Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Would preaching like this be tolerated today?

One of my good Chaldean students and I were talking about homilies in the Church here in the United States today and the popularity of preaching what people like to hear, which makes little if any demands on them, and the paucity of preaching on sin, the self-discipline, and sanctification. He shared with me a link to this homily by St. Leonard of Port Maurice entitled "The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved" (Our Lady of the Rosary Library).

A comment at the bottom of the homily says: "This sermon by Saint Leonard of Port Maurice was preached during the reign of Pope Benedict XIV, who so loved the great missionary."

I couldn't help wondering if such preaching would be tolerated anywhere today. It might be considered too "frightening," despite the words of the writer of Proverbs that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

7 comments:

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Fantastic. And no, this would not be tolerated today.

Today, the New Orthopraxis is the Feast of Assisi and the 25th Anniversary of placing Holy Mother Church on the same level as an Animist Bushman.

Ralph Roister-Doister said...

St Leonard is another of those tragic souls who suffer from an horrifying excess of scrupulosity.
Another victim of the traditionalists.

Ralph Roister-Doister said...

St Leonard's psychological deformity led him to say totally kookie things on a wide variety of topics. Here is one of my favorites, concerning proper hearing of the Mass:

"The first method of hearing holy Mass is used by those who, book in hand, accompany with the utmost attention all the actions of the priest, repeat at each of these a vocal prayer, as laid down in the book, and thus pass the whole of the Mass reading; and there is no doubt that, if this be united with a right consideration of the sacred mysteries, it is a most excellent method of assisting at the holy sacrifice, and of great spiritual fruit."

If the poor man had stopped here, our liturgical scholars and reformers, obviously men of superior knowledge and probity, could have no cavil. But the unfortunate saint, his mind weakened by its traditionalist fog, continues:

"But as it [the abovementioned first method] involves an entire bondage, requiring the worshipper to attend to each one of the holy ceremonies enjoined on the priest, and then return with his eyes to the book in order to read the prayer corresponding to the mystery, it becomes in practice not a little fatiguing; and I believe that few persevere in this method, or even continue long to use it."

Alas! Perhaps this troubled priest thought that these fatigued worshippers began to practice a kind of ocular worship on the forms of comely worshippers in view, or that their minds drifted into private prayer that their NFL team might achieve a mighty triumph upon the field of battle. Could his rampant scrupulosity be more evident??

But this is not the worst. The priest's ravings continue:

"The second method of hearing holy Mass is that employed by those who dispense with books, who read nothing whatsoever during the time of the divine sacrifice, but fixing their mental eye, kindled by faith, on Jesus crucified, [and] . . . pass the whole time in devout interior recollection."

St Leonard's approval of such shocking behavior can only merit the disproval of those who have benefitted from the wondrous blessings of the liturgical reformers. Blessed with their superior knowledge and insights, no liturgical reformer could read St Leonard's concluding sentence without tearful regret at a soul so obviously unmanned:

"It is certain that [those who practice the second method], keeping their faculties gathered up in God, arrive at the exercise of heroic acts of faith, hope, charity, and other virtues; and there is no doubt that this mode of hearing Mass is much more profitable than the first, as well as more sweet and attractive."

Ah! The sorrow and the pity. It is even rumored that St Leonard did not frown upon worshippers saying the rosary in silence. If only Guardini or Bugnini had been around to correct this pathetic soul's ravings -- or at least get him to shut up.

JM said...

No, of course not.

Even with sins like homosexuality, the preface today is without fail, "I am not saying YOU are bad or you are a BAD person..."

Add to that the game of always considering motives -- "Well, before you condemn him, you have to appreciate the mixed motives there... -- and you have good people who essentially always are trying to do the best thing. So what is the Gospel? A very severe medicine for what seems like some pretty inconsequential infractions. After all, we are all in God's image, al trying to find Him or Her or It and do the best we can, so who wants a Savonarola-sort of saint bringing me down? Now if we could just get rid of death, we would be in pretty good shape. I think the White House and Thomas Freidman at the NYT are working on that one.

Christine said...

This sort of preaching would be labeled "uncharitable" by most of modern Catholic crowd.

Nancy Reyes said...

no, but one should point out other saints have a different opinion.
Including Sister Faustina and John Paul II...

Christine said...

Boinky: Where does St. Faustina or Pope John Paul II ever say that the number of the saved is *greater* than the number of the damned? I've read St. Faustina's Diary, and nowhere does she say anything like that. In fact, she was given a horrifying vision of hell, where it was made known that most people are sent there for sins against purity.