Old Mass/New Mass

Fr. Z at WDTPRS made a post here asking for readers, especially those of the younger generation, to email him with brief thoughts on the old mass/new mass question. The responses are there, and in part 2 and part 3. My response was made and posted. All of the responses taken together make an interesting reflection on the question, and as I have continued thinking about it, I'd like to make a more substantial discussion of the topic than was afforded there.

First, I must lay out what I mean by the "old mass/new mass question." Overall, I'd like to discuss my preferences, how I arrived at them, and also the role the Extraordinary Form (EF) has played in my spiritual life at different points.

As I have said before, I didn't much care about the Faith, nor attendance at Church through my freshman year of college. When I returned to the Church as a sophomore, I had only moderate religious formation, and very little understanding of liturgical history. Luckily, though, I had friends who were also willing to learn, and as a group, we grew in the Faith. A close friend of mine had heard that there was a place in the Archdiocese (of Chicago) that had a special indult to celebrate the "Latin Mass" (as we called it). We decided to take in the Mass, and see what it was all about. I looked at some online missal and saw a general structure I recognized, and I figured that since I had been going to Mass all my life, a little Latin wouldn't deter me from knowing what was going on.

We were late, got a little lost on the way, and walked in during the Kyrie. I recognized that; it was one of the last things I recognized. Because we were late, I didn't notice the mass guides in the back of the Church when we came in. The experience was something wholly other. I was lost the whole time, and just did my best to pay attention to the bells. Come communion time, they used a communion rail. I had never received my Lord and Savior directly on my tongue in my life, let alone while kneeling. I think I knew not to say "Amen," but that was about all I knew. Moved by the sacredness of this mode of receiving, from that point on I only received on the tongue.

Reflecting on that Mass later, and attending the EF mass a number of times again, I was moved by the realization that this Mass was one and the same mass that my parents grew up with, and my grandparents had for much of their lives, and my great-grandparents, and back and back and back. I was also struck by the sanctity that the priests and servers showed toward the celebration of the Mass, something I had not seen anywhere else I had been. I also attended Mass at the same parish in the Ordinary Form (OF) in Latin.

Now, with my initial experiences of Mass in Latin laid out, I'd like to go on to discuss my preferences. In short, for the most part, and all things being equal, I'd prefer to go to an OF mass over an EF mass. Part of this is definitely familiarity; I think if I had only known the EF mass and then had limited exposure to the OF mass, I'd at least be leery of it. But, there is more than that. I like hearing what the priest is saying, and having responses given by the congregation rather than by the servers.

I don't attend the EF mass very often, despite having two nearby places to attend every Sunday. I used to go more often when I was in Chicago. I would go when I felt like I needed "an infusion of sanctity" or tradition, or just wanted to attend a liturgy which was done carefully. Today, the parish I attend does not do things "perfectly" (to my liking, at least), but things aren't off the wall either. I would probably more regularly attend if the EF mass was offered as one of the regular liturgies by my parish.

I haven't yet touched on the language issue. On this point I am still torn. I would like to see much greater use of the Latin language, but to what extent I am not sure. Of course, I think that things like the readings of the Mass ought be in the vernacular, but I'm not sure which parts of the ordinary ought be in the vernacular languages, and which others in Latin. I don't accept the premise that people won't be able to relate to or understand prayers in Latin, or whatever the usual complaint is. How many people even pay attention to the words of the Confiteor or the Credo when they hear it in English? Would it be any worse if the prayers were in Latin? The thing I like about keeping large parts of the ordinary in Latin is the uniformity and universality of worship among the Roman (Latin) Rite Catholics.

Finally, I will take a quick detour to discuss the reform I wish had taken place after the council. The mass I would like to see is essentially the EF mass, but with the points I've mentioned above, that is audible prayers by the priest (at least some of those prayers ought be audible), and responses given by the people. Throw in the additionally extended lectionary, and we've got a renewed liturgy which is clearly in continuity with Tradition. This, I think, having read things like Sacrocanctum Concilium, is what the council foresaw.

Eucharistic Compendium

More great news. The Eucharistic Compendium promised in Sacramentum Caritatis is finally finished. It is being reported that it has been published either in Latin or in Italian (depending on who you ask). It also sounds like it is geared toward clergy, rather than the laity, but that won't stop me from getting one once the English version is published.

Arinze on Liturgy

I recently read an article which discussed the Homily by Francis Cardinal Arinze at the closing of the plenary assembly of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences. I quote first from the article.

Cardinal Arinze exhorted the continent’s bishops to follow the Church’s norms for liturgical inculturation, so that “the local Church will be spared questionable or downright mistaken innovations and idiosyncrasies of some enthusiastic cleric whose fertile imaginations invents something on Saturday night and whose uninformed zeal forces this innovation on the innocent congregation on Sunday morning.”

“Dance in particular needs to be critically examined because most dances draw attention to the performers and offer enjoyment,” he continued. “People come to Mass, not for recreation but, to adore God, to praise and thank him, to ask pardon for their sins, and to request other spiritual and temporal needs. The monasteries may be of help in how graceful body movements can become prayer.”

Digging deeper, I was able to find the actual text of the homily, unfortunately in PDF format only. It is a good read, and I recommend reading the whole thing. Here I extract some of the most salient bits. (My emphasis and [comments])

Adoration manifests itself in such gestures in genuflection, deep bow, kneeling, prostration and silence in the presence of the Lord. Asian cultures have a deep sense of the sacred and transcendent. Reverence in Asia to civil authorities sometimes shows itself in clasped hands, kneeling, bows, prostration and walking away while facing a dignitary. It should not be too difficult to bring and elevate this cultural value to honour our Eucharistic Jesus. The fashion in some parts of the world of not installing kneelers in churches should not be copied by the Church in Asia. The Holy Eucharist is the summit of the sacred in our worship.

The ars celebrandi is the art of proper celebration. It is a fruit of faithful adherence to liturgical norms in all their richness and assistants. When the Eucharistic celebration is properly carried out, it manifests the Eucharistic faith of the Church; it nourishes the faith of the participants; and it sends them home on fire to live and share the faith.

The way in which Holy Communion is distributed should be clearly indicated and monitored and individual idiosyncrasies should not be allowed. In the Latin Rite, only concelebrating priests take Holy Communion. Everyone else is given, be the person cleric or lay. It is not right that the priest discard any of the vestments just because the climate is hot or humid. If necessary, the Bishop can arrange the use of lighter cloth. It is altogether unacceptable that the celebrant will opt for local dress in the place of universally approved Mass vestments or use baskets, or wine glasses to distribute the Holy Eucharist. This is inculturation wrongly understood.

If these directives are followed, the local Church will be spared [a good way to put it] questionable or downright mistaken innovations and idiosyncrasies of some enthusiastic cleric whose fertile imagination invents something on Saturday night and whose uninformed zeal forces this innovation on the innocent congregation on Sunday morning. [Doesn't it feel like that sometimes?]

Dance in particular needs to be critically examined because most dances draw attention to the performers and offer enjoyment. [The casual reader will note that he is pointing out that this is a bad thing.]

People come to Mass, not for recreation but, to adore God, to praise and thank him, to ask pardon for their sins, and to request other spiritual and temporal needs. The monasteries may be of help in how graceful body movements can become prayer. The Colombo statement quoted above remarks: “When pastoral zeal combines with cultural and religious sensitivity, new ground is broken. On the contrary, hasty and un‐reflected changes weaken or damage the religious significance and life‐transforming power of worship” (Colombo Statement, 6).

I think this should be more widely read than simply among the Asian Bishops.

Corpus Christi Indulgence

I think indulgences are great. They codify the good works and special prayers and remembrances which can act as special reparation for the temporal punishment we all deserve for our sins. And more than that, we can apply this reparation to those who have died, both those we know and those we've never met.

There are many specific grants in the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, the Handbook of Indulgences, and some of then are attached to specific days. In the dioceses of the United States, the solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ (Corpus Christi) is transferred to this Sunday. The grant in the Handbook attached to this feast is the recitation of the Tantum Ergo.

A partial indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who devoutly recite the above verses [the Tantum Ergo]. The indulgence will be a plenary one ... on the solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ during its liturgical rites. [EI 59]

Keep this in mind come Sunday (or if you happen to be reading in a country where the feast is not transferred, Thursday). Remember, the standard requirements for obtaining a plenary indulgence: sacramental confession, eucharistic communion, a prayer for the pope's intentions, and the exclusion of all attachment to sin.

Incidentally the Pope's intentions for the month of June are

Pope Benedict's general prayer intention for June is: "That international attention towards the poorer countries may give rise to more concrete help, in particular to relieve them of the crushing burden of foreign debt"

His mission intention is: "That the particular Churches operating in regions marked by violence may be sustained by the love and concrete closeness of all the Catholics in the world".

A Good Friday, OR, the greatest Friday EVER?

The singular liturgical action of the Triduum continues with Good Friday. I spent most of the day on the road, but got to hear some wonderful reflections on Catholic radio stations. I made it home just in time to dress up and get to the Good Friday liturgy.

Without any formality, the Priest (a 92-year-old Franciscan) entered from the sacristy with his servers. The liturgy starts with just an opening prayer. John's passion is used every year (unlike on Palm Sunday, which uses the gospel of the year.) Then the Church prays in a special way for basically everyone. I like to remember those whom I know who fit into the various categories, especially those who do not know Christ, and those who do not believe in God.

Then there is the veneration of the cross. They did not have a relic of the True Cross, but I still like the tradition. I have been to places where it is uncommon to kiss the cross, where people may bow or something before it, but that was not the case here.

This is the only day of the year where Mass is not celebrated. Luckily we consecrated enough Eucharist on Thursday!

And then it's over, just a prayer, and we're done.

Tomorrow there are no liturgies until after sunset.

Goodbye Holy Thursday

It is now past midnight, and is canonically Good Friday, at least as far as fasting goes. I wish I had eaten dinner tonight, or more than I had.

Holy Thursday has become one of my favorite days of the liturgical year. After my return to the Faith, I was invited to participate in a Holy Thursday tradition I was not familiar with. To be honest, I probably didn't even know what the Holy Thursday liturgy contained at that point. The tradition was to visit 7 churches on Holy Thursday, while the Blessed Sacrament was at the altar of repose. It was a wonderful tradition, Church hopping. A couple friends and one professor went every year that we were in Chicago.

This year, being on my own, I observed this tradition alone. None of my friends or acquaintances wanted to join me on this journey; some didn't care to go to mass, and the others preferred to go to the Basilica mass. I went to a parish mass, which was good except for the women who got their feet washed. I then proceeded to 7 other Churches, prayed to Jesus all around the town. The last place I ended up was the Basilica of the Sacred Heart on campus.

I showed up at 11:00 PM, the starting time listed for Tenebrae. I have been to Tenebrae services before, at St. John Cantius in Chicago, and the Church then was far from full. There was only standing room in the Basilica, and precious little of that. I stood in the back. It was beautifully done, the singing was wonderful. My previous experience, however, had the entire congregation chanting, led by the religious in choir, separated by left and right side. I liked that, and would have liked involving the congregation more, in that sense. At the end of the service, it was a wonderful experience. The lights were put out, and all that I could see was the single lit candle, and silence was nearly complete. When they closed the door to the vestibule the place erupted in noise, and as soon as the light was visible again, that same silence.

Holy Thursday is the start of the Pascal Triduum. It technically does not end, there is no closing rite, the Eucharist is simply taken to the place of repose, and people leave when they do. Good Friday starts without a formal rite and ends in the same way. Saturday again starts with the blessing of the fire and the procession in, but there is a concrete end to the vigil mass. In a sense, I like to think of the whole Triduum as one service, with Holy Thursday essentially being the beginning of the Easter Vigil.

Happy Triduum to all!

The Great Parish Quest

I have, for the past half-year, or so, been wandering through the desert, or at least through the county. When I moved to my current location I set out on a quest to visit all the parishes in my city. I have since completed this quest and further, have visited the parishes in two neighboring cities. I have yet to visit a parish more than once since I moved here. I would like to set down some reflections on this quest, propose a set of criteria to evaluate a parish and finally attempt to lay out what I personally seek in a parish.

I have seen many different parishes in the recent months. They have ranged quite widely, from modern churches built within the last decade, to the cookie cutter buildings from the postwar boom times, to the great turn of the century gothics that served the spiritual needs of some of the earlier settlers in the area. Churches packed full and quite empty. Music in Latin, music from the Gather hymnal, and even things I had only heard in Protestant services, preformed with solo voices, full choirs, the Organ, piano, drums, tambourine, guitar and bass, and just this Sunday a string trio. Smells and bells, altar boys, altar girls, anywhere from zero to maybe a dozen extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, simple humble services, a grand pontifical mass, and unfortunately at least one made up creed. Communion under the form of bread only, communion under both forms, communion with substantial (read: crumbly) bread, one place where a full quarter of the parishioners didn't approach the altar to receive Communion, and numerous where maybe one or two did not approach to receive.

In all of this, there were only two parishes which I strongly considered returning to the next week. There were also two parishes where I considered leaving before the liturgy was completed. I shall reflect on some of these.

First, Our Lady of Hungary. This was a beautiful building, established in 1916, with the current Church built in 1949. Although many of the parishes I visited which were built in this era were bland, and lacking beautiful sacred art, this parish was an exception. The mass I was at was almost empty, the neighborhood has taken a downturn in the last couple decades, and the Parish is probably just barely getting by. The pastor was an African born priest with a thick French-African accent. What struck me was the utter humility with which the Pastor celebrated the mass. Despite having a nearly empty house, it was a simple, though beautiful liturgy. The music was provided by a soloist and accompanied by organ. The Priest had only male servers (on this day at least) and they held patens for him and the deacon when distributing Holy Communion. They rang bells at the consecration. The priest spent considerable time carefully cleaning all of the altarware, presumably "caring for the crumbs". About one quarter of the parishioners didn't approach the altar to receive the Blessed Sacrament, though there weren't a large number of people there. Perhaps this meant that the priest had delivered catechesis on Sin and the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confession. Finally, after mass was over, the congregation kneeled and recited the prayer to St. Michael as a congregation.

Second, Queen of Peace. This parish was founded in the late 50s post war boom. The building was decidedly not beautiful. It did have some stained glass, but it was otherwise a typical large '50s or '60s era building. Though not half-circular, it was closer to "L" or "T" shaped, and pews pointed 3 different ways (as far as I can remember). The tabernacle was front and center, you couldn't miss it. The pastor had 4 servers, all boys, in cassock and surplice. They used lots of incense and rang the bells at consecration. They played the organ, and the only time they used the piano was to set the note for the choir when singing without musical accompaniment. The mass was beautiful, reverent and full. There seemed to be an extensive "parish life", lots of bible studies and catechesis, some sort of reading group, a regular speaker series, etc.

Finally I mention St. Augustine Parish. This was located in a bad part of town, and in the neighborhood of a Baptist and some other protestant church. It turns out this is a predominately black parish. The church was completely sideways, "short and fat" rather than "long and narrow", with only 4 or 5 rows of pews. The Choir was set above the parish and to the left. My guess is that the parish once was oriented toward where the choir was, and this, being higher than the rest, had been the sanctuary at one point. I immediately felt uncomfortable. Before mass even started, the pastor asked for any newcomers to identify themselves (I did not, though it was probably obvious). The music was all from "Lead Me Guide Me". They used solely substantial bread, including in repose in the tabernacle. The creed they used modified the wording significantly (in a vertically and horizontally inclusive way). I felt like leaving at that point, and might have if it were a larger space. The sign of peace was completely out of hand, which is surprising considering how small the space was. At the final blessing, the priest remembered that he hadn't asked anyone if they had a birthday, and so after asking us to bow our heads to ask for God's blessing, but before the blessing, we had to sing happy birthday and clap. Never returning there again.

It is amazing the plethora of expressions of the Faith seen in but one fairly narrow geographical area. This underscores the identity crisis in the Church today. When almost everything is mutable, it becomes very hard to identify with uniquely Catholic things, which can help to develop a Catholic identity, giving us an anchor in the faith. When even the form of the bread and the words of the creed can change, these things which should define a Catholic identity now define identity with a parish only. "We go to St. Augustine. They use the cleaned up version of the Creed."

This quest has served to give me a view of American Catholicism that I would not have been able to have in any other way. It has also given me a chance to objectively observe some of these liturgical actions. Parishes where I grew up, because I know the pastors and the history, etc., are hard to evaluate objectively. It's much easier to overlook some of the deficiencies in the liturgies in my home diocese because of the history I have with them. That said, I really am only interested in evaluating the liturgies, I'm not qualified as a one-time visitor to evaluate the parish as a whole, or the Pastor. And, of course, it is possible that I wandered in for an aberration which is not representative of the normal liturgies of the parish.

One thing I noticed that surprised me was the lack of obvious correlation between atypical practices (meaning not my preferred practices, laid out below) and strange or flaky theology. I would never have expected to hear a homily all about the evils of abortion at a parish where they had drums and guitars and hand holding. It was not what I expected to hear. I have no idea what the other homilies the parish has had since were about, nor how orthodox all other parish practices and activities were. The questionable liturgies, by and large, were not accompanied by questionable preaching. A larger, longer term sample would be needed to see more of these correlations.

So, with all of this laid out, what cues are there to look for in a parish visit?

First, there is the architecture. Where is the tabernacle? Is there a high altar? Is the altar rail intact? Is the sanctuary set apart from the congregation? Are there any stained glass windows? Stations of the Cross? Statues, paintings, shrines etc? Can you find the confessionals, and do they look like they're used at all? These things are important especially the tabernacle placement. Sacred art, though important, doesn't necessarily reflect on liturgical or theological soundness of the parish, it may just be due to the era in which it was founded, the shortsightedness of a previous generation, or the financial situation of the parish.

Next, there is the congregation. Is the Church full or empty? How are people dressed? How do people act during Mass? Do they sing along if the choir is singing? Do they show proper respect for the Eucharist, i.e. bowing before receiving the Blessed Sacrament, genuflecting to the Sacrament reposed in the tabernacle, etc.? Do at least some people refrain from receiving the Blessed Sacrament (at least on Sundays)? Do they hold hands during the Our Father? Do they maintain decorum during the sign of peace? Does anyone kneel after mass to pray? Many of these sorts of actions are systemic to the parish and independent, generally, of the specific parishioners in attendance at this particular mass. It is probably indicative of the catechesis in the parish.

Now, notice the liturgical ministers. How are they dressed? How many lay people does it take to do _____? Are there Altar servers? How many? Are they mixed gender, only boys, or only girls? How are the servers dressed, are they wearing slacks and nice dress shoes? Do they have cassocks, surplices, albs, or are they wearing their street clothes? How many extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are there? Do they gather around the Altar before the priest's communion, or wait outside of the sanctuary? The actions of these ministers tell a lot about their training and disposition to their positions.

If the parish has music at this mass you will surely encounter it. Is there an Organ here? If so, is it used? A piano? Guitar? Tambourine? Drums? Anything more exotic? Is there a choir? A choir loft? Is the choir in the loft, or where? What sort of hymnals do they have? Is the music resplendent with beauty or in a tawdry, folksy style? Do you sing in the voice of God?

Now to the priest. Does he start mass on time? How are the vestments? Does he follow the texts of the liturgy carefully, or change certain parts? Does he chant anything? During the Eucharistic Prayer, where is his focus? Does he genuflect after the consecration of the bread and of the wine? Does he leave the sanctuary after the consecration (for instance during the sign of peace)? Does he hold his thumb and forefinger together after the consecration until communion is completed? Does he offer communion under both forms? (I realize here that a single trip doesn't indicate a habitual parish action, but if it is an ordinary Sunday for the parish, you could extrapolate.) Does the priest (or a deacon) purify the vessels during Mass, does he do it after, or does he leave it to an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion? Does he care for the crumbs and drops carefully? Is the homily Orthodox? Interesting? Too long or short? Does he seem rushed? Does he greet people coming in or leaving the Church? Did the priest at any point ask you to clap for any reason?

Finally, there are some subjective parish-wide things to notice. Does the environment seem uniquely Catholic, or could you see some of it (architecture, music, liturgy) at a protestant service? Do you feel uncomfortable about things? Is it easy to fit in as a visitor? Are there any particularly obvious local traditions, like different sorts of gestures or postures, particular parish prayers, praying the prayer to St. Michael after mass, the rosary before, etc.? Do you get a sense that the parish does things together (announcements at the end of mass and the bulletin can help with this). These are much more subjective than the previous observation, and will definitely vary from person to person. That said, they tell you about the parish in ways that can't be quantified in the other ways.

These are the things that I generally notice when I go to a parish. Many of them are passive observations that I just happen to make. Some of them I make a point to look for. So the only question remaining is what I want to see in a parish.

I enjoy a church with traditional architecture, beautiful art, especially in the windows, with a high Altar in place and the tabernacle at the center. I have come to no longer expect Altar rails, but am overjoyed when I see them. If there is an organ, it should be played. If they have an organ and play a piano instead, it pains me all the more. The liturgy should be reverent, and by the books. Incense is a plus, and I really love to hear the bells at the consecration. Special care of the sacred vessels is a must, and I am really drawn to places where the priest obviously has reverence for the Eucharist. I don't like it when the parish holds hands at the Our Father, especially when it is essentially mandatory. I wish more places would restrict their offering of communion under both forms to special occasions, and I think that many places would be able to suffice with just the priest offering communion, very few parishes are so unbelievably big that there is not enough time to have everyone come up to one priest. Liturgical innovation is almost always an automatic strikeout for me.

I have yet to find and settle down at a parish. That will likely complete my quest.

Bishop: Communion on Tongue is Best

Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan in what is labeled a "historical-liturgical note", wrote that it is a much better practice to receive communion while kneeling and on the tongue.

"If some nonbeliever arrived and observed such an act of adoration perhaps he, too, would 'fall down and worship God, declaring, God is really in your midst,'"

"The awareness of the greatness of the eucharistic mystery is demonstrated in a special way by the manner in which the body of the Lord is distributed and received," the bishop wrote.

In addition to demonstrating true adoration by kneeling, he said, receiving Communion on the tongue also avoids concerns about people receiving the body of Christ with dirty hands or of losing particles of the Eucharist, concerns that make sense if people truly believe in the sacrament.

"Wouldn't it correspond better to the deepest reality and truth about the consecrated bread if even today the faithful would kneel on the ground to receive it, opening their mouths like the prophet receiving the word of God and allowing themselves to be nourished like a child?" Bishop Schneider asked.

This Bishop really sees what is going on. It is not about the laity being any less than the Priest, or something like that. It is the sacramental sign that the Eucharistic species is the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. This is but the least of things we would do if everyone realized what the mass really was, and what the Eucharist really was.

I do not forsee the day when we completely do away with communion in the hand while standing, though I think it should go away quietly. Perhaps, one day, no extraordinary minister of Holy Communion will look at you funny when you step up to them and do not extend your hands. Maybe that's asking too much.

On Archbishop Burke

Recently, Archbishop Burke of St. Louis published an article in a Canon law Journal (I don't think in English, however) that discussed the obligation of Catholic Bishops to deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who support abortion, or other serious, sinful positions.

This is somewhat in opposition to the statement of the USCCB, saying essentially that the individual bishops should do what they want. The Canon law, however, is fairly clear about this position:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

The important part here is the line "manifest grave sin". The word manifest here comes from the meaning of public. If they persist in a sin which is public, not private, then they are "not to be admitted to holy communion". This, Archbishop Burke, argues, is the reason that all bishops should be united on this front.

I heard him speak on the radio the other day, and it was quite good.

Even more on Excommunication and Politicians

In an interview with Time, a Honduran Bishop discussed the excommunication of pro-abortion politicians, in the next salvo of this debate. (From EWTN)

Cardinal Maradiaga was asked, “Do you agree with the Pope’s statement that pro-choice Catholic politicians merit excommunication?” The cardinal responded by saying: “It is canon law that everyone who works for abortion is excommunicated. It’s not something the Pope invented. If you favor abortion, you are outside the communion of the Church. And it was necessary to say that. There are people in Mexico saying I am Catholic and I support abortion rights. This is a contradiction in its very essence. As a teacher of the Church, the Pope has a responsibility of teaching when something happening is wrong.”

Later he was asked: “Do you agree with bishops who deny giving Holy Communion to these politicians?” The cardinal replied: “This is a different point. For who am I to deny Holy Communion to a person? I cannot. It’s in the tradition of moral theology that even if I know a person is living in grave sin, I cannot take a public action against him. It would be giving scandal to the person. Yes, he should not seek [communion], but I cannot deny it from him.”

Nevertheless, in statements to Carlos Polo, reproduced exclusively by the Catholic News Agency, Cardinal Maradiaga, who is in Aparecida participating in the V General Conference of the Latin American Bishops’ Council, said his comments to Time magazine should be reformulated “in light of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith teaches in its document, ‘Worthiness to Receive Communion’.”

“A politician who publicly supports abortion, he excommunicates himself. It’s not question of receiving Communion or not; he has already done serious harm to the communion of faith of the Church, to the communion of moral life, and therefore that person himself is doing an act that is inconsistent with what he says he believes,” the cardinal said.

“That is, we’re talking about a person who has become a broken-off branch of the tree of life of the Church, a dry branch that has lost its vital sap and is doing something that is a lie. One who is against life and who is clearly opposed to the message of the Lord Jesus, as is an abortion supporter, cannot be in Communion with Holy Mother Church,” he stated.

“Therefore, if one uses the desire to receive Communion as a justification, it is the worst manner of doing so, because one is doing an act that contradicts what one says he believes,” the cardinal said.

It looks to me like he was being corrected by his staffers, or the Vatican, or someone, based on canon law, which is very clear on the subject:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Here, the phrase "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" is the operative phrase. If their sin is grave (supporting abortion) and manifest (publicly, for instance, in a debate or a vote in congress), and they are obstinate (won't change their mind after warning them), they can, and indeed should be denied communion. This doesn't even touch on the formal excommunication either, which I feel should happen as well.

Yet, I don't think the Eucharist should be used as a political pawn. These politicians shouldn't seek the sacrament because they are not in a state of grace. If it comes to it, they should be denied communion. They also should be formally excommunicated, so there is no question. This should fall to the local bishops, and the National conferences should instruct them to act.

-JG

My Contribution to the Motu Proprio debate

There has been a lot of talk and rumor recently in the news and on blogs about a supposed upcoming Motu Proprio from Benedict XVI regarding the use of the Tridentine Rite of Mass. So called "Traditional(ist) Catholics" will be praising its coming, and indeed have been anticipating it for a long time.

Though most such reflections on the liturgy start with the Vatican II Council, I will step back a bit to the Council of Trent. At the time of Pope Pius V, there were many different liturgical traditions which had come down through time and were being practiced in Europe. On top of that, the Reformation was in full force, and some of the protestant ideas had crept into the Liturgy. The solution was to eliminate Rites that were less than 200 years old, and the Promulgation of a Roman Rite in 1570. The various other rites mostly disappeared, with the exception of the Rites of religious orders, and a couple other rites (notably Ambrosian).

This leads us to the Vatican II Council. We are primarily concerned with Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This was a document I read after having experienced the Tridentine mass a few times, to understand what had happened in those days. It was interesting, and I will note what I think. The Council saw the need for some sort of Liturgical reform, because there were plenty of problems in the way the Mass was being practiced. Yet, the reform they envisioned (at least according to the text) seems to the casual observer to be different than the reforms that took place.

This leads to one of the most compelling arguments against the Mass of Paul VI, namely that it was a drastic and dramatic change in the Liturgical practice of the Church. The Church doesn't change in revolutions, or based on the whim of the times, so clearly this argument cannot be true, but yet the evidence supports this position.

stated they weren't in formal schism. For my money, if you don't accept the teachings of the These ideas were too much for a number of groups, which came to a head with groups like the Society of Saint Pius X, who passed into schism with the Church in or around 1988. People can argue all they want about this, in fact, my friend made sure to inform me that Cardinal Arinze stated they weren't in formal schism. For my money, if you don't accept the teachings of the Magesterium, the Councils, the Pope, and even go so far to set up your own ecclesial tribunals, you may as well be in schism, formal or not. And so, the SSPX celebrates Mass illegitimately with the Tridentine Rite.

Queue up the Indult offered by Pope (soon to be Saint) John Paul II. In a final act to prevent the schismatic group from breaking away, he extended the offer that priests could celebrate the Tridentine Rite of Mass with permission from the local Bishop. Since the SSPX was already set on disrespecting the Hierarchy of the Church, and so submitting to a Bishop would not be acceptable.

So, where does this leave us all? There are schismatics who celebrate the Mass illegitimately, there are groups who celebrate this Rite legitimately, in some Diocese, and the widespread use is the Mass of Paul VI.

Where, then, does this Motu Proprio fit in? What has happened since the Indult was offered by John Paul II is that some Bishops refuse to give permission to their priests to say the Mass in the old Rite. Therefore, there has been rumblings for a couple years at least that there would be a Universal Indult offered, essentially allowing any priest who wants to celebrate the Tridentine Rite of Mass.

Now comes the part of this posting that makes people disagree with me. I oppose this measure.

I fully support the use and extension of the Tridentine Mass, because of its historical/traditional value. As a young(er) Catholic, to experience Mass the way my parents did when they were children, and their parents, and theirs, back and back and back until before the family was Christian, is an experience that is incredibly moving. The Latin Canon, handed down nearly unchanged from Gregory the Great, is actually quite beautiful, and I still enjoy hearing it (in English or Latin).

I also firmly believe in the role of Bishops in our Church. The bishops are the shepherds of their particular flocks. The priests in a Diocese are helpers of the Bishop, and they celebrate the sacraments with the permission and in unity with their Bishop. This is why I cannot support a universal indult, as it is envisioned by certain Traditionalists. I believe it would be bad to introduce another area of strife between Priests and their Bishops. The old Indult is too young to be discarded, first issued in 1984, it is barely a blip on Church history. For now, I don't see too much of a problem with keeping the power of Bishops, and disallowing Tridentine Mass in Diocese where the Bishop feels that is the correct course of action. At the very least those Bishops must eventually die or reach retirement age, and be replaced.

I do, however, see some direct harm in a Universal Indult. Such a decree will only serve to embolden groups such as the SSPX, who are at schism. The Pope clearly stated that adherents to the group were subject to an excommunication, but if the Indult is offered, the group will have more power to argue that they are not in schism to their members. This could be harmful to the faithful, participating in Masses that are sacrilege because they think that these masses were legitimized by the Indult. Technically, it gives SSPX no reason to exist, but they will, as they tend to deny much that the Church has taught since the Vatican II Council.

Another dangerous aspect of the Indult could be a deeper division of the faithful. If this meant a greater access to Tridentine masses, this could mean that there would be a much greater division between the Traditionalists and the regular Catholics and the Modernists. Division is not Catholic, and this is a Catholic Church.

There are counterpoints. The Indult might help make Paul VI masses more reverent, possibly. There have always been different Rites available, even now there are Eastern Rites around. This could expand knowledge about Rites, and encourage learning about the Liturgy. Also, it does, in a way, help to restore more of a connection with Tradition. The thing is, this is something that can be achieved under the old Indult, at least in Diocese where the Bishop allows the old Rite.

And so I have said my piece, I must also say that I think a universal indult will be offered, by years' end. Cardinal Ratzinger had a lot to say about the Liturgical renewal, much that wasn't good. But, if you read Sacramentum Caritas, he definitely states that we cannot roll back liturgical reform, and I have to agree. To do so would be a setback to the Church, and would be just as bad and unprecedented as the reforms of Paul VI.

I shall point you to a few articles related to this idea.

First, an Article by Msgr. Richard J. Schuler refuting the notion that the mass of Paul VI was a revolution.

Contrary to what many may think and many may have hoped, the liturgical
reforms of the Second Vatican Council were not a revolution. Indeed, far
from being a sudden explosion of new ideas, the decrees of the council were
rather the keystone that crowned the developments of the previous sixty
years, beginning with the "motu proprio" of Pope St. Pius X, "Tra le
sollecitudini" of 1903. The events that preceded the "motu proprio"
stretched back into the nineteenth century being rooted in the romantic
movement, the revival of monasticism, the rediscovery of Gregorian chant
and the Caecilian reform of church music. 

Next, we have the Ottavini Intervention, a letter from Cardinal Ottavini to Pope Paul VI, underlining the problems with the mass he had just promulgated. This was an important document to me at one time, and even now, it is telling of the surprise of many on the newness of the new Rite. This is a well thought out criticism of the New Mass.

We have an article by Paul Likoudis entitled "Cardinal Ratzinger Blames Church Crisis on Liturgical Collapse", taking excerpts from the then Cardinal's autobiography.

Rather than being a force for unity in the Church, the new Mass has been the source of liturgical anarchy, dividing Catholics "into opposing party positions" and creating a situation in which the Church is "lacerating herself."

Formally imposed after a six-month period of "liturgical experimentation" in which anything —and everything—did go, the Roman Catholic Mass has never attained a universality, stability—or even an element of predictably—for most Catholics around the world; but instead has been a stimulus for never-ending innovations—from altar girls to dancing girls to women priests.

While the Missal of Paul VI "brought with it some authentic improvements and a real enrichment," the banning of the old Mass caused some "extremely serious damages for us," he wrote in La Mia Vita, released in mid-April in its Italian translation.

And finally, the article that was the straw that broke my back and mad me want to finally write this, from the Catholic News Service.

The move is aimed at ending a liturgical dispute which has simmered for more than 20 years. In the process, it could clarify how the pope intends to implement what he once described as a "liturgical reconciliation" in the modern church.

The pope will enunciate the new policy in a document to be released after more than a year of debate and discussion at the Vatican. The Roman Curia had mixed views on expanding the use of the Tridentine rite, and so did the world's cardinals and bishops -- all of which has lent a certain drama to the outcome.

I need not quote Sacramentum Caritas although one of the major themes through it is a devotion to liturgical reform, and an emphasis on following proper liturgical norms.

So, as I said, some document will be issued soon, and I believe it will be essentially a universal Indult, giving the power to priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without needing to seek permission from their Bishops. As I said, I worry that this will undermine the power of Bishops, and further divide the already fractured faithful. The Indult as it stands still needs time to show its fruits.

Peace, and everything good.
-JG

Oh, what a Mystery!

The Pope, on the mystery of the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Cross.
"Let's ask the Lord," the Holy Father said, "that he may help us understand more and more deeply this wonderful mystery, to love it more and more, and in it, to love him more and more."
Let us take this to heart, and make the prayer our own as we approach Easter.
-JG

Sacramentum Caritatis and the "Eucharistic Life"

Part III of Sacramentum Caritatis deals with the Eucharistic Life, and how to live your life while recognising the Eucharistic character of every aspect of the world around us. The premise is that of the entire exhortation, namely that the Eucharist is the pre-eminent sacrament and is the "source and summit of the Church's life" (paragraph 70).

71. Christianity's new worship includes and transfigures every aspect of life: "Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). Christians, in all their actions, are called to offer true worship to God. Here the intrinsically eucharistic nature of Christian life begins to take shape. The Eucharist, since it embraces the concrete, everyday existence of the believer, makes possible, day by day, the progressive transfiguration of all those called by grace to reflect the image of the Son of God (cf. Rom 8:29ff.). There is nothing authentically human – our thoughts and affections, our words and deeds – that does not find in the sacrament of the Eucharist the form it needs to be lived to the full. Here we can see the full human import of the radical newness brought by Christ in the Eucharist: the worship of God in our lives cannot be relegated to something private and individual, but tends by its nature to permeate every aspect of our existence. Worship pleasing to God thus becomes a new way of living our whole life, each particular moment of which is lifted up, since it is lived as part of a relationship with Christ and as an offering to God. The glory of God is the living man (cf. 1 Cor 10:31). And the life of man is the vision of God. (203)

This really tells it all, and summarizes essentially the entire exhortation. The Eucharistic Life extends to all of human existence, and there is nothing we do that cannot be traced back to the Eucharist. This extends especially to our public life; the Eucharistic faith is not limited to the private, personal times in our lives.

83. Here it is important to consider what the Synod Fathers described as eucharistic consistency, a quality which our lives are objectively called to embody. Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one's children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms (230). These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature (231). There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them (232).

Normally I would have picked a couple good sentences from this statement and then summarized the rest. I must point out how important this is, as related to what was said before. We cannot simply be believers without being doers. And some of us, due to the blessings God has bestowed upon us, are in the position to affect public policy. Those who are in such a position have the obligation to act out their faith much more than anyone else. After all, to those whom much has been given, much is expected.

This leads into one of the major themes of Sacramentum Caritatis: the Radical Newness of Christianity. Under Judaism, there wasn't a universal communal sense of life (a Eucharistic sense). There was the concept of the Chosen People, but it was more a following of God's commandments, offering the necessary sacrifices, etc. that the faithful had an obligation to. The idea of the "mystical body" hadn't been developed.

So, how does the Pope suggest we live the Eucharistic Life? The first aspects that are mentioned are the participation in the Eucharistic sacrifice.

72. From the beginning Christians were clearly conscious of this radical newness which the Eucharist brings to human life. The faithful immediately perceived the profound influence of the eucharistic celebration on their manner of life. (...) Saint Ignatius' phrase – "living in accordance with the Lord's Day" – also emphasizes that this holy day becomes paradigmatic for every other day of the week. Indeed, it is defined by something more than the simple suspension of one's ordinary activities, a sort of parenthesis in one's usual daily rhythm. (...)

73. Conscious of this new vital principle which the Eucharist imparts to the Christian, the Synod Fathers reaffirmed the importance of the Sunday obligation for all the faithful, viewing it as a wellspring of authentic freedom enabling them to live each day in accordance with what they celebrated on "the Lord's Day." The life of faith is endangered when we lose the desire to share in the celebration of the Eucharist and its commemoration of the paschal victory. (...)

These statements reaffirm something that has been lost in recent years, the respect for Sunday and Sunday worship. My observation is that many people have lost the sense that Sunday mass is important. People will miss mass and think nothing of it. Very few people who miss mass even would consider the fact that they should go to confession before returning to the Eucharist. It is a quite important thing that needs to be restored.

74. (...) Christians, not without reference to the meaning of the Sabbath in the Jewish tradition, have seen in the Lord's Day a day of rest from their daily exertions. This is highly significant, for it relativizes work and directs it to the person: work is for man and not man for work.

This is quite an interesting statement, because it goes somewhat against what I have learned previously. I have been exposed to the teachings of Opus Dei, and one of the common statements is that man is made for work. Reading one version of the creation story in Genesis will support that idea; Adam was made to work the land. This doesn't oppose The Work, but it did make me think.

82. (...) by sharing in the sacrifice of the Cross, the Christian partakes of Christ's self-giving love and is equipped and committed to live this same charity in all his thoughts and deeds" (228). In a word, "'worship' itself, eucharistic communion, includes the reality both of being loved and of loving others in turn. A Eucharist which does not pass over into the concrete practice of love is intrinsically fragmented"

This relates to the idea presented above, namely that the Eucharist is incomplete without a moral transformation. The Eucharist leads us to give Christian witness with our lives.

89. The union with Christ brought about by the Eucharist also brings a newness to our social relations: "this sacramental ‘mysticism' is social in character." Indeed, "union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or who will become, his own."(241) The relationship between the eucharistic mystery and social commitment must be made explicit. (...) In discussing the social responsibility of all Christians, the Synod Fathers noted that the sacrifice of Christ is a mystery of liberation that constantly and insistently challenges us. I therefore urge all the faithful to be true promoters of peace and justice: "All who partake of the Eucharist must commit themselves to peacemaking in our world scarred by violence and war, and today in particular, by terrorism, economic corruption and sexual exploitation."

And this is where I have been challenged in reading this document. The Eucharist points us toward social justice. I've always, for some reason, had an aversion to the social justice aspect of Christianity. I think it is because there are people who focus only on that, and I am much more an internal conversion/prayer life sort of Catholic. Those people who seem to focus on social justice, to the detriment even of true faith, really don't help the faith, just like the fundamentalist Christians don't help the cause any by insisting on a strictly evolution free 6 day creationist idea of "science".

93. At the conclusion of these reflections, in which I have taken up a number of themes raised at the Synod, I also wish to accept the proposal which the Synod Fathers advanced as a means of helping the Christian people to believe, celebrate and live ever more fully the mystery of the Eucharist. The competent offices of the Roman Curia will publish a Compendium which will assemble texts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, prayers, explanations of the Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Missal and other useful aids for a correct understanding, celebration and adoration of the Sacrament of the Altar (251). It is my hope that this book will help make the memorial of the Passover of the Lord increasingly the source and summit of the Church's life and mission. This will encourage each member of the faithful to make his or her life a true act of spiritual worship.

All I can say to this: "Awesome." I hope to be the first one on the block to have one, and hopefully will be able to get one before the first set is sold out at the store (like the first Compendium) .

97. Through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, may the Holy Spirit kindle within us the same ardour experienced by the disciples on the way to Emmaus (cf. Lk 24:13-35) and renew our "eucharistic wonder" through the splendour and beauty radiating from the liturgical rite, the efficacious sign of the infinite beauty of the holy mystery of God. (...)

There's nothing like a happy ending.

May the Eucharistic life spring forth within us and bring this world the peace it desperately needs.
-JG