More from Martin Mosebach

I have been recommending Martin Mosebach's book "The Heresy of Formlessness" to all sentient Catholics, and especially priests, since I read it a couple of years ago.  I have even given a copy to one bishop as a present.  Mosebach, a novelist rather than a liturgist or theologian, has some amazingly good insights which go a long way toward helping the average Catholic understand the importance of the liturgy and, not incidentally, the relationship between the liturgical chaos of the past forty-something years and the disintegration of Catholic belief and practice in so many regions.

Mr. Mosebach recently spoke at a liturgy conference in the Archdiocese of Columbo (in Sri Lanka), whose incumbent is the redoubtable Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith.  Mosebach's talk, entitled "The Old Roman Missal: Loss and Rediscovery" is well worth reading, and may be especially interesting for those who have not yet had a chance to read his book.

By the way, for those who are not famililar with Archbishop Ranjith, he is a man to watch in the Catholic Church.  Most knowledgeable churchmen expect him to be named a cardinal very soon, and eventually to return to Rome in some high post.

While I was away...

I was away last week and had minimal contact with the outside world.   I had a chance to catch up with my reading last night and ran across a very interesting article, on Zenit of all places: an interview with Fr. Calvin Goodwin, F.S.S.P.  I hope a great many priests read it, and laics as well...

In other news, I learned on Saturday that the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, N.H. is very close to canonical regularization with the Diocese of Manchester.  While Pope Benedict is not directly involved with this case - at least not to my knowledge - it is unarguable that his papacy has created the climate which has made this a possibility.  

Fr. Z - and others - refer to Benedict XVI as "The Pope of Christian Unity", and they're absolutely spot-on.  God grant him many more years on the Throne of Peter.

A happy anniversary - Deo Gratias!

Three years ago today Pope Benedict's apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum was promulgated, acknowledging the right of priests to use the 1962 Missal ad libitum privately and under most circumstances publicly.  Summorum Pontificum also established guidelines under which the faithful could request the T.L.M. directly from their pastors rather than seeking recourse to their bishop.  As I've opined before, this was not only a gift to Catholics inclined toward traditional modes of liturgy and spitituality, it was a great gift from Pope Benedict XVI to the entire Church.  Outside of the realm, admittedly small, of those who attend or celebrate the traditional Mass; Summorum Pontificum has had immense repercussions in the Church's relationship with the Orthodox Churches and with the large number of Anglicans disaffected by the increasing lunacy within their communions.

But since its stated intentions were to make the T.L.M. available to all who desired it and also to remove one of the stumbling blocks to a regularization of the S.S.P.X. it seems opportune to assess its success in those areas after three years (well, almost - S.P. came into effect on 14 September 2007).

I do not have the requisite statistical information on the growth of the traditional Mass in the past three years to make an informed pronouncement on the global situation, but I think it's definitely worth noting that in 2007 there were a total of ten every-Sunday T.L.M.'s in all of New England.  There were two whole states without a single (approved) Mass in the Usus Antiquor (not even one in a cemetery chapel at 4 a.m. on the fifth Tuesday of February!)  In the three years of Summorum Pontificum the number of every-Sunday Masses has more than doubled (to at least twenty-two), every diocese has at least one Sunday Mass, and there are lots of regularly scheduled weekday Masses, e.g. First Fridays.  One parish, Mary Immaculate of Lourdes in Newton Upper Falls (MA) has a daily T.L.M. while Holy Name of Jesus in Providence (RI) has two traditional Masses every Sunday.  It's hard to recall that back in late June and Early July of 2007 the Archbishop of Braintree was telling everyone how he'd set the Pope straight on the question of the T.L.M. in America, i.e. that there was virtually no demand for it!  Do you suppose he'll have anything to say for today's occasion?

Oh, by the way, despite the best efforts of many within the Church and their allies in the "progressive" media there has been a notable improvement in relations with the S.S.P.X.  The combination of Summorum Pontificum and the lifting of the excommunications of their four bishops have facilitated a new stage which has begun with doctrinal talks which are now ongoing.

Thank you, Pope Benedict!

They Have No Shame

For many years The Boston Daily Worker (whose publishers refer to it as "The Boston Globe") has seen fit to employ a bitter ex-priest and writer of fiction named James Carroll.  Mr. Carroll, whose politics are hard-left and whose Catholicism (such as it is) is of the arch-dissident flavor, nowadays writes opinion columns which appear regularly in the pages of that benighted broadsheet.  Mr. Carroll is their kind of Catholic, a man whose chief problem with the Church is that it dares to try to remain true to itself rather than changing its teachings to suit contemporary mores.

Just as some men and women retain a particularly intense animus toward their ex-spouse after a failed marriage, Mr. Carroll reserves and nurtures a particularly virulent hatred for the Catholic Church.  This week he has trotted-out one of his longtime hobbyhorses, priestly celibacy.  His main contentions are:

1. "Celibacy cuts to the heart of what is wrong in the Catholic Church today",
2. Celibacy might be OK for monks but the only way for a parish priest to live a celibate life is through "repression",
3. "Celibacy does not 'cause' the sex abuse of minors" you see, it just creates a "homophilic world", an "inbred culture" of a "repressively psychotic" nature which caused "stresses" and "irrepressible urges", leading to... you know,
4. The Church is obsessed with sex as a means of control - hence the birth control ban for the laity and the celibacy rule for priests and religious,
5. The Council would have revisited both and probably changed "the rules" but "conservative" and "insecure" Pope Paul VI unilaterally reserved the decisions to himself (how dare he?),
6. "Immaturity, narcissism, misogyny, incapacity for intimacy, illusions about sexual morality" plue "Lies, denial, arrogance, selfishness, and cowardice" are the fruits of a celibate priesthood,
7. "The people" understand all of this and agree with... Jim Carroll on all of it!

Unfortunately most of us don't have the opportunity to ask Mr. Carroll any questions, but perhaps the following inquiries might elicit some interesting responses:

1. Was Jesus Christ sexually "repressed"?  "immature"?  "Narcissistic"?  "Misogynistic"?  "Incapable of intimacy"?  Full of "illusions about sexual morality?
2. Which priest-saints showed signs of "Immaturity, narcissism, misogyny, incapacity for intimacy, illusions about sexual morality"?  Which ones exhibited "Lies, denial, arrogance, selfishness, and cowardice" as a result of their celibate lives?
3. What else did that arch-conservative Pope , Paul VI, stop the Council from doing to fix the Church?  Which of those negative personality traits did he suffer from?
4. Why wasn't this a significant problem in the Church until the latter half of the twentieth century?
5. Why is the percentage of men who sexually abuse minors much higher amongst the ministry of the (non-celibate) protestant sects?
6. Is the fact that all of this has coincided with the period in the Church which brought us the Second Vatican Council just a coincidence, or would it have been much worse without the Council?

Mr. Carroll dares not consider these questions sincerely, let alone answer them honestly. 

If you are of a nervous or choleric temperament, I suggest you refrain from reading the original article.  If, however, you want to see what the principal newspaper in Boston feels is appropriate in an opinion piece about the Catholic Church, read it and gnash your teeth.  But don't say I didn't warn you...

Someone's Got to Do It!

The lamentable New York Times saw fit to publish this op-ed piece by one Nicholas Kristof today.  Once upon a time the so-called "paper of record" pubished opinion columns by individuals whose opinions were well-informed and whose arguments were well-reasoned and carefully considered.  Even when one failed to agree with their premise or conclusions one could typically respect the honesty of the writer and the legitimacy of their opinions.  That is no longer the case, and hasn't been for a few years now.

I thought one of the real pros on the web might give this piece a solemn high fisking but it seems that the task has fallen to this humble amateur.  So, on to the show:

A Church Mary Can Love  

I heard a joke the other day about a pious soul who dies, goes to heaven, and gains an audience with the Virgin Mary. The visitor asks Mary why, for all her blessings, she always appears in paintings as a bit sad, a bit wistful: Is everything O.K.?

Mary reassures her visitor: “Oh, everything’s great. No problems. It’s just ... it’s just that we had always wanted a daughter.”  Really classy beginning.  In addition to betraying his utter ignorance of Catholic dogma it immediately informs the reader that the author has already decided that the beliefs of Catholics are a proper subject of ridicule and not worthy of his respect.

That story comes to mind as the Vatican wrestles with the consequences of a patriarchal premodern mind-set: scandal, cover-up and the clumsiest self-defense since Watergate. That’s what happens with old boys’ clubs.  You know the drill - patriarchal is bad, "premodern" [sic] is bad, etc.

It wasn’t inevitable that the Catholic Church would grow so addicted to male domination, celibacy and rigid hierarchies. Jesus himself focused on the needy rather than dogma, and went out of his way to engage women and treat them with respect. Three quick points: 1.) An organization which is faithful to its tenets is "addicted" to them?  Do you suppose he feels the same way about, say, B'nai Brith or the N.A.A.C.P.?  2.) Caritas versus dogma is a classic false dichotomy.  Having proposed it as fact, expect him to continue this theme.  3.) He implicitly accepts the notion here that Jesus founded the Catholic Church - do you suppose he really believes it?

The first-century church was inclusive and democratic, even including a proto-feminist wing and texts. Really?  "Inclusive" as in "including" those who dissented from Her central beliefs?  "Democratic" as in "majority rule"?  A "proto-feminist wing"?  What serious basis has he for these outlandish claims?  Read on...  The Gospel of Philip, a Gnostic text (if you don't know what Gnosticism is, look it up.  There is a reason it's not called a "Christian" text, nor was it included in the Bible.  Catholics call these texts "apocryphal" - 'nuff said) from the third century, declares of Mary Magdalene: “She is the one the Savior loved more than all the disciples.” Likewise, the Gospel of Mary (also Gnostic and apocryphal) (from the early second century) suggests that Jesus entrusted Mary Magdalene to instruct the disciples on his religious teachings. (So what?  How many of us were taught the Catholic Faith by our mothers, or by the nuns?  Nobody says a female cannot transmit the Faith!)

St. Paul refers in Romans 16 to a first-century woman named Junia as prominent among the early apostles (in addition to the doubt over the gender of Junia, there isn't even any degree of certainty as to whether Junia was personally an Apostle or simply well known to them...), and to a woman named Phoebe who served as a deacon. The word "deacon" comes from the Greek "diakonos" which means "to serve", i.e. "one who serves"  It was applied in the primitive Church both to males who were ordained to serve and females who were entrusted with specific tasks such as preparing female catechumens for Baptism.  "Deacon" and "deaconess" were neither equivalent nor interchangeable (except nowadays in the fantasies of the wymynchurch crowd)  The Apostle Junia became a Christian before St. Paul did (which proves what?  St. Paul was *personally* called by Jesus Christ to his Apostleship.  Is Judas also greater because he became a Christian before St. Paul?)  (chauvinist translators have sometimes rendered her name masculine, with no scholarly basis).  And he knows they're "chavinist"... how exactly?  By the same infallible intuition which yields the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with President Obama on matters of policy is ipso facto a racist?  And how is he qualified to pronounce on their scholarship, other than by dint of his disdisdain for its conclusions?

Yet over the ensuing centuries, the church reverted to strong patriarchal attitudes, while also becoming increasingly uncomfortable with sexuality. This is absurd.  The shift may have come with the move from house churches, where women were naturally accepted, to more public gatherings. How does Mr. Kristof - or anyone else - know what went on in these "house churches"?  When the Church came out of the Catacombs, so to speak, much of the pattern of Her public worship followed the model of Jewish temple services in which the sexes were segregated to preserve modesty and maintain attention on the liturgy.  Does promotion of modesty and protection of chastity equate to discomfort with "sexuality" or is he implying that the Church of Junia and Phoebe was libertine in morality?

The upshot is that (heretical) proto-feminist texts were not included when the Bible was compiled (and were mostly lost until modern times). "Compiled" as if it were a secular anthology, assembled by a committee of editors, as opposed to the Catholic teaching of Divine Inspiration. Tertullian, an early Christian leader, (neither a pope nor a bishop, a priest whose opinions were his own) denounced women as “the gateway to the devil,” (five words presented without a shred of context) while a contemporary account reports that the great Origen of Alexandria took his piety a step further and castrated himself. Which proves... what?  Again, not a pope, not a bishop, and someone who at various times espoused some very strange ideas about the Christian Faith.  I'll bet Mr. Kristof pooh-poohs Papal Infallibilty but he seems to accept uncritically some very dubious assumptions about two controversial priests from the Patristic Era (again - not popes, not bishops, not saints) about whom our knowledge is fragmentary.

The Catholic Church still seems stuck today in that patriarchal rut. Again, consistency is bad, now it's equivalent to a "rut" The same faith that was so pioneering that it had Junia as a female apostle way back in the first century can’t even have a woman as the lowliest parish priest. Female deacons, permitted for centuries, are banned today.  Having floated the dubious "Junia/Pheobe" theories as if they were true, he now attempts to make them the foundations for his argument...

That old boys’ club in the Vatican became as self-absorbed as other old boys’ clubs, like Lehman Brothers, with similar results. And that is the reason the Vatican is floundering today.  One could well substitute "The New York Times" and "Goldman Sachs" (Mr. Kristof would understand both references) for "the Vatican" and "Lehman Brothers"...

But there’s more to the picture than that. In my travels around the world, I encounter two Catholic Churches. How does he "encounter" them - is he a Catholic or a catechumen?  One is the rigid all-male Vatican hierarchy that seems out of touch when it bans condoms even among married couples where one partner is H.I.V.-positive. We are called to accept the consequences of our previous acts, even though our sins may be forgiven.  Mr. Kristof doesn't seem to know the difference.  To me at least, (assuming that he is somehow qualified to judge an entity he doesn't understand which exists to propagate a faith which he does not espouse) this church — obsessed with dogma and rules and distracted from social justice — is a modern echo of the Pharisees whom Jesus criticized.  "Social Justice" is very important to Mr. Kristof and his bien pensant friends, especially when they get to define it.  "Dogma" and "rules", on the other hand, are the marks of "rigid", "patriarchal", "premodern" [sic] organizations "addicted" to their misbegotten beliefs and stuck in the "rut" of consistency...

Yet there’s another Catholic Church as well, one I admire intensely. This is the grass-roots Catholic Church that does far more good in the world than it ever gets credit for. This is the church that supports extraordinary aid organizations like Catholic Relief Services and Caritas, saving lives every day, and that operates superb schools that provide needy children an escalator out of poverty.  Organizations and schools founded by the "grass-roots Catholic Church", right?

This is the church of the nuns and priests in Congo, toiling in obscurity to feed and educate children. This is the church of the Brazilian priest fighting AIDS who told me that if he were pope, he would build a condom factory in the Vatican to save lives. And if I were pope I'd send such priests to a monastery in the Antarctic.  It does not appear to be the Will of God that either Father Rubbermaker or I become pope at this juncture...

This is the church of the Maryknoll Sisters in Central America (best known for their embrace of "liberation theology" and support of Marxist regimes in Central and South America - the sort of nuns of which Mr. Kristof approves) and the Cabrini Sisters in Africa. There’s a stereotype (which expired about forty years ago) of nuns as stodgy Victorian traditionalists. Would that it were!  I learned otherwise while hanging on for my life in a passenger seat as an American nun with a lead foot drove her jeep over ruts and through a creek in Swaziland to visit AIDS orphans. After a number of encounters like that, I’ve come to believe that the very coolest people in the world today may be nuns.  "Cool" trumps fidelity to the actual teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  I wonder if Sister Leadfoot was wearing a sweatshirt with an image of Che Guevara...

So when you read about the scandals, remember that the Vatican is not the same as the Catholic Church. And remember that what appears in the pages of The New York Times isn't the same as the truth.  Ordinary lepers, prostitutes and slum-dwellers may never see a cardinal, but they daily encounter a truly noble Catholic Church in the form of priests, nuns and lay workers toiling to make a difference.  The "Vatican" which Mr. Kristof wishes to implicate is the current leadership of the Church, men who have done much to rein-in the moral laxity which developed in the immediate post-Conciliar years.  One senses that Mr. Kristof found much to admire in (his perception of) the "Vatican" of the Paul VI era, many of whom were directly responsible for that laxity which now gives him occasion to attack the Church...

It’s high time (Pope Nicholas of New York has spoken, the case is closed) for the Vatican to take inspiration from that sublime — even divine — side of the Catholic Church, from those church workers (Workers?  As in "employees"... or "hirelings"?  Has he the slightest idea what he's talking about?) whose magnificence lies not in their vestments, but in their selflessness. Again, the false dichotomy.  They’re enough to make the Virgin Mary smile.  Is it a sign of hubris or delusions of infallibility when a lefty reporter purports to know what "make[s] the Virgin Mary smile"  Other than to bash the Church has he ever given the slightest thought to doing what "make[s] the Virgin Mary smile"?

To wrap-up: other than "the (institutional) Church sucks but Marxist nuns are cool" what's his premise?  Where are his conclusions?  This isn't a serious piece!  He's denigrates "the Vatican" but can only muster ad hominem attacks rather than legitimate criticisms; and he seems to think that reversing two thousand years of doctrine on the flimsiest of "evidence", i.e. Junia and Phoebe, in order to permit the novelty of "women priests" would somehow solve all of the problems he ascribes to the Church?  Rubbish!

Given that the NYT is hell-bent on attacking the Church one would think they'd at least make a better effort, but unfortunately legions of ignoramuses will eat it up anyway.  If I were Mr. Kristof I would be embarrassed to have my name on this hackwork...

I don't have writer's block...

...it's just that I have been so darned busy at work and at home for the past few weeks that I have had little time for leisure (which this blog most assuredly is!)

I've been trying to find time to write part 2 of the post I started two weeks ago, but it takes a little bit of time and no little thought to write so personally and about such conseqential matters. I have this odd idea that someone might find my thoughts in the realm of personal faith useful or at least interesting, so that they ought to be correctly expressed.

Meanwhile, I commend for your attention a most interesting interview with Martin Mosebach, the author of one of the most important Catholic books of the 21st century: The Heresy of Formlessness.  (If you haven't read it, you should!)

Martin Mosebach Interview - Part I

Martin Mosebach Interview - Part II

h/t to Rorate Caeli
 
Enjoy!

The Years That the Locust Hath Eaten

Unfortunately I'm not as familiar with the Old Testament as I am with the New, but thanks to my abiding interest in my distant cousin Sir Winston Churchill I have long been able to quote the passage from the Prophecy of Joel, "And I [The Lord] will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten" (Joel 2:25 - OK, I admit it, I prefer the King James translation to the Douai in this instance).

Churchill used the phrase, to great effect, in one of his memorable pre-war speeches in Parliament at a time when he stood practically alone in attempting to rouse the government of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to the imminent danger posed by the rebirth of Germany under Hitler.  His use of "the years that the locust hath eaten" referred to the period prior to 1936 when England and France, alone or together, could easily have stopped Germany's re-arming had they not lacked the will.

I've often thought of that phrase in the context of the catastrophe which has befallen the Church in the wake of the Council.

Fr. Raymond de Souza has a good column in Canada's least-bad newspaper, The National Post, contrasting what the media and the popular culture want the Church to be with what She must be to be true to Herself and Her spouse.  The occasion of the media's sudden interest in the Church is of course the recent exposure of the cover-up by the Irish bishops of their own clergy's homosexual and pederast scandals, as well as a particular incident in the Pope's old diocese.  They have tried mightily to indict the present Pope with culpability after the fact in these instances and others, but as Fr. de Souza points out the blame for the mishandling of these cases resides with the individual bishops, not the man who currently sits in the Chair of Peter.

He does not pull punches in identifying the cause of their laxity, and what the Holy See (including the former Cardinal Ratzinger) have done to combat it.

Years that the locust hath eaten, indeed.

[UPDATE - I should have realized that the Churchill speech I was thinking of was available online (isn't everything these days?)  Not to distract from the point of this post, but do go and read it if you are unfamiliar with it.  Good heavens, could that man write.  And imagine it being delivered in that unique Churchillian style: the psalm-like cadence of his delivery, the slightly high-pitched voice rising and then descending to a near-growl as he punctuates a point, and the rest.]

Identity Theft - Give Us Back Our Holy Days!

Earlier this week I had occasion to consult the calendar for something or another and I noticed something that saddened me.  I was going to say "shocked and saddened" but unfortunately I can't say I was really shocked.

This year we only have three - THREE - holy days of obligaton which require us to hear Mass on a day other than Sunday!  By "we" I mean Catholics in most U.S. dioceses.  How can this be?

First - the three really, actually, obligatory holy days of obligation in the U.S. this year:

• January 1st - Mary, Mother of God (1970 calendar) or Circumcision of Our Lord (1962 calendar)
• December 8th - The Immaculate Conception
• December 25th - The Nativity of Our Lord

But... what about Ascension Thursday?  Sorry, in most dioceses that's transferred to the following Sunday. (Although usually not in Boston or Providence...)

Wait a minute - I know The Assumption is never transferred to a Sunday, right?  Maybe so, but this year the 15th of August happens to fall... on a Sunday!

OK, how about All Saints Day?  Nope, sorry, that's gone this year too.  You see, it falls on a Monday in 2010; and the U.S. Bishops apparently believe that having to attend Mass two days in a row would place an onerous burden on the People of God!

I haven't the time to research the entire history of holy days, but I can tell you what I do know.  Prior to 1911 there were at least eleven holy days of obligation in the calendar - in addition to the six which remain today there were The Epiphany, St. Joseph, Corpus Christi, The Nativity of St. John the Baptist, and Ss. Peter and Paul.  Pope St. Pius X removed the obligation for St. Joseph, Corpus Christi, and St. John the Baptist in 1911.  Later in the 20th century, we "lost" Epiphany and Ss. Peter and Paul, although some of these days are permanently or typically transferred to the following Sunday at this time.

I understand quite well that these liberalizations were undertaken in a spirit of charity.  As I recall, the reforms of St. Pius X were in consideration of the need to tend crops or earn a living - as on Sundays, one is supposed to abstain from servile work on a holy day.  I am reluctant to question the prudential judgments of the only 20th-century pope-saint, but I cannot help but wonder whether some other course of action  - perhaps a partial dispensation for workers under certain circumstances - might have helped to beter preserve Catholic identity.

As for the more recent innovations in this area, I feel far less charitable toward those of our shepherds who've seen fit to continually "define Catholicism down" in many ways.  In an age when nearly everyone who wants a car has one, is it really too difficult for a Catholic to attend Mass two days in a row if a holy day falls on a Saturday or a Monday?  At a time when the secular world is offering us more and more choices of activities for our leisure time, oughtn't the Church issue us an extra summons to the most glorious of activities, Holy Mass, now and again?

The bishops of the U.S. have a campaign this Lent to get Catholics back to confession.  This is a laudable intention, and you will hear not a word of complaint from me about it (although one might ask where they've been for the last forty years).  But perhaps they'd be better off starting a campaign to restore the presence of the Church in the world, and in the lives of Catholics.  Holy days are certainly a part of that presence, and I want my holy days back!

[I suppose it could be worse - the Diocese of Hawaii only has TWO!  Every year!  Just Immaculate Conception and Christmas.  Quelle dommage!]

Just Because a Man is a Polemecist...

...doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.  Several, in fact.  And he makes them in provocative fashion.

Scottish columnist and commentator Gerald Warner has written a pointed and hard-hitting piece on the relationship between the "Spirit of the Council" and the homosexual scandals in thc Church which is worthy of attention.

Not that I agree with his every word, but on balance I think he's right.  And anyone who can string together a rant like "These clowns in their pseudo-ethnic mitres and polyester vestments with faux-naïve Christian symbols, spouting their ecumaniac episcobabble..." is certainly capable of grabbing my attention!

Read the whole article over on Fr. Z's blog.

Pope Benedict's Gifts to the Church

Back in April of 2005, when Cardinal Medina Estevez appeared on the balcony to announce the name of the new pope, my heart nearly stopped when he got to "Josephum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem..."  RATZINGER!  Who'd have believed it?  I got a chuckle at the thought of the gang at America or the National un-Catholic Distorter standing glumly around a monitor and then shuffling back to their desks in silence.  The scene at the Archlaic's Residence was a bit different, champagne corks were popped (as I recall it was just past Easter) and a stogie worthy of Churchill perfumed the air (to the dismay of Her Magnitude).

Of course one of my first thoughts was that he'd end the "limbo" that the traditional Mass had been in for 30+ years, and sure enough he did, two years later, with Summorum Pontificum.  Of course this was seen - not incorrectly - as a gift to the long-neglected Catholics who prefer the traditional liturgy, and also as a step toward a potential reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X.  However, many commentators hailed it aa a gift to the entire Church and I believe that they were correct.  For one thing it is Pope Benedict's intention that as priests learn (or re-learn) to celebrate the traditional form of the Mass it will have a positive influence on the way they celebrate the newer form.  As such it is an especial gift to priests, whose very life and purpose is to offer Mass daily.

I opined at the time Summorum Pontificum was promulgated that one of its fruits would be an increase in vocations to the priesthood, and that such would become apparent within five years of S.P.. i.e. by 2012.  I am not aware of any recent statistics in this regard, but anecdotally I do perceive activity along these lines.

Another gift, whose true value may also take some time to become apparent, is Anglicanorum coetibus; which provides for the establishments of "ordinariates" for groups of Anglicans wishing to become Catholic. These ordinariates are roughly analogous to personal dioceses, but do not correspond to or replace existing territorial dioceses; rather they are envisaged to "overlay" them much in the manner that the Military Ordinariate or various Eastern Catholic diocese and eparchies do.   The same aging liberal naysayers who condemned Summorum Pontificum predictably panned Anglicanorum coetibus, but it appears that it is likewise starting to bear fruit.  A group of traditionally-minded Anglicans in Australia has sought to avail themselves of the new provisions and the process of establishing a personal ordinariate is underway.  A recent article in the Wall Street Journal gives some hint of the way that the Anglicans-cum-Catholics will be integrated into the life of the Church while retaining certain of their own liturgical traditions

Because of these acts, and the ecumenical overtures he has made toward various Eastern Orthodox churches, Benedict XVI has been called "The Pope of Christian Unity".  This is certainly apt, but inasmuch as these concrete provisions in favor of true unity have been centered around liturgical worship it might be equally appropriate to call him "The Liturgical Pope".  Certainly this has been an area of concern for him both previous to and during his papacy, and it is an area in which he has some expertise.  As we look forward to the fifth anniversary of Pope Benedict's election to the Chair of Peter it can certainly be said that he has had some significant accomplishments.  For a man who wished to retire, and who predicted a short papacy for himself, it has thus far been a consequential one.

A Tasty Take on the Ember Days

You know the Japanese style of frying vegetables and seafood, lightly battered, known as Tempura?  According to my dictionary the word is derived fron the Portuguese tempêro (seasoning).  Sounds a bit dubious, I mean to batter and fry something isn't to season it, and it's not like the Portuguese language lacks for words describing various methods of preparing foodstuffs, is it?

As usual, the real story is much more interesting.  Portuguese and Spanish missionaries in the mid-Sixteenth Century introduced this style of cooking meatless meals on days of fast and abstinence.  Apparently the locals loved it and it caught-on bigtime.  It took its name from a Latin name for the Ember Days, Quatour Tempora, i.e. "Four Times".  How's that for a little inculturation?

So you can tell that story to your friends next time you enjoy some shrimp or vegetable tempura at your favorite Asian restaurant and they'll marvel at your mastery of odd knowedge!

I meant to include this little tidbit in Wednesday's post but completely forgot.  Fortunately Fr. Z. had a mention of it today so I'm posting it now while it's still timely.

Ember Wednesday

Most Catholics under fifty don't know what Ember Days are.  Even those who follow the traditional calendar seem to get confused by them.  The Council didn't abolish them.  I'd always thought that Paul VI had done so in his decree on fasting and abstinence (Pænitimini) but it only removes the obligation to fast and (semi)-abstain.  In an Orwellian twist they were prominently mentioned in the norms issued for the revised calendar - they even got their own section - but were omitted from the calendar itself!  Of course the instruction that "the conferences of bishops should arrange the time and plan for their celebration" has carried about as much weight in the post-Conciliar Church as the prescriptions in Sacrosanctum Concilium that Latin be "retained" and Gregorian Chant be given "pride of place".

There are some good sources on the Internet to assist in understanding and observing the Ember Days:  I'd recommend the website - still extant - of the late and lamented Holy Trinity Parish in Boston for a good, quick overview of their purpose, significance, and practice.  Also, Fisheaters has some additional material on customs and traditions.  Finally, an excellent article by Dr. Michael Foley which contains some of the same material as the Holy Trinity website (he may have originally compiled it) and a good deal more.

It's always interesting to me that right in the midst of Lent, while we're already likely to be fasting and abstaining, we have three days on which in which we're expected to... fast and abstain!  Nowadays, with the greatly relaxed rules of Fast and Abstinence, they may in fact be an occasion for the temporary escalation of one's Lenten mortifications.  But in the "bad old days" when adult Catholics were bound to fast throughout all of Lent - not just on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday - and abstain on all of the Fridays of the year, it's difficult to see what more one could do in that regard.  But in the other seasons of the year they served a useful role as a sort or quarterly spiritual tune-up, I like to think of them as "mini-Lents".  Seems like we could use some of that sort of thing these days.

The other thing about the Ember Days that has always piqued my interest is the liturgical oddities which mark the Masses celebrated on those days.  Frequently there are extra readings - the Ember Wednesday in Lent has an Old Testament lesson, an Epistle, and the Gospel.  The Ember Saturdays are even wilder, with as many as seven readings, complete with Graduals and prayers interspersed, and genuflections not unlike those of Good Friday.  In fact the Ember Days share with the liturgies of Holy Week the deviation from the usual liturgical schema and the addition of extra readings and prayers.

(So, after writing this I went off to Mass at noontime, but to my surprise Father appeared in RED vestments!  Seems it was the feast of St. Matthias, which according to the Ordo trumps the Ember Day although it does get a commemoration.  I learn something new every day...)

Identity Theft - Part II

The reign of the experts came upon us in the wake of the Council and it has lasted for over forty years. Their influence has waned considerably, and indeed it's taken a big hit since the election of Pope Benedict; but there are still far too many of them left in positions of authority or influence, and they're still trying to re-invent Catholicism and force us into a new way of " being church".

So even today, we have various "experts" telling us that our traditions are merely simplistic and superficial piety which limit us to mindlessly "doing church" rather than "being church". But then, in the very next breath they tell us, "active participation" demands that we be doing something at Mass rather than just being there. Why? To what end? It's very strange to me that they've been striving for years to get us to "join in" but at the same time they've been Hell-bent on destroying all of the signs of our Catholic identity they can get their hands on. Again, one could rightly ask: exactly what, then, is it they want us to be a part of?

There are two* passages in the New Testament which are rather illustrative. If I may make bold to say so, Our Lord doesn't seem to have been a big fan of the sort of "active participation" so beloved of the liturgists:

1. Luke 10, 38-42: Now it came to pass as they went, that he entered into a certain town: and a certain woman named Martha, received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sitting also at the Lord's feet, heard his word. But Martha was busy about much serving. Who stood and said: Lord, hast thou no care that my sister hath left me alone to serve? speak to her therefore, that she help me. And the Lord answering, said to her: Martha, Martha, thou art careful, and art troubled about many things: But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.
2. John 13, 6-9: He cometh therefore to Simon Peter. And Peter saith to him: Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered, and said to him: What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.

In the first we see Jesus endorsing passive adoration over active busywork. In the second He corrects Peter who seems to resist passivity in his encounter with the Most Holy. (Martin Mosebach does a far better job of explaining this in "The Heresy of Formlessness" than I could ever do.) And of course St. John Marie Vianney's admonition is that we stand at the foot of the Altar as the Blessed Mother stood at the Foot of the Cross. I certainly don't remember anything about her running around and getting "involved". She - and St. John - remained quietly, adoring and praying.

Traditionally the Church has seen the Mass first as an unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary and secondly as a re-enactment of the Last Supper. Even though post-Conciliar theology has attempted to reverse these two emphases, the foregoing should aptly demonstrate that - either way - the ethos of true Christian worship does not require or even favor congregational activity over silent prayer and adoration. The perpetrators of the liturgical revolution - and its latter-day adherents - have turned their back on nineteen centuries of tradition in favor of trendiness.

When an identity thief assumes the persona of another, he is not simply engaging in a harmless masquerade; he's seeking to use the victim's good name and reputation to advance his own ends. Consider, for a moment, what would have happened if the "experts" who gained control of the post-Conciliar reforms had not been able to proceed under the auspices of the Pope and the bishops? What if they had started their own sect, let's call it the "Reformed Catholic Church", and sailed forth to peddle their theoretical theology and lackluster liturgy under this flag? Would their ideas have gained currency, or their sect gained converts? I doubt it! For my money it's a toss-up whether they'd have been clapped into mental institutions or simply ignored!

Does the name "Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter" mean anything to you? If not, perhaps it will refresh your memory if I reveal his alias: "Clark Rockefeller"! Now do you remember him? By presenting himself as something he was not - a member of the famous and wealthy Rockefeller family - Gerhartsreiter was able to gain the trust of numerous unsuspecting individuals and perpetrate a hoax that unraveled only when he began to believe his own fabrications.  A penniless unknown would never have been able to become a member of the Algonquin Club - let alone a member of it's Board of Directors - or marry a high-earning female exective, but the "Clark Rockefeller" identity gave him credibility.

By the way, his attorneys used an insanity defense. Do you suppose that sort of thing will fly when the thieves who tried to steal our Church and our Catholic Identity finally appear before the Seat of Judgment?

 * And there's lots of good stuff in the Old Testament about the importance of following the rubrics too!

Identity Theft - Part I

It came as a surprise to me, as it does to many Catholics, when I discovered a few years ago that Ash Wednesday isn’t a holy day of obligation. When I was growing-up, every Catholic went to Mass on Ash Wednesday, even the minority who didn’t practice the Faith regularly. And so for one day you’d see them in the street, on the bus, in school, in stores, at work – everywhere – brethren in the Faith identified by that black smudge on their foreheads.

Of course the purpose of the ashes isn’t to act as a membership badge (for some reason the Monty Python sketch about the “secret Masonic handshake” just popped-into my mind) but to signify a resolution to turn away from sin and the empty pursuit of pleasure. The tradition of ashes as a symbol of repentance predates Christianity, there are many such examples in the Old Testament.

It was quite sad, then, when I got to work yesterday to see how few others wearing ashes. Every year it seems like there are fewer and fewer, and so I felt strangely self-conscious for “advertising” my penitence: “look who thinks he’s holier-than-thou”*

Now before anyone says “judge not lest ye be judged”, that’s not what I’m saying here. Certainly many of my Catholic colleagues were planning on going to Mass in the evening, I’ve been in that situation myself. And one doesn’t need ashes on the skin to be truly penitent in the heart. What I found most lamentable was the reminder, once again, of the total and utter loss of Catholic identity we’ve suffered.

We Catholics have been victims of a serious crime carried-out in the decades following the Second Vatican Council: the term “identity theft” had yet to be coined but that’s exactly what happened to us. One need only read the memoirs of the perpetrators to learn that this is true. Can one really look at the liturgical changes and affirm that “the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them” as mandated by Sacrosanctum Concillium? We have plenty of testimony - direct from the mouths and pens of so many of the architects and participants of this program of destruction - that these changes were motivated by another factor - ecumenism.

And thus so much of what made us recognizably Catholic was jettisoned with unseemly haste in the service of the ecumenical agenda, brought to us by the ‘experts’ who knew better. Those who objected, however mildly, were ridiculed and marginalized by those entrusted with the care of souls. Catholicism, the fullness of Christianity, is a “sensual” religion –the phrase we often hear is “smells-n-bells” which is perhaps a less-provocative way of putting it. The externals and the sacramentals of the Faith were not the creations of the experts or committees of each generation; they developed organically from existing practices and were ratified by the piety of the faithful. A universal Church must appeal to all, but of course the reasoned piety of the intellectual is different from the emotional piety of the peasant and so Holy Mother Church in Her wisdom and experience developed different ways to appeal to each man’s sensibilities using each of man’s senses.

And so we had church buildings which weren’t merely “worship spaces” but “catechisms in stone” – and glass, and plaster, and wood. Stations of the Cross, Mysteries of the Rosary and the lives of the Saints, lit by sunlight filtered through stained-glass by day and flickering candles by night. Thus was the Faith taught to the young and illiterate without words, and so was our attention captured when our minds wandered during Mass. Daily we had early morning low Masses in simple silence and High Masses on high holy days, with heavenly chant and sweet incense and vestments that truly were our “Sunday best. Throughout the year we had processions and novenas and devotions that invited us to participation without demanding involvement; and of course we had disciplines like meatless Fridays and Holy Days of Obligation which gave structure to our practice of the Faith. And ashes, the outward sign of our inward disposition. How natural it all seemed, until the ‘experts’ came to power.

To be continued…

*the “look who thinks he’s holier-than-thou” bit stems from one of my favorite bits of Jewish humor, from a book called “Every Goy’s Guide to Common Jewish Expressions":

Shamus, n. [Yiddish]: A shamus is a guy who takes care of handyman tasks around the temple, and makes sure everything is in working order. A shamus is at the bottom of the pecking order of synagog functionaries, and there's a joke about that: A rabbi, to show his humility before God, cries out in the middle of a service, Oh, Lord, I am nobody! The cantor, not to be bested, also cries out, Oh, Lord, I am nobody! The shamus, deeply moved, follows suit and cries, Oh, Lord, I am nobody! The rabbi turns to the cantor and says, Look who thinks he's nobody!