Whispered in the Sacristy

More on the Tridentine Mass

This may be a bit disjointed.  I’m a little hot-under-the-Roman-collar just now.  Once again the e-mailed have started coming in demanding that I celebrate the Tridentine Mass as soon as the pope permits.  I have even received recommendation of web-sites and videos to help me do it properly, and offers to help train the new Altar Boys.

.

I am constantly amazed by well-meaning revisionists and their naïve and deluded students who perpetuate the concept that the Mass of Pius V, called the Tridentine after the Council of Trent, is some how the Mass “as celebrated throughout the world since the time of the Apostles.”   There is a wonderfully deluded book called How Christ Celebrated the First Mass.  It dates from 1906 but has been reprinted by Tan Books.  Through circuitous reasoning and imaginative assumption it tries to shoe-horn the Last Supper into the form of the Tridentine Mass.

.

The Mass of Pope St. Pius V, promulgated on July 14, 1570, through the apostolic constitution Quo Primum. After Pius V, the first new "typical edition" of the Roman Missal was produced in 1604, 34 years after the appearance of the Missal that Pius V issued in implementation of the Council of Trent's decision. It was meant in part to bring the texts of the Mass into conformity with the official edition of the Vulgate, but it made many other changes also. It abolished some prayers that in Pius V's Tridentine Mass the priest said on entering the church, and it shortened the two prayers to be said after the Confiteor. It removed from the Canon the mention of the king, and directed that the words "Haec quotiescumque feceritis …" (Whenever you do this, you will do it in memory of me) should be said before, not while showing the chalice to the people. It also suppressed Pius V's rule that, at High Mass, the priest, even if not a bishop, was to give the final blessing with three signs of the cross, one at the Epistle corner, one at the middle, and one at the Gospel corner of the altar. And it rewrote the rubrics, introducing matters such as ringing a bell.  Pope Clement VIII's Missal was in turn replaced in 1634 by Pope Urban VIII's, which made some important corrections, especially in the rubrics. Pope Leo XIII published another typical edition in 1884, with only minor changes, not profound enough to merit having the papal bull of its promulgation included in the Missal, as the bulls of 1604 and 1634 were. Essentially, therefore, Pope Urban VIII's Missal survived for almost three centuries, with the addition of many more saints' feasts, from 1634 to 1920.

.

The 1920 typical edition of the Missal did require insertion of Pope Pius X's bull on the basis of which significant changes were made in the rubrics of Mass. The final typical edition issued in the "Tridentine" period was that of 1962. However, Missals printed from 1955 onward already, while leaving the rest unchanged, replaced the 1920 Missal's Holy Week and Easter Vigil texts with the radically altered ones that Pope Pius XII ordered to be used.

.

For the past 15-20 years, under John Paul II, the celebration of both the Tridentine and the Latin original of the Novus Ordo was left up to the local bishop, and some bishops made a “generous application of the directives” while others did not. 

.

With the release of Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, within a few days, priests will probably be allowed to celebrate the Tridentine Latin Mass in private and to hold public celebrations when requested even by a relatively small number (around 30) of the faithful in a parish.  In the Archdiocese of Washington, where the Tridentine Mass has been offered since 1985,  “of 150,000 people in the Washington DC area who attend Mass each week, less than 500 choose the Tridentine Mass."  That’s .0033% of the people in the archdiocese according to my handy calculator.  In Washington accessibility isn't an issue, since the rite is already offered in three locations scattered across the city and suburbs.  It has been offered for at least the past twelve years in two parishes and to my certain knowledge rarely to more than a half-full church.

.

There have always been a variety of normative liturgies in the history of Christianity and of the Roman Catholic Church. This context is important for understanding any liturgical change, including the pending broader availability of the pre-Vatican II liturgy.

.

The Latin Mass of Trent has been normative for less than 450 years of the two millennium of the Church, and as clearly seen above, it has been altered, added to and changed with some frequency throughout that time.  For the most traditionalist Catholics, the old Latin Mass—developed over roughly a thousand years and adopted officially by the Council of Trent—was “THE Mass.”   But by making the old Latin Mass more available as an alternative to the vernacular, the Vatican will reinforce the fact that the church has always had, and will always have, multiple normative liturgies—and that all of them are subject to being revised, supplemented or replaced as the Christian community discovers better ways of doing liturgy.

.

Obviously, it is the historical practice of the Church that liturgy can always be improved, the Church done just that.  I vividly recall this being allowed for a period of time after Vatican II, when liturgical experts published experimental texts that followed the structure of the approved ones but offered language and rituals that many small congregations found more beautiful and more inspirational than the Latin editio typica.  Unfortunately, Rome pretty much suppressed such experimentation by about 1969, and the more conservative church goers made sure that violators were reported to the hierarchy.

.

I find it very unfortunate that the Holy Father has permitted this rite without consultation with his brother Bishops, ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority have accepted the New Mass or the Paul the VI Mass. The very small group that wants the Tridentine Mass are either misguided or ignorant of church history.  First of all the Tridentine Mass is not a "traditional Mass" but a mass of Pius V after the council of Trent, changed and fine-tuned throughout its history.  Even after Trent the Gallican Rite  and Mozarabic Rite, as well as the fourteen Uniate Eastern Rites, most in the vernacular of the people, were permitted and not replaced.

.

The Mass of Vatican II restored ancient elements missing from the liturgy from the days of Gregory I. Intercessory prayers concluding the Liturgy Of The Word are described by Justin the Martyr in 150 A.D. It sought participation from the laity because the Church is the whole People of God, not just the clergy or Pope as Vatican II taught in Lumen Gentium and the Pastoral Constitution of the Church In The Modern World. This concept too was prominent in the early days.

.

One writer recently said:  “The Church is a theocracy, not a democracy, polls of bishops or the laity are not necessarily indicators of the best path for the Church (remember that Golden Calf incident?)”  This once again suggests a blinders and cane approach to Catholic Theology and history.  Both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were proclaimed as dogmatic after the Popes involved consulted with all the bishops in the world.

.

If my Bishop directs me to celebrate the Tridentine Mass I will do so in obedience.  But less than 1% of my parish is not going to force me to cancel an English or Spanish Mass attended by no less than 25% of the parish in favor of the traditional Latin Mass..

  As it is I must celebrate more than then the maximum three Masses on Sunday, with ecclesiastical permission due to Pastoral Necessity, due to the priest shortage. 

7-7-7 Tridentine Mass Motu Propio

Back in April I wrote:

.

According to an April 13th TIME article by Jeff Israely: A Step Backward for Pope Benedict?  (http://www.time.com/time) there are some disturbing clouds on the Roman horizon:

.

“In the coming weeks, the Pope is expected to release a document that would allow the more widespread practice of the traditional Latin Mass, which was all but shelved with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s. Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone recently confirmed to Le Figaro newspaper that this motu proprio, or personal initiative of the Pontiff, will allow any priest to say the mass according to the old Tridentine rite (which is delivered in Latin with the priest facing the altar, his back to the congregation), rather than have to seek approval from the local bishop as is now required.”

.

The frightening part of this is not the use of the Latin Mass, but the possibility of it being outside the control of the local bishop.  The bishops contend with a significant number of renegade or recalcitrant priests as it is, who often intend on doing things their own away rather in union with their bishop.  This could have terrible consequences if there is no oversight by the local Ordinary.  I had a parishioner walk up to me after Mass several months ago, who said, “Father, now that the Pope is mandating the Latin Mass, how soon will you be making the changes here?”  It was less question than demand.  I had to explain that the Pope had done no such thing, and she should expect no such changes until the Bishop informed me.

.

Encouraging priests to act apart from their bishops, which conservative parishioners will certainly encourage, is on a level with Chapter Eight of Redemptionis Sacramentum, which said: "Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ's faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity."  That resulted in a flood of letters to Bishops and to Rome for every minor error or variation perceived as an abuse by the more scrupulous lay Catholic.  There is no doubt a file on my “abuses” in the local Chancery as well as some arcane corner of the Vatican.

.

It was Chapter Five of that same document that said: “Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate the Mass in Latin,” accept where Church authority [the local Bishop] has determined that the Mass is to be celebrated in the language of the faithful.”

.

It is my fervent hope that in the even Pope Benedict does allow for a broader use of the Tridentine Mass, it will not be at the expense of local episcopal authority, or be used as a weapon to coerce priests and pastors.

.

We will finally see this motu propio on Saturday, July 7, 2007 (7-7-7)  My concern remains not in granting broader use of the Tridentine Mass, but in permitting priests to act with or without the permission of their local bishop.  In every diocese there exist one or two (or more) priests that chaff under the authority of their bishop and will use this as an opportunity to act in their personal interest and not in the best interest of the majority of their people.  Regardless of good intentions, the Tridentine/Latin Mass will not miraculously return the Church to the piety and reverence of fifty years ago.  Over the past few years I have heard an almost endless list of things I should do that will make people better practicing Catholics in the old mode: Father, if you would only return the Tabernacle to the main Altar … remove girl Altar Servers … stop using lay minister of the Word and of Communion … return to Gregorian chant … put up an altar railing …  You get the idea.   

.

Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger has made clear that he greatly admires the Tridentine rite and has already incorporated Latin into Masses at St. Peter's Basilica.  Speaking to seminarians recently he “urged seminarians and the faithful alike to learn Latin prayers”, and that “it was "downright indecent" for people who are still attached to the old rite to be denied it.” 

.

"I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it … It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that."

.

The real issue remains: will the document as published allow bishops to exercise any final authority in their own dioceses, or will priests/pastors be able to override episcopal authority?

.

More on the Limits of Salvation

Way back in January I wrote the following:

.

Alright.  Admittedly I’m not as swift on the up-take as my young brethren, although I am seldom “a day late and a dollar short” as my sainted father used to say.  A brother priest told me about this at the recent priest dinner gathering at HTS Seminary.  It was so absurd I did not believe it until I looked it up for myself.  It appears that we are going to soon be saying that the suffering and death of Jesus Christ was “for many” instead of “for all.”

.

When the new translation of the Roman Missal is finally promulgated in the next year or two, in every Eucharistic Prayer, in the Words of Institution over the Cup, instead of what we have been saying for forty years: Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me, we will be saying: Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

.

And I though Jesus died for everyone.  Isn’t that what the good Nuns taught us?  Granted, the redemption/salvation offered us by God is not accepted by everyone, but wasn’t His Precious Blood poured out for everyone?  Well, read the letter I found from the meddling Cardinal from  Nigeria below.

.

To their Eminences /Excellencies, Presidents of the National Episcopal Conferences

Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

Prot. n. 467/05/L

.

Rome, October 17, 2006

.

Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

.

      In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. n. 467/05/L of July 9, 2005).

.

      The replies received from the Bishops' Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father.  At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:

1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries.  In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation "for all", "per tutti", or equivalents.

.

2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to "for all", as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661).  Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text.  It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).

.

3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:

.

a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to "many" (plolnv) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12).  It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said "for all" (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is "for many", and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

.

b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

.

c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

.

d. "For many" is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas "for all" is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

.

e. The expression "for many", while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one's willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the "many" to whom the text refers.

.

f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.

.

4. The Bishops' Conferences of those countries where the formula "for all" or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis of the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, "for many", "per molti", etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.

.

With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Eminence/Your Excellency,

.

Devotedly Yours in Christ,

.

Francis Card. Arinze, Prefect

.

When it requires an advanced degree in theology to explain this change in translation does anyone see a problem here?  It amazes me to consider that a group of people, whose native language is not English, should tell us (and other English-speaking nations) how to use our own language. 

.

And Jesus wept …. But only for some of us!

.

Now we hear that earlier this month (June 2007) the Priests in Rottenburg, Germany “have voted to reject the Vatican translation of the phrase pro multis in the Eucharistic liturgy, the Kath.net news service reports.”

.

It seems that the presbyteral (priests') council of the Rottenburg-Stuttgart diocese has decided by a "democratic vote," to retain the current German translation of pro multis as "for all."

.

“The council dismissed a directive from the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship. Cardinal Francis Arinze, the prefect of the Congregation, wrote to the world's bishops last November, announcing that all translations of the liturgy should render pro multis as "for many"-- a translation that is more faithful to the Latin text and to the theological reality that while Christ's redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved.” 

The Rottenburg priests argued that the use of "for many" would be confusing to the faithful "in this day and age." They added that the original Scriptural text read "for all," citing as their authority a Protestant scholar of the 18th century whose analysis the Catholic Church has rejected. 

.

"The promise of salvation is directed to all people," the German priests said. "This truth of the faith is put most clearly in the 'for all.'"

.

.

We must hope that the work of liturgical pioneers and leaders of the liturgical movement will continue to develop and that their vision will not be in vain. Cardinal Suenens once remarked: "Happy are those who dream dreams of full, conscious and active participation in the liturgy and are ready to pay the price to make that come true." These are brave and challenging words from a Father of the Second Vatican Council.

.

I understand and accept that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.  But I find it increasingly strange that people who do not speak English as a primary language instruct us as to how to speak our mother-tongue in liturgy.  Sacred language can not be constructed out of whole cloth … or is this a case of pouring old wine into new wineskins?  I don’t think Jesus addressed that case.

.

No Hell? Hell, No!

It always amazes me normally intelligent people can get the message so wrong.  In the midst of the news some months ago about theologians re-thinking the concept of Limbo, a parishioner came up to me after Mass and said, “Since the Church no longer believes in Hell, why do you keep preaching  about it?”  I couldn’t pin the gentleman down as to where he heard that, but I tried to explain that Hell has never ceased to be part of Catholic teaching.  The New Testament term Gehenna was used by Jesus to describe the place of punishment for the damned.  Hell is the utter absence and separation from God and redemption; it is the eternal separation from God made through our own choice.

.

Gehenna was actually a landfill near Jerusalem.  Ancient landfills were very unpleasant, and could be better described as a garbage dump in the most unimaginable way.  These places were filled with rotting garbage, dead animals and human waste, and the Jews would periodically burn them. However, by that point they were generally so large that they would burn for weeks or even months. In other words they were fiery mountains of garbage. The early Christian teaching was that the damned would be burnt in the valley just as the garbage was.  I can easily imagine parents using Gehenna as an object lessen for children.

.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the traditional teaching.  We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” (1 John 3:14-15.) To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell." (CCC1033)

.

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. (CCC 1034)

.

God predestines no one to go to hell (in spite of some Calvinist teaching to the contrary); for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end of ones life. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church begs for the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance." (CCC 1037)

.

The traditional image of Hell as derived from Christ’s literal description of Gehenna has been modified by modern theologians in the past sixty years.  Rather than imagining only in terms literal extremes of physical punishment Church thinkers have suggested a more significant and all-encompassing punishment that is also psychological, and spiritual.  During a weekly general audience Pope John Paul II of Blessed Memory (July 28, 1999) said that hell “is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life.... [Hell] is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitely reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life...” “The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God.”

.

He went on to explain: “Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy....The thought of hell—and even less the improper use of biblical images—must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry ‘Abba, Father!’ (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6).”

.

Hell is the consequence of sin, self-imposed, and eternal separation from God, and is still part of Catholic teaching.  Only the Father of Lies and Hell’s Resident Manager would try to convince us that it no longer exists.  Many theologians speculate hopefully that Hell might be empty, but while still a Cardinal, our current Holy Father said it was worthy to pray for, but unlikely to be empty.  As a seminary professor in Houston once said: If you are damned to Hell, it is your own damned fault!

.

More on Reconciliation

A correspondent writes:

.

I think sometimes that the difficulty we have in approaching the Sacrament of Reconciliation is that we are not comfortable with the vulnerability and humility that is often necessary to "bare our souls and sins" to a priest, who although he sits in persona Christi, is still another human being.  We don't want to let others, even a priest, know of our humanness; our faults and failings, our insecurities, as well as the impatience, pride, laziness, and selfishness that we tend to bring to the confessional.  It’s not easy to tell another person our most intimate thoughts, feelings, difficulties, or struggles and that may be why we also feel the need to tell our stories as part of our confession.  We need the priest to understand the reason behind the behavior that made the confession necessary.  I don’t think that I’ve ever tried to shock the priest, but I have probably been guilty of giving “too much information”, but it’s more likely been to try and get a better understanding of “why” or “how” it all came about, not to justify it.  I have been known to take it all a little too seriously though.

.

I think most priests have the same vulnerabilities, and human weaknesses as the penitents who come through the Confessional door.  In spite of the recent movement by the hierarchy to create a greater separation between ordained clergy and the laity, the Sacrament of Holy Orders does not preserve us from our weaknesses and frailty, nor prevent sinfulness.  The majority of priests manage to limit their fallibilities to impatience, sporadic bouts of selfishness and petulance, occasional moments of despair born of too much work, too little support and times of frustration that comes from trying to be all things to all people. (St. Paul tried that and it didn’t work well for him either!) Most of us priests go to confession ourselves either as part of on-going spiritual direction or simply on regular basis to clear our consciences and increase the grace that gets us from one day to the next, the ability to hear just one more confession, go to just one more meeting.  Sitting in persona Christi does not mean we sit in judgments, but having ourselves been forgiven, sharing in the experience of the transforming grace of Christ with others.

.

Our correspondent continues:

.

Your “Reflections on Reconciliation” reminded me of an interesting article in this month’s Ministry and Liturgy magazine that mentioned, “"The ‘room’ for reconciliation as it stands today is often empty.  Not just empty of persons but empty of a real sense of healing, community, understanding of sin and sinfulness, mercy, contrition, penitence, and grace."  It mentioned that what our communities need is a broader understanding of what reconciliation is and how important it is for the entire community to be reconciled to one another. If we offer community formation about the many dimensions of reconciliation, the forms it may take, and the power it holds, we may be able to reclaim some of the opportunities for grace lost over time through misunderstanding, anger, shame, and fear.”  I’m not sure that many adult Catholics have a well formed understanding of what reconciliation is about.  Most of the time, the communal celebrations of reconciliation at our parish, are not well attended, probably because they don’t understand the importance of the communal aspect of reconciliation and forgiveness.  Many of our adult Catholics still have the same understanding of reconciliation that they had as children.  I’m not sure what the solution is, but it seems that not only do we need on-going priestly formation, but our parishes need to encourage on-going adult formation for this very reason. 

.

I remember fifty or more years ago the Good Nuns teaching us that venial sins were like black spots on our pure white souls, that moral sins made the whole soul black.  The Sacrament of Penance was like God erasing and cleansing the soul pure white again, a holy laundromat.  Somehow we were left with the idea that we still needed the Eucharist to put the grace back, and failed to recognize the grace of the Sacrament of Reconciliation itself.  Sacraments are always first about grace and then the secondary effects unique to each individual sacrament.  We also seem to forget that the grace of Reconciliation is meant to give us the strength to avoid more sin.  We ought to go regularly for the grace alone!

.

I always tell people there are three good reasons to go to Confession 3 to 4 times a year, mortal sins or not: first, most of us have poor memories; we forget the little sins all too quickly, making it hard to make a really good confession after about five or six months; second, we should come frequently for the grace, that will help us avoid more serious sin; and third, like our doctors and dentists urge us to see them at least once a year to make sure we stay healthy, so we should use the Sacrament of Reconciliation as a Spiritual Check-up on the health of our relationship with God and Neighbor!

.

When it's really Broken, Don't Fix, Replace!

One thing I learned after I was ordained (although it was at least hinted at in Seminary) was the tension between the theology and the praxis of our Sacraments in the Church.  The way we do Sacraments and what we teach about Sacraments is not always the same thing.

.

Let us start by summarizing, in part, the teaching of Catholic Church as found in Canon Law (Canons 840 through 848): “The sacraments of the New Testament were instituted by Christ the Lord and entrusted to the Church.” They employ “signs and means which express and strengthen the faith, render worship to God, and effect the sanctification of humanity and thus contribute in the greatest way to establish, strengthen, and manifest ecclesiastical communion. The sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and the Most Holy Eucharist are connected in that they are required for full Christian initiation. Sacraments cannot be denied to those who “seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.” In cases of great necessity and where “true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.”

.

The first four centuries of the Christian Era experienced a clear and logical progression in faith formation: some initial experience of conversion moved an individual to seek membership in the Christian faith; some instruction was given, but the primary emphasis was on hearing the Word and living as a Christian, rather than teaching theology.  There was neither a Baltimore Catechism to memorize nor a Catechism of the Catholic Church to use as a study tool.  At some point the individual was initiated into the Mysteries; he or she was Baptized, Confirmed and received Eucharist for the first time.   This was followed by a period of mystagogia, an unfolding of the mysteries in light of the experience.  This last step, in a sense, was meant to continue throughout life.

.

As Church we are presumed to be engaged in a process of continuing conversion, which would logically presume a process of continuing or on-going faith formation, most commonly called religious education.  However the lived reality is that contemporary Catholics are presumed to have a moderate working understanding of some of the Sacraments before they receive them, and to be fully formed in their faith at the time of Confirmation.  For the better part of the past century we received the message that at Confirmation we were fully equipped with the knowledge and grace necessary to proclaim the Word of God and to evangelize, employing a religious formation that has not advanced beyond that received as children. 

.

What do we have today?  Baptism, beginning initiation, occurs shortly after birth.  For the vast majority the experience is limited to photographs.  At about the age of reason (age 7) instruction begins, suggesting that understanding the theology should proceed, and is almost more important than, the experience of reception.  Somewhere along the way conversion is presumed.  Mystagogia has been lost at best.  With respect to First Eucharist and Confirmation the goal and unofficial but persistent understanding seems to be graduation, not initiation, and the sacrament of Confirmation has been twisted into a sign of adulthood rather than as a completion of Baptism.

.

Why is it that Baptism can be received with neither knowledge nor awareness?  Why can we Confirm and Anoint the unconscious and presume an efficacy, but with hold sacraments from children and adults who have imperfect knowledge or received imperfect pre-instruction?  More and more Pastors and priests will take the opportunity at Baptisms and First Eucharist to make the celebration a “teachable moment,” while other will insist that the Sacraments should speak for themselves in the celebration; that it is essential to “let the Sacrament do what it does.”

.

There is an important Church document called General Directory for Catechesis.  I don’t think enough priests and pastors (especially) have read it.  It attempts to provide fundamental theological-pastoral principles based on Church teaching, particularly those motivated by the Second Vatican Council.  It’s about better orienting and coordinating pastoral activity in faith Formation.

.

“A systematic deepening of the Christian message by means of theological instruction, so as truly to educate in the faith, encourage growth in understanding of it and to equip the Christian for giving the reason for his hope in the present world. In a certain sense, it is appropriate to call such instruction "perfective catechesis". (GDC, 71) There must be a synthesis of core beliefs and an understanding of creedal statements. Children must be taught using age-appropriate methods. Different from the religious education in the past, faith formation requires reasons and explanation. More highly skilled and trained catechists are necessary, capable of balancing instruction with formation.

.

“Continuing formation in the faith is directed not only to the individual Christian, to accompany them in their journey towards holiness, but also to the Christian community as such so that it may mature also in its interior life of love of God and of the brethren as well as in its openness to the world as a missionary community.” (GDC, 71) This is particularly directed at parents that they might be equipped for their responsibly in being the first and best teachers of their children in the way of faith, but inclusive of all adults that their faith might achieve an adult character, and empower them to be bold witnesses of their faith.  Unless we actively work at informing and re-forming adults now, the ideal will not be reached for another generation.

.

“A time of mystagogy, characterized by the experience of the sacraments and entry into the community.” (GDC, 71) The sacraments need to be restored to their original order, the concept of “initiation not graduation” must be instilled, and a true mystagogia following the reception of the sacraments is critical.  Adolescents must be exposed to a Catholic understanding of Sacred Scripture, to Catholic Social Teaching, to Church History, and a sufficient understanding of other Christian and non-Christian faith traditions to be in dialogue with them, are essential elements of Faith Formation in the 21st Century.

.

It boils down to accepting that what we’re doing is not working.  It is not a matter of merely fine tuning parts but rather beginning from scratch, starting with the oldest Church model and shaping it to the modern world.  It means beginning with the fact that we are undergoing faith formation from the Age of Reason to the grave; sacraments initiate us into a lifelong journey and graduation is celebrated in God’s Kingdom, not in this life.

.

Summer Confessions: Short Lines ... No Waiting!

As we slide into the summer doldrums, and 10% to 15% of our “regulars” take a summer vacation from attending church on Sundays altogether, so too the confession-crowd diminishes as well.  It’s not as if they were sinning less, but we have managed to develop a practice of “saving it up” for Lent (and occasionally Advent.)  Parish Lenten Reconciliation Services, Catholic school Confessions, First Reconciliation Celebrations all get put on hold, and we miss out on the forgiving and transforming grace of a merciful God who loves us beyond all our expectations. 

.

During an average season of Lent I probably hear nearly a thousand confessions.  I seldom hear anything new.  I think I’ve already heard it all. There truly is nothing new under the sun.  I will listen to perhaps a new way of beating around a familiar bush.  In the midst of martyrdom by marshmallows (children’s confessions) I will listen for at least one seven-year-old who will confess to committing adultery … then do my best to explain why they haven’t committed adultery … yet.  I will hear from people who come to confess the sins of everyone else but their own, to confess sins long since confessed and forgiven, yet lacking self-forgiveness, and too many sins that aren’t sins at all.  Sins of commission and omission, sins real and imaginary.

.

I will hear at least two elderly ladies come to confess missing Mass while recovering from open-heart surgery.  Some will come with long handwritten lists.  Some will quickly state, “Father, I’ve sinned against the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and Ninth Commandments,” leaving me struggling to remember which was which.  Some teens will come, sitting face-to-face, with a sullenness that says a parent brought them to confession.

.

Some scrupulous individuals will begin, “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.  It was been three days since my last confession.”  One or two will come, shyly, humbly after an absence of ten or twenty or even forty years.  On my list of All Time Records is a man who came for his second confession since his first at seven years of age, after an absence from all the Sacraments of over sixty years.  I can’t remember what he confessed.  I only remember welcoming him back and suggesting he not wait another sixty for the next.

.

In spite of what some might think, it isn't hard to keep the seal of confession.  After the first few hundred, the only ones you remember are those that come regularly, working on a deeper relationship with God, that have taken the time to reflect on areas of improvement rather than merely number and type.  Sometimes I can recall those who came without sorrow, a little proud of their sinning, as if grace could be dispensed for boasting alone.  I recall a few that insisted on the most intimate details of their sins, meant to shock and scandalize my innocent ears.  We priests really don’t need all the gory details.  We really have heard it all before.

.

The hardest work comes in getting people, who in only reluctantly accept God’s forgiveness, fail to accept their own forgiveness; those who continue to carry the burden of guilt, forgetting our mothers’ admonition: Don’t pick at it … it won’t heal.  Old sins, once forgiven, must be used as a measuring-stick for the present, and not as a rod with which to beat ourselves.  Shutting the door to our own forgiveness can bar the door to God’s forgiveness as well. 

.

Like all the Sacraments, Penance/Confession/Reconciliation is primarily an instrument of God’s grace, earned for us by the suffering and death of Jesus Christ.  Unearned, unmerited it is freely dispensed through priests who sit in persona Christi.  Through one human the voice of God resounds and penetrates: "God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

.

Is Mediocre Pastoring the New Norm?

Curious and more curious.

.

A reader recently wrote suggesting I write on certain topics that I’ve written quite a bit on already.  It seems they felt it was too much trouble to look at the blogs any further back then the current month, so I will be readdressing some subjects for the benefit of more recent readers.

.

Back in February I suggested: "I don’t think that the average Catholic should tolerate mediocrity from their priests or second-rate pastoral care either."

.

One of my correspondences responded with an excellent question: “What is the "average Catholic" to do then when "second rate pastoral care" is not only tolerated by the Bishop when it is brought to his attention, but perpetuated by him as well?  What if they all just don't care?”

.

There is an easy answer and a harder answer.  Neither answer is perfect nor will it satisfy everyone.  The easy answer is to go church-shopping: fine a church community that fits your particular needs.  The new Code of Canon Law (1983) no longer obliged parishioners by law to attend Mass at their parishes on Sundays and holy days of obligations. [Can. 1247 & Can. 1248.]  People have been doing this in the US for the past 25 years, not particularly because of bad priests but to meet individual needs.  Some parishes are just naturally more youth oriented, some a bit more traditional, some more charismatic, some more liturgically alive, some with more proactive social ministry programs.  Relatively few parishes can meet every expectation of all the people who officially live within the boundaries of a given parish.

.

The hard answer is to work together in seeking the kind of pastoral care you may not be getting.  The new Code of Canon Law offers some reasonable rights and expectations from their parishes and pastoral ministers (underlining is mine):

.

Canon 212, §2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

.

Can. 213 The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.

.

Can. 214 The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church.

.

Can. 215 The Christian faithful are at liberty freely to found and direct associations for purposes of charity or piety or for the promotion of the Christian vocation in the world and to hold meetings for the common pursuit of these purposes.

.

Can. 221 §1. The Christian faithful can legitimately vindicate and defend the rights which they possess in the Church in the competent ecclesiastical forum according to the norm of law.

.

You need to organize a significant number of like minded parishioners and approach your pastor respectfully regarding your concerns and desires.  By in large these should be beneficial to the whole parish.  These canons were not written to benefit a small minority to demand changes or programs that do not meet the needs and desires of the majority.

.

A caveat: Rights seldom come without strings attached. Along with this “Catholic Bill of Rights” come certain obligations:

.

Can. 208 From their rebirth in Christ, there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality regarding dignity and action by which they all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ according to each one’s own condition and function.

.

Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

.

§2. With great diligence they are to fulfill the duties which they owe to the universal Church and the particular church to which they belong according to the prescripts of the law.

.

Can. 210 All the Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy life and to promote the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification, according to their own condition.

.

Can. 211 All the Christian faithful have the duty and right to work so that the divine message of salvation more and more reaches all people in every age and in every land.

.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

.

Encourage your pastors and priests to grow. 

-Do they attend whatever continuing education is offered in most Dioceses for the clergy? 

-Do they belong to and attend Liturgy Conferences, the National Catholic Education Association convention, the conferences offered by the National Family Life Center or the National Federation of Priests Councils? 

-Do they take an annual Spiritual Retreat? 

-Do they read ministry publications such as Origins, Our Sunday Visitor, Ligorian, U.S. Catholic, Magnificat, AmericaMagazine, ML (liturgy), or any of the dozens that offer insights and help in preaching?

.

Last of all: be careful what you ask for.  If you push your pastor toward a more proactive and dynamic leadership, more will be expected of you.  All priests should lead by example, but if you what him to be a “chief” there better be “indians” to do the work … the army will only be as good as the infantry.

.

If the priest is a saint, his people will be holy.

If the priest is holy, his people will be good.

If the priest is good, his people will be fair.

If the priest is fair, his people will be mediocre.

If the priest is mediocre, his people will be bad.

-Anon.

.

Immigration Redux

One of my readers, commenting on the weblog on Immigration and the Catholic Church, made some rather sound points:

.

I was thinking about what you commented in 'Immigration and the Catholic Church' and I have also heard unkind comments made regarding both legal and illegal immigrants and have often wondered what to say in response.  While I was reading, it reminded me of similar situations at our parish regarding whether or not we would ever have a Spanish Mass.  It has always been met with mixed comments and reactions, but I came across another encyclical letter by John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, On the Relationship Between Faith and Reason, and I hope that I am not taking it out of context, but I feel that his remarks regarding the importance on embracing various cultures is important.  Although, this would probably make for an interesting bulletin insert or newsletter article, it certainly made me stop and think of cultural acceptance in a different light and point of view. 

.

Pope John Paul II writes, “From the time the Gospel was first preached, the Church has known the process of encounter and engagement with cultures. Christ's mandate to his disciples to go out everywhere, “even to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8), in order to pass on the truth which he had revealed, led the Christian community to recognize from the first the universality of its message and the difficulties created by cultural differences. A passage of Saint Paul's letter to the Christians of Ephesus helps us to understand how the early community responded to the problem. The Apostle writes: “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 wall of hostility” (2:13-14).

.

In the light of this text, we reflect further to see how the Gentiles were transformed once they had embraced the faith. With the richness of the salvation wrought by Christ, the walls separating the different cultures collapsed. God's promise in Christ now became a universal offer: no longer limited to one particular people, its language and its customs, but extended to all as a heritage from which each might freely draw. From their different locations and traditions all are called in Christ to share in the unity of the family of God's children. It is Christ who enables the two peoples to become “one”. Those who were “far off” have come “near”, thanks to the newness brought by the Paschal Mystery. Jesus destroys the walls of division and creates unity in a new and unsurpassed way through our sharing in his mystery. This unity is so deep that the Church can say with Saint Paul: “You are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are saints and members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19).

.

This simple statement contains a great truth: faith's encounter with different cultures has created something new. When they are deeply rooted in experience, cultures show forth the human being's characteristic openness to the universal and the transcendent. Therefore they offer different paths to the truth, which assuredly serve men and women well in revealing values which can make their life ever more human.  Insofar as cultures appeal to the values of older traditions, they point—implicitly but authentically—to the manifestation of God in nature, as we saw earlier in considering the Wisdom literature and the teaching of Saint Paul.

.

Inseparable as they are from people and their history, cultures share the dynamics which the human experience of life reveals. They change and advance because people meet in new ways and share with each other their ways of life. Cultures are fed by the communication of values, and they survive and flourish insofar as they remain open to assimilating new experiences. How are we to explain these dynamics? All people are part of a culture, depend upon it and shape it. Human beings are both child and parent of the culture in which they are immersed. To everything they do, they bring something which sets them apart from the rest of creation: their unfailing openness to mystery and their boundless desire for knowledge. Lying deep in every culture, there appears this impulse towards a fulfillment. We may say, then, that culture itself has an intrinsic capacity to receive divine Revelation.

.

Cultural context permeates the living of Christian faith, which contributes in turn little by little to shaping that context. To every culture Christians bring the unchanging truth of God, which he reveals in the history and culture of a people. Time and again, therefore, in the course of the centuries we have seen repeated the event witnessed by the pilgrims in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Hearing the Apostles, they asked one another: “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God” (Acts 2:7-11). While it demands of all who hear it the adherence of faith, the proclamation of the Gospel in different cultures allows people to preserve their own cultural identity. This in no way creates division, because the community of the baptized is marked by a universality which can embrace every culture and help to foster whatever is implicit in them to the point where it will be fully explicit in the light of truth.

.

This means that no one culture can ever become the criterion of judgment, much less the ultimate criterion of truth with regard to God's Revelation. The Gospel is not opposed to any culture, as if in engaging a culture the Gospel would seek to strip it of its native riches and force it to adopt forms which are alien to it. On the contrary, the message which believers bring to the world and to cultures is a genuine liberation from all the disorders caused by sin and is, at the same time, a call to the fullness of truth. Cultures are not only undiminished by this encounter; rather, they are prompted to open themselves to the newness of the Gospel's truth and to be stirred by this truth to develop in new ways.”

.

Our national identity has been shaped by the very immigration of foreigners that so many now find objectionable.  We as Catholic Christians self identify as those “who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ,” as St. Paul writes.

.

We can not separate our identity as Christians from our identity as Americans.  It is not an either/or proposition, but both/and. Until we see the image of Christ in all others, and accept them as true brothers and sisters in the Lord, we will have limited access to salvation and limited entrance into the Kingdom of God .

The Honeymoon Continues

It's a curious thing!  As Bishop Farrell concludes meeting with all the priests in the Diocese of Dallas, everyone half smiles and half hold their breathe.  Talking with a member of the College of Consultors after their initial meeting with the Bishop, trying to pump him for details, all he would say was: "It's all good!  It's all good!" while grinning like the Cheshire Cat.  Now, without offending him, this priest is not always know for extreme optimism.

It appears the Bishop is as good as his word in taking it very slowly and trying to come to an understanding of our/his Diocese before trying to make any changes or advancing anything new or different.  He is following the sage wisdom recommended to all pastors being assigned to a new parish: Try to change nothing for six-months unless there is grave necessity.

It is nice to see the DMN apparent honeymoon with the new bishop.  There has been nothing but positive news for the past 90 days.  The great article on the new high school, John Paul II, was something  money couldn't buy.  Many thank and some applause for the DMN!  Also many thanks to Bishop Farrell for making the effort to come to know his priests, break bread with them often and his open-door policy if we need to speak with him.  A Priest-friend tested that promise back at the end of May and got an appointment almost immediately.

Let us pray that this good beginning with mark an historic and positive turn for our poor diocese after so many lean and hungry years!