Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

The story starts out, “Not even the death of a worshipper was enough to stop Mass in a small church in the northern Italian town of Trento.” Pio Lieta, 86, suffered a fatal heart attack and instead of waiting around for an ambulance to remove the body, Father Mario Peron asked for the body to be covered with a white cloth church while he completed the sacrifice of the Mass. While one unidentified parishioner allegedly said the Mass should have been stopped out of respect for the deceased, the deceased man, priest and the family apparently knew of at least 15 reasons the Mass must go on.

Grace from Mass (A Catholic life)

1. The Mass is Calvary continued.

2. Every Mass is worth as much as the sacrifice of our Lord’s life, sufferings, and death.

3. Holy Mass is the world’s most powerful atonement for your sins.

4. At the hour of death, the Masses you have heard will be your greatest consolation.

5. Every Mass will go with you to judgment and plead for pardon.

6. At Mass, you can diminish more or less temporal punishment due to your sins, according to your fervor.

7. Assisting devoutly at Holy Mass, you render to the sacred humanity of Our Lord the greatest homage.

8. He supplies for many of your negligence and omissions.

9. He forgives the venial sins which you have not confessed. The power of Satan over you is diminished.

10. One Mass heard during life will be of more benefit to you than many heard for you after your death.

11. You are preserved from dangers and misfortunes which otherwise might have befallen you. You shorten your Purgatory.

12. Every Mass wins for you a higher degree of glory in Heaven.

13. You receive the priest’s blessing which Our Lord ratifies in Heaven.

14. You kneel amidst a multitude of holy angels, who are present at the adorable Sacrifice with reverential awe.

15. You are blessed in your temporal goods and affairs.

Zenit ran a letter today from a reader, commenting on a previous Zenit article discussing the need for the organic element to be a governing factor in the adoption of liturgical music. If found the letter writer’s terminology very telling. Here is the short letter:

…I would like to add my 2 cents worth on the subject, being involved in Church worship services for many years.

I believe it is high time to consider the value and significant contribution of Catholic praise and worship music to the millions of people who have experienced transformed lives as a result of anointed, inspiring worship during prayer meetings and also other services.

I appreciate the Gregorian chants and also traditional hymns, at the same time we need to look at how praise and worship songs (most of which are based on verses from Scripture texts) have a very important role in today’s Church services.

Let’s all together work for the greater glory of God!

Now, I can agree with the sentiment of coming together and glorifying God. However, if one compares this letter writer’s language to that of the article to which he refers, one will see a stark difference. The previous article discusses comments from Monsignor Valentín Miserachs Grau, director of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music from a conference on sacred music. His comments reflect a recognition and appreciation of the Catholic understanding of liturgy. In contrast, the words above such as “Church worship services” and “anointed, inspiring worship” seem to suggest the Protestant Evangelical confusion between affective experience with “anointed” worship.

It leads one to ask what this writer might understand by his reference to “the greater glory of God.” I wonder if he understands that St. Ireneaus’ teaching that “the glory of God is man fully alive” (Against Heresies) means man fully himself. That is, man who is fully self-possessed such that he can give himself fully to God–traditionally we call this holiness. Does he recognize that “man fully alive” comes about by overcoming his concupiscent desires such that he can easily choose to pursue the authentic good and put aside the apparent, lower goods when the are in conflict.

Man can accomplish this task only through superhuman strength and he can find this strength only from grace–i.e. participation in the divine nature (2 Pt 1:4). The grace is mediated to us through the Sacraments, of which the Eucharist is the source and center. The problem with praise and worship music at Mass, as I have indicated before (see here for a related post), is that it reverses the direction of the liturgical movement. The liturgy brings into time, the divine condescension (God reaching down to and finally becoming Man) in order to divinize man and allow him to return to God through man’s cooperation with His grace. The cooperation has a purpose. It restores to fallen man the capacity for him to fully possesses himself in order to fully give himself back to God. The fruitfulness of grace does not come by means of passive reception. Fruitfulness requires man’s full cooperation.

The structure of liturgy reflects the manner of God’s invitation to man and so must the accidents of its atmosphere. God does not come to man in the earthquake but in the gentle breeze (cf. 1 Kings 19:12-13). Our affectivities (emotions, appetites, etc.) are good and we need them (see my concupiscence post linked to above). However, they must be trained because of our fallen state. While in our original condition of integration they were “trustworthy,” now they tend to draw us away from God and toward the material world. By contrast, the liturgy ontologically brings us to God and we are called to follow this movement, volitionally, with our whole selves.

This volitional following is hampered often by our affectivities. The affectivities were created to be subordinated to reason and to follow its direction, this now is a challenge because they often do not do so readily. This presents us with the problem of concupiscence. We are drawn most compellingly to the affectively good. With this background, we can see how the admonition from the Church that sacred music is meant to adorn the words and not drown them out follows from this. The words in the liturgy should first move our minds to God. The music should then have the capacity to draw our whole selves from this earth up to God. In this way, the structure of the music and word relationship allows our affectivities follow the intellect. The liturgy can actually help us train them. When we start with our affectivities, which is the effect of praise and worship music, we reverse this action. In other words, we do not subordinate the affectivities to the intellect, but interpret the intellect in terms of our emotions. This is why so many who acclimate themselves to praise and worship mistake the lack of affective experience for the lack of the “anointing” of the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, the heightened affectivities inhibit the silent contemplation of God in His Word and in the Word’s Eucharistic action. Ironically, we are drawn away from active participation in the liturgy and we don’t realize it because the affective experience is masquerading as active involvement when it is really passive reception of the experience.  Praise and worship music is antithetical to the liturgical grammar because it works at cross purposes with fallen human nature. Thus a good musical form (I have said before that I do listen to praise and worship…though I will admit that I have been told by those better musically formed that I have no musical taste) can become an evil in the wrong context.  Therefore, we must not allow the “consumer” mentality to drive our liturgy.  We must give people what they need, not what they think they want.

I applaud this writer’s desire to glorify God. However, God is not glorified by bodies swaying with arms raised in affective intoxication. Rather, He is glorified when man understands who God is and who he is. God is glorified by man’s holiness which is only possible through His grace, i.e. cooperative communion with God. It takes much effort on fallen man’s part. He must soak himself in grace and cooperate with it such that he is able to become “virtuous,” from the Latin term which perhaps could be equated with St. Irenaeus’ dictum. The Mass is the starting place for practicing self possession.  It is the place for moving away from the noise of the world which distracts us from the emptiness we have inside because we are not yet what we were made to be. It is the place to move toward God in silent, communal self-gift which is enabled by  self-possession and self-mastery.  Praise and worship may be fine for prayer meetings.  Hymnody is perhaps better placed in other venues such as the Liturgy of the Hours. But for the Mass, we must return to the foundation of chant and sacred polyphony and require that future developments in liturgical must must arise organically from these venerable traditions.

So yes, let us by all means consider the possible benefits of praise and worship, but let us first consider the meaning of the liturgy and a mature Christian anthropology and only then will we be prepared to discern the proper venues in which this musical style can be put to fruitful use. That’s my two cents worth…

Recently, I have had a number of opportunities to consider the current state of theological inquiry and the prevailing approach to Catholic theology that has been called “the current emphasis.” I will argue, that this new approach, the “Nuptial Mystery” reflects a new synthesis of authentic previous theology on the order of that established by St. Thomas. But first some background.

In the 13th century there was a watershed in Catholic theology which would establish the approach to Catholic theological inquiry for the next seven hundred years. If one allows St. Anselm of Canterbury to be identified as the progenitor of the scholastic method, this event occurred about a century and a half into the development of this systematic approach to doing theology. The watershed to which I refer, of course, is arrival on the scene of the intellectual giant, St. Thomas Aquinas, who not only mastered and perfected this method but he employed it in such a way as to synthesize (almost) literally, all available sources of authentic knowledge up to that time. At the outset, I must say that I am not reducing all medieval theology to Thomism. However, even the the most hostile scholars to Thomism must admit that since Augustine, no single theologian has had the wide-ranging influence of St. Thomas.

St. Thomas was not only a brilliant personality, but as Etienne Gilson points out, he possessed in uncommon abundance an attribute that magnifies intellect in a synergistic way–a great humility. St. Thomas was not simply an intellectual giant, he was a humble saint and these together allowed him the ability to synthesize knowledge in such a way that even almost eight centuries later, we have not finished plumbing the depths of what he left us. His great synthesis began with adapting and purifying the intellectual tools of philosophy, and integrating recently rediscovered Aristotelian metaphysics into this, for Christian theology. With these tools, he integrated the best of biblical scholarship with his mastery of theological wisdom and insights from the patristics and scholastics up to his time.

Because his insights and completeness of thought were so formidable, the greatest effort of the vast majority of theologians who came after him was in plumbing its depths rather than in adopting his method. This is not to ignore the Franciscan school’s rejection of Thomism and the attempts to set up an alternative school. However, it seems clear that while the Scotian school certainly influenced thinking, and not all for the good when one considers his student’s, William of Ockham, insidious distortion of Western thought with his Voluntarist Nominalism. Nevertheless, even this theology took Thomas as its point of departure. Years later, when Thomism was eventually embraced by a majority of Catholic theologians, later approaches (so called neo-scholasticism) did not place as high a premium on mastering the sources as Thomas had.

This began to change at the end of the 19th century in Tubingen, and even more so, in the early part of the 20th century leading up to the Second Vatican Council. Among an influential group of Catholic theologians, there grew an emphasis on a return to the sources, the so-called Ressourcement, that so many theologians had set aside. The fruit this bore, was its influence of the conciliar documents and it came of age in the years following the council, primarily in the school now called Communio. Those associated with this school are certainly not monolithic in their approach or their models. However, there is a prevailing theme that, I would argue, one might now identify as the dominant approach to modern Catholic theology at the turn of the millennium that is bearing fruit.

Hence, I must say that I agree with Fergus Kerr, Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians: From Chenu to Ratzinger, who identifies this approach to be the aforementioned “Nuptial Mystery.” In his book, Kerr attributes this theology primarily to Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. So what is the nuptial mystery? You can read the About this Blog page to get a little better sense of it, but in a nut shell it is the recognition that the Trinity is a Communio Personarum, a Community of Persons. One of the most fruitful insights has come from recent insights in personalism. These insights begin with the fact that man is made in the image of this Communio and that the human person can in deed be understood in analogy to the Divine Persons. This has led to stunning implications of this image for anthropology, the Sacraments, ecclesiology, indeed, the whole of theological inquiry. In a word, the nuptial mystery looks at the analogy of the Trinitarian Communio with human nuptial communion as the “model” par excellence to draw together and provide the integrating theme for the various theological traditions describing Trinitarian life, creation, the Incarnation, soteriology and indeed, all of salvation history.

In the end, the beatific vision is described in terms of marriage; it is marriage with God for which man was created. This is because human marriage arises from and is possible only because of the divine Communio Personarum. Thus, marriage with God is understood as an insertion of individual persons into Trinitarian communion, not as individuals, but corporately. This corporate incorporation comes about again through marital communion. This marital communion is the marriage of the Church, the Bride to the Incarnate Son, the Bridegroom. It is this marital communion that integrates the corporate Bride into the Hypostatic order. In other words, humanity is restored to its communion with God in the Person of Jesus Christ. Fallen human beings share in this restored communion, by union with Jesus Christ, and thereby enter into the Trinitarian Communio–which is integration into the eternal marital communion of the Trinity. Everything that the Church teaches, then, can be understood in terms of this marital end for which we were created.

This nuptial mystery has its foundations in the the exitus–reditus schema which permeates many civilizations’ cosmologies and was taken up in Christianity, especially in the East. This idea of creation coming out of God and returning to God can only be maintained in coherence in the Christian distinction (i.e. the infinite difference between Uncreated Being (God’s nature) and created being). Thus, the going forth and returning cannot be maintained in a substantive sense but rather, must recogized to be in the category of real relations (on the part of creation, not of God of course). Not surprisingly, St. Thomas’ magnum opus his Summa Theologiae, is arguably organized according to this schema and his presentation of what is called today, the Immanent Trinity (the Trinity in Itself) and the Divine Processions, reflect this.

St. Thomas presents all of the features necessary for this Nuptial Mystery in his theological work. In fact, he presents a little recognized foundational insight for it in his treatise on the Angels in the prima pars of the Summa. Here he says that while the Angels in their nature more perfectly reflect God in His nature, human beings because of their begetting more perfectly reflect God relationally.

It seems to me that St. Thomas has the metaphysical tools necessary for expounding the depth and breadth of the Nuptial Mystery but primarily in metaphysical terms. He did not yet have the philosophical tools for further developing the theological analogy of human personhood to divine Personhood. Indeed, philosophical personalism would not begin to flourish until the early-mid 20th century and the theological implications of this would not come about until Balthasar and Wojtyla especially. Today we still do not have a vocabulary for describing the quasi-substantiality of real created relations, much less the quasi-substantiality of real, I would argue, volitional relationships.

Baltahasar and Wojtyla are themselves synthesizers of the fruits that have arisen from biblical scholarship and the return to the sources that began in the years prior to their entry onto the scene. Between the two, I would say that Balthasar, in some ways, has been the most creative. However, I would argue that Wojtyla/JPII has been the greater and more complete synthesizer. One of the reasons for this is the latter’s better understanding and complete acceptance of Thomist metaphysics which stands at the foundation of his theology. Fused with this is Wojtyla/JPII’s mastery of a relatively new philosophical tool, phenomenology, which has enhanced developments in philosophical personalism. Wojtyla/JPII uses phenomenology to extract universal insights from subjective experiences by bracketing the subject’s unique conditioning of the way he interprets his experiences.

Balthasar, on the other hand, leaves too many cracks in his theology, it seems to me. Specifically, he has abandoned a consistent metaphysics (read Thomism) in favor of embellishing his theo-dramatic model. For example, he dismisses the metaphysical structure for discourse about God and His immutability because he cannot reconcile this with God’s suffering in His divinity. Suffering in God is important for the symmetry of his Theodrama. However, in doing this Balthasar leaves a contradiction between suffering and immutability because suffering per se means privation of being. Thus, he is left with a contradiction that he has to hide with appeals to mystery.  I cannot see how this avoids abusing the meaning of mystery and thus leaves him open to charges of fideism.

The Nuptial Mystery is an integrating thread that demonstrates the consistency and coherence of myriad traditional theologies such as those found for creation, the Incarnation and salvation, the Church, anthropology, the Sacraments, the liturgy, and eschatology. It also explains the human person and makes sense of interior dynamic experience. However, not everyone is happy with this approach. Not surprisingly, it appears to be those who are not especially attached to Catholic teaching or traditional Catholic theology.

R. R. Reno of Creighton University gives some insight into this disapproval in a follow up to his review of Kerr’s book cited above, both in First Things and both of which are more interesting reads than this post I must admit. Any way, Reno discusses the fact that Kerr is lambasted by the seventies crowd for many things in his book, but especially for not criticizing the Nuptial Mystery. Reno points out that Kerr defends himself in response, obviously hurt by the rejection of his contemporaries, that he was misunderstood, and that his “sardonic style” was missed. Those who reject this new synthetic theology are the usual suspects. They are radical feminists, sexual libertines, and others who wish to promote lifestyles that reject the truth that sexual intercourse can only be expressed legitimately within the marital covenant, and then only in openness to life.

Background in the Nuptial Mystery brings with it new and deeper meaning to reading Wojytla/JPII’s writings, especially his Theology of the Body. It will make deeper sense of Ratzinger/B16’s works such as the Spirit of the Liturgy. A good book on this that I would recommend is by Angelo Cardinal Scola entitled nothing other than, The Nuptial Mystery.  If you needed any other motivation to learn more about it, read Reno’s On the Square post about those who reject it…this should be sufficient evidence that there is something compelling there.

I was surprised the other day when some students asked me about Friday abstinence. I was not surprised that one of them did not realize that every Friday of the year was supposed to be observed but that another student had read an article in This Rock magazine (from a couple of years back) saying that Friday penance outside of Lent was optional.

The article was by James Akin whom I usually, but not always, agree with. He is a fairly logical thinker and as usual, in his article he presents a reasonable case. He cites both Canon Law (CIC 1251 and 1253) and the NCCB/USCCB Pastoral Statement on Penance and Absitnence from 1966 which removed the obligation for abstaining from meat outside of Lent. The canons read as follows:

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

Akin understands the 1966 Pastoral to be still in force, which is correct. Further, he reads the Pastoral in the context of his understanding of the first clause of Canon 1253, giving the conference of bishops the authority to more precisely determine the observance of fast and abstinence. The Pastoral unmistakeably says that abstinence from meat on Fridays outside of Lent is no longer mandatory under the pain of sin.

However, the language he finds in the Patoral with regard to substituting other acts of penance, Akin interprets as recommended. This is not an unreasonable reading of the Pastoral itself, I will admit. Thus, he concludes that the bishops removed the obligation from abstaining from meat but put no obligation back in its place. Therefore, one is not obliged to observe Fridays outside of Lent. Please read his article for more precision on this.

This, it seems to me, is where Akin errs in his analysis. What he seems to be doing is to read the first clause of Canon 1253 as having given the national bishops conference carte blanche authority over the practice of fasting and abstinence. This is not the case and to see why we must look back at the relevant canons.

Canon 1251 clearly makes Fridays of the whole year days of abstience from meat, or some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, oblagatory. Canon 1253 further says that the Episcopal Conferences can determine the observance of fast and abstience more precisely. The question is what is meant by determining the observance more precisely. Do the national conference of bishops have the authority to abrogate the Friday observance for parts of the year (or for all of the year for that matter)? That authority is certainly not explicitly given and, as I will argue, therefore, cannot be implicitly given either.

Between Canons 1251 and 1253 the national conference of bishops is given the authority to substitute another meat or to substitute some other penance. It is not given the authority to abrogate the observance for any part of (or all of) the year. If the relevant portion of 1253 means what Akin assumes then canon 1251 has no meaning at all. 1251 becomes irrelevant. If the content is to remain at all, then 1251 should read as a suggestion and perhaps even be incorporated into 1253.

I admit I am not a canonist (phrases such as this always seem to prepare the reader expect to hear “but” or “however”… so I will try something else). Nevertheless, I am able to read the canons for interpreting Canon Law, specifically Canons 17, 20, & 21. These indicate that text and context must be understood, parallel texts must be consulted, that abrogation of a previous law must be explicit, and that in cases of doubt, abrogation cannot be presumed. Thus, I think that Akin went wrong in his assumption that the Pastoral needed to impose a new obligation. The obligation already exists (with three options: abstain from meat, some other food, or some other penance) in Canon Law and the NCCB was never given the authority to abrogate the requirement explicitly and so it cannot exist implicitly. Thus, the authority the bishops received in 1253 must be interpreted in light of the obligation instituted in 1251.

So what did Canon 1253 mean with regard the bishops’ conferences more precisely determing the observance of fast and abstinence? Following the interpretive canons, it would seem that first it is referring to their authority to substitute some other food and also it refers to the subsequent statement that in addition, they are able to substitute some other form penance.

I do not know the intention of the Pastoral in not making it clear that their recommendation for substituting some form of penance was another obligatory option, according to Canon Law. Though, perhaps one could surmise that it had to do with the hope that more fruit from abstinence/penance would come from encouragement rather than feeding into the prevailing legalist outlook that most Americans suffer from.

Unfortunately, whatever the reason, the approach did not seem to have a salutary effect. There is little understanding about the meaning and need for Friday observance. Neither do I wish to appear to be legalistic (which almost always happens when the term obligatory is heard).

What is important is knowing why fasting and abstinence are so fundamental that the Church obligates the faithful to some minimum observances (which as we mature spiritually, we should willingly desire and strive to exceed). It is also important to understand the liturgical year and why Fridays are significant days for fasting and abstinence. If we recognize the liturgy as our incorporation into the Paschal Mystery and the source of our salvation and sanctification that comes from putting on Christ. If we recognize that each week is a mini liturgical year, thus a Good Friday, then we will understand why we ought to make it a mini-Lent. We will desire to seek to join ourselves more closely to Christ on His Cross. If we understand these sufficiently, then the concern over whether it is mandatory or not recedes into the background. If we are not yet sufficiently spiritually mature, then we might still need to hear that it is mandatory.

Fasting and abstinence are fundamental to Christian life and to God’s plan of salvation for us. That is why the observance of the minimum requirements are considered precepts of the Church. This makes them grave matter. They are grave, not because they are some arbitrary discipline, but because we need them for our sanctification. There has to be some way of presenting the truth that there are minimums for being Christian and that as Christians we need to at least meet the minimums. So far, the term obligatory is about the best we can do.

Patrick McGrath, representing Joyful Catholics, sends along a news release describing their on-line petition to Cardinal Egan for the Extraordinary form of the Latin Rite to be used for this Christmas’ televised midnight Mass. Here is the news release:

27 September 2007

WITH JOY AND HOPE, CATHOLICS FROM ACROSS THE U.S. AND BEYOND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST CARDINAL EGAN: ‘MAKE THIS YEAR’S CHRISTMAS MIDNIGHT MASS A TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS!”

URGE OTHERS TO ADD THEIR NAMES TO THE GROWING LIST

TO: Catholic news agencies, media outlets, and bloggers

FROM: Patrick McGrath, Stony Point, NY

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: patrick.anteyka@gmail.com

STONY POINT, NY, USA (26 September 2006) – With three months to go before celebrating the birth of our Lord and Savior this Christmas, hundreds of Catholics have signed an on-line petition to Edward, Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York. Their simple, respectful request: Please celebrate Christmas Midnight Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral this year in the Traditional Latin form – what’s now called the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite.

The petition, which is on-line only, can be reached at this URL:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/latin-midnight-mass-stpats

Said petition organizer Patrick McGrath: “What pleases and surprises me is that not only native New Yorkers support the petition, but so do transplanted New Yorkers, visitors to New York, and overseas friends—even if they’ve never been to New York. They understand the importance of our great Cathedral, particularly in this bicentennial year of our Diocese.”

“My hope is that many many others will join us in this prayerful request to our Cardinal-Archbishop,” McGrath continued. “Again, here’s why such an event will have world-class impact: First, it will be on television in the media capital of the world. That means it will not only shape souls, it will change minds. Second, St. Patrick’s is architecturally suited for the Traditional Latin Mass: a Gothic-style edifice with a high altar, a baldachino, and a communion rail–’good to go for the motu proprio,’ as I like to say. Third, our eminent Cardinal-Archbishop speaks Latin fluently, and has told his flock that there is “room for all” in our Church’s liturgical life, both the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Holy Mass..”

“Cardinal Egan knows that the Extraordinary Rite holds ‘a very special place in the heart’ of many New Yorkers — and others beyond our city who ‘feel a strong attachment to the Mass before the Council.’ McGrath said. “All of us who signed the petition heartily agree with the Cardinal’s thoughts, and prayerfully request that he bring back the Traditional Latin version of one of New York’s Great Events—Christmas Midnight Mass at St. Patrick’s.”

Here is a sample of some of the comments left by our petition signers (home town of the signers for identification only):

Nashua NH: “Your Excellency, I would drive 4 hours from [here} to attend the traditional Mass in the most beautiful Church in NYC. Please grant this petition.”

Virginia Beach, VA: “This is a wonderful opportunity to re-introduce the Latin Mass to modern America. I love the reverence and solemnity of the Latin Mass. This is the Mass that I assisted at with my grandfather as a child. It was his Mass and his father’s Mass and his father’s all the way back to who knows when..”

New Haven, CT: “It’s hard to think of a better gesture of support for the Holy Father’s latest initiative to rehabilitate an essential part of our liturgical heritage. Thank you, Cardinal Egan, for your openness to this sincere petition!”

Oregonia, OH: “Having visited you city for the first time last year, I can’t think of a better place to have our Latin Mass offered than at St. Patrick’s. It would be a fine example to the whole of the United States.”

Lewis Center, OH: “My grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-granparents all attended Holy Mass at St. Patrick’s according to the Tridentine Rite. I pray for its return to America’s Cathedral.”

Littleton, CO: “As I Knight of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem I enthusiastically and respectfully add my name to this petition.”

Las Vegas, NV: “The very first Mass I ever attended was at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1983. It is such a beautiful church, and to see the Mass of all time celebrated there once again on Christmas Eve would be glorious indeed. Since the beginning of this year I have assisted at the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively and the graces that flow from it so freely and naturally are truly transforming.”

New York, NY: “Your Excellency, may infinite graces pour into Your Heart and to the entire church when you publically celebrate this awsome and extra-ordinary ritual: The Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Tridentine Rite on the Night that the Logos becomes Flesh.”

Lititz, PA: “For years I lectored at the Thursday noon Mass at St. Patrick’s. My wife is from NY. We now attend the Extraordinary Form exclusively. Were it celebrated at Christmas, either for Midnight Mass or Christmas Eve, I and my family would be there.”

In his explanatory letter accompanying his decree Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI wrote, “… it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows. … There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”

Summorum pontificum fans are also quite creative. Travis, over at Catholic Tube, has collected a few Youtube videos celebrating B16’s motu proprio allowing wider usage of the 1962 Missal.  But first let me interrupt this post with some personal commentary: It will take time but I pray that the wider availability of this form (well celebrated of course) creates a thirst for a return to the ordinary expression of the Mass, of some important elements too quickly jettisoned with the 1970 Missal.  Now on to the celebration:

Keep an eye on Travis’ new site. It really is a very good compilation of the latest in Catholic on-line video.

Latin Mass Magazine recently published a wonderful article on what constitutes authentic, organic development of the liturgy by the scholar of liturgy, Dom Alcuin Reid. I had been considering doing a post about it, but, lo and behold, The Pertincacious Papist was given permission to publish it on-line in its entirety. So, without further ado, I’ll simply refer you to the whole article.

Here’s a snippet:

It is in understanding that context, it is by identifying ad defending the true nature of Sacrosanctum Concilium’s call for an organic development of the Liturgy, and in recognising that this was grossly exceeded, that we underline our insistence that the liturgical reform be looked at again and with some urgency. For the Roman rite has suffered severe damage and its repair is urgently required.

None of us, not even our beloved Holy Father, can know with absolute certainty the best way of celebrating the new rites in a manner consistent with Catholic worship, whilst others talk of reforming the reform, and others still come to savour the splendour and value of the unreformed traditional Liturgy, a solution, please God, draws nearer.

History will record the answer to our malaise. We, in daring to do as much as we are able I response to this crisis, through our studies and most importantly by our worthy celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, may be privileged to be part of that answer.

Update 1: Unfortunately, it appears that the article was taken down.

Update 2: Dad29 has the cached article.

In our parish we have two hymnals. One is full mainly of Protestant hymnody –the Red Book– and the other is primarily loaded with what is nowadays distressingly referred to by the younger generations as “traditional” Catholic music –the Blue Book. These are songs that were written mostly in the 1980s by some guitar players from St. Louis. Both books come from “Catholic” music publishers.

At times my distaste for the music in one of the books will become manifest and the response of my interlocutor often goes something like this: “you mean you like the Red Book?” It is a great shame that these comprise the extent of the liturgical music options for most parishes in the US today. It’s either the red book or the blue book. Neither of them proffer the excellence that is to be found in the great liturgical music patrimony of the Catholic Church. Ironically, nor do they comport with the wishes of the Second Vatican Council Fathers which are often cited as justification for the seriously wanting liturgical music that we have today.

An article I read recently from Catholic World Report discusses the issue from the perspective of the democratizing tendencies of Western culture and it shows how good music is antithetical to this notion. I think that the author makes some good points. While it was not the purpose of the article to analyze this, I think though, that the problem is two-fold.

First, the majority of the current “old guard” liturgical musicologists reject the Church’s teaching on the meaning of the liturgy. They do not see the liturgy as the making present of an eternal reality and effecting (i.e. making present in time) the grace poured out in time 2000 years ago by an eternal Person when He died on the Cross and rose again 3 days later. They do not recognize it as a real participation in a heavenly wedding feast whereby heaven touches earth. They do not recognize in it, the manifestation and recapitulation in time of the Trinitarian cosmic liturgy (see About This Blog under the header for more on this). Rather, it is usually seen as an opportunity for emoting and for psychological satisfaction. Thus, music is for them more a matter of taste than anything else.

Second, they do not recognize that music has an ontology that comports with the created order and has universal potency to effect experiences of the transcendent, the mundane, or the profane. Thus, there is not much of a possibility for a theology of music or of dialogue about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain musical forms for the liturgy (even if one could come to an agreement about the meaning of the liturgy).

Now some who are favorable to both an authentic liturgical and musical theology, will point out that music is simply an accident and for the sake of Church “harmony” (a bad pun) it should not be made to be a big issue (St. Augustine is oft cited here). It is true that it is an accident (thankfully). However, one might respond that while green is a perfectly good color, as a hair color it doesn’t work. Rather it works to deny the authentic nature of the substance in which it inheres. The same thing can and does happen with music in the liturgy.

There is a nature to the liturgy. The liturgy, as I intimated above, reflects the economic manifestation of Trinitarian Communion. This includes the divine condescension, human divinization, and nuptial return of The Bride with Her Bridegroom to the Father and Her filial participation in Trinitarian Communion in the Son. Liturgical music must reflect this liturgical movement. Most of current day music rather, reflects the sense that we are stuck in the condescension (if it even reflects the condescension at all). The music may be technically good or bad, simple or sophisticated. However, if it is “green” it does belong in the liturgy. There are of course varying degrees of inappropriateness as there are varying degrees of accord of music with the nature of the liturgy. I am not prepared (or qualified) to make anything but general observations. However, a few of us will be discussing this issue in more detail over the summer months so you can be sure that as we proceed I will share with you the insights of our discussions. My hope is that these discussions will help in being able to draw some more concrete conclusions.

Most of you probably follow Fr. Z.’s blog, but Hierothee wanted to be sure for those who for some strange reason do not, to get a chance to mosey on over to his blog and have access to the insights that Fr. Z. has to share on the long awaited motu proprio. Go take a look.

Part I: The Cosmic and the Personal

With the pending publication of the Motu Proprio, now seems like an appropriate time to talk about the exile of the French Oratorian Louis Bouyer – at one time considered among France’s preeminent authorities on liturgy – from the liturgical establishment in France. It will be recalled, by anyone who has had their antennae up in recent months, that the French episcopacy fought tooth and nail against the Holy Father when rumors began to circulate about the Motu Proprio. For all that we Catholics in the English-speaking world have had to endure the past few decades in matters liturgical, it seems that the French have had it even worse. At any rate, one of the central figures in the liturgical movement before, during and immediately after the Council in France was Louis Bouyer. He was perhaps the key figure in the establishment of the Centre de pastorale liturgique (CPL) before the Council – in fact, he is considered to have penned, in the form of a personal letter to the Dominican Father Duployé, its “founding document.” The CPL later became the Centre national de pastorale liturgique (CNPL), which was responsible for implementing the reforms of the Council in France. Bouyer had to disassociate himself from this latter organization when, in translating the Roman Missal into the vernacular, they evacuated from it all mention of “oblation, sacrifice, and immolation.” It was precisely the crowd opposing the Motu Proprio, in line with those who see things through the perspective of the CNPL, who would have opposed Bouyer.

In fact, recognizing what had become of the liturgical movement after the Council – especially among those who had co-opted it in France – Bouyer became entirely detached from the “liturgical establishment.” The bad blood between Bouyer and the “mainstream” French liturgists ran in both directions: Bouyer truly became persona non grata among the French liturgists. Bouyer recounts his role in the liturgical movement and the missteps in the post-Conciliar liturgical reform in a chapter of the published form of his 1979 interview with George Daix, Le métier de théologien (MT), recently republished (Ad Solem: 2005) to commemorate Bouyer’s passing. I would like to share some of his insights in a series of posts over the next few days – or perhaps it will occur in weekly intervals, depending on how much time I have to spend on this. I shall try to make some quick translations for you from the aforementioned book. At some point in this series of posts, I shall demonstrate the sympathy of viewpoints on the liturgy between the Holy Father and Bouyer. In fact, the Holy Father was influenced by Bouyer’s work on the liturgy and cites him in The Spirit of the Liturgy. Both Bouyer and the Holy Father are at one in recommending strongly the positive insights of Vatican II and in maintaining a highly critical opinion of the way that the Council’s prerogatives – particularly in the area of liturgy – were implemented.

I shall begin at the beginning, that is, at the start of the relevant chapter in MT. Before converting to Catholicism and becoming an Oratorian priest, Bouyer had been a Lutheran minister. He had been brought up in an ecumenically-minded, Protestant home and had always had a strong attraction to the liturgy. At first, he was quite intrigued with the prayer services of the Quakers. Bouyer himself explains:

“When I was still rather far from Catholicism, I had much sympathy – which, moreover, I have not lost – for the Quakers, who seemed to push as far as possible the Protestant instinct for interiority, for the personality of the cult which must be given to God. I think that this is all in fact true but that it is only an aspect of reality. Because if true religion is only personal – that is, interior and spiritual, it is also true that man is a spirit immersed or incarnated in the cosmos and that he does not exist in isolation” (MT, 64).

According to Bouyer, man belongs, even from the very beginning of creation, to a race, to a society of saints who belong to God and whose mutual love must be an embodiment and expansion of His own love. God must be found and encountered not only in the interiority of the soul but in communion with others and in the world itself. “The discovery of God,” according to Bouyer, “must awaken in man a response as interior, as direct as possible. But equally it must thrust him into praise and graced action that embraces the entire universe, in a witness that brings him to communicate to others the most intimate things he has received from God.”

“There is no opposition therefore,” Bouyer tells us, “between this interiority – of which the most Catholic mystics such as Saint John of the Cross have emphasized not only the importance but the necessity for all authentic religious life and cult of God – and the expression of the realization of the cult in a liturgical tradition where the cosmos itself is utilized in order to proclaim the praise of God and to serve at the same time as the organ of communication between all men in order that they be a single heart and a single soul in gratitude and praise of God” (MT, 64).

“It is therefore,” he continues, “from the most personalist, Protestant vision of religion that I have arrived at my interest in liturgy and have seen its absolutely capital importance.” Nevertheless, according to Bouyer, the interior, social and cosmic dimensions can and must be harmonized if man is to recognize himself fully as the liturgical creature that he is by nature.

Interestingly, Bouyer does not deny his Protestant influence. Nor does he deny the true insight of Protestantism – its emphasis on interiority and individual personality. Yet, as we shall see in future posts, Bouyer strongly opposed the liturgical reforms that took place after the Council. This is perhaps at first sight contradictory because it is a standard refrain among those who reject post-Conciliar liturgical reforms that they are essentially “Protestant.” That Bouyer did not reject outright his Protestant heritage would no doubt lead some to see him as part of the problem rather than the solution. Bouyer, as we have seen, argues that the a-cosmic and a-social dimension of Protestantism is harmful to an integral understanding of man, the liturgical subject. But the positive emphasis on the individual spiritual dimension that Protestantism inculcates is an undisputed good, in his opinion. After all, the faith must become the individual’s own possession, even though it must be at the same time shared and lived communally. We shall see later on how Bouyer balances the personal, social and cosmic aspects of Christian liturgy in his harsh criticisms of post-Conciliar reforms of the liturgy, which exhibit a most unbalanced character…

Laodicia is reporting that Holy Thursday is to be the latest date for the universal indult for saying the Tridentine Mass. While this date has a certain logic to it, I remain with The Curt Jester in his sure method for prognosticating the date. While I have no earthly idea when or even if a universal indult will be granted, let me say what I think it makes sense as I understand B16’s program for a “reform of the reform.”

Here is what I mean. A wider availability of this Rite will expose a larger number of Catholics to the lost patrimony. Pastors are much less insulated from the desires of their parishioners than are bishops so even in dioceses where the bishop has much animus toward the Rite, it is likely there will be parishes that offer it. Attending the Trindentine Mass can familiarize Catholics with Latin and chant and prepare them, and even create a thirst, for returning some of these lost treasures to the current Roman Missal.

Creating a widespread thirst is a much more effective approach for reintroducing elements that too many “reformers” have succeeding in painting in a negative light for the majority of Catholics. This is perfectly in keeping with Benedict’s gentle manner. In order for this to be effective though, a lot of care will have to be placed in preparing those not already enamored with the Rite lest they be put off by unfamiliarity or even by a poorly done Mass.

I do hope that there is a universal indult soon. While I agree that the beauty of the Tridentine Mass will be compelling for many, I also recognize it will not be everyone’s cup of tea…at least the first couple of times in attendance. In any case, hopefully for most, they will be struck by the greater sense of transcendent mystery that seems to be missing from the majority of Masses conducted according to the current Roman Missal and will desire that some of the elements that contribute to this transcendence, be restored to the current Rite. This is my hope any way.

By now, most people have either read B16’s first post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of Christian Life, or they have read summaries of it. The last couple of weeks have been quite busy so I did not get through it until today. But since most of the blog “ink” has long been spilled on this I will not rehash it, but I will share some of my parochial interests.

I have mentioned before (here, here, and oh yea, here) that I expected B16’s pontificate to be centered upon an authentic implementation of the Second Vatican Council’s call to reform the liturgy. In the aforementioned posts, I mentioned some of those things which I believe will be brought back that were summarily dismissed with the “reform” stampede of the first decades after Sacrosanctum concilium. Sacramentum caritatis (SC) is, I would say, the first indication of what we will see from this pontificate, in terms of the authentic restoration of liturgical reform.

It is clear, as I have said before, that B16’s temperament is similar to that of JPTG’s. As such, he is embarking on a patient and gradual path to reform. He is beginning by slowly reintroducing some of those significant “babies” that went out the window with the bathwater in the rush to implement Sacrosanctum concilium according to an inorganic vision as to the path the reform ought to take. Many of these reintroductions he discusses under the heading, ars celebrandi; a venerable phrase that sets the tone for what the liturgy is…an art form (in the colloquial sense of the phrase) and so the perspective from which the adorning accidents associated with the liturgy must be viewed.

B16 does a very good job in showing how the entire Christian life is formed around, must be structured by, and is made possible through the Eucharist and the liturgy. The Mass is the one and only acceptable offering to God on the part of humanity. As such, Benedict recognizes that the accidents which surround and adorn the liturgy must accord with the liturgy’s nature. We therefore, must adorn the one Sacrifice that reconciles man with God with the very best that humanity has to offer. It is in light of this that he earnestly desires to reshape the way the average Catholic looks at and approaches the liturgy. Clearly he thinks that an important step in doing so will come in replacing the mundane adornments with the sacred.

The liturgy is where heaven touches earth, JPTG reminded us in his first visit to Los Angeles. Thus, to experience this transcendence, it is important that the accidents not only do not distract us from our focus on the liturgical divine condescension and our divinization. Rather, they must also serve to lead us from earth, being taken up in this act of the God-Man which reveals trinitarian love, into divine communion. This last point is especially important, we do not draw God down to the mundane and keep Him here; rather, He condescends to us in order to transform us into Him and thereby take us up with Him to the Communion for which He made us.

O.k., the preceding is not explicitly from the SC, but it is implicitly there (especially look at his treatment of the presentation of the gifts) and can be found throughout B16’s writings. Nevertheless, the major features he brings to the table include restoring the Latin language in a measured way, to the Mass in the Latin Rite. He also encourages the reintroduction of Gregorian chant, something that is proper to (uniquely associated with) the sacred liturgy. He warns against musical forms that are not appropriate to the liturgy. However, he also makes clear that this does not remove the possibility of inculturation. However, he is clear that this inculturation does not approach the liturgy as an infinitely plastic artifact. Rather, he points to the documents, especially the GIRM, that define the space for inculturation that still corresponds to the nature of the liturgy.

He makes a point about the importance of appropriate architecture, art, and the unity of the furnishings with the liturgical form. He points out that lectors/readers must be well prepared. In other words, becoming a lector is not on the job training or a place to learn to speak in public, or a “ministry” intended to get everyone more “actively involved” in the liturgy. For this role we should provide the best we have to offer.

He also admits of the generally poor state of homilies and asserts that they must be improved. Particularly, he emphasizes the catechetical and the moral exhortative aims of the homily. He is wont to correct the abuses associated turning the sign of peace into a “hug fest.” Why? Because of the fact that it interrupts the form of the liturgy. This is both a material and a formal concern. It has a detrimental psychological effect and also an improper formal concern. While Nominalists would not understand this, it is in fact, a significant issue. Beginning with excessive communal expressions (before and during Mass) obscures the fact that true Christian community arises from the Eucharist and not vice versa.

B16 also spends a significant amount of space correcting the mistaken notions of “active participation.” It is especially here where, in my judgment, great care must be taken not only in catechizing the faithful in order to make them aware of what the Mass is and the proper preparation necessary for entering into this ineffable event. Care must also be taken that the accidents, and here I am thinking especially of the musical forms selected, do not distract from the quiet contemplatio, that must be maintained if one is to keep his eyes focused on his encounter with Christ (personally and communally).

I realize that this post does not do justice from the perspective of an overall summary, even of this particular issue. But alas, I need to get ready for class so this must do for now.

P.S. I not intend to usurp The Curt Jester’s title to the last blogger in St. Blog’s to post on this. I really am this slow.

The pro-life group called Mid-Hudson Stop Planned Parenthood protested outside the Archdiocesan Catholic Center in Poughkeepsie, calling for the excommunication of Congressman John Hall from the church. The group accuses the Cardinal of having time to lock up churches in the Archdiocese, but isn’t taking the time to enforce Canon law. Hall’s spokesman reports that Hall and his wife will usually attend Episcopal Church services these days.

Being that John Hall is a new progressive patriot just elected into congress and attends an Episcopal Church, I think this could possibly be a spill over effect with the on-going frustration with Cardinal Egan, re-energized with the recent locking up of the Church doors.

It’s my understanding that the Funeral Mass should never contain a eulogy of any kind, but apparently the church in Australia allows for words of remembrance from a family member or friend at the end of a funeral Mass. Cardinal George Pell should seriously consider following the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, given the trend of the laity turning the sacramental Mass into re-makes of comedic funeral services commonly found in Hollywood scripts.

“On NOT a few occasions, inappropriate remarks glossing over the deceased’s proclivities (drinking prowess, romantic conquests etc) or about the Church (attacking its moral teachings) have been made at funeral masses,” Pell’s new guidelines say.

Quoting Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati: “The funeral liturgy is a celebration of salvation and mercy, of grace and eternal life. It is not meant to be a commemoration of the person who has died. Extended remembering of the deceased often results in forgetting the Lord.”

In the last week, the issue of what is exactly meant by “active participation” in the liturgy, on the part of the laity has come up, so of course having a blog one must take the opportunity to vent.

I have been consulting with a rather large diocese that is trying to develop a catechetical certification program. As part of this consultation, they asked me to review several existing catechetical programs for applicability to their requirements. Several of these existing programs are offered on-line, so I have been observing some of the classes.

Unfortunately, these classes offer ample post material (which in part explains many of the problems we still experience in the liturgy) but I will stay on topic here. One class I have been monitoring on the Sacraments had a discussion going on this topic but it was not on the meaning of “active participation. ” Rather all the participants seemed to presuppose the answer and discussed how active participation could be increased among the parishioners.

I agreed with the general thought that more adult catechesis is needed but that is as far as my agreement went. In addition to the usual suspects (get more people involved being lectors, “Eucharistic ministers,” etc.) here were some gems.

• Open the Mass up to the congregation in order to let them share their thoughts and feelings
• Allow parishioners to choose during the Mass which songs they want to sing next (by voting I suppose?)
• Allow parishioners to have more influence about how the Mass is done so that they can feel that their opinions were being taken seriously, and of course
• Make sure that everyone is clear that the Mass comes not just under the authority of the clergy (your guess is as good as mine on this one)

There is a priest facilitating this class. I was hoping that he would correct this erroneous line of thinking and explain that active participation is an active intention to offer to the Father, the work of the “People,” in other words the work of the Church and our personal prayers, works, joys, and sufferings, joined to the Sacrifice of the Cross for the reparation of sins and the building up of the Church. In other words, I was hoping that he would explain that “active” means an involved and engaged attention to what is taking place during the Mass, its significance, and the part we are called to play in it, all within the context of the approved rubrics of the Mass.

Rather, what the class got was an affirmation of their ideas but the warning that such an approach might make some people angry.

Now this mistaken idea of active participation can also be found at otherwise, solid parishes as well. For example, at a parish in which I know the priest to be quite orthodox, during Catholic schools week the students were given the responsibilities for lectoring. Besides the fact that most times the students are not very good at being lectors, this again feeds the mistaken notion that to be actively “involved” one must do some extraordinary activity. If this were the case, then there would still be very little opportunity for all parishioners to be “actively involved” every week, which is not the case.

Add to this that in our worship, we must offer back to God the best we have. This ought to be the case, par excellence, in the Mass. Thus, the Mass must not be used (abused) as a “Toastmasters” venue or a way of making people feel more part of the Church. Preparing people to be good lectors must come outside of the Mass and they should be scheduled during Mass only at that point in time in which they are sufficiently prepared. As with the music, those who are truly gifted at lectoring, ought to be those whom we appoint as lectors. Making people feel more part of the Church, especially children, ought be done through other means, such as catechesis.

It is no wonder, that most of the laity has lost their sense of the Transcendent Mystery that is the Mass. With our tepid and banal music, and the lack of excellence that we have come to expect in our execution of the liturgy (not to mention that lack of respect we have for the rubrics), it is a wonder that we have as many Catholics come to Mass as we still do, since most do not have a clue about what they are celebrating.

Liturgical excellence is possible and when we understand what the Mass is, I do not understand how anyone can imagine offering anything less. While part of the answer is better seminary formation for our priests, better catechesis for our adults and children, I think a greater part of the answer is a change of heart for all of us as well.

By the way, if you haven’t been to their website yet, here is an excellent example of a parish that demands and delivers liturgical excellence: Our Lady of the Atonement.

A beautiful portrayal of the sacrament of confession - Bless me, father, for I have sinned.

Awhile back, I did a short series on the human person. In one of the articles, I touched on the relationship between the human person’s ultimate end and that which we often confuse for it. To be more specific, I discussed how man’s ultimate happiness is to be found in his participation in Trinitarian Communion and the way that consumption in the material world often disguises this end and often diverts us from the path leading to it.Given that we have come to the end of the Christmas Octave, the liturgical time in which we commemorate the Incarnation that made possible our incorporation into Trinitarian Communion by means of the Hypostatic Union, I thought I would jot down a few more thoughts on this topic based upon reflections from other theologians, especially John Paul the Great’s theology of the body catecheses.

John Paul reminds us that we were made in the image of a Communio Personarum, a community of divine Persons. However, unlike divine Persons, human persons were created with a potency, a capacity, to cooperate in perfecting themselves. This perfection is described as holiness. What holiness means is that we achieve total self-possession by cooperating with grace, through prayer and practice of the virtues, such that we are able to readily and totally give ourselves to God first and then to others. This need for total self-gift for human holiness, read human happiness, derives from the fact that God is Love. John Paul shows what this means by using the tradition of the Trinitarian Processions to find that Love means total self-gift (see our About post for more of an explanation of this). Thus, on earth we are given the task to develop the habitus, the habit, by which we can totally give ourselves to God. But John Paul reminds us that we cannot give that which we do not first possess.

This task remains for us as long as we live out our lives in this fallen state. Here on earth we must cooperate with grace, which is the partaking in the divine nature (see 2 Peter 1:4), through the Sacraments in order to overcome our fallen desires. In our fallen state, our appetites for the goods which satiate the needs of the material aspects of our being become disordered when they do damage to the higher goods which perfect our whole personhood. For example, our desire to have communion with that extra donut when we know we ought not becomes problematic when we habitually give into our desire for this material good. Doing so deprives us of the self-possession necessary if we are to give our whole selves to God. While, this might seem a minor example, the principle is the same for more grave examples. In fact, the habitual submission to lesser temptations, makes it more and more difficult to resist graver temptations.

Notice above that I characterized eating the donut in terms of a communion. Eating is the predominant form of communion available to the aspect of our nature that we share with lower life forms. In this “communion” we take up the lower organic materials and incorporate them into our own bodies. This, however, is not the true communion for which our whole being pines. The communion by which the lower life forms give way to the higher life forms is called consumption. Consumption is solely a temporary satisfaction of an affectivity or appetite by which the lower forms are annihilated by the higher.

It is no surprise then, I suppose, that Adam and Eve’s fall is depicted in terms of consuming the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. This is what I mean. Though it is not a necessary result, creation arises out of the overflowing of Trinitarian Love, from total Self-gift. Created being, because it’s archetype is in God, must reflect God’s perfection in some manner. The Early Church Fathers, especially Pseudo-Dionysius, characterized the manner the entire cosmos reflects its Trinitarian archetype as the eternal cosmic return to the Father, where all that was given by the Father will ultimately all return to Him. They saw this truth firmly revealed in Scripture when all creation will be recapitulated in Christ.

Adam and Eve, who on behalf of all of visible creation, were called to freely complete this eternal return after the archetype of Trinitarian love, by totally giving themselves back to God in trusting thanksgiving for their existence. This free act of total self-gift was destroyed when instead of trusting in God and receiving as a gift all He intended to give them for their happiness, they decided they needed to “take” instead. They were tempted to believe God was withholding from them something that they needed for their fulfillment, for their ultimate happiness. This taking seems to be presented as the antithesis of the gift. Instead of returning themselves to God and bringing forth a communion with Him, they chose another path. Notice, they not only take, but they consume. Consumption has now replaced communion as the dominant mode by which mankind is motivated and, thereby, so often deceived into replacing the true good with apparent goods.

With the Fall, we lost original communion, original grace. God reconciled this grave situation through a new creation. To transcend the infinite gulf between God and man, a rupture opened up by an act of consumption, indicating self-trust at the expense of divine trust, God became Man. On behalf of all creation, the God-Man returned to the Father all He was given, which included His human life. The Cross is, par excellence, a manifestation of Trinitarian love. It is also the singular saving act of human total self-gift because it has an infinite character due to its having been performed by a divine Person. With the Cross, humanity now has renewed access to divine nature. However, this access comes only through each person’s incorporation into the Incarnation. We must become new creations as Jesus told Nicodemus and as St. Paul advised, through Baptism. Baptism incorporates us into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. In the Church we are wedded to divinity through the Bridegroom and through which we become what we eat. We are the Mystical Body of Christ because we consume Him, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist. Only by this act of consumption can we have real communion.

As I mentioned above, consumption incorporates lower life into higher life. Communion, rather, weds lives together. In the Eucharist we can see the way that God redeems consumption, showing us that the material aspect of our humanity is a good if kept in the proper order. In Holy Communion we consume God, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, but instead of bringing him down into our nature, we are brought up into His. We become divinized. Neither person is absorbed into the other, but we are wedded to Christ and thereby, incorporated into Trinitarian love.

Through this communion, we are given the strength we need to overcome the “man of lust.” That is, man in the dispensation of sin in which he is subject to the threefold lust of which St. John the Divine speaks: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. These are an ever present temptation. We are continually tempted to try to satisfy our desire for communion with God with consumption of food, drink, and other pleasures of the flesh. We are tempted to distort the life giving love of marital communion with the consumption of another soul in selfish sexual intercourse for the sake of pleasure or the sake of binding another to ourselves in seeking a sense of security or self-worth. We are tempted to replace our trust in God with a misplaced faith in the gods of science who promise us health, wealth and power, even power over life itself.

It is only through authentic communion with God in Christ that we can prepare ourselves for our ultimate communion with God in heaven. Sacramental communion gives us access to grace and the supernatural virtues, which alone heals, elevates and perfects nature. Grace alone can perfect the natural virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude whereby we gain the total self-possession we need to escape slavery to our passions so that we can become slaves to Christ. It is through prayer where we perfect our thirst for total self-giving by which we become holy.

In the end, the only consumption upon which we dare rely for our salvation is Holy Communion.

Fr. Christopher G. Phillips has just started a blog, and one need not browse for very long to understand how he became the pastor of the first parish with the only approved variation of the Latin Rite in the U.S. For the first time in the history of the Western Church, Protestants were welcomed into the Church with a Pastoral Provision which included the right to seek the establishment of Personal Parishes under the authority of diocesan bishops, a unique liturgical use, devotional practices, and married clergy on a limited basis.

Here is the history of the parish.

It seems to me quite clear that those people who take a “progressive” stance on issues pertaining to the faith come down, invariably, on the side of things that would lead to the destruction of souls and even to the Church. A case in point is found in a recent article by Sandro Magister.

Magister describes in this article the issues at stake in a forthcoming conference at Verona regarding future pastoral strategies in the Italian Church. Two sides will be well-represented at this conference, according to Magister. On the one side are the faithful who are in line with the pastoral strategy of the last two pontificates. This side recommends a strong, clear message of faith to a world that increasingly lives in opposition to the pronouncements of Christ. On the other side, are those theologians who recommend that the Church open itself to the world in a mission of dialogue, that it listen before it speaks, and that it provide a “prophetic” witness rather than a triumphalistic proclamation of truth.

Aside from the vaguely contradictory notion of providing a “prophetic” witness to a world that one considers one’s teacher, a concrete pastoral recommendation has arisen among these progressives that is quite puzzling indeed. For, it seems, the theological progressives in Italy recommend a rigorist position on infant baptism. That is, they recommend denying baptism to those children whose parents and godparents are considered to be absent of faith. In fact, the denial of baptism in these circumstances has become a widespread practice in the Italian Church. The reasoning behind the practice is stated well by a progressive Catholic layman, Giorgio Campanini:

It seems beyond doubt that we are facing a clear disequilibrium in the administering of the sacraments. An emblematic case is that of the sacrament of baptism, the celebration of which seems to have given much greater emphasis to traditional, ritual, and sometimes almost magical components rather than to the presentation of the faith. To what extent is baptism, as administered today, truly a proclamation, a summons to faith? What has become of the godparents, the hypothetical ‘guarantors’ of the baptized child’s faith, in a widely secularized society like that of today? It must be asked whether the current praxis – that of not denying baptism to anyone, believer or non-believer – is really the most ecclesiastically correct one, and whether baptism can continue to be granted in the future without the catechesis of the parents, relatives, and godparents.

Magister analyzes well the problems inherent in this practice – which Cardinal Camillo Ruini, for many years the leading figure of the Italian bishops’ conference, has described as “pastorally destructive.” Magister points out that the same theological progressives who promote “openness” to the world are, in regard to this practice, theologically rigorist. I would add that it is clear that these “progressive rigorists” have taken on a rather Puritanical notion of Catholic sacraments. They would deny access to the grace of baptism for children whose parents or godparents “lack faith.” Could a more ruinous pastoral strategy be in place?

This brings me to the question that I raise in the title to this post. Whose bidding are these “progressive rigorists” doing? Christ’s or Antichrist’s?

In a culture that is so thoroughly imbued with Cartesian dualism, reductive materialism, and the perverse notion that equality means sameness even faithful Catholics can be led to miss the importance of symbolism in determining the appropriate roles for laity in the liturgy based upon their sex. What I am getting at is this. The other day at Mass we had two extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who both happened to be Franciscan sisters. I had not really thought about it before, but in this case what began as a subliminal sense of dissonance eventually became explicit. I was seeing a clash of symbols.

This is what I mean. Here we have two heroic women who have selflessly dedicated their lives to witnessing to the reality of the Church as the Bride of Christ in our marriage communion with God, which is of course a feminine relational reality. They have dedicated themselves, in their femininity, to furthering the Kingdom by proleptically living the eschatological Kingdom on earth. However, here is the dissonance. The sisters were assisting in a role that symbolizes (and effects) the Bridegroom giving Himself in this most perfect love of initiative, which is a masculine relational reality (for more on this see an earlier post here and here and especially read the Kreeft article). In other words, we have the feminine attempting to symbolize the masculine.

The Mass is a participation in the heavenly banquet; the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. In this feast the Second Adam consummates His marriage through His Sacrifice of the Cross in which He draws His Bride from His opened side in an act of re-creation as the anti-type of the first Adam. In the Mass we celebrate God marrying His people by entering into an ineffable one flesh u