Various thoughts on Pope Francis "disregarding" (In the words of the Vatican's spokesman) the liturgical laws on Holy Thursday:
Anyone who spent their Good Friday screaming on comboxes or whining about how the liturgical reform is dead, yup, shame on you all. Instead of reflecting on our Lord's death, how our personal sins led to him being nailed to the cross, you were whining about the perceived shortcomings of others, just as Adam did Eve. There was a time and place for all of this stuff. The Triduum (especially Good Friday) was not that freaking place or time.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with a little bit of discomfort. We are already seeing it, as priests took the advantage to tell their congregation "Benedict only washed the feet of priests, whereas Francis does for the poor, which is far better." Others are openly flouting liturgical laws, and claiming the Pope as their model. That one can easily defend this from a theological standpoint doesn't change the fact that there is unnecessary confusion in Catholic circles. If you think some of those traditionalists need to shut up and grow up, you are probably right. Just as the one making that accusation probably needs to shut up and grow up from whatever spiritual flaw they have. There's nothing cheaper than the "pox on both houses" shtick, but in this case, it does hold. Some traditionalists really couldn't wait to bash the Pope, and others couldn't wait to bash the bashers.
I'm going to ignore the whole debate of whether the Pope does or doesn't have the authority to do what he just did. Men who are real canonists (such as Dr. Edward Peters and Pete Vere, JCL) are of the opinion that the Pope probably isn't bound at least from a canonical standpoint, whereas from a prudential standpoint, Dr. Peters shares his misgivings. Let's just say in theory the Pope is bound canonically, and he has flagrantly violated liturgical laws which every priest is bound to uphold. Traditionalists hate when someone says "are you going to put the Pope on trial?" You can hate it, but they have a point. There's really precious little that can be done. Maybe people think that by typing on some blog they can start a public grassroots outcry to have the Pope change his mind. Remember, they also think this Pope is the outright enemy of tradition, who goes out of his way to spit in the face of traditionalists. I don't think the Pope is that in the slightest. Yet I do think everyone needs to ask themselves before saying anything in public: what's your endgame? What do you hope to accomplish, other than letting off steam? Far better to blow off steam at the gym, an adoration chapel, or a video game, preferably a first person shooter.
The Internet SSPX'ers have an endgame, and that's to fill their chapels. They are the ones most giddy about the Pope "disregarding" liturgical disciplines the SSPX claims to love. That should tell you all you need to know about their Internet trolls.
Now that out of the way, my thoughts. I can understand the symbolism the Pope wished to convey. I don't think he meant anything ill by what he did. Yet I think that in the end, this style of governance is going to cause more harm than good. While we do need to focus on evangelizing and going outward, there will be a time the Church needs to focus inward. All reforms start from within. All great reform movements start with humble obedience to laws, even ones you don't care for. So even if one has the authority to disregard those laws, it normally doesn't do any good unless there is a real special circumstance. How are we going to get a lot of liberal prelates and the Curia to be obedient in carrying out reforms when the rules are set aside constantly at the top. Now people will respond "But Kevin, this was a one time thing!" Indeed it has been, and let's hope it doesn't become too common.
Answering my own question above, what's my endgame here? My endgame is a lot smaller. We believe that this method of governance leads to more problems than it will solve. Yet there's also little we can do about it, other than what we should already be doing: Get to Confession. Live holy lives, and draw more people to the traditionalist movement. This move caused a lot more controversy than Rome anticipated. (When the Vatican spokesman has to come out and speak during Good Friday about why this happened, there were more people concerned than a few angry Internet traditionalists.) There will be a lot of good Catholics and priests who don't like this, and they can be informed that here in the Extraordinary Form, all these issues are moot. Fr. Z was right, this is an opportunity.
It would be nice if the Internet would tone down their snark and rhetoric, but this being the Internet, that's not likely to happen. We aren't going to take advantage of that opportunity if our logical allies and converts to the cause see us as bitter and angry. The traditionalist movement flourished over the past 5 years in the Church because people saw as happy warriors in the fight for holiness. We've got the motu proprio now, and we've got a lot more organization. Time to make use of it.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
The Meaning of Easter (From the Vault)
For reasons that escape me, this is still the most popular article on the blog, and even two years later, more people have viewed it than any of the new stuff. A perfect example of the way God works. What you think was subpar he uses for great benefit.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Why the Pope Did What He Did.....
Oh wait, it's Good Friday. You mean we should be focusing on our own sins, and how they led Christ to die on the Cross, rather than about this or that today? I've got my thoughts on the matter. And I think several won't like what I have to say. Yet do we really need to be talking about this on Good Friday of all things people? There's nothing better for us to focus on? And with that in mind, I'm off til Monday. So after calling you a bunch of brats and spoiled children, have a blessed Easter. Will show up only to repost "The Meaning of Easter" that I did a few years back.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Spiritual Worldliness: Pope Francis' Challenge to the Conclave
A few thoughts on then Cardinal Bregoglio's words to the Conclave:
1.) This is how Benedict got elected Pope. Give a speech that is a tour de force and make it impossible to elect anyone but him. That someone asked him to write those words down basically told you what way the wind was blowing after that speech. He was Pope before the First ballot was cast.
2.) For Benedict, it was the filth in the priesthood, and the tendency for Catholics to worship themselves instead of Christ. For Pope Francis, it is the tendency of Catholics to think they are better than they are, and attempt to give our own light (which is nothing), instead of Christ. On this issue at least there is full continuity.
3.) As Pope Benedict made a point to give lengthy lessons towards the world about the Church Fathers in his homilies. (These were compiled into three books) Pope Francis brings out two very ancient references that most have no clue about: That the Church of Rome "Presides in Charity" (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans) over the Church, and the "mysterium lunae" to describe how we are to live our lives as Christians.
This gives further evidence that those expecting radical change one way or the other are probably (emphasis on probably!) reading the situation wrong. We might not get as much attention to our priorities as we want, but there won't be massive change.
Finally, also good words for traditionalists to hear. We've had the explosive growth of the last 5-6 years in the Church (since the Motu Proprio) precisely because we've shown how the Latin Mass and a traditionally minded spirituality provides not the weak and puny light of ourselves (which many perceived), but rather the light of Christ. Now we just have to continue doing this.
1.) This is how Benedict got elected Pope. Give a speech that is a tour de force and make it impossible to elect anyone but him. That someone asked him to write those words down basically told you what way the wind was blowing after that speech. He was Pope before the First ballot was cast.
2.) For Benedict, it was the filth in the priesthood, and the tendency for Catholics to worship themselves instead of Christ. For Pope Francis, it is the tendency of Catholics to think they are better than they are, and attempt to give our own light (which is nothing), instead of Christ. On this issue at least there is full continuity.
3.) As Pope Benedict made a point to give lengthy lessons towards the world about the Church Fathers in his homilies. (These were compiled into three books) Pope Francis brings out two very ancient references that most have no clue about: That the Church of Rome "Presides in Charity" (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans) over the Church, and the "mysterium lunae" to describe how we are to live our lives as Christians.
This gives further evidence that those expecting radical change one way or the other are probably (emphasis on probably!) reading the situation wrong. We might not get as much attention to our priorities as we want, but there won't be massive change.
Finally, also good words for traditionalists to hear. We've had the explosive growth of the last 5-6 years in the Church (since the Motu Proprio) precisely because we've shown how the Latin Mass and a traditionally minded spirituality provides not the weak and puny light of ourselves (which many perceived), but rather the light of Christ. Now we just have to continue doing this.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Understanding Tradition
Since we have been on a bit of a back to basics trip lately, I think it's time to examine the proper way to look at tradition.
First, we need to understand the Biblical Concept of Tradition. In the Bible, St. Paul commends the Thessalonians for adhering to the paradosis they have received, whether by word or letter. (2 Thess 2:15) In English, we know that as the word tradition. Now in the Greek, paradosis was simply that which was handed down. So when we speak of tradition, we speak of that (in whatever venue) was handed down throughout the ages in the Church.
The confusion comes from the fact that, like the phrase salvation, tradition can have several different meanings, all compatible with each other. First and foremost, there is that which is called Apostolic Tradition, which we normally know as Tradition with a capital T. This comes from either the Bible or the Oral Teaching of Christ & The Apostles, handed down throughout the generations to the present, which is safeguarded by the Holy Ghost so that people can always learn God's truth. Such a teaching based on Tradition would be that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice where the timeless Sacrifice of the Cross is made present in time to the Christian, or that there are Seven Sacraments. These are directly matters of revelation, as well as of faith and morals which can be traced throughout history. As such, they cannot under any circumstances be changed. Baptism will never cease to be a Sacrament, and the Mass will never be just a communal praise & worship service, women will never be ordained priests, etc.
Another form of tradition is that which we ecclesiastical tradition. This is tradition not neccessarily handed down from the Apostles, but which is meant to support the truths of the Christian faith. Such examples would be the rites of the liturgy and the sacraments outside of the essentials. These make Apostolic Tradition clearer and relevant to the Christian. Since they are meant to communicate timeless truths to an audience in time, these can change. Yet organized religion worshipping Yahweh is at least 5,000 years old, and these traditions have developed in just about every circumstance conceivable, and have developed organically over these millenia. So while they can be changed, you really should have a good reason for doing them, and they should only be done through the highest of channels, lest disaster ensue. (More on this later.)
There is finally a third instance in which tradition is used. This refers mainly to local customs and practices which have developed over time. These aren't universal, and more often than not they aren't even regional. Some examples of this might be how fasting is applied in your area (which is a lot more diverse than you would think), certain devotional prayers after Mass communities have prayed, etc. The same rules apply in ecclesiastical tradition, yet they are even more prone to change, and are frequently changed on the local level.
When properly understood, tradition is a lot less confusing than people make it out to be. Yet based on these definitions, the perceptive reader can see ways in which today's modern audience (on all sides) really misunderstand what tradition is. This is what we will be discussing in future posts, starting with a bit of in house cleaning: how some traditionalists fail to properly understand tradition.
First, we need to understand the Biblical Concept of Tradition. In the Bible, St. Paul commends the Thessalonians for adhering to the paradosis they have received, whether by word or letter. (2 Thess 2:15) In English, we know that as the word tradition. Now in the Greek, paradosis was simply that which was handed down. So when we speak of tradition, we speak of that (in whatever venue) was handed down throughout the ages in the Church.
The confusion comes from the fact that, like the phrase salvation, tradition can have several different meanings, all compatible with each other. First and foremost, there is that which is called Apostolic Tradition, which we normally know as Tradition with a capital T. This comes from either the Bible or the Oral Teaching of Christ & The Apostles, handed down throughout the generations to the present, which is safeguarded by the Holy Ghost so that people can always learn God's truth. Such a teaching based on Tradition would be that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice where the timeless Sacrifice of the Cross is made present in time to the Christian, or that there are Seven Sacraments. These are directly matters of revelation, as well as of faith and morals which can be traced throughout history. As such, they cannot under any circumstances be changed. Baptism will never cease to be a Sacrament, and the Mass will never be just a communal praise & worship service, women will never be ordained priests, etc.
Another form of tradition is that which we ecclesiastical tradition. This is tradition not neccessarily handed down from the Apostles, but which is meant to support the truths of the Christian faith. Such examples would be the rites of the liturgy and the sacraments outside of the essentials. These make Apostolic Tradition clearer and relevant to the Christian. Since they are meant to communicate timeless truths to an audience in time, these can change. Yet organized religion worshipping Yahweh is at least 5,000 years old, and these traditions have developed in just about every circumstance conceivable, and have developed organically over these millenia. So while they can be changed, you really should have a good reason for doing them, and they should only be done through the highest of channels, lest disaster ensue. (More on this later.)
There is finally a third instance in which tradition is used. This refers mainly to local customs and practices which have developed over time. These aren't universal, and more often than not they aren't even regional. Some examples of this might be how fasting is applied in your area (which is a lot more diverse than you would think), certain devotional prayers after Mass communities have prayed, etc. The same rules apply in ecclesiastical tradition, yet they are even more prone to change, and are frequently changed on the local level.
When properly understood, tradition is a lot less confusing than people make it out to be. Yet based on these definitions, the perceptive reader can see ways in which today's modern audience (on all sides) really misunderstand what tradition is. This is what we will be discussing in future posts, starting with a bit of in house cleaning: how some traditionalists fail to properly understand tradition.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Making Christ the King Relevant
If you ask most Catholics today, they give you a blank stare when you talk about the idea of the Kingship of Christ. Heck, talk to traditionalists and a timeless beautiful doctrine that touches everything from the individual to the role of governments becomes an apologia for early Middle Age monarchism anachronistically interpreted through a modern lens. At most, the idea of the Kingship of Christ is presented as something simply done by governments. We just need to wait, and one day the government will become Catholic and enact a confessional state, and all will be well. Right.....
I think this understanding completely misses the point of Christ the King. The Gospel makes it very clear "My Kingdom is not of this world." While all nations should acknowledge Christ, we should be realistic in that most will not, especially as we draw closer and closer to Christ's return.
Given this reality, many modern minds simply relegate the idea of the Kingship of Christ as an eschatalogical hope, something we can simply hope for at the end of time. Sadly, moving the Feast of Christ the King to the last Sunday of the liturgical year, and giving the readings entirely an eschatalogical feel reinforce this.
Yet the Kingship of Christ is something that is integral to the everyday life of the Christian. While the ultimate goal is to have society acknowledge Christ, society starts with the individual and most importantly the family.
What we need to do is make sure our catechesis is mindful of this fact. That Christ the King is not just the concept of nation states, or some eschatalogical incident at the end of time, but rather a concrete reality in this very moment. We also need to understand that this Kingship is something we share in. When parents order the home properly, they are participating in Christ's Kingship. When we help convert people to moral truth in regards to matters of life, we are doing so as diplomats of Christ's Kingship. This is how nations are conquered for Christ. Yet even if we can't conquer America and plant the Holy Cross in the middle of DC, we can save our souls and the souls of others.
I might be wrong, but I really don't hear this kind of talk in a lot of areas where Christ the King is mentioned.
I think this understanding completely misses the point of Christ the King. The Gospel makes it very clear "My Kingdom is not of this world." While all nations should acknowledge Christ, we should be realistic in that most will not, especially as we draw closer and closer to Christ's return.
Given this reality, many modern minds simply relegate the idea of the Kingship of Christ as an eschatalogical hope, something we can simply hope for at the end of time. Sadly, moving the Feast of Christ the King to the last Sunday of the liturgical year, and giving the readings entirely an eschatalogical feel reinforce this.
Yet the Kingship of Christ is something that is integral to the everyday life of the Christian. While the ultimate goal is to have society acknowledge Christ, society starts with the individual and most importantly the family.
What we need to do is make sure our catechesis is mindful of this fact. That Christ the King is not just the concept of nation states, or some eschatalogical incident at the end of time, but rather a concrete reality in this very moment. We also need to understand that this Kingship is something we share in. When parents order the home properly, they are participating in Christ's Kingship. When we help convert people to moral truth in regards to matters of life, we are doing so as diplomats of Christ's Kingship. This is how nations are conquered for Christ. Yet even if we can't conquer America and plant the Holy Cross in the middle of DC, we can save our souls and the souls of others.
I might be wrong, but I really don't hear this kind of talk in a lot of areas where Christ the King is mentioned.
A Way Out on the Mandatum Debate
Dr. Ed Peters brings forth an idea that is simple, yet kinda brilliant:
Hmm. I'm not too sure about the history of the mandatum, but there's something to be said here for this. The rite is meant to symbolize Christ washing the feet of the Apostles, of the High Priest giving an example of service to the men he was about to ordain priests. The Chrism Mass includes some very powerful symbolism of the unity between the Bishop of the diocese and his priests. This would be a pretty Ignatian act of symbolism, and by Ignatian, I mean Ignatius of Antioch. (Where the Bishop is, there is Christ.)
Considering that we traditionalists really don't have this problem with the Mandatum, I would of course be incredibly territorial and ask that we get to keep it. Yet I gotta admit, I can't seem to rule out the attractiveness of this proposal, even though I'm trying to.
(via Fr. Z)
May I suggest that discussion of this matter begin with what canon and liturgical law actually say (and don’t say) about the Mandatum rite, and that serious attention be given, if not this year then next, to eliminating this ill-conceived and merely optional rite from parish liturgies altogether and instead making it a powerful part of the bishop’s Chrism Mass?
Hmm. I'm not too sure about the history of the mandatum, but there's something to be said here for this. The rite is meant to symbolize Christ washing the feet of the Apostles, of the High Priest giving an example of service to the men he was about to ordain priests. The Chrism Mass includes some very powerful symbolism of the unity between the Bishop of the diocese and his priests. This would be a pretty Ignatian act of symbolism, and by Ignatian, I mean Ignatius of Antioch. (Where the Bishop is, there is Christ.)
Considering that we traditionalists really don't have this problem with the Mandatum, I would of course be incredibly territorial and ask that we get to keep it. Yet I gotta admit, I can't seem to rule out the attractiveness of this proposal, even though I'm trying to.
(via Fr. Z)
Monday, March 25, 2013
Parish Life Study Offers Some Good News
The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) has released a fascinating study of the parish life of American Catholics. Some things I took away from it:
1.) There were those of the more liberal bent who claimed that bringing the Novus Ordo more in line with traditional liturgical understandings (reforming the translations, more Latin, etc) would lead to people leaving parishes, especially the young. This study doesn't see any evidence of this. An overwhelming majority of individuals state that their parish has changed a lot over the last five years, and only 20% strongly believe it has changed for the worse.
2.) The generational gap is real, and it bodes very well for those of the more conservative/traditional bent. Millenials (those of my generation) are more likely than anyone else to be incredibly selective in the parish they choose. We are frequently told that the young generation doesn't care for reverence, traditional liturgies, doctrinal orthodoxy, etc. The numbers tell a different story.
Millenials are far more likely (as opposed to the general parish population) to:
3.) The generational gap also has some pretty curious things, namely that the newer generation is slowly but surely returning the Church towards the Pre-Vatican II days, at least according to Catholic identity. The oldest demographic (Pre Vatican II) tends to have the strongest Catholic identity, followed by a decline in the Vatican II and Post Vatican II Generations (1943-1981), with millenials giving an increase, and sometimes sharply.
4.) The Churches outreach to young catholics is, to quote the great philosopher Charles Barkley, turrible. They rate RCIA programs far more negatively than anyone else, but are more likely to emphasize Church teaching. They also don't care about the young adult programs. These are specifically tailored to them, and they rate them favorably no more so than everyone else does. How about less life teen nonsense and more rock solid Catholicism? Less Pizza fellowship night and more Bible Study?
Some of these differences are pretty subtle. Yet across the demographic generations, the lines are pretty clear. The young place a far higher importance on the quality of the liturgy, church architecture, robust defense of catholic teaching (especially marriage), and a renewed commitment to aggressive evangelization.
What group does this describe? If you said traditionalists, move to the head of the class. In the traditionalist movement, there tends to be two big groups: the elderly, and the millenial generation. There are not that many from the Vatican II and Post Vatican II generations.
This is also why I reject the "this is 1968/1978 all over again" chant of some of my traditionalist brethren. During those times, the demographics looked pretty grim for tradition. The younger generation wanted to wreckovate and destroy a lot of tradition. The priests coming out of the seminaries were almost uniformly hostile to robust Catholic identiy and traditionalism. Today it is the opposite, and it seems with every year, the quality of our seminarians only increases. If anything, I find it dangerously counterproductive, because it presents a reality which quite frankly does not exist.
The study is 120 pages, but full of fascinating data. Certainly worth reading this, and anything CARA puts out.
1.) There were those of the more liberal bent who claimed that bringing the Novus Ordo more in line with traditional liturgical understandings (reforming the translations, more Latin, etc) would lead to people leaving parishes, especially the young. This study doesn't see any evidence of this. An overwhelming majority of individuals state that their parish has changed a lot over the last five years, and only 20% strongly believe it has changed for the worse.
2.) The generational gap is real, and it bodes very well for those of the more conservative/traditional bent. Millenials (those of my generation) are more likely than anyone else to be incredibly selective in the parish they choose. We are frequently told that the young generation doesn't care for reverence, traditional liturgies, doctrinal orthodoxy, etc. The numbers tell a different story.
Millenials are far more likely (as opposed to the general parish population) to:
- 2a.) Be attracted to the beauty of the Church (61% to 52%) Paradoxically, they are less likely to enjoy the overall quality of the liturgy they attend. Or perhaps they are less likely to enjoy banal liturgies?
- 2b.) They are more likely to place emphasis on educating their children in the faith (56 to 47)
- 2c.) Are more likely to emphasize evangelization and spreading the Gospel than any other age demographic as of primary importance (the only demo to break 50%.) They are also more likely to emphasize fidelity to Church teachings than any age demographic.
3.) The generational gap also has some pretty curious things, namely that the newer generation is slowly but surely returning the Church towards the Pre-Vatican II days, at least according to Catholic identity. The oldest demographic (Pre Vatican II) tends to have the strongest Catholic identity, followed by a decline in the Vatican II and Post Vatican II Generations (1943-1981), with millenials giving an increase, and sometimes sharply.
4.) The Churches outreach to young catholics is, to quote the great philosopher Charles Barkley, turrible. They rate RCIA programs far more negatively than anyone else, but are more likely to emphasize Church teaching. They also don't care about the young adult programs. These are specifically tailored to them, and they rate them favorably no more so than everyone else does. How about less life teen nonsense and more rock solid Catholicism? Less Pizza fellowship night and more Bible Study?
Some of these differences are pretty subtle. Yet across the demographic generations, the lines are pretty clear. The young place a far higher importance on the quality of the liturgy, church architecture, robust defense of catholic teaching (especially marriage), and a renewed commitment to aggressive evangelization.
What group does this describe? If you said traditionalists, move to the head of the class. In the traditionalist movement, there tends to be two big groups: the elderly, and the millenial generation. There are not that many from the Vatican II and Post Vatican II generations.
This is also why I reject the "this is 1968/1978 all over again" chant of some of my traditionalist brethren. During those times, the demographics looked pretty grim for tradition. The younger generation wanted to wreckovate and destroy a lot of tradition. The priests coming out of the seminaries were almost uniformly hostile to robust Catholic identiy and traditionalism. Today it is the opposite, and it seems with every year, the quality of our seminarians only increases. If anything, I find it dangerously counterproductive, because it presents a reality which quite frankly does not exist.
The study is 120 pages, but full of fascinating data. Certainly worth reading this, and anything CARA puts out.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)