out for number one.
Likewise, a priest that spends his lifetime building up material possessions will eventually come to be defined by them. Without that character of poverty, he will not long have a character of chastity or obedience. In addition to being incredibly hard to fake long-term, they are inseparably linked.
Finally, when we look at holiness from this perspective, one thing comes to mind. Man is holiness hard! That is what we should always remember when we see someone stumble. If we look upon ourselves, we will find that, to greater or lesser degrees, we aren't following that spirit which leads to virtue. That brings us to humility.
Humility is the hardest of all of these, yet it is also the most necessary. If poverty, chastity, and obedience lead to faith, hope, and charity, humility is the glue that holds everything together. Humility is our reminder that if we do this on our own, we will fail. If we examine our consciences for but one minute each day, this will become blatantly apparent. Poverty and chastity reach obedience through humility. If one is not humble, he will have few of those virtues for long. Eventually the winds of this world will blow obedience away from chastity, or poverty from obedience. Like everything else here, the glue is something we cannot produce out of ourselves. It needs to come from somewhere else. That "somewhere" is a "someone." That individual is Jesus Christ. Later we will consider how this is to be so with a few analogies.
The beauty about God is He has no desire to hide all of His works from His creation. Sure, some things might be clouded a bit in mystery, but he points us the way to something, and faith makes up for what we lack. So it is with holiness. We have seen many priests disgrace their priesthood. The shocked faithful always say "but he was so holy!" Perhaps we need to do a more in-depth examination of what holiness is.
Our first mistake is to define holiness as something we do. That is alien to the Biblical world. Rather, being holy was what we are. In being holy, we are set apart. Holiness is what we do to represent our being set apart. Through our bodies, we carry out certain actions, and these actions can be judged as to whether they are in accord with a state of being set apart from the ordinary. If they are not, and we are all too ordinary (like the world), that being set apart is used in our condemnation.
So in judging holiness, we must look at acts that are set apart from the "normal" ways of the world, or of our nature. Our nature was corrupted by sin. As a result, we stopped acting as if we were set apart to give God glory, and acted to the contrary. Right away this eliminates marks of being holy such as eloquence in speech, or the ability to repeat intellectual propositions that can be turned into talk points. The mouth can preach orthodoxy with great eloquence. Yet the heart can also use that mouth to manipulate, even under the appearance of orthodoxy. When Marc Antony spoke in Julius Caesar, he was assenting to the orthodoxy of the day from the powers that be. Yet through manipulation, he managed to undermine those very figures.
Likewise, when Satan approaches our Lord in the desert, everything he says is true and orthodox. He indeed was able to quote scripture with the best of them. Yet he was using orthodoxy to undermine proper practice, or orthopraxy. He was tempting Christ towards vanity and arrogance. If he hooked Christ on those things, he could break Him later on the orthodoxy stuff.
That is why when we are measuring holiness, we must look for those traits and virtues which are not "of this world." Anyone can speak with eloquence, but true Christian charity is hard to fake. Authentic Christian faith, hope, and charity cannot come from within. They can only come from externally. The world cannot fake these things.
We are given a second tool outside of these main virtues, in that they are measured by how we live our vocation. In the secular world, our profession defines who we are. A businessman is concerned with striking the balance of making their business efficient yet still profitable. To the extent they are both efficient and profitable, we can measure how successful a businessman they are.
God gives each and every human person a vocation, a calling. Those vocations have certain requirements to them. A priest is called to a life (if not always a vow) of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Poverty comes about in not relying on the things of this world, even if we have them. Chastity (by extension celibacy) is in accordance with the fact that they are living a life in anticipation of the Kingdom of heaven, a sign for all of us of our eventual destination. Finally, obedience is the recognition that they are priests of something other than themselves, so what they want is not always what is best.
Another vocation exists for the married life which people are called to. While many might not realize it, they have the same requirements, they just carry them out in a different manner. The life of poverty calls them to cling to their spouses, the greatest created gift God has given them. Material possessions should never take the place of primary devotion over their spouse. In chastity, they are called to realize that they can be with their spouse only, and no other. To the extent the eyes (and person) set themselves upon another, they are not living chastely. Finally they submit in obedience to their spouse by realizing that their needs are no longer of paramount importance. The benefit of their spouse is their business, and more importantly, the benefit of the family as a whole trumps all. A businessman who increases his own efficiency and profit at the expense of the company he works for will either find himself fired or in jail for fraud. Likewise a spouse who puts their own needs above that of the company he works for (their family) will place their souls in mortal danger.
Like those authentic virtues, they are incredibly tough to fake when viewed properly. They are something that must be continually done. They define who we are. One may be able to trick themselves into leading a double life. Yet they will be found out eventually by others, who can examine their actions over a lifetime. Since they are not living towards their vocation in their double life, they cannot be considered as practicing holiness, even if they do great things. Indeed, those great things become condemnations. A husband cannot practice marital chastity for long when he places the needs of himself as paramount. Eventually, those needs will lead to his own fulfillment. What does his wife think? Who cares! He is looking out for number one.
Likewise, a priest that spends his lifetime building up material possessions will eventually come to be defined by them. Without that character of poverty, he will not long have a character of chastity or obedience. In addition to being incredibly hard to fake long-term, they are inseparably linked.
Finally, when we look at holiness from this perspective, one thing comes to mind. Man is holiness hard! That is what we should always remember when we see someone stumble. If we look upon ourselves, we will find that, to greater or lesser degrees, we aren't following that spirit which leads to virtue. That brings us to humility.
Humility is the hardest of all of these, yet it is also the most necessary. If poverty, chastity, and obedience lead to faith, hope, and charity, humility is the glue that holds everything together. Humility is our reminder that if we do this on our own, we will fail. If we examine our consciences for but one minute each day, this will become blatantly apparent. Poverty and chastity reach obedience through humility. If one is not humble, he will have few of those virtues for long. Eventually the winds of this world will blow obedience away from chastity, or poverty from obedience. Like everything else here, the glue is something we cannot produce out of ourselves. It needs to come from somewhere else. That "somewhere" is a "someone." That individual is Jesus Christ. Later we will consider how this is to be so with a few analogies.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
A Challenge to the Church of NFP
Every now and then an article is written that doesn't so much as set the trend in the blogosphere but tells in public what many were thinking in private. As a result, serious discussion develops. Very few remember one sentence from Alice Von Hildebrand's takedown of Christopher West. What they do remember was that a lion of Catholicism had finally given some much needed fraternal correction to Mr. West. She said in her eloquence what many had been thinking.
I think Danielle Bean over at Crisis Magazine has done something similar. If nothing else, she causes me to think.
I remember several years ago I was on a first date with a lady. During that date, out of the blue, she asked "do you plan on using Natural Family Planning during your marriage?" From the love of baseball to thermometer reading and charting. This is an experience no (then) 23 year old should go through. In discussing the rather absurd and bizarre situation with a friend, he gave what was probably the best reply I've heard. "Me and my wife are firm believers in Natural Family Planning. I plan on hitting the lotto, then having my family naturally."
Like Ms. Bean, I do not intend to dog on NFP. It has always been permitted by the Church under certain conditions. My problem is with what I call "The Church of NFP", or when I'm in a slightly more polemical mood "NFP or Die."
For these individuals, NFP is not just something couples should consider prudently. To not practice NFP is to show a lack of prudence. In their mind, to not engage in NFP is to abandon "responsible parenthood." That they cannot cite one magisterial document which says every Catholic should practice NFP is irrelevant. They base their understanding on John Paul II's Man and Woman He Created Them. That John Paul II never said such a thing is once again irrelevant. (Like the defenders of the school of thought of Christopher West come to think of it!)
I cannot speak to all of the reasons Ms. Bean gives. I'm a single Catholic male, so I can't speak about "fertility symptoms", breastfeeding and all that jazz. Yet the other points she gave made me think about a lot of things.
First, those who are practicing NFP need to answer one question: Why? The Church is clear that if sufficient reasons are evident, NFP may (not must) be practiced. Yet I think Catholics should ask themselves honestly: is this really done? I would very confidently wager that answer is a negative. When they are considering economic needs, are they considering true subsistence style living, to where it would be near impossible to provide a child with basic necessities, or are they considering that they won't be able to pay a full ride at a four year university and grad school for all their children? Worse yet, are they doing it for their own selfish reasons, as having children will deprive them of worldly benefits? For mental and spiritual reasons, is there a genuine concern, or is there just uncomfortable feeling?
Better yet, are they discussing these matters with an independent third party, who can consider the spiritual reasons for why they are practicing NFP? In other words, how involved is a sound orthodox priest (preferably their spiritual director) in these discussions? People are masters at rationalizing their behavior. Sometimes we need an independent third party to tell us we are doing it wrong. Simply saying you are discussing it with your doctor isn't good enough. They may have the medical knowledge, but they do not have the knowledge of being able to provide spiritual direction. (Very few of them at least.)
If one is doing these things, these words aren't for you. If you've done these things and still arrive at the prudential consideration to employ Natural Family Planning, then such is your choice. All I'm saying is that somewhere along the way, people got the mistaken notion that to not practice NFP at all times was somehow the sign of a sinful Catholic couple.
I'd also like to talk about "responsible" parenting. Somewhere and I have no clue where, "responsible" parenting became about the number of children you have, rather than the quality of how those children were raised. Do you have ten children? Are all of those children raised in the Catholic faith, given access to the sacraments? Is a high emphasis placed upon education? Do you present your children with an environment and opportunity to practice authentic Christian virtues? Congratulations, you are doing "responsible" parenting, even if you live in a small house and the children wear hand me downs. This is just as true if you have even just one child.
On the topic of shame, Ms. Bean is even stronger. I personally do not need to hear about an individual woman's fertility cycle, mucus, etc. The only woman I will need to hear that about is when I'm married, and she is my wife. I've beaten this subject to death in the things I've written in regards to Theology of the Body/Christopher West, so I will be brief. Sharing these details so casually is a violation of the sacredness of the body and the marital embrace.
The final topic I would like to touch on would be a delicious irony, were it not so tragic. In pushing "sex is holy", the church of NFP makes it less holy. The marital embrace is only discussed about on the natural level. If husband and wife come together, there is a "risk" (oh how I hate such talk!) a child would be conceived. Many in the TOB crowd claim their critics focus too much on the pro-creative aspects of the marital embrace, and not the unitive. They rightly point out God created the marital embrace as a way of strengthening the bonds of marriage. Every time husband and wife come together, they are renewing their marital vows in a very special way. done properly, one could say it is a way of making present the grace one receives during the Sacrament of Matrimony. Out of such selfless love (where neither party seeks their own gratification), a new life is created through our participation in God's creative work.
With all the emphasis solely on child-bearing, the church of NFP robs the marital embrace of much of its power. Husband and wife coming together to renew their marital vows for their sanctification is viewed as a "failure" in abstinence. To engage in perfectly normal marital relations is not a failure. While we must always be careful to ponder our intentions (i.e. we must make sure we are not coming together for selfish reasons), it is truly scandalous that the church of NFP makes them think otherwise. Sadly, the author herself even falls into this trap. "Struggling with abstinence" in the married life is suggested as a struggle with purity. Now this may be the case. Yet why should one assume that a wife struggles with purity if she desires to engage in the marital embrace with her husband? Why should a husband be prohibited from renewing his wedding vows with the woman he has pledged to give up everything for? Because a chart says is a terrible reason. They are heeding, in a very special way, the call to become "one flesh." Now there may exist reasons and circumstances where periodic continence is advised. Yet such situations are meant to be temporary.
In the end, I fear we Catholics today have a fear of giving up control. We foolishly think we are in control of every aspect of our lives, including fertility. Yet this is nonsense. God is in control. He may choose to work through our voluntary free will in the marital embrace, but He is still in control. The idea a pregnancy should be viewed as a "surprise" or "unplanned" amongst married couples is shameful. By engaging in the marital embrace, one "planned" the possibility that a child may be born. Now one may wish to take prudent steps, in accordance with nature, to space births for various reasons, but our plans can and will go astray if God thinks the better of it. We shouldn't look at that as a bad thing. God might see the discipline and self control in a couple practicing NFP and go "You know, such restraint is a great quality in a parent, and even better in a child, so I will help them conceive."
How much of this enters the NFP discussion? Check the comments at the site of the article. All are worth reading.
I think Danielle Bean over at Crisis Magazine has done something similar. If nothing else, she causes me to think.
I remember several years ago I was on a first date with a lady. During that date, out of the blue, she asked "do you plan on using Natural Family Planning during your marriage?" From the love of baseball to thermometer reading and charting. This is an experience no (then) 23 year old should go through. In discussing the rather absurd and bizarre situation with a friend, he gave what was probably the best reply I've heard. "Me and my wife are firm believers in Natural Family Planning. I plan on hitting the lotto, then having my family naturally."
Like Ms. Bean, I do not intend to dog on NFP. It has always been permitted by the Church under certain conditions. My problem is with what I call "The Church of NFP", or when I'm in a slightly more polemical mood "NFP or Die."
For these individuals, NFP is not just something couples should consider prudently. To not practice NFP is to show a lack of prudence. In their mind, to not engage in NFP is to abandon "responsible parenthood." That they cannot cite one magisterial document which says every Catholic should practice NFP is irrelevant. They base their understanding on John Paul II's Man and Woman He Created Them. That John Paul II never said such a thing is once again irrelevant. (Like the defenders of the school of thought of Christopher West come to think of it!)
I cannot speak to all of the reasons Ms. Bean gives. I'm a single Catholic male, so I can't speak about "fertility symptoms", breastfeeding and all that jazz. Yet the other points she gave made me think about a lot of things.
First, those who are practicing NFP need to answer one question: Why? The Church is clear that if sufficient reasons are evident, NFP may (not must) be practiced. Yet I think Catholics should ask themselves honestly: is this really done? I would very confidently wager that answer is a negative. When they are considering economic needs, are they considering true subsistence style living, to where it would be near impossible to provide a child with basic necessities, or are they considering that they won't be able to pay a full ride at a four year university and grad school for all their children? Worse yet, are they doing it for their own selfish reasons, as having children will deprive them of worldly benefits? For mental and spiritual reasons, is there a genuine concern, or is there just uncomfortable feeling?
Better yet, are they discussing these matters with an independent third party, who can consider the spiritual reasons for why they are practicing NFP? In other words, how involved is a sound orthodox priest (preferably their spiritual director) in these discussions? People are masters at rationalizing their behavior. Sometimes we need an independent third party to tell us we are doing it wrong. Simply saying you are discussing it with your doctor isn't good enough. They may have the medical knowledge, but they do not have the knowledge of being able to provide spiritual direction. (Very few of them at least.)
If one is doing these things, these words aren't for you. If you've done these things and still arrive at the prudential consideration to employ Natural Family Planning, then such is your choice. All I'm saying is that somewhere along the way, people got the mistaken notion that to not practice NFP at all times was somehow the sign of a sinful Catholic couple.
I'd also like to talk about "responsible" parenting. Somewhere and I have no clue where, "responsible" parenting became about the number of children you have, rather than the quality of how those children were raised. Do you have ten children? Are all of those children raised in the Catholic faith, given access to the sacraments? Is a high emphasis placed upon education? Do you present your children with an environment and opportunity to practice authentic Christian virtues? Congratulations, you are doing "responsible" parenting, even if you live in a small house and the children wear hand me downs. This is just as true if you have even just one child.
On the topic of shame, Ms. Bean is even stronger. I personally do not need to hear about an individual woman's fertility cycle, mucus, etc. The only woman I will need to hear that about is when I'm married, and she is my wife. I've beaten this subject to death in the things I've written in regards to Theology of the Body/Christopher West, so I will be brief. Sharing these details so casually is a violation of the sacredness of the body and the marital embrace.
The final topic I would like to touch on would be a delicious irony, were it not so tragic. In pushing "sex is holy", the church of NFP makes it less holy. The marital embrace is only discussed about on the natural level. If husband and wife come together, there is a "risk" (oh how I hate such talk!) a child would be conceived. Many in the TOB crowd claim their critics focus too much on the pro-creative aspects of the marital embrace, and not the unitive. They rightly point out God created the marital embrace as a way of strengthening the bonds of marriage. Every time husband and wife come together, they are renewing their marital vows in a very special way. done properly, one could say it is a way of making present the grace one receives during the Sacrament of Matrimony. Out of such selfless love (where neither party seeks their own gratification), a new life is created through our participation in God's creative work.
With all the emphasis solely on child-bearing, the church of NFP robs the marital embrace of much of its power. Husband and wife coming together to renew their marital vows for their sanctification is viewed as a "failure" in abstinence. To engage in perfectly normal marital relations is not a failure. While we must always be careful to ponder our intentions (i.e. we must make sure we are not coming together for selfish reasons), it is truly scandalous that the church of NFP makes them think otherwise. Sadly, the author herself even falls into this trap. "Struggling with abstinence" in the married life is suggested as a struggle with purity. Now this may be the case. Yet why should one assume that a wife struggles with purity if she desires to engage in the marital embrace with her husband? Why should a husband be prohibited from renewing his wedding vows with the woman he has pledged to give up everything for? Because a chart says is a terrible reason. They are heeding, in a very special way, the call to become "one flesh." Now there may exist reasons and circumstances where periodic continence is advised. Yet such situations are meant to be temporary.
In the end, I fear we Catholics today have a fear of giving up control. We foolishly think we are in control of every aspect of our lives, including fertility. Yet this is nonsense. God is in control. He may choose to work through our voluntary free will in the marital embrace, but He is still in control. The idea a pregnancy should be viewed as a "surprise" or "unplanned" amongst married couples is shameful. By engaging in the marital embrace, one "planned" the possibility that a child may be born. Now one may wish to take prudent steps, in accordance with nature, to space births for various reasons, but our plans can and will go astray if God thinks the better of it. We shouldn't look at that as a bad thing. God might see the discipline and self control in a couple practicing NFP and go "You know, such restraint is a great quality in a parent, and even better in a child, so I will help them conceive."
How much of this enters the NFP discussion? Check the comments at the site of the article. All are worth reading.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Extraordinary Form: The Lavabo to the Preface
As we come to the end of the Offertory, a distinct tone begins to emerge. In the texts there is a growing sense of unworthiness on behalf of the priest and the faithful that they are participating in this event. The Mass is the very Sacrifice of Calvary, yet it is far more than just that. Through the Mass, heaven and earth become united, the covenant with the Father is renewed, and we partake, in our own certain way, in the mystical banquet of the Lamb’s Supper in Heaven. Sinful flesh that we are, we should be feeling a sense of unworthiness.
That sense begins with the Lavabo, which goes as follows:
Following the Lavabo there is a final prayer to the Trinity which states:
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the kind of honor given. No saint in and of themselves is worthy of honor. Not even the Blessed Virgin. Only through Christ can anyone receive any honor or praise. It was only through Christ that the Blessed amongst women was preserved from sin. When we honor the saints, we honor God’s handiwork within them. (Eph 2:10-12) Since those in heaven are “the spirits of just men made perfect”, we ask for their intercession. God stated in the Old Covenant that “if even Samuel and Moses prayed for these people I would not listen” and help that sinful wicked generation. Yet we are Christians redeemed by the blood of the lamb alongside the saints, would not their prayers be of great benefit?
We then come to the Orate Fratres. Unfortunately, the modern understanding of the liturgy in many Churches has really damaged the significance of this prayer. In the extraordinary form, the priest is facing God in the tabernacle and the East (where the Risen Christ will come from) instead of the congregation. When this prayer comes, he turns to face the people, saying:
Brethren, pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father almighty:
In the context of the Mass, the priest normally turns to face the people in saluting them or blessing them. Yet this time instead he asks for their prayers. In this statement is a recognition that without their prayers, the priest will struggle going forward. One could further say, without the prayers of those individuals, something is lacking from the Mass. What could possibly be lacking from the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ? The same thing that Paul states was lacking from the Sacrifice of Christ in Colossians 1:24. The sacrifice lacks in the degree of application, since Christ does not save against someone’s own will. Therefore we pray that hearts are turned, and that the Sacrifice of Christ be applied. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Father will accept the sacrifice of the Cross during the Mass. That sacrifice is always before Him. Yet there is a legitimate doubt as to how useful the sacrifice will be for the individual faithful due to lack of faith. That is why in response, we ask that the sacrifice be for “our benefit, and that of all His holy Church.”
What is a beautiful exercise in symbolism loses a lot of significance in the modern liturgical landscape. Since Mass is said facing the people, this is no longer an externally special moment. The appearance is no different than every other moment of the Mass in such a situation. If one needs a reason to return to saying Mass ad orientam, here is a strong one.
After praying what is known as the Secret (one of the propers which is made a final urgent supplication to God), the priest begins the Preface. Unlike previous salutations, the priest says Dominus Vobsicum still facing the altar and the tabernacle. One could say, in a mystical sense, he has begun his transition into acting in persona Christi. Christ acts through Him, so that the identity of the priest becomes less and less important. We are then called to sursum corda, lift up your hearts. Where are we lifting them up to? We lift them up to heaven! At this point in the Mass, we are entering (albeit in an imperfect way) into Heaven, or rather Heaven is coming to us. At this point in the Mass, I am no longer simply assisting at Mass at my local parish. I’ve entered into communion with all the saints and angels. This moment is truly timeless, for it is outside of time. Having entered into this blessed moment, the only acceptable response is thanksgiving towards God.
This understanding is vital for the next part of the Mass. If all of the Mass is holy, the Roman canon is the holy of holies within the Mass.
That sense begins with the Lavabo, which goes as follows:
I will wash my hands among the innocent, and I will compass Thine altar, O Lord. That I may hear the voice of Thy praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works.There are a few things to note about this prayer. The Psalm originates in a Psalm of distress. David’s claim of innocence is not a boastful claim. He feels a great moment of distress, and points to the fact that he has looked to please God in all he does. Confident of God’s mercy, he washes his hands amongst the innocent. Likewise the priest and congregation should feel a slight distress based on their current position. We are entering in a very special way into God’s presence. We are about to experience a deeply personal moment beyond those even Moses experienced with God. Our only response is to state we have looked to do God’s will to the best of our ability.
I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of Thy house and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked: nor my life with bloody men. In whose hands are iniquities, their right hand is filled with gifts.
But as for me I have walked in mine innocence: redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot hath stood in the direct way; in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord.
Following the Lavabo there is a final prayer to the Trinity which states:
Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we make to Thee, in memory of the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honour of Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of these [the relics in the altar] and of all the Saints, that it may avail unto their honour and our salvation, and may they vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord.The sacrifice which is offered is of course first and foremost offered to the Trinity. Yet like all other offerings, the offering is also a commemoration of those who walked before us. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us to honor those who walked before us in the faith. Yet how does honoring a saint give glory to God? Are our Protestant friends correct when they assert the mere suggestion of including honor to the saints in offering to the Trinity is blasphemous, for only the Trinity is worthy of any honor?
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the kind of honor given. No saint in and of themselves is worthy of honor. Not even the Blessed Virgin. Only through Christ can anyone receive any honor or praise. It was only through Christ that the Blessed amongst women was preserved from sin. When we honor the saints, we honor God’s handiwork within them. (Eph 2:10-12) Since those in heaven are “the spirits of just men made perfect”, we ask for their intercession. God stated in the Old Covenant that “if even Samuel and Moses prayed for these people I would not listen” and help that sinful wicked generation. Yet we are Christians redeemed by the blood of the lamb alongside the saints, would not their prayers be of great benefit?
We then come to the Orate Fratres. Unfortunately, the modern understanding of the liturgy in many Churches has really damaged the significance of this prayer. In the extraordinary form, the priest is facing God in the tabernacle and the East (where the Risen Christ will come from) instead of the congregation. When this prayer comes, he turns to face the people, saying:
Brethren, pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father almighty:
In the context of the Mass, the priest normally turns to face the people in saluting them or blessing them. Yet this time instead he asks for their prayers. In this statement is a recognition that without their prayers, the priest will struggle going forward. One could further say, without the prayers of those individuals, something is lacking from the Mass. What could possibly be lacking from the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ? The same thing that Paul states was lacking from the Sacrifice of Christ in Colossians 1:24. The sacrifice lacks in the degree of application, since Christ does not save against someone’s own will. Therefore we pray that hearts are turned, and that the Sacrifice of Christ be applied. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Father will accept the sacrifice of the Cross during the Mass. That sacrifice is always before Him. Yet there is a legitimate doubt as to how useful the sacrifice will be for the individual faithful due to lack of faith. That is why in response, we ask that the sacrifice be for “our benefit, and that of all His holy Church.”
What is a beautiful exercise in symbolism loses a lot of significance in the modern liturgical landscape. Since Mass is said facing the people, this is no longer an externally special moment. The appearance is no different than every other moment of the Mass in such a situation. If one needs a reason to return to saying Mass ad orientam, here is a strong one.
After praying what is known as the Secret (one of the propers which is made a final urgent supplication to God), the priest begins the Preface. Unlike previous salutations, the priest says Dominus Vobsicum still facing the altar and the tabernacle. One could say, in a mystical sense, he has begun his transition into acting in persona Christi. Christ acts through Him, so that the identity of the priest becomes less and less important. We are then called to sursum corda, lift up your hearts. Where are we lifting them up to? We lift them up to heaven! At this point in the Mass, we are entering (albeit in an imperfect way) into Heaven, or rather Heaven is coming to us. At this point in the Mass, I am no longer simply assisting at Mass at my local parish. I’ve entered into communion with all the saints and angels. This moment is truly timeless, for it is outside of time. Having entered into this blessed moment, the only acceptable response is thanksgiving towards God.
This understanding is vital for the next part of the Mass. If all of the Mass is holy, the Roman canon is the holy of holies within the Mass.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
(Hopefully) My Final Words on the Corapi Affair
What follows here are just some random thoughts.
There are those comparing Fr. Corapi to a Judas, a man who betrayed his vocation and calling. That's a little too outlandish. A better description can be found in the Old Testament in the figure of God's anointed, King Saul.
1 Samuel 15 gives us the relevant story. As they prepared for battle, God instructed King Saul that he was to completely raze everything his opponents had, to leave nothing alive or take nothing as loot. His victims the Amalekites were rich. Saul carried out the first part of God's command (route the Amalekites) but not the second. Instead of slaying the King, he made the King his vassal, and they made away with all the choice animals and loot. That of lesser quality they destroyed.
While God is furious with Saul for this, we have to realize one thing: what Saul did was entirely rational. Israel needed to survive, and she would survive with compliant subjects in other nations. He even rationalizes to Samuel that the choice animals wouldn't be used for personal gain, but sacrificed to God. As sacrifice is a good thing, certainly many sacrifices is great thing for him to do!
God's response through Samuel was unequivocal:
That is how I feel about Fr. Corapi. He may think he is doing good by what he is doing. He may feel that his actions and his ministry are vital to the flock today. Yet as the Bible shows, disobedience is not the way to go about this. It was blatantly clear his religious superior and his Bishop has authority over him. He has chosen to reject that authority, albeit it in a round-about way, and with the best of intentions. Hopefully he repents. He will always be a priest, even if he is made a layman again (the character of his soul cannot change in this regard), so one can hope and pray he returns to being a priest.
The story of Fr. Corapi further gives us instruction on how a priest remains faithful. In his podcast of June 20th, he says the following:
Daily Mass, frequent offering of the sacraments, frequent benedictions and daily adoration is not something that is accidental to a priest's ministry, so the Servant of God John Hardon tells us. In his view, they are absolutely essential, and the primary reason a man is a priest. It is why in charity I do not think Fr. Corapi was being honest with himself when he made those remarks. In my view, he was trying to rationalize to himself the decision to become "the Blacksheepdog" and leave the priesthood. A priest who cannot offer the Mass and Sacraments is cut off from his very calling in life. The only other option is that Fr. Corapi was a liar all these years, and never really cared about the priesthood, it was simply a means to an end to make him famous. Yet anyone who has listened to the Fr. Corapi of the past would know that cannot be true.
That is all I really have to say on the matter. In the end, Fr. Corapi needs our prayers, as does everyone involved in this mess. I do not think he perceived just how hard the job of being an orthodox, obedient priest was. Fr. John Hardon gives us some absolutely excellent insight.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
There are those comparing Fr. Corapi to a Judas, a man who betrayed his vocation and calling. That's a little too outlandish. A better description can be found in the Old Testament in the figure of God's anointed, King Saul.
1 Samuel 15 gives us the relevant story. As they prepared for battle, God instructed King Saul that he was to completely raze everything his opponents had, to leave nothing alive or take nothing as loot. His victims the Amalekites were rich. Saul carried out the first part of God's command (route the Amalekites) but not the second. Instead of slaying the King, he made the King his vassal, and they made away with all the choice animals and loot. That of lesser quality they destroyed.
While God is furious with Saul for this, we have to realize one thing: what Saul did was entirely rational. Israel needed to survive, and she would survive with compliant subjects in other nations. He even rationalizes to Samuel that the choice animals wouldn't be used for personal gain, but sacrificed to God. As sacrifice is a good thing, certainly many sacrifices is great thing for him to do!
God's response through Samuel was unequivocal:
Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being King.Saul's sin was that he believed he knew what was best to please God. Instead, he should have simply been obedient to God, even if it didn't make much sense to him. It was this action that set him upon the path of becoming a tyrant who stood against God. Yet even then, David still called him "God's anointed" and wept bitterly at his death.
That is how I feel about Fr. Corapi. He may think he is doing good by what he is doing. He may feel that his actions and his ministry are vital to the flock today. Yet as the Bible shows, disobedience is not the way to go about this. It was blatantly clear his religious superior and his Bishop has authority over him. He has chosen to reject that authority, albeit it in a round-about way, and with the best of intentions. Hopefully he repents. He will always be a priest, even if he is made a layman again (the character of his soul cannot change in this regard), so one can hope and pray he returns to being a priest.
The story of Fr. Corapi further gives us instruction on how a priest remains faithful. In his podcast of June 20th, he says the following:
I'm still a priest. You can't take that away. No act of the Church can take that away. What they can remove is facultires; that is the public ability to administer the sacraments. I didn't do much of that quite honestly in the 20 years that I did minister. About 90% of what I did in the past did not require ordination.He also describes his minsitry as not "within the sacraments" but "outside of them, that is, in conjunction with them." I submit here this is one of the key problems. His priesthood was not centered around the sacraments. He may have celebrated the sacraments on occasion, but they weren't by his own admission the most important parts of his ministry. Yet for faithful laymen and faithful priests, they hear these words and cringe. Anybody can preach on the Word. Quite frankly, many laymen do it better than priests. Yet only a priest can bring about the Eucharist. Only the priest can ascend the altar of God to offer the perfect sacrifice. Only a priest can give the assurance of God's forgivness and absolution in the sacrament of Penance. This is a staple of the modernists. They view social work more important than offering the Mass. Yet without the Mass, there can be no true social work.
Daily Mass, frequent offering of the sacraments, frequent benedictions and daily adoration is not something that is accidental to a priest's ministry, so the Servant of God John Hardon tells us. In his view, they are absolutely essential, and the primary reason a man is a priest. It is why in charity I do not think Fr. Corapi was being honest with himself when he made those remarks. In my view, he was trying to rationalize to himself the decision to become "the Blacksheepdog" and leave the priesthood. A priest who cannot offer the Mass and Sacraments is cut off from his very calling in life. The only other option is that Fr. Corapi was a liar all these years, and never really cared about the priesthood, it was simply a means to an end to make him famous. Yet anyone who has listened to the Fr. Corapi of the past would know that cannot be true.
That is all I really have to say on the matter. In the end, Fr. Corapi needs our prayers, as does everyone involved in this mess. I do not think he perceived just how hard the job of being an orthodox, obedient priest was. Fr. John Hardon gives us some absolutely excellent insight.
Every facet of the ministry is the exercise of such influence in the lives of others that no one under Heaven is more exposed to the temptation of pride than a priest. Perhaps some people, especially in academic circles, still wonder why the Church is suffering so gravely at the hands and lips of her priests. We need not wonder. Most of the chaos in the Catholic Church today is due to the pride of priests.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)