Ecumenism Today: An ecclesial identity crisis

14. June, 2013Blog PostComments Off

Pope Francis welcomed recently appointed Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, to the Holy See today for their first face-to-face encounter.

Vatican Radio provided a full transcript of the Holy Father’s address, and it is one that the overwhelming majority of Catholics will consider of little note, being nothing more than the boilerplate religious diplomacy that has so characterized the ecumenical movement of the last 40+ years.

Even so, the words spoken this day by Pope Francis to Justin Welby, in spite of their congruence with what many now consider the “new normal” in the Church’s relationship with heretical sects, are plainly incompatible with authentic Catholic thought concerning the matter of ecumenism as understood by every Roman Pontiff prior to Vatican II.

Pope Francis began his address by providing the practical definition of what passes for “continuity” in the minds of modern day ecumenists by quoting Pope Paul VI:

On the happy occasion of our first meeting, I make my own the words of Pope Paul VI, when he addressed Archbishop Michael Ramsey during his historic visit in 1966: “Your steps have not brought you to a foreign dwelling … we are pleased to open the doors to you, and with the doors, our heart, pleased and honoured as we are … to welcome you ‘not as a guest or a stranger, but as a fellow citizen of the Saints and the Family of God.’”

Ever since these words were first spoken by Pope Francis’ Venerable predecessor, heretics everywhere have been wondering, either openly or subconsciously, why, given that the pope himself has declared all self-described Christians to be “fellow citizens” in the “Family of God,” would anyone comfortable in whatever sect they happen to call home, ever bother converting to the Holy Roman Catholic Church?

It’s a valid question, one that the popes until recent decades didn’t hesitate to answer with clarity, letting it be known that the Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of those gifts that Jesus Christ wills for all, including unity.

Pope Pius XI, for example, in his 1926 Encyclical, Mortalium Animos, said, “…unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief, one Christian Faith … There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by fostering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it.”

The Instruction from the Holy Office on the Ecumenical Movement, issued under Pope Pius XII, further underscored the singular path to unity among those who wish to follow Christ, saying, “True reunion can only come about by the return of dissidents to the one true Church of Christ”

As such, it should be obvious why Pope Benedict XV, whose reign immediately preceded that of Pius XI, said that although we desire for all Christians to be gathered in one fold under one shepherd, the Catholic Church cannot join with others in what is considered a “search” for unity. Why? Because the Catholic Church is already one, and so she must not give the appearance of searching for a unity that she already possesses.

In short, to speak of the Catholic Church as though she, like the heretical sects, is searching for an elusive unity, would be to give the false impression, to those both within the fold and those without, that we await an as yet unknown church, one that we must grow toward, as though the Church herself is evolving into an ever more perfect society, the likes of which one can only imagine.

Speaking in such ways is to undermine the very mission of the Church from within, as she is already a perfect society.  Pope Leo XIII, for instance, said of the Catholic Church:

“This society is made up of men, just as civil society is, and yet is supernatural and spiritual, on account of the end for which it was founded, and of the means by which it aims at attaining that end. Hence, it is distinguished and differs from civil society, and, what is of highest moment, it is a society chartered as of right divine, perfect in its nature and in its title, to possess in itself and by itself, through the will and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action.”  (Immortale Dei)

Today is a new day in the Church, however, one in which the Roman Pontiffs speak in the manner of a confused young adult in search of his own identity. Don’t get me wrong, the Church is ever the same, it’s just that many of her post-conciliar members, even to the highest offices, have apparently forgotten who we are.

Pope Francis’ address to Justin Welby faithfully followed the template provided by the Vatican II document, Unitatis Redintegratio, the Decree on Ecumenism, issuing precisely zero calls to conversion and yet numerous suggestions of a joint search for unity.

Addressing his Anglican guest, Pope Francis said:

Today’s meeting is an opportunity to remind ourselves that the search for unity among Christians is prompted not by practical considerations, but by the will of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, who made us his brothers and sisters, children of the One Father. Hence the prayer that we make today is of fundamental importance. This prayer gives a fresh impulse to our daily efforts to grow towards unity, which are concretely expressed in our cooperation in various areas of daily life …

 

The unity we so earnestly long for is a gift that comes from above and it is rooted in our communion of love with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As Christ himself promised, “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mt 18:20). Let us travel the path towards unity, fraternally united in charity and with Jesus Christ as our constant point of reference. In our worship of Jesus Christ we will find the foundation and raison d’être of our journey. May the merciful Father hear and grant the prayers that we make to him together. Let us place all our hope in him who “is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think” (Eph 3:20).

A common search for unity… Growing toward unity… Earnestly longing for unity… Traveling the path together toward unity…

An ecclesial identity crisis if ever there was one.

Cardinal DiNardo gathers his brood

12. June, 2013Blog PostComments Off

On May 28, 2013, self-identified “Bishop” Janice R. Huie of the United Methodist self-proclaimed “Church” presided (a proper use of the word) over a rite of commissioning and so-called “ordination” involving some fellow heretics.

This is nothing new, of course. Protestants have been engaged in fake-believe ceremonial mockeries of the sacraments instituted by Christ for many centuries.

What made this particular dog and pony show noteworthy is that it took place with the permission of Cardinal Daniel DiNardo in the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Houston.

When questioned about the wisdom of allowing the abortion-supporting sect to carry out a mock ordination in the shadow of the Cathedral’s altar, Cardinal DiNardo reportedly defended his decision, saying that it was an act of “ecumenical hospitality.”

When news of the spectacle spread via Catholic blogs and social media, many faithful Catholics reacted with utter disbelief that a prelate – a Cardinal no less – would so cavalierly invite grave scandal upon the very same faithful that he is charged with shepherding.

I, on the other hand, wasn’t surprised in the least.

As I perused photographs of the assembled heretics, some of whom were adorned in clerical Halloween costumes, apparently convinced that they were engaged in an act of sacred significance, I could almost hear the faint echo of a large crowd chanting, “Santo subito! Santo subito! Santo subito!”

You see, as I went about digesting the unsavory images depicting the bitter reality of what had taken place at the Cathedral in Houston, exponentially more horrifying images flooded my mind; namely, those of Pope John Paul II and the unthinkable scene that unfolded in the Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi in Italy, not once, but twice, in both 1986 and 2002.

In what was billed as a World Day Prayer for Peace, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the same who established but one Church and charged it with the mission of teaching the nations to observe everything whatsoever that He commanded, was gathered together in “prayer” with heathens, heretics, pagans and humanists before the altar of the Lord Most High, in what he too presumably considered to be a supreme act of ecumenical hospitality.

Within moments, images of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, came to mind.

Not to be outdone, he who would eventually abdicate hosted a similar gathering, one that included witch doctors and atheists, in his own World Day Prayer for Peace at the Basilica in Assisi in 2011. In the pope’s own words, the purpose was “to solemnly renew the commitment of believers of every religion to live their own religious faith as a service to the cause of peace,” giving both believer and unbeliever alike the distinct impression that the Roman Pontiff intended to teach the world that the practice of just any ol’ religion, or no religion at all, is an acceptable avenue toward upholding the common good.

With this bit of perspective established, it was clear to me then, and is clear to me now, that what happened at the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Houston several weeks ago, as deplorable as it was, is really best understood as little more than the chickens of Assisi coming home to roost.

Thank you, Holy Fathers!

Nostra Aetate: A clear decree?

6. June, 2013Blog PostComments Off

In an interview with Catholic News Service on May 17, 2012, Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, said, “The ‘Nostra Aetate’ declaration of the Second Vatican Council is a clear decree and is important for every Catholic.”

We’ll take a closer look at this notion of “clear” in just a moment.

At an address  delivered at Rome’s Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas the previous day, Cardinal Koch said that Nostra Aetate is “the ‘foundation document’ and the ‘Magna Carta’ of the dialogue of the Roman Catholic Church with Judaism.”

Reflecting further on the document, he said, “The concept of two parallel paths of salvation would in the least call into question or even endanger the fundamental understanding of the Second Vatican Council that Jews and Christians do not belong to two different peoples of God, but that they form one people of God.”

His Eminence was referring to that portion of Nostra Aetate which reads, “Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself.” (NA 4)

The footnote to this sentence in the decree refers back to Ephesians 2:14-16, which upon examination reveals some very serious problems with Cardinal Koch’s interpretation.

In his Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul states,

“Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands – remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end.” (Eph. 2:11-16)

First, understand to whom St. Paul is speaking; he is addressing the gentile Christian community in Ephesus. He is reminding them that they were at one time strangers to God and considered outsiders by the Jews, the people of promise. He goes on to tell them that the former hostility between the Jews and themselves is gone, no longer are they estranged from the covenant; rather, they are now joined in one body, with the Jewish followers of Christ, through His cross.

Simple enough. Right?

What St. Paul most certainly is not saying is what Cardinal Koch apparently believes he is saying; namely, that even those Jews who reject Christ, and refuse the offer of Baptism, are now “in one body through the cross.”

Surely that is not what St. Paul intends to convey; rather, he is stating that the unity between Jew and gentile is made possible in the new covenant since Our Blessed Lord “abolished in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances.” (cf Eph. 2:15)

The very notion that any Catholic might believe that St. Paul was speaking of being in “one body” with those who reject Christ, and dismiss His cross as mere folly, is difficult to comprehend.

Recall the words of St. Paul to the Galatians:

“Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.” (Gal 5:2-6)

The Apostle’s words to the Corinthians were just as clear, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Cor. 1:18)

St. Paul could not have been more direct, those who reject Jesus Christ and His cross are perishing, even as those who accept Him are being saved.

So, the only way to understand the Second Vatican Council’s statement, “Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself,” (NA 4) is to recognize that it can only be speaking of those Jews who accept the Lord Jesus Christ; not those self-identified Jews in our day who reject Him.

His Eminence went on to say in his address:

“On the one hand, from the Christian confession there can be only one path to salvation. However, on the other hand, it does not necessarily follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.”

The objective truth, the same given to the Church to preach to the ends of the earth, is rather straightforward; namely, there is but one path to salvation.

Why does Cardinal Koch feel the need to qualify this truth with the phrase, “from the Christian confession?”

No, Eminence, it is true for everyone, and it is the mission of the Church to make that truth known. There is no “other hand.”

Furthermore, how dare anyone, most especially a Prince of the Church, make light of unbelief in Christ, contradicting the Lord’s very plainspoken warning, “He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me,” words that should cause every follower of Christ to shudder when thinking of the Jewish people.

Charity demands that we refrain from confirming our Jewish neighbors in their error, comforting them with hollow assurances that they are not, simply because they reject Jesus Christ, excluded from God’s salvation.

In truth, my heart shudders even more to imagine the eternal fate of those prelates who speak in such ways than it does for the Jewish people they are misleading.

In charity, let us assume that Cardinal Koch is not deliberately deviating from the doctrine of the faith, but instead has been unduly influenced by the ambiguities of the document upon which he was pronouncing, Nostra Aetate.

In any case, so much for “a clear decree.”

In conclusion, yet another of St Paul’s exhortations seems to be well in order:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8)

I believe in the U.S. Constitution

27. May, 2013Blog PostComments Off

As part of their campaign to defend “religious liberty” (such as it is proposed in the Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae) in the face of the immoral prescripts found in the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate, the bishops of the United States, from the earliest days of this battle, have repeatedly claimed recourse to “our first, most cherished freedom,” a reference to the First Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Now, some are even going so far as to speak of Catholics as a people “who believe in the Constitution.”

Well, if we are going elevate the U.S. Constitution to an article of faith, perhaps we should compose a “Patriotic Credo” that can be recited during the upcoming Fortnight for Freedom observances; you know, something special to go along with the Patriotic Rosary.

Maybe it could start something like this:

Credo in Constistutialem Americanum, et in Iōhannēs Courtney Murray, Thomas Jefferson, Beniamin Franklin, et in Georgium Washington…

Please don’t let the parody fool you. This is serious business.

The Church is engaged, not just in a battle over healthcare in the United States at the hands of Barack Obama and company, but in a war against the forces of evil all over the world to maintain the ability to carry out the mission given to her by Christ, in the fullness of freedom, which is hers by Divine right.

With all due respect to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, preaching as if the Constitution of the United States was inscribed by the finger of God on a tablet of stone is not the answer. Neither are such activities as “patriotic sing-a-longs for children, Pancakes for Patriotism, or Fish Fries for Freedom” (taken from the USCCB’s 14 Ways for Parishes to Observe the Fortnight for Freedom).

Soon, I will propose, in all seriousness, an alternative course of action constructed upon the solid foundation of Catholic tradition; one that accounts for the glaring reality that the challenges we now face are truly nothing less than an organized assault against the Kingship of Christ.

Stay tuned.

The New Scouts of America

25. May, 2013Blog PostComments Off

“On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”

So has read the “Boy Scout Oath” since the early 20^th century. Based on recent events, however, it’s clearly time for a change.

On May 23, 2013, the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council approved a resolution that would, for the first time in the group’s history, allow membership to boys, ages 10–17, who are openly gay.

“The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting,” the organization announced in a public statement.

Evidently, youth who publicly proclaim their sexual attraction toward other boys is conduct that the organization now considers virtuous, and this begs a number of questions:

What’s a greater invitation to trouble on camping trips, gay boys randomly assigned to just any tent, or setting aside a tent where the gay youth can bed down together?

Now that openly gay boys are able to become Scouts, will the “Family Life” merit badge need to be modified?  (To say nothing of “Fly Fishing” and “Backpacking.”)

How much public proclamation of homosexual desire is acceptable, and how much is behavior unbecoming a Scout?

Most importantly, why did the BSA ever consider going down this road in the first place?

Was there a groundswell of gay boys scattered throughout the heartland of America just clamoring to join an organization whose members pledge to uphold their “duty to God” and to remain “morally straight” at all times?  Or is it the Scout Law requiring members to be “reverent toward God and faithful in their religious duties” that homosexual youth find so irresistible?

Of course, it’s neither of these things; rather, the Scouts were “bullied” (to borrow a well-worn buzzword from the left) by adult homosexual activists headquartered in America’s urban centers.

According to Reuters, “Gay rights advocates gathered petitions with more than 1.8 million signatures in support of ending the ban,” which gave them the leverage needed to pressure some of the BSA’s largest corporate sponsors (e.g., Intel and UPS) into threatening to withhold future funding if homosexual boys were denied membership.

“Today’s vote is a significant victory for gay youth across the nation and a clear indication that the Boy Scouts’ ban on gay adult leaders will also inevitably end,” said Rich Ferraro, spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD) following news of the decision.

Well, he’s right about one thing; the ban on adult gay scout leaders will undoubtedly end. The rest of the statement, however, is pure BS (and that doesn’t stand for Boy Scouts).

This is a victory for evil. Period.

There are no “gay youth across the nation” banging down the door to join the Scouts. Adolescent boys who are struggling with same-sex attraction, and the feckless adults who are encouraging them to embrace their disordered desires, are repulsed by the BSA’s formerly wholesome convictions.

And that has been the point all along.

It was precisely the BSA pledge to “honor God and to live morally straight” that triggered the attack against them. Why? Because that’s what Satan has always done; manipulate weak and sinful men into joining him in the battle against all that is good.

Yes, the time has come for the Scouts to rewrite their century-old Pledge. They might also want to consider renaming the “Jamboree.”

Cardinal Koch and Catholic frogs

18. May, 2013Blog PostComments Off

If the most recent Holy Roman Pontiff to have been canonized, Pope St. Pius X, could suddenly be placed in the Holy See of today, like a frog dropped in a pot of boiling water, he would leap into action, the anathemas and condemnations flying from his mighty pen so fast it would make even Cardinal Burke’s head spin.

As it is, the majority of Catholic prelates are doing backstrokes as the souls in their care perish from lack of a shepherd.

Enter Cardinal Kurt Koch.

According to a report in the Tablet,  Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, on a recent visit to Jerusalem, stressed “no conversion for the Jews,” saying:

“We Christians must not bear witness in relation to the Jews to a path of salvation which is completely foreign to them, as we do with other religions. This is because the New Testament is built up totally on the basis of the Old Testament. The Catholic Church therefore does not have an organized Jewish mission, as certain Evangelical groups do.”

In light of Aquinas’ definition of heresy as “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas,” this would make Cardinal Koch a material heretic.

In speaking of “a path of salvation which is completely foreign” to the Jews, clearly His Eminence is referring to none other than Jesus Christ, who alone is the Way to everlasting life.

How is it even remotely possible for anyone who holds the Catholic faith, much less a Prince of the Church (a title that means less with every passing day) to refer to Jesus Christ, Son of David and long-awaited Messiah, as “completely foreign” to the Jews? If a candidate for Confirmation said this, the bishop would be duty bound to deny him the sacrament!

And while it is true from the standpoint of formal structure that the Church does not have “an organized Jewish mission,” it is to the everlasting shame of all of her members that this is the case, especially those in the hierarchy who, like Cardinal Koch, place diplomacy and warm sentiments above the mission that Jesus Christ gave to His Church.

Clearly, St. Peter didn’t believe that the Jews were exempt from the divine mandate to “Go forth to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

In suggesting that the Jews stand in no need of conversion, Cardinal Koch s is guilty of precisely the indifferentism condemned by Pope Pius VII, wherein “truth is confused with error, and the Holy and Immaculate Spouse of Christ is placed on the same level as heretical sects and even as Jewish faithlessness” (Post Tam Diurturnas)

What’s a Catholic to do?

The weak and ignorant among us will simply float about in the currents of the modern day crisis, doing their best to convince themselves and others that the water is just comfortably warm.

The rest of us will take a more sober view, intrepidly pointing to heresy wherever it may lurk, reminding our fellow Catholics that the Church has been praying for the conversion of the Jews for many centuries, and for one simple reason. In the words of the Council of Florence:

The Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within Her, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock… (Council of Florence, Dz 714).

Given the fact that Cardinal Koch no longer believes as much, I would suggest in all charity that we must pray for his conversion, that he might one day return to the Catholic faith.

Let us pray also for Cardinal Koch: that almighty God may remove the veil from his heart; so that he too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord.

Repudiating the Offertory

17. May, 2013Blog Post, UncategorizedComments Off

“That utter abomination follows which forces all that precedes in the Mass into its service and is, therefore, called the Offertory.  From here on, almost everything smacks and savors of sacrifice … Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice, together with the entire canon and retain only that which is pure and holy, and so order our mass.” (Martin Luther, Formula Missa, 1523)

So, guess which part of the traditional Mass was duly repudiated after Vatican Council II, with the blessing of Pope Paul VI, in order to create a new rite that is clearly more pleasing to protestants? The Offertory. 

In its place, we now have laity carrying up “the gifts” followed by two Jewish “Baruchas,” or blessings: “Blessed are you, Lord our God … for through your goodness we have this [bread / wine] to offer…”

The general thrust of these Barucha prayers has to do with mankind offering something to God, albeit from the gift of His creation. This should make sense given the fact that this is all the Jews could do. As far as the efficaciousness of these offerings unto salvation, they were fruitless inasmuch as they were a purely human endeavor. The primary value inherent in such offerings in the context of Jewish liturgy flowed from the fact that they served as preparation for the one true Sacrifice, the only one that could save us; the same made present at Holy Mass.

Luther was correct, the Offertory does “force” and focus all that follows in the sacred rite in such way as to amplify the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, so much so that it is unmistakeable. He was also correct in asserting that removing the Offertory was the first, and necessary, step toward stripping the Catholic liturgy of its true nature.

Here’s what Venerable Paul VI thought well to remove from Holy Mass:

Accept, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, to atone for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present; also for all faithful Christians both living and dead, that it may profit me and them for salvation unto life everlasting. Amen.

O God, Who, in creating human nature, did wonderfully dignify it, and still more wonderfully restored it, grant that by the Mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His divine nature, Who vouchsafed to be made partaker of our human nature, even Jesus Christ, our Lord, Thy Son: Who with Thee, lives and reigns in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God: world without end. Amen.

We offer Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, beseeching Thy clemency, that it may ascend before Thy divine Majesty, as a sweet fragrance, for our salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen.

Accept us, O Lord, in our spirit of humility and contrition of heart, and grant that the sacrifice which we offer this day in Thy sight may be pleasing to Thee, O Lord God.

Come, O almighty and eternal God, the Sanctifier, and bless this Sacrifice, prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name.

It has long been noted that the post-conciliar liturgical mindset of the faithful has been marked by a loss of the sense of the sacred, the new order frequently having an anthropocentric (or man centered) orientation.

Given the fact that one of the distinguishing differences between the traditional Mass and the new order has to do with the removal of the Offertory, replacing its rich Sacrificial text with prayers that are oriented toward the human act of offering, can anyone really claim to be confused as to why?

Papa was a rollin’ stone

3. May, 2013Blog PostComments Off

I just received one of Dr. Robert Moynihan’s Letters with this photo of the former Pope Benedict and Pope Francis in the chapel where the former will presumably offer Mass, along with the following text:

“It is not clear from this photo how much room there is between the altar and the wall and whether one can walk around the altar easily, or not … The candles set up on the altar are on the side near the wall, suggesting that Mass at this altar would be celebrated from the side of the altar facing the wall, with the host and chalice raised toward the crucified Christ at the moment of consecration.”

Why all the tiptoeing through the tulips? It seems pretty clear from the photo that if things are kept as they are the former pope will be offering Holy Mass ad orientem in this chapel. Oh, the horror of it all!

How ridiculous. We should be more horrified when Holy Mass is celebrated any other way. Even the Novus Ordo missal assumes that the priest is celebrating in the ad orientem posture.

Presumably more horrifying still would be hinting at the distinct possibility that Benedict may even offer the so-called “Extraordinary Form” in his new chapel!

Moynihan’s delicate approach appears to be a deliberate effort to avoid inviting further comparisons between the two Pontiff’s respective “liturgical styles.” That may be good form for a Vatican correspondent, but let’s be honest; the simple fact that one Papal liturgy can so clearly differ from that of an immediate predecessor is a problem in itself.

Benedict’s return to the Vatican shines a light on the elephant in the sanctuary that no one really wants to talk about:

Pope Benedict’s abdication is no more understandable, much less laudable, than any other scenario in which a father walks out on his family.

To make matters worse, Benedict left behind some very important unfinished business as it relates to what seemed clearly to be one of the priorities of his pontificate; namely, the reform of the sacred liturgy.

By failing to set an example by consistently celebrating Holy Mass ad orientem (something he called a “fundamental expression” of the liturgy’s true nature) much less even one single public celebration of the traditional Mass, Benedict, for whatever reason, simply left it to chance that his successor would carry the torch forward.

Does anyone really expect that Pope Francis will do so?

I give you a new commandment: Group Hug!

28. April, 2013Blog Post, UncategorizedComments Off

The Gospel reading for the “Ordinary Form” for today is taken from John 13 wherein Jesus says, “I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.”

It has been my experience that this reading is often followed by a homily that points to the Lord’s perfect Sacrifice as the prime example of what He is ultimately commanding us to do, and as such, we must die to self, patiently suffering those who oppose us, forgiving those who have wronged us, etc. In other words, hugs all around!  

Fair enough. I get it.

Where things typically breakdown, however, is when the homilist preaches as if standing silent as a lamb before its shearers and willingly offering His very life on the Cross is all that Jesus did.

I think it’s worth noting that while Jesus was indeed addressing every one of us in this command, He was speaking in a particular way to those men who would shepherd His flock, teaching, sanctifying and governing the people in His name.

In any case, it’s possible neither for the hierarchy of the Church, nor her children, to carry out this command apart from reflecting on the manner in which Our Blessed Lord loved us, contemplating His example in all of its fullness.

With this in mind, I offer just a small sampling of some of the more frequently overlooked words of loving kindness offered by the God who is love to His people:

“Why do you think evil in your hearts?”

“I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

“How can you speak good, when you are evil?”

“You hypocrites!”

“Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me.”

“Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?”

“You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.”

“You blind fools!”

“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?”

Words of loving kindness? You bet your soft sensibilities they are.

Loving as Jesus loved means service and sacrifice to be sure, but it most certainly does not mean coddling avowed enemies of the Church, in spite of recent examples to the contrary (e.g., bishops who issue weak rejoinders to purveyors of death, hosting fancy dinners in their honor, and joining them in highfalutin fits of hilarity).

The bottom line is this: By all means we must love our enemies, but let’s not forget that loving as Jesus loved also includes wielding the sword of truth, proclaiming the Gospel with firmness, and condemning error, even when doing so is unpopular and may even invite death itself.