Mass: What it should be

About a week about Fr. George Rutler wrote an On the Square article for "First Things" about the idea of Liturgical Experts. It is a dense article that many better minds than I, have tackled and extracted the more salient points from it. One of those articles comes from Fr. Longenecker on his "Standing on my head" blog.

Fr. L really hits hard from the get go in his post. As a convert from the Anglican church, Fr. L understands and sees the deepness of meaning in the Mass. To him, every word, action, and vestment has a special meaning; this should also be the case for any priest. For these reasons innovation in the Mass is something that is not only perplexing for Fr. L but strikes against the meaning and purpose of the Mass. (My emphasis in red)

The deep down stuff is what we actually believe the liturgy is for, and that goes back to what we believe the church is for, and that goes back to what we believe about Jesus Christ's work on earth and that goes back to what we believe about God. Like the Methodist who said when he learned that the ashes for Ash Wednesday are from the burnt palm crosses from the year before, "Gee, all this Catholic stuff is connected!"


If we make the liturgy all about us gathering together to have fellowship and then go out to change the world then we have not only changed the liturgy, we have changed the gospel. The core of the gospel is not some sort of protest movement or lobby for political change. The core of the gospel is about the reconciliation between God and his alienated children. Its about the forgiveness of sin. It's the old, old story of mankind cut off from God restored through the salvific death of his Son the God Incarnate. The Mass celebrates and re-animates that once for all sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and it is through this transaction that our hearts open first in repentance and then in faith and love to receive the life of Christ.

Have you heard this recently? Have you ever heard this? Let me tell you it isn't just his opinion. If you read Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul, John XXIII, Pius X, XI, XII, etc... they will say the same thing. The Mass is not  supposed to be (only) a teaching lesson about how we are supposed to act for the week. We are not protestant, although the modern Catholic Church tries to be for some reason, where we have a weekly theme at Mass and we are supposed to learn it and then live it... for the week. It is taking the core of the Gospel and celebrating it in a way that creates some small sliver of heaven here on earth.

A few weeks ago I posted how upset I was that more wasn't said about a ballot initiative here in Alaska. That wasn't because I buy into this idea of what some have turned the Mass into. I was not arguing that the priests around here should simply exchange one protest or lobby movement for mine. I was instead upset that what was being done at Mass was exactly that. Instead of talking about ideas central to the Faith (e.g. the sanctity of life), instead Mass, or as it is called around here Liturgy, has turned into this social justice movement cloaked in the rough form of the Mass. You see this in many parishes, the entire Mass has turned into some production about... well the people. How can I say that? Easy... next time you are at a Mass, that seems innovative ask: "Why are they doing that?" If the answer is to appeal to the congregation or to entertain, then it is wrongly conceived. Sure, you can couch things in: "We are doing this to glorify God." But, you should be able to see why things actually are occurring.

Why do we need this innovation? Hasn't 2000 years of tradition and divine revelation been enough to determine what should and shouldn't occur at Mass? Hasn't that 2000 years given us a good idea of what the Mass should be? Why then do we get some of the Masses that we do? Fr. L answers that:

The real reason so many modern liturgists turned the whole thing into a sort of hippy like protest movement is that very quietly, and usually without even being aware of it, they stopped believing the old, old story. The Virgin Birth became in their minds a charming Christmas tradition. The incarnation became a metaphor and the atoning work of Christ on the cross was dismissed as a barbaric, archaic and inaccessible part of the Christian tradition. The possibility of miracles was forgotten and the reality of sin ignored.


When all that was dropped what was left? Not much more than a milksop religion of smiling at one another and doing good works followed by sadly self righteous and earnest people who were blind to where their apostasy had taken them, and sincerely believed that they had created a new Christianity when all they had done was resurrect a bundle of old heresies.


Well, bless them. Their felt banners are frayed, their polyester vestments are faded, and all they have left are the rainbow banners of homosexual activism and the bland bleating of tired feminists whose rage, like their lava lamps, has almost burned out.

Again, this isn't one priests opinion. You can track his understanding back to what the Pope teaches about the Mass. The Pope's understanding comes from past Popes and theologians. There is continuity. What we see today stems from the 1960's and '70's when the Mass was hi-jacked by those looking to satisfy their need for religion and reconcile that with their socio-political motives. Hopefully Fr. L is right... and that has almost burned out.

Failure to Communicate

The other day I posted about the disappointment I had in the way my parish handled the Proposition 2 issue. I was disappointed, because where I attended Mass in Michigan, whenever a ballot initiative came up that a priest could and should discuss "from the pulpit" they took that opportunity. Yet here in Alaska, I saw nothing that came close to active support.

Leading up to the election I made sure that I did what I could in terms of supporting the proposal. I posted about it on my blog, linked to the Catholic Anchor, linked to the APR website, and I even wrote to my parish urging them to support the measure publicly in various ways that were available. I received in return a we are looking into it response. What we got was a brief mention during announcements that a letter from the Archbishop had been printed and was placed near the bulletin. (Not in the bulletin, not stuffed in the bulletin, not even NEXT to the bulletin... but near it. Not to mention it was a word document copy and not on official letterhead.) This... non-action disappointed me. But I offered it up, did what I thought was proper in terms of my own response, and let it go. Prop 2 passed, and I was happy.

Until I read the Catholic Anchor's post from the Archbishop. It stung me like lemon juice on a cut. When I read the post, I wasn't upset by what was said, no, I was upset by what didn't happen. Here is the part that got me (emphasis mine):

So for a year leading up to today’s vote, the Catholic bishops of Alaska – Archbishop Schwietz, Bishop Edward Burns of Juneau and Bishop Donald Kettler of Fairbanks – rallied Alaska’s Catholics to support the parental notice initiative.

From Anchorage, Archbishop Schwietz sent letters to the diocese’s 32 parishes and published statements in the Catholic Anchor encouraging his flock to sign a statewide petition required for the ballot proposition, collect other signatures and otherwise “actively support” the parental notice initiative.

He prompted priests to address the issue from the pulpit and post notices in parish bulletins. Parishioners were urged to collect petition signatures on church property and in their neighborhoods.

...

“The support of the Catholic Church played a crucial role in our success,” Minnery observed.

Once the state certified the petition, a ballot question was prepared for the August primary election. And the Knights of Columbus sprang into action. Councils from around the state, along with the national Catholic men’s group, raised over $80,000 for radio and television advertisements in support of Proposition 2. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood – the nation’s largest purveyor of abortion – and other abortion supporters poured over $800,000 into opposition ads, setting up a David-versus-Goliath media battle.

As the August vote drew near, notices supporting Proposition 2 appeared in Catholic Church bulletins and prayers were offered at Mass.

Sherry Grenier of the Respect Life group at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church in South Anchorage distributed yard signs and bumper stickers. And on busy intersections, Catholic families including St. Benedict parishioners Megan Walsted and her children joined throngs of supporters waving “Yes on 2” signs to rush hour drivers.

On election day, Alaska’s Knights of Columbus offered rides to the polls. In Anchorage, the group provided 23 rides to voters who lacked transportation, reported District Deputy Cal Williams.

...

What did our parish not understand? We didn't hear it from the pulpit. I even emailed them and asked for it. In fact... you want to know the real sting, Ms. Lisa Murkowski attended Mass at our parish the Sunday before election day. What a chance to publicly speak out against the vile of abortion, with the captive audience of a Catholic Senator who has a less than stellar Pro-Life record. Instead... we heard a homily about community...and respect...and differences.

We didn't have it in our bulletin either. I emailed the links for the bulletin inserts. I offered my time, talent, and treasure to help stuff the bulletins or do whatever it took. Instead... we got a letter near the bulletins.

Now I have never said where I am a parishioner, and I will continue to keep that off the interwebs. That being said, this pushes me ever close to revealing that. My purpose and goal has never to bring scandal or spotlight upon my neighbors, friends, and faith family.

That being said... we failed here. Sure some of us went to vote, and I pray that others voted Yes on two. But as a parish? We failed. We ignored our Bishop, in fact, we defied our Bishop. He said in his post:

It is a core issue for Catholics, who believe the relationship between parent and child is sacred – and not one to be broken by others, including abortion practitioners.

We weren't part of the success. We were too afraid. To afraid to stand up and say anything, too afraid to support the teachings of the faith, and too afraid to stand up to our church leadership and demand they fulfill their obligation to authority.

We failed to proclaim the Gospel to one another. I say we, because we are a parish community. We are only as strong as our weakest link. We win as a team, and lose as a team. As individuals, we might be OK... but that shouldn't be good enough for anyone. If we truly believe in what the Eucharist is... then we failed. For it is supposed to unify and create the communion with one another that only it can bring. Therefore, we failed. We did not communicate the message of our God to one another, and therefore failed in communicating it to the world.

I know people from my parish know who I am. I don't hide who I am on my blog, I also don't advertise. Our parish business is our own. But if we are unwilling to stand for this most basic teaching of the faith... we will fall for anything, and should that be kept quiet? Our parish, and others like it, must do a better job of teaching the faith. We aren't the only ones. In many parishes in the area Catechesis is laughable, ministries are wacky and questionable, an inconsistent (or worse sometimes: heterdoxical and even heretical) message is conveyed about the teachings of the faith, and the liturgical life is about as inspiring and sacred as an Alaskan grey sky. It is harder and harder to refrain from saying these things. I do want to be charitable, but at some point silence becomes an enabling effect. How come Anchorage parishes have Respect for Life groups? The answer is not because they asked for it. We ask for things. I know of at least 4 people that have offered themselves carte blanche to various parishes to no avail. We must become an authentic Catholic community.

The sick and twisted irony of this situation is that in a mere month or so we are going to celebrate "Respect for Life" month. Will we hear this message then? Will we have people stand up and have dinners, breakfasts, and get into Diocesan papers showing how Pro-Life we are? Every last parishioner at our parish, and at any parish that doesn't consistently hear a Pro-Life anti-abortion message, should demand to know why not. This can not be an issue that is used for clout, fame, or religious-political popularity.

We have abortion clinics in our surrounding towns, but no parish Pro-Life/Anti-abortion ministries... why not? We have prisons and therefore prison ministries... why isn't the same true for life issues? For those that say: "You don't need the parish." You are right... buy my point is why not?

We have failed to communicate to one another the importance of this issue. So instead we communicate another message. We tell each other that innocent life doesn't matter. We communicate that Social Justice is free trade coffee and taking kids on mission trips. (Don't get me wrong, valid, necessary, and important things... but not sufficient.) We communicate that Social Justice works are about something else... We have failed to communicate though, the Gospel. So we have failed in our Catholic duty. I cannot stand for this...and neither should you. This is one issue... but there will be others. Issues like this are toxic to the faith, they mock God and they rot the core of our parish. Once the core is gone... what fruit can survive? Do not let the silence prevail.

**N.B.:
I was informed of a post by Msgr. Charles Pope. It addresses the issue of preaching and priests. It is a very informative and insightful piece. It quotes Pope St. Gregory the Great and his instruction on preaching. You can read it here: (Link)

Catechesis on the New Missal Translation

[change is coming]

As of today there are 458 days until the implementation of the new translation of the Roman Missal. The first day of its official use will be November 27, 2011. Although that may seem like a lot, it really isn't, and something tells me that a lot of parishes are going to go about this process in a painful and harmful way for many faithful.

It isn't that I have a defeatists attitude, instead it is a recognition and observance of how this change has been handled up to this point, and we haven't even had anything tangible to sink our teeth into. Since the approval and implementation date have been finalized, the USCCB has started rolling out the game plan for how the change will occur. From their website:

5. What should be taking place with our catechetical efforts?
Dioceses should have a projected plan of what they intend to do to encourage preparation for implementation of the new translation in their dioceses. Parishes should, if they have not already done so, offer a basic catechesis about the text, especially about the changes in the people’s responses. The Newsletter of the Committee on Divine Worship has already highlighted various catechetical resources which will be valuable tools for the formation process. In September, 2010, the USCCB will offer the Parish Guide to Implementing the Roman Missal. This resource will offer a roadmap to implementing the new translation in the parish. Both the International Commission on English in the Liturgy and USCCB will offer a multi-media DVD resource entitled Become One Body, One Spirit in Christ, an excellent catechetical resource for examining the new translation in the broader context of the history and theology of liturgy. With the final text now available, other publishers will provide catechetical materials which, among other things, will begin to look at the historical and theological aspects of the text.

I know in the local parishes in my area, their has been a discussion about this topic a while back before anything was finalized, and nothing that I would call basic catechesis. What was most troubling was the way in which the priests tried to relate to the faithful by explaining how "hard and difficult change is" and that if "we all band together we can get through this." Not really glowing endorsements of the Missal if you ask me.

[the resistance...why?]

The goal of the new translation is to deepen the meaning of the Mass, not in way that changes the Mass but in a way that ties our prayer to the sacrifice and worship at Mass. The USCCB explains it this way:

The long-term goal of the new translation is to foster a deeper awareness and appreciation of the mysteries being celebrated in the Liturgy. The axiom lex orandi, lex credendi—“what we pray is what we believe”—suggests that there is a direct relationship between the content of our prayers and the substance of our faith. It is hoped that writers will start to provide materials reflecting on the rich content of the text. These contributions might encourage priests to use the content of the prayers as a basis for their homilies or to supplement their homilies on Sundays. Those giving retreats or days of recollection can use the new texts of the missal as a resource for their presentations. All can make use of the texts for deepening their prayer life.

So why the resistance? Well, because this is a sign of the "reform of the reform." Sure, people aren't good at change, and they resist it, that is understandable. In this situation though, the resistance to change is a smoke-screen as to the real resistance: reform. There are Bishops and Priests out there that will explain that the Missal Translation is cumbersome, sloppy, hard, etc... They will use intellectual sounding arguments in an effort to convince you that this is a plot but radical traditionalists to take us one step closer to using Latin. They will talk about how this was a hurried version, and it isn't very accessible or easy to digest.

How do I know what they are going to say? I don't. But I know the philosophy behind those that have already spoken out to oppose it, and it is easy to predict their arguments based on their philosophy. On top of that, they can't come right out and say what they really think, which is that this flies in the face of their philosophical base. Those that view the changes since Vatican II as a progressive change and a disruption to the continuity of the faith will be against this. Even if they don't say it as such, there are those that truly believe that Vatican II somehow mandated a lock-stock-and-barrel change to the faith; it was to be accomplished through changes in the Mass, prayers, and various substantive measures in our liturgical actions.

[What we many of us will see...]

Some of may get a true Catechesis on the changes. The rest of us may suffer. Many who resist the changes see this, although they won't admit it, as an indictment of the bastardization of the way the Mass has been celebrated over the last few decades. In some respects I would say that is exactly what it is, and rightfully so. For other places, that were more obedient to the Missal and the Church, these changes will be a refinement and a measure that will deepen the prayer and liturgical life of the Church.

For those of us that miss out on any substantive Catechesis on this matter, it is upon you to learn the changes... and to learn WHY they are occurring. At some point every parish will have to implement some sort of instruction on the new translation. The question will be to what extent. When the translation is brought up the complaints will start to fly. It is our job as defenders of the faith to address those complaints. We must be our brother's keeper we must practice Spiritual Works of Mercy.

The only way we can do this though, is if we truly understand what the changes are and why they have changed. If a priest complains, ask him individually why he is reluctant to change and whether his attitude towards the change will do anything more than confuse the faithful. Sure, they might like him more because he feels just like them but the role of a priest is much like that of a parent. He is not there to be our friend first and priest second, he is there to be our priest first and in doing so should become our friend.

So study. Prepare yourself. Pray. Read what you can about the changes, understand their purpose and meaning, and be ready to defend the changes. We may not agree with all of them in terms of how they feel... but this isn't about feelings. This is about the essence of our Mass.

lex orandi, lex credendi

~

“what we pray, is what we believe”

Resources:

USCCB Missal Translation Website - (Link)

Guides for Mass - (Link)

Changes to Major Responses - (Link)

Parish Guide for the New Missal Implementation [*Coming Soon*] - (Link)

Articles Explaining the Need and Importance of the New Translation - (Link)

A Reflection on the Vision of the Missal Translation - (Link)

Yoga: OK or NOT Ok?

It is Tuesday, so why not start a nice little debate.

Breathe...

I have always been mildly opposed to YOGA for several reasons. They aren't well researched reasons, they are those gut instincts one gets. So I wouldn't call my objection to YOGA well researched. Now before you chop my head off, let me start with two things:

1. It is natural for people that like something, to be defensive of it. So if you practice or use YOGA, you will most likely have stopped reading this and are already constructing ideas in your head about how to counter my yet unmade arguments. Breathe. Relax. Free your mind. Center yourself. Disconnect from all your tension. (Irony stings doesn't it?)

2. I know a lot of faithful Catholics that use some form of Yoga. They use it as an exercise tool, and I am sure they have some justification in their head as to why it is ok. In fact, for a long time my wife used it as an exercise tool. We talked about it, and I expressed my opinion. She explained that she didn't give into all that new-agey stuff and would often pray while doing it. I bought the pitch and agreed that was a perfectly acceptable way of having the best of both worlds. I still wonder if you sacrifice your ability on both ends when you do this, meaning your Yoga suffers because you are concentrating on the prayer and your prayer suffers because you are concentrating on your Yoga. In other words, your prayer is half-hearted and your exercise is lackluster. What then is the point?

Shouldn't or Can't?

I haven't thought much about this lately, until reading a blog post that I found at Where Angels Blog. The blog post was simply a link to Metanoia and their post about why Catholics shouldn't do Yoga, period. Now I think that in their post there are a lot of assumptions. I will grant that. I also will grant that they are talking about a strict practice or adherence to Yoga as it is taught in the fullness of its technique. Therefore, I still am open to the idea that you could have the physical exercise actions as an exercise tool, and find a way to reconcile that with Catholic teaching. I have not found a way to do so, but I am open to it.

The problem that plagues me though is the idea that you can't fully succeed with either prayer or yoga if you use them together. This was reiterated to me when I read the following in the Metanoia post:

What we think is exercise is actually Asana, the third limb of yoga that is supposed to purify the body to be a proper vessel for the soul, to help the yogi gain mastery over the body for the sake of deep, sustained inhales and exhales, which we now know are prayers to the self as God. Here in the West, because we think Asana is exercise we skip over the first two limbs, which promote indifference toward the world and others. Indifference would certainly help quiet the mind loaded with worries and cares, but it should set off serious alarms in any properly formed Catholic. Isn't Christ's great commandment to love one another? Also, the deep breathing of Asana poses allows the yogi to achieve such a deeply relaxed physical state. Recall that the purpose of yoga is to escape pain and sorrow. I believe that the intense relaxation is the primary reason why so many people find themselves seeking out a more disciplined yoga practice, as I did. The racing mind disturbs relaxation, and if determined, the yogi will break his or her mind, move on through the remaining limbs, deepen the rift between the body and soul, and turn the mind in on itself.

The Response...

Now I know a couple of my readers that use Yoga as an exercise technique. In fact, I doubt they even utilize any of the philosophy behind Yoga in terms of breathing, centering, Asana, etc... Or maybe they do? So I am hoping that I get some responses. (I expect as much, especially in light of my two points above.)

I am by no means trying to argue that Yoga is some new-age trick of the devil. (Or am I?) I am just posing the question: Can we reconcile its use if we are Catholics if its true mastery comes at the expense of Catholic teaching?

I am still trying to open my mind to all of this, but I would like to hear what others think? I think that if we could figure out a way to use it as EXERCISE only, in terms of the poses... that would be OK, but can we separate the physical from the breathing, centering, etc...? If we use it for meditation, contemplation, stress, etc... isn't that what prayer is for?

A final thought...

The ascetic saints took the opposite approach didn't they? Wasn't they approach to God and centering all about pain and suffering? Wasn't the idea that suffering was Christ-like, a path to perfection? In Yoga, the yogi attains a level of success when centering, breathing, and disconnectedness from pain and suffering occur. The Mind, Body and Soul become distinct entities, pain and tension essentially float away. When a Catholic attains a level of some sort of spiritual achievement they receive things like the agony & ecstasy or the Stigmata. Should be spend our time on things that might move us away from our goal?

Confusing the Truth

What should we as Catholics do if we hear something in a Homily or from a priest that doesn't sound right? I don't mean opinion, I mean, when he says something that makes our insides twist all up because although we are no St. Thomas Aquinas, we know that what he just said, "can't be right."

Do we approach the priest after Mass and ask for clarification? Do we send him a letter or e-mail asking him to explain what he meant, because we didn't get it? What do we do to support our position that it was an incorrect teaching?

~~~

Terry, at Abbey Roads points to a related situation, where a Bishop has rebuked a priest for speaking out strongly against abortion and homosexual marriage. Terry argues that the danger isn't in what the priest said versus what the Bishop said, but how the Bishop construed what the priest was doing.

So the bishop is telling the faithful this priest is teaching his personal opinion? What can be more divisive or confusing than that? Something is off here.

So then are we to assume that priests are simply giving us their opinion of the Catholic Church's teaching on issues of the faith? I don't think so. I wouldn't take what this Bishop said as to be the way we should view what a priest says. In fact, I would say the opposite is true, and this isn't my opinion it is that of Cardinal Marc Ouellet:

“We need intellectuals for that, theologians, philosophers, Christians who really believe in the Gospel and share the doctrine of the Church on moral questions,” he said. “We have suffered from this mentality of dissent” that is “still dominating the intelligentsia.” (Link s/t: Terry)

So if there is dissent, and the Cardinal sees it, shouldn't we? He is the Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops. He is essentially the Guardian of the Guardians. What he says is rather telling.

~~~

So then back to our question... what do we do? Do we write our Bishop if we continually hear obtuse teaching? Do we talk about it with our friends at the parish? We don't want rumors and scandal? This is a hard question, and it is hard because the situation should exist. We should have priests that adhere to the teachings of the faith and don't interject ideas that are clearly contrary, or worse yet, confusing.

Now I am not talking about a minor thing here, or a slip of the tongue there. I am talking big things. For instance we heard in a homily yesterday that we as the faithful, should not have heaven as our goal. Our goal is to live in the Kingdom of God. (In an earthly sense.)

Oh, really? In that case, I am gonna skip out on Mass, go watch some baseball, and buy me a GPS to find this Kingdom of Heaven. I hope they have a good burger place there.

~~~

Our best line of defense is our own faith. WE MUST KNOW THE FAITH. A friend who reads my blog explained how in these situations even the simplest of Catholic minds can sense that such teachings are false. But I worry that he is wrong. I worry that the confusion that priests can inflict with dissident and heterodoxy can usurp the logic that defines most peoples thinking. Not because they are weak in an intellectual sense, but because weak formation creates fertile soil for further false teaching.

After a while heterodoxy grows like a weed. It takes all the good that once existed and creates something that is life sucking and useless. So such teachings will grow into something, and it can be falsely defined as Catholic teaching, but it won't be the truth.

That is why we must learn our faith. We must know it. We must guard our hearts and minds from false teachings. Some are intentional yes, I truly believe that. But most are mistakes. Most come from good and honest men, who for a multitude of reasons profess something that is inconsistent with Catholic teaching. We must be ready for such things, the devil wants to sink his teeth into us in whatever way he can... sometimes he comes in sheep's clothing.

We must defend ourselves, our families, our friends... and Our Church. We must know our faith, so that we can defend our faith.

Shameful

The Catholic Anchor has mentioned Proposal 2 at least ten times in the past 3 weeks.

The church I went to today?

It made a brief announcement today during the "Liturgy of the Bulletin".
All they mentioned was that there was a printout of the Archbishop's letter of a suggestion that we should vote "Yes on 2."

It wasn't inserted. It didn't have a title. It simply was placed near the bulletin.

Shameful.

The homily didn't even come close to mentioning it, instead it was full of heterodoxy pertaining to tolerance, heaven, and salvation.

At least the Anchor is sticking up for Catholic teaching, kudos to them.

Un-Catholic: Who decides? or "The Illegalization of the Faith"

Religious Persecution

The idea of religious persecution seems like a stretch for most of us "Born and Bred" Americans. It is a far distant historical feature that somehow caused our relatives to come over to this country a long time ago. Beyond that, we don't really think much of it. I on the other hand am a little bit more convinced that our societal downward spiral is around the corner and we will face physical persecution for our faith in our lifetime.

So when I read two recent posts over at Creative Minority Report, I started thinking about how this is all going to come about. You see, it won't come in the form of some instant edict. You have to coax a culture into denying itself, otherwise you have revolution, and that would defeat the purpose. The purpose is to eliminate faith, more precisely to eliminate Christianity, especially Catholicism. I know this will get many of you to stop reading, but give me a chance here, you see, Catholicism if true (which we believe to be the case) flies directly in the face of the lifestyle that most who are in "power" in this country, have. That being the case, a dichotomy is set up between the believers and the un-believers. To them freedom is the ability to do whatever, whenever. So they see moral constraints as an affront to their freedom and way of life. Therefore, just as an enemy, we must be eliminated or suppressed. Suppression works when easily contained, but there is always the fear of "escape." Hence, elimination is more stable.

The Erasure

Stripping the world of the faithful is impossible. Let us focus on this country. If the government instantly outlawed Christianity over-night, chaos would erupt. So it has to be a slow fade, a systematic and calculated erasure of Christianity from public life. Thereby, it would turn religion into something private which could then eventually be regulated, and eventually outlawed. Think about it, how did contraception become legal? It became a personalized right, and then it became public welfare, and now healthcare. To legalize something, you take a private practice and make it a "privacy" issue, and eventually make it into a publicly acceptable practice. Homosexuality turned into same-sex marriage, recreational drug use turned into health-care covered prescription marijuana, and in-utero murder turned into the "5 day-we-don't-know-when-life-begins" pill. So to do the opposite, to erase something... we have to take it from the public sphere, and make it private.

A sign of things to come will be the removal and literal erasure of Christianity from public life. Think of all the symbols in our nation's capital that are Christian based. There are inscriptions, carvings, symbols, and the like on almost everything built prior to 1960, and even some more recent things. Now, lets imagine if they wanted to "carve out" some of the religious words on the Washington Monument, would we be upset? Would we see it as an affront to both our country and our faith? Or would we just say: "It really isn't a big deal." Isn't it?

Using the double-standard

Over at Creative Minority Report, what I read that got me thinking about all of this is that some liberals have started calling certain actions "Un-American." (Specifically criticism of a plug-in-hybrid car. Ironically, the person who said that such criticism is un-American was born a Canadian citizen: Jennifer Granholm.) What Matthew Archbold points out about this situation is that just a short while ago, liberals would lambaste anyone on the conservative end of the political spectrum that used the phrase un-American. But, for their own agenda, the phrase is completely acceptable. I am sure they have some equivocation or justification for its use.

So I wonder if one day, we as Christians will have our own principles used against us. Will Charity, Hope, Compassion, and Love be used against us? Will marriage and life laws be crafted in a way that utilizes the core beliefs of the faith to make a point? I would argue that it is already happening to some degree. We have religious suppression in the name of religious freedom. We have same-sex marriage laws crafted in the words of love, life, family, and commitment.

So when the illegalitzation of the faith occurs, it won't come beating down the door, no, it will come like a thief in the night. It will slowly make private our beliefs. It will remove religious principles in the name of religion out of the public square and into our homes. Then the ostracizing will occur. From there, the faith will become anti-social, and then eventually illegal. The precepts of the faith will be ignored by society, and the social function and purpose will be the only thing evaluated. They will be shown to have no positive purpose and therefore they will be outlawed.

Ground Zero (left); Proposed Mosque Location - "Obama Supported" (red rectangle)

Alaska Proposal 2: Pure Social Justice

Non-Alaskan readers, this post is for you as well, so don't be scared off by the title. I use it simply as a means with which to illustrate my point.

What does it mean?

Social Justice. What in the world does it mean? If you asked 5 people you would get 6 definitions. Sure they would all more than likely be correct, but you wouldn't really have a solid answer... you would have a bunch of, well, opinions.

The term has become a hot topic in most modern parishes. The modernist Catholic front has used it as a battle cry. They use it in a way that hearkens to the action of Jesus, and His purpose here on earth. (I don't want to dive into the theological implications of that statement, but I think it is fair to explain it in those terms.) They make it hard to argue with their programs and projects, and although my purpose is not to deconstruct their causes in a theological way, I do want to point out an inconsistency. The problem isn't really with what they are doing, but more with what they aren't.

The Silent Scream

How many of you readers know of things at your parish that are done under the umbrella of Social Justice? Prison Ministry, "Option for the Poor", Environmental Ministry, etc... we see them all the time. All of them are completely valid ministries that the Church should be participating in, but not at the expense of other ministries. What exactly do I mean? I mean the Pro-Life ministry. I mean Child Catechism ministry. I mean Teen, Young Adult, and Family Ministries. We cannot be good stewards of the One True Church to others, if we are not first good stewards of ourselves.

The Archdiocese of Anchorage for example, has a good webpage that discusses these ministries on their web page dedicated to Catholic Social Teaching. The modern trend is unfortunately not so inclined to include the Pro-life battle as a ministry under the umbrella of Social Justice. I can't put my finger on exactly why that is the case. I will concede that in some parishes the Pro-Life ministry is so large and so strong, that it does take on a life of its own. This should be seen as a positive thing. At the other end of the spectrum are parishes that don't have a large Pro-Life ministry and don't include it in their Social Justice ministry either. This is what is perplexing and heart-wrenching.

Pro-Life as Social Justice...

Why isn't the Pro-Life battle seen as the penultimate Social Justice cause? This isn't to say that it is the most important in some hierarchical (read: funding priority) sense, but in a philosophical sense. When we see our parish from afar, what do we want to see? What are the big sparkling gems to we want to project to the world? Again, this is not to say that the ministries which Catholic Parishes participate aren't worthy. They are. In fact, they are crucial to a broad and authentic parish evangelism. Yet, included in that vision must be an active and vibrant Pro-Life ministry.

When we think of Social Justice we think of doing the work of Jesus in societal areas where the most defenseless and vulnerable of people exist. Where is that more prevalent than in the unborn child & mother relationship? I would argue that the unborn child & mother relationship is the most sacred social issue of our times. Therefore, it should be the focus and philosophical battle cry of the Catholic Social Justice movement.

The Link

The idea of Pro-Life work being Social Justice Ministry might seem a little tenuous to some, but I assure there is a link. You see, when we as Catholics decide to undertake some action in the name of ministry, we are saying something about our faith. Our action is part of a two-fold call to holiness. Ora et Labora ~ Work and Pray. Why then would we not include in our Social Justice ministry that are which is so symbolic and central to the anti-Christian secular world? Why does the Social Justice "worker" not champion the Pro-Life cause? (NB: I do not mean to say that all who work in the aim of Social Justice ignore the Pro-Life movement. I know I am using a very broad brush. My point, and I think a fair one, is that many (most?) parish Social Justice ministries do not engulf the Pro-Life cause under their banner.)

So the link, what is it? Well, my argument is that it isn't (a link), but that it should be. Let me explain that awkward sentence. The Link that should exist between all Social Justice causes in the ministry of Social Justice should be the Pro-Life battle. Why? Well, because at a very simple, but not overstated, level - life is the genesis of all other necessity. Therefore, every cause that falls under the banner of Social Justice ultimately has a Pro-Life component to it. The philosophy upon which the principles and teachings of the Faith rest in regards to Pro-Life ideas is ultimately the same set of philosophical precepts which guide other Catholic Social Justice. Pro-Life philosophy is the Why behind all the other causes championed by the Church.

We must demand that the Social Justice movement not ignore the important heart of Catholic Social Teaching. As parishioners in the Catholic Church we must require of our spiritual leaders, both lay and clergy, their desire and commitment to the Pro-Life battle. For true Social Justice we must include those in our society that are given no voice, no choice, and no justice. We must be consistent and philosophically sound in our desire for peace and justice. We must stand for innocent life... we must protect the unborn. Otherwise... what do we really stand for? What are we really trying to protect?

Alaska Proposal 2

In Alaska we will exhibit our belief in our commitment to this idea of Social Justice. Proposal 2, which is a parental notification measure, will be decided upon on August 24th, 2010. This issue should ring through the sanctuaries and bulletins of every single Catholic Church in Alaska over the next 7 days. Every priest, deacon, and lay leader should have YES ON 2 on the tip of their tongue. Ballot initiatives like this one are at the forefront of the Social Justice movement and should be treated as such. Rarely can a collective group more readily affect worldly change than through the ballot box. Unfortunately, we rarely see Social Justice issues on ballots. They usually are relegated to the courts and the editorial columns.

Here though, Alaskan Catholic Parishes have an opportunity to make their commitment to Social Justice readily apparent. This is a golden opportunity for all those that champion the causes of the meek, vulnerable, and disadvantaged to shine as advocates and warriors of the Catholic Faith. We must pray that those in positions of leadership and authority will rise to the occasion and show the world their commitment to Life and the dignity and sanctity of the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

Meet Katharine J. Schori....

Jesus as a "Mechanism"...




On Biblical Marriage...




On Homosexuality and the Church...




s/t: GLACC

Letter to the Archbishop of Anchorage re: Episcopal Bishop "consecration" at Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church

I ask that anyone that reads my blog to please read this post, and seriously consider joining us in our effort. (For more info please see the other posts regarding this issue.)

After extensive prayer we have decided to write a letter to the Archdiocese of Anchorage, and the Archbishop, his Excellency Roger Schwietz, asking that the Episcopal "consecration" which is scheduled to take place on September 4th at Our Lady of Guadalupe in Anchorage, is moved from the Church and performed elsewhere.

In that effort we have drafted a letter, which we have decided to make public, to give our readers across the world the opportunity to add their names to it before we send it. We do this with humble and heavy hearts. We do not wish to send this letter, but we feel called as faithful Catholics to do so. The truth and Sacredness of our Catholic churches and the teachings of the Church must be protected from that which fight against it. Although Ecumenism can produce good fruits when implemented correctly, it is very, very apparent that in this case Ecumenism has slid into giving scandal.

Signing our names to a letter is not enough though. In fact, if all we did was send a letter, there is little hope that the hearts and minds of those involved would change. So I ask, that along with pledging your names to our letter, that you also pledge something to the spiritual bouquet that we plan to send along with the letter. So, we ask that if you would like us to place your name on the letter that you submit these things to: angelsdefendus@gmail.com

• Name
• Parish
• Diocese
• A prayer, fast, or almsgiving that you are donating "spiritually" for the Archbishop or for Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church.

We are hoping to send this letter off in the next few days, so please do not delay in sending me that email. It only takes a quick second. If you have any questions, regarding either the letter or the spiritual bouquet, please contact me.

A final note: This issue is not the "concern of a small group of Catholics." It actually spans across the country, and for that matter the world. The Archdiocese, the Archbishop, and the parish of Our Lady of Guadalupe has been pulled into this. We found out about this situation on Saturday, and after doing a quick search we come to find out that this issue has spread across the "Catholic Blogosphere and Forum" world. We must stand together as a faithful Catholic community of Christ to defend the truth of the Catholic faith.

[[Update (2:19pm): The Archbishop has posted a letter to the Archdiocesan website. He explains why he originally agreed to let the Episcopal church use Our Lady of Guadalupe, and why he still stands by that decision. This letter is obviously a response to the questions raised previously elsewhere and similar to those that we posted on this blog. We still intend to send this letter, and in fact feel it is even more appropriate in light of the confusing statements made in the Archbishop's letter.]]

[[UPDATE (2:33pm): We are a little confused, but the Archdiocese has taken down the Archbishop's letter originally posted on the front page of their website. You can still find that letter here. We are in patient and prayerful hope that there may have been a glorious change of hearts and minds, and so we wait in joyful anticipation to find out exactly why the link was taken down. More to come...]]

Please sign our letter (email: angelsdefendus@gmail.com), please contribute to the spiritual bouquet, and please continue to pray.

The Most Reverend Roger Schwietz, OMI
Archbishop of Anchorage
225 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska, 99501

Your Excellency Archbishop Schwietz:

We, the undersigned faithful, humbly and regretfully write to you regarding the planned use of Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church in Anchorage, by the Episcopal Church on September 4th, 2010. The planned consecration of a new Alaskan Episcopal bishop by Ms. Katharine J. Schori comes as a shock and gives grave scandal to all Catholic faithful that learn of it.

In the 1993 Vatican document: Pontificium Consilium Ad Christianorum Unitatem Fovendam, the application of principles and norms of Ecumenism were outlined for the Catholic faithful. In that document the Pope, through the writing of Edward Cardinal Cassidy, conveyed to the Catholic faithful the way we should bridge the divides of Christian disunity. He said the proper method is in truth. Precisely it was stated that:

“The Second Vatican Council clearly asked Catholics to reach out in love to all other Christians with a charity that desires and works actively to overcome in truth whatever divides them from one another.” Para. 9

Because of Ms. Schori’s well known and outspoken opposition to Church teachings, we the undersigned feel that allowing this consecration to occur in a Catholic church gives scandal to the faithful. The reason this extends beyond Ecumenism and into scandal is because the consecration will be performed by a woman bishop who teaches that female ordination is a positive development, that openly and active gay & lesbian priests are a positive component of the faith, and that individual salvation (the idea that we as individuals can be saved through a personal faith or trust in Jesus) is a “heresy.” Therefore, we the undersigned humbly ask that this event be prevented from occurring within a Catholic church.

We are quite ignorant in the ways of Ecumenism, and have not found a suitable answer as to how this is beneficial to the Catholic Church or its faithful. Therefore, we seek clarification as to our misunderstanding of the way in which the use of a Catholic Church for such an event, by the personalities involved, helps bolster, ultimately, Holy Mother Church. We ask this out of a sincere desire to better understand our Catholic Faith and our role as the Ecclesia Militans.

Our confusion stems from the fact that the Archdiocese has a very committed and strict adherence to the vetting policy that Your Excellency has put into place. Many of the undersigned have expressed situations where faithful Catholics have had difficulty leading, participating, and promoting events of a Catholic nature within the Archdiocese due to this policy, and yet see this Episcopal event planned and approved. Therefore they are confused in their understanding of the vetting policy.

We, the undersigned faithful humbly request that you answer certain questions so that we can better understand why this event has been given clearance in light of Canon Law, the Catechism, and the Archdiocese of Anchorage Vetting Policy. We ask these questions sincerely, and with humble hearts, in light of the teachings of the Catholic Church:

• Will the Eucharist be removed from the Tabernacle during this event?
• Will the Altar be used for any reason, or for Episcopal Communion?
• Will Consecrated vessels which belong to the Archdiocese, Parish, or Catholic Priests be used in any of the ceremonies?
• Who from the Archdiocese will oversee this event to ensure that no desecration to any Sacred elements occur?
• Is there any prohibition or set of guidelines imposed upon those Episcopal leaders who will be officiating in terms of what they can physically do, their use of the Sacred Sanctuary, their use of any items, or specifically what they can say in terms of theological teaching?
• Is this event open to the public or can a representative of our choosing be selected to witness this event for the sake of understanding, Catechesis, and Ecumenism?
• Since this will be a non-Catholic ceremony, with non-Catholics in charge, is there a contingency plan as to what will happen should the ceremony, or those leading it, undertake actions or words that are contrary to the teachings and Sacredness of the Faith or the Church?

Finally, we humbly ask that this event not occur at Our Lady of Guadalupe. It is sadly ironic that it is slated to be officiated by a woman bishop who is clearly in defiance of the Magisterium and the teachings of the Church, in a church dedicated to Our Lady who was so accepting of the will of God. The striking contrast between Our Lady of Guadalupe and Ms. Schori are difficult for many to accept. Therefore, for the sake of preventing Scandal; out of reverence for the sacredness of the Church, Altar, and Sanctuary; the fact that those participating are directly opposed to the teachings of the Catholic faith; and that there are many outstanding questions which the faithful fear don’t have answers, we humbly request that Your Excellency think of his Catholic faithful first and move this event from the Church of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

We present this letter to you with humble hearts. We have no desire to appoint blame or indict anyone in this situation. We honestly and sincerely desire only to preserve the honor and glory deserved of Holy Mother Church, Jesus Christ truly present in the Eucharist, and the faith and humility of the undersigned.

We ask that a written response be presented to us as soon as Your Excellency can produce it, and we will continue to pray for you, all the priests, and the whole Church. We do not envy your role as shepherd of us most unworthy flock of sinners, and humble ourselves before God as we send this brazen letter. As a sign of our faith, we have also included a spiritual bouquet from those who sign this letter for your Excellency, and for the parish of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
We ask all of this through Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, to Jesus.

Respectfully,

cc:
Prefect Archbishop William Joseph Levada
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine Faith
Piazza del S. Uffizio 11-00193
Rome, VATICAN CITY

Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
Piazza Pio XII 10-00193
Rome, VATICAN CITY

Reverend Steve C. Moore
Vicar General
Archdiocese of Anchorage

Reverend Thomas T. Brundage
Moderator of the Curia & Judicial Vicar
Archdiocese of Anchorage

Ecumenism, Sharing, and the Episcopal Bishop "consecration" in Anchorage

This post is written in light of the situation discussed in the previous post. It is in regards to the scheduled Episcopal consecration of a new bishop at Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church in Anchorage. The presiding Bishop is slated as Katharine Schori.

Ecumenism is sometimes a double-edged sword, or more precisely a catch-22. While we as Catholics are called to seek Christian Unity through inter-faith dialogue and understanding, we often find ourselves in situations that require us to either compromise our belief in the teachings of the faith, or to argue against true Christian unity to support the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Faith.

The Vatican wrote about this in 1993 in a document entitled:

PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM

The point of this document, which in english is entitled DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM, is outlined in Section I, paragraph 9:

The ecumenical movement seeks to be a response to the gift of God's grace which calls all Christians to faith in the mystery of the Church according to the design of God who wishes to bring humanity to salvation and unity in Christ through the Holy Spirit. This movement calls them to the hope that the prayer of Jesus "that they all may be one" will be fully realized. It calls them to that charity which is the new commandment of Christ and the gift by which the Holy Spirit unites all believers. The Second Vatican Council clearly asked Catholics to reach out in love to all other Christians with a charity that desires and works actively to overcome in truth whatever divides them from one another. For the Council, Catholics are to act in hope and in prayer to promote Christian unity. They will be prompted and instructed by their faith in the mystery of the Church, and their ecumenical activity will be inspired and guided by a true understanding of the Church as "a sacrament or instrumental sign of intimate union with God, and of unity of the whole human race".

Many Catholics that have learned of the scheduled consecration are taken aback by it. There is a confusion and scandal that has arisen due to several unanswered questions. Not the least of them, relates to the bolded emphasis I made in the above quote.

How does this event, desire and work actively to overcome in truth what divides the Episcopals from us?

What divides us from the Episcopals that are lead by the likes of Ms. Schori is a deep chasm of flawed episcopal theology and belief. Women are not to be ordained as priests let alone bishops. Her status as a priest and even more so as a bishop is invalid, and therefore allowing her access to a Sacred and consecrated place such as a church does not seem to overcome in truth that which divides us. The Vatican document on Ecumenism goes further to explain when such "sharing of resources" should occur in paragraph #137:

137. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.

The fact that the Catholic church is consecrated or blessed, is an important factor to pay attention to here. Not only that, but the Episcopal church does have a place to hold this, we assume that the reason for coming to Our Lady of Guadalupe is for space/attendance reasons. This is hardly a valid or adequate argument for allowing such an event to occur, especially in light of who would be conducting the ceremony. This event is bringing scandal to the faithful and the Church. If you do a google search you will see several forums and blogs that are discussing this with many of the conversations falling into angry concern over the fact that this event has seemingly been approved by someone within the Church. Our prayers are that a change of hearts and minds will occur, and that the appropriate decision to prevent this event from occurring in a Catholic church will be made.

In an effort to express our concerns we are currently working on a letter that we hope will be available for all to sign. Look for that sometime later today. If you would like to "sign" it, I request that you email me with your name, parish, and diocese. It is important that we make our request in a concentrated fashion, and in a respectful way.

Defense of The TRUE Church or Why an Episcopal Bishop "consecration" shouldn't occur at a Catholic Church

.
This information was sent to me and several others:

Katharine J. Schori

Consecration of the 8th [Episcopal] Bishop of Alaska will take place Saturday, September 4, 2010, 2 p.m., at Our Lady of Guadalupe, 3900 Wisconsin Street, Anchorage, Alaska.
...
Following the Consecration ceremony, a reception will be held at the Lunney Center, next door to the church. This is an opportunity for all to meet and greet both the new Bishop Mark Lattime and the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. (Source)

····•····

...the consecration and ordination is scheduled for September 4 at Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church in Anchorage. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will be the chief consecrator. (Source)

The following are pertinent parts of the Archdiocesan Vetting Policy:

This is a "Clarification Memo" (Source)

This is the page that is linked under Vetting, on the main page of the Archdiocese of Anchorage's website. If you notice the 3rd bullet-point on this memo it says (Original Emphasis) (My Emphasis in red):

This policy is applicable to anyone sponsored by or using any Archdiocesan or Parish resources.

Seems like a pretty clear statement and policy. So why then is Our Lady of Guadalupe being rented/loaned/used by a Christian Denomination whose principal leader speaks contrary to the teachings of the Church? Here are some quotes by the woman that will be "consecrating" a new bishop at Our Lady of Guadalupe:

Anglicans should be led by local communities rather than powerful clerics, Jefferts Schori argued in a Wednesday (June 2) letter to her church’s 2 million members. And, after 50 years of debate, the Episcopal Church is convinced that gays and lesbians are “God’s good creation” and “good and healthy exemplars of gifted leadership within the church, as baptized leaders and ordained ones.” (Source) 

The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori derided individual salvation calling it 'the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.' 

In her opening address to the church's General Conference in California, Jefferts Schori said it was a "heresy" to believe that an individual can be saved through personal faith and trust in Jesus Christ acknowledged in a prayer of repentance.  (Source)

How are these teachings acceptable for a person that will be leading a religious ceremony at Our Lady of Guadalupe?

°•°•°

There are two major problems that I see with this situation:

1. You are inviting in a religious denomination and a "bishop" that espouse teachings that are directly contrary to those of the One True Church - not only in their construction but in their essence.

2. The double standard that this creates is mind-numbing. I know of several groups, apostolates, speakers, and events that have been denied time and time again in their requests to use facilities, advertising and resources; while this group seems to have full use of OLG.

Does this have everything to do with procedure and the vetting process? Yes, there is a vetting process, and YES it should be followed. In fact, I applaud the Archbishop in taking a stand to ensure that the faithful are safeguarded against heresy, dissident teaching, and heterodoxy. What I cannot understand is how in pursuit of this goal there are good, pious, devout, orthodox, doctrinally sound persons that are not permitted to speak for "procedural reasons." Again, I understand the need for the vetting process, and I understand the necessity in being obedient and following rules and procedure - I work in the legal field; what I can't understand is how procedure is king. How form trumps substance. 

How is it that this Episcopal event will occur inside a Catholic church, while some Catholic groups and people are shunned to homes and restaurants to have their events, ones that adhere to the teachings of the Faith? Why are some events which are approved not given space in bulletins, at announcements, or talked about by parish staffs? These questions may have answers, unfortunately no one seems to know what those answers are.

Other Questions linger:

Will the Eucharist be removed from the Tabernacle during this ordination?

Will the Altar be used?

Will the Consecrated Vessels of OLG be used in any Episcopal ceremonies?

Will the the Sanctuary of OLG be used for this "consecration"?

Will anti-Catholic teachings be allowed to be uttered from the  Ambo?

Does this not give Scandal?

I do not take pride or joy in posting about such things. Some might say that this is gossip or rumor. They would be incorrect. This situation is public and posted on multiple websites. The entire world is free to see that a Woman, pro-gay/lesbian, Episcopal bishop will be "consecrating" a new Episcopal priest in a CATHOLIC church. Simply posting about it, and asking questions should be completely acceptable. All of these questions must have answers... I am simply asking the questions.

It hurts so bad to know people that have been denied access to their own church facilities and resources because there is a safeguard procedure in place that is used in a manner which seems to be against them and for outside anti-Catholic groups. As recently as a month ago I saw a parish bulletin with an advertisement for a local Labyrinth. Yet, some people are forced to email me their events and info in an effort to get the word out, as they have been denied access to and the ability of using parish bulletins and resources to disseminate their approved information.

I pray that there are good explanations to all my questions... I think we would just like to hear them. If our churches are used as platforms for distortion and heresy, but not as sources of Truth and Doctrine, what chance do we have to give the Faithful proper formation? If the area where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated is used by those opposed to the true teachings of the faith, what does that say about our belief and our understanding of what occurs in the Sanctuaries of our churches?

I trust in our Archbishop. He is a holy, holy man, that has show recently how he is willing to put the true teachings of the faith, and the protection of his "flock" as his first priorities. I know that in the end the right thing will happen. Therefore we must continue to pray for him, for wisdom, courage, understanding, and fortitude.


Please leave comments, but be charitable. I would love to hear others opinion of this, but I don't want this to descend into attacks against persons. Ideas are open for any criticism, people and the judgment of their souls is for God alone. It is important that we use the internet as a place of intellectual debate, and not to pile-on against people. Please prayerfully consider your words before posting. 

Liturgical Abuses

RealCatholicTV & Liturgical Abuses

On Sunday, RealCatholicTV.com posted their most recently produced episode of CIA: Weapon of MASS Destruction. The topic was the Mass. It discussed how the new form (the Ordinary Form or Norvus Ordo)of the the Mass has been contorted and desecrated, in some places, through liturgical abuse and modernist innovation. It was a well researched episode and was done in a charitable way, so as to attack the problems, and not the Mass itself. As faithful Catholics, RCTV professes a belief in the legitimacy and authority of the Vatican II council. Yet, they expose how and why some of the changes to the Mass occurred, and how those changes were not done for the reasons stated during the Council. This area of discussion is quite dense and complicated. To have a discussion and understanding of it, you really have to have read many of the documents produced relating to Vatican II, you must understand the purpose and differences between the actions and functions of the two forms of the Mass, and must understand the doctrine and theology behind the forms of the Mass.

That being said, the the episode of RCTV's "CIA" could easily have struck people as extreme, incidndary, and rhetorical. There are many Catholics that don't realize how many liturgical abuses occur across the Church on any given Sunday. Some people have been going to Mass in the same parish their entire lives. To them, Catholic Mass is whatever occurrs in their parish. To a degree they are correct, there is rarely an INVALID Mass. This is not true when it comes to it being licit or illict, meaning that many Masses have some abuse which is therefore illicit. But what exactly does that mean? How do we know? Sure there are rules, but are they important?

Some Liturgical Abuses...

So what are Liturgical Abuses? Should this matter? Aren't we just nitpicking at priests, none of us are perfect so why should we expect priests to be perfect? Well... perfection isn't necessary, or even expected. The problem isn't the lack of perfection, but instead the problem is when priests, lay ministers, and pastoral councils construct liturgies with innovation and invention.


If you want to know more here are some links, with documentation and support:

• Common and Serious Abuses - with corresponding Church Law
• 10 Most Common Liturgical Abuses from Catholic Answers
• From EWTN
• TAKE A QUIZ on your awareness of liturgical abuse
• Paul VI saw liturgical abuse as "Smoke of Satan"
• Fr. John Trigilio Takes on U.S. Catholic over Latin Mass
• Source: Totus Tuus Family & Homeschool Blog

Why it matters

Some of you may still be reading, and yet asking yourself: "Why does this stuff matter? As long is it isn't too egregious, aren't we focusing on the negative, and being distracted by this at Mass?" My answer, as well as the Pope's and many other Catholic Theologians would be: "It does matter, because the Mass is the worship and participation in the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus." Our faith is what it is, because of the certainty and TRUTH, upon which it rests; eg The Word made Flesh. Therefore, strict adherence should be made to the precepts of the Church.

On a practical level, every erosion eats away at the core and substance of Catholicism. The Mass is the pinnacle of our faith. It separates us from all other Christian religions because in the Mass we are able to participate in the Mystery of the Eucharist. Why would we want to mettle with, and become innovators to actions which could possibly distort or detract from that which Jesus himself instituted? This isn't about style or preference, but about reverence and worship. Learn the Mass. Learn the Rubrics. We become more faithful and stronger Catholics when we know the "Why" behind that which we do.