Tridentine Community News, December 14, 2008

The Advent Wreath

Most Catholic churches nowadays place an Advent Wreath in their sanctuaries. This practice has been questioned by some Catholics. Some contend that this is a Protestant custom, not found in Catholic churches before Vatican II. Is this a matter warranting concern?

There are contrasting stories as to how the Advent Wreath came to be. Some maintain that it evolved from ancient Germanic and Scandinavian winter prayer wheels, which beseeched pagan gods for a return to days of longer light. Others claim that it had its origins in the Middle Ages, with modern forms of the wreath developing in the 17th century. Definitely Lutherans, and apparently some Catholics, began to employ it in that century. Still others believe that it began as a 19th century German custom with 23 candles representing all of the days in December before Christmas. Later it was abbreviated to only four candles, to represent each of the Sundays in Advent. Various documents indicate that Advent Wreaths began to attain popularity in Catholic churches and homes in the mid-20th century.

The current form is meant to help us anticipate the joy of Christmas to come. The use of evergreens symbolizes life through arid times. It is preferable not to include flowers, as they are prohibited on the altar during Advent except on Gaudéte Sunday; it would be premature to express the exuberance that flowers represent.

The anti-wreath position notes that the Prayer of Blessing of an Advent Wreath is not found in the Extraordinary Form Rituále Románum, the Church’s official book of prayers, blessings, and sacraments. Because the blessing is found in the Ordinary Form equivalent, the Book of Blessings, it is argued that the practice has only begun to be encouraged post-Vatican II.

Advent Wreath supporters point out that the very fact that the wreath is composed of three violet candles and one rose candle points to its Catholicity. These are, after all, the Catholic Church’s liturgical colors of Advent. Any Protestant denomination using an Advent Wreath with the same colors is merely adapting a practice originated by the Catholic Church. If a Protestant group modifies the wreath design, for example by changing the candle colors, then for purposes of this discussion, it is not comparable to the Catholic version of the Advent Wreath and should not be cited in comparison. Furthermore the Extraordinary Form Rituále’s “Blessing of Any Object” prayer may be used to bless an Advent Wreath, just as it is often used to bless various religious objects which do not have their own particular blessing prayers.

The Catholic Church supports, and in some cases embraces, sacramentals and practices consistent with the Faith. These evolve over time; for example, the Divine Mercy devotion has only been approved by the Church for approximately 20 years, yet it enjoys popularity among many of those who prefer the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass. Some of the most popular English hymns employed at Extraordinary Form Masses have Protestant origins. Thus, just because something is new, or partially or wholly created by Protestants, does not mean that it is not compatible with the Catholic Faith as taught throughout the ages.

There is nothing inherently Protestant about the Advent Wreath. It is an optional, para-liturgical component of our churches. So are Christmas trees and a Nativity Set, yet those are also seen in virtually every Catholic Church. None of these objects suggests anything contrary to Catholic belief. While we should not clutter our sanctuaries with every imaginable item that might evoke some religious concept, there is nothing wrong with judicious use of popular customs compatible with our Holy Faith.

Eleventh Tridentine Mass Site Debuts

St. Edward’s on the Lake in Lakeport, Michigan, north of Port Huron, has become the tenth site to host an Extraordinary Form Mass in the Archdiocese of Detroit, and the eleventh in the area when one includes Windsor. St. Edward’s Mass is held on First Saturdays at 8:00 AM and is celebrated by Fr. Tom Esper.

The (relatively) nearby Tridentine Mass at Sacred Heart, Yale that was formerly held on Tuesday mornings has been moved to Sundays at 7:30 AM. Msgr. George Browne, who resides in the Thumb region and is a regular celebrant at St. Josaphat, is rotating with pastor Fr. Paul Czarnota as celebrant of Sacred Heart’s Mass.

Both of these Masses were featured in a November 8 article in the Port Huron Times Herald newspaper, available on-line at:

http://www.timesherald.com/.

Christmas Mass Schedule

Again this year, we are pleased to report that Tridentine Masses will be held at times that should be convenient for everybody:

Christmas Eve Midnight Mass will be held at St. Joseph, Detroit. César Franck’s Mass in A will be performed by an orchestra and the St. Joseph Choir. Fr. Peter Hrytsyk will be celebrant.

On Christmas Day, St. Josaphat Church will have Mass at 9:30 AM. The celebrant will be Fr. Wolfgang Seitz.

On Christmas Day, Assumption Church-Windsor will have Mass at 2:00 PM. An orchestra will perform Victoria’s Missa O Magnum Mystérium. The celebrant will be Fr. Peter Hrytsyk.

We hope you can join us for one of these Masses, and bring family and friends who may not yet have been exposed to the Classic Form of the Roman Liturgy.

[Comments? Ideas for a future column? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News is that of the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for December 14, 2008, with minor editions. Hat tip to A.B.]

The Passing of Cardinal Dulles

Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe, in his article "Cardinal Avery Dulles dies at 90" (Articles of Faith, December 12, 2008), writes:

Cardinal Avery Dulles, who grew up in a famous American family (Dulles Airport is named for his father), converted to Catholicism while at Harvard, and went on to become the most honored Catholic theologian in U.S. history, died today at age 90.

I had a chance to interview Cardinal Dulles back in 2001. Here's what I wrote at the time, including a partial transcript of our conversation:

Avery Dulles, the scion of a wealthy and prominent Presbyterian family, arrived at Harvard in 1936 as an agnostic, but found God in the buds of a tree by the banks of the Charles River one rainy February afternoon two years later.

"How could it be . . . that this delicate tree sprang up and developed and that all the enormous complexity of its cellular operations combined together to make it grow erectly and bring forth leaves and blossoms?" he asked himself. And the answer, he later wrote, was "Him who moved the stars, and made the lilacs bloom."

Dulles, a brilliant student passionate about learning, found himself ravenously consuming the new works of French Catholic theologians, and one day he marched into a Catholic bookstore and asked, "How do I get into your church?"

He had never even met a priest, but he decided to become one, figuring, "I guess I wanted to go the whole way."

Today, Dulles, whose great-grandfather, great-uncle, and father (John Foster Dulles) all served as US secretaries of state, and whose grandfather was a distinguished Presbyterian theologian, is now the most prominent Catholic theologian in America.

His accomplishments are many - 21 books, more than 650 articles, and a long career teaching thousands of students, for the last 13 years at Fordham University in New York, where he is still a professor at age 83.

And in February, he became the first American Jesuit and the first American theologian to be named a cardinal.

Last week, Dulles visited Boston to receive an award at a fund-raising dinner for the New England Jesuits. In an interview with the Globe at the Jesuits' humble provincial headquarters in the South End, Dulles talked about his journey to faith and his career since.

Read the interview here (scroll down).

[Hat tip to E.E.]

Californica's [sic] problem with Proposition 8

Francis J. Beckwith, "Same-Sex Marriage and the Failure of Justificatory Liberalism" (First Things, December 10,2008):

On November 4, 2008, the people of California—in a 52 to 48 percent vote—placed in the state’s constitution an amendment that reaffirmed that marriage consists of one man and one woman. The amendment, Proposition 8, overturned the California Supreme Court’s May 2008 ruling that invalidated a statute that was passed in 2000 in a statewide referendum by a 61 to 39 percent vote. That 2008 opinion held that limiting marriage to one man and one woman, as required in the 2000 statute, violated the equal protection rights of homosexuals under the California constitution.

Following the Proposition 8 victory, thousands of its opponents protested in a number of California venues including in front of the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County. The rage and anger exhibited toward the Latter-day Saint and Evangelical believers who were present during the protests was palpable. The protesters were clearly blaming their loss on the effort and organizational and financial support of LDS citizens as well as Pastor Warren’s vocal backing for Proposition 8.

There is a certain irony in seeing those who speak so often of tolerance and understanding using the occasion of a political loss to unleash a torrid of vitriol that no one would ever confuse with tolerance and understanding if the perpetrators were burning crosses or Dixie Chick CDs. And yet the perpetrators in this instance, the losers in the Prop 8 election, do not see it that way. They see the absence of same-sex marriage from our legal regime as a grave injustice that must be remedied by any means necessary. For them, tolerance does not extend to injustice.

But then the initial argument, offered to the general public several decades ago—the call for the wider society to be tolerant of homosexuality—was something of a ruse. Many of us were under the impression that the requirement of tolerance entailed that citizens were in fact permitted to offer negative or positive judgments about the objects of their toleration, and in some instances shape policy consistent with those judgments. After all, one does not tolerate that with which one agrees; one embraces it. One can only tolerate that with which one disagrees. This is why the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles is misnamed. One ought not to be merely tolerant of one’s fellow human beings; one ought to embrace them as persons with intrinsic dignity made in the image of God. Of course, what these persons believe and practice for a variety of subjects—including religion and human sexuality—are the proper objects of tolerance.

So, for example, as a Christian in a regime that requires religious liberty, I may reject my Muslim neighbor’s theology as mistaken, but I may not obstruct her religious freedom. If, however, her husband wants to acquire another wife, consistent with Islamic teaching, he may do so. But he may not require, as an entailment of his religious liberty, that the laws of our community recognize his polygamous union as a marriage that would require by the force of law that the institutions and members of that community recognize it as well. He could, if he wanted to, change the laws by the legislative mechanisms afforded to him by our system of government. But this would require that he secure the cooperation of his fellow citizens by means of argument and persuasion. And if he were to be successful, polygamy would no longer be an object of mere toleration, but a public good supported by the community and enshrined in its laws. Those who dissent from this point of view may harbor their dissent in private, just as racists may in their hearts remain racists. But they would have no right to practice their dissent in their public lives, including employment, education, housing, and public accommodations.

In the post-election discussions on Proposition 8 much has been made about the religious make-up of those that supported the amendment. Take, for example, the comments of Professor Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School:

Proposition 8 was enacted by a vote of 52 percent to 48 percent. Those identifying themselves as Evangelicals, however, supported Proposition 8 by a margin of 81 percent to 19 percent, and those who say they attend church services weekly supported Proposition 8 by a vote of 84 percent to 16 percent. Non-Christians, by the way, opposed Proposition 8 by a margin 85 percent to 15 percent and those who do not attend church regularly opposed Proposition 8 by a vote of 83 percent to 17 percent.

What this tells us, quite strikingly, is that Proposition 8 was a highly successful effort of a particular religious group to conscript the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens, whether or not those citizens share those beliefs. This is a serious threat to a free society committed to the principle of separation of church and state.

Setting aside the question of what Stone could possibly mean by “a particular religious group” (since that “group” would include Mormons, Catholics, and Evangelicals), what he seems to be suggesting is a version of what is called justificatory liberalism. Because there are many different versions of this position, I will focus on what I think Prof. Stone is defending. He seems to be saying something like this: Because religious citizens have an understanding of sources of authority, background beliefs, and reasons not shared by their neighbors, they should restrain from employing those sources as the basis for the reasons why they enact laws that limit the liberty of their fellow citizens who do not share those sources of authority.

But it’s not clear why religious citizens should accept this rule if they have fulfilled all their epistemic duties and believe that they have good grounds for the coercive laws they support, even if those grounds are supported by premises not held by all. It is the case, after all, that each of us comes to the public conversation with a cluster of beliefs that we hold for a variety of reasons, many of which are based on both arguments we have carefully assessed as well as authorities that we believe are reliable and have no reason to distrust. But in that case, the typical non-religious citizen enters the public square in precisely the same position as the typical religious one. And in both cases, each likely supports laws that he or she thinks are reasonable and necessary but that in some cases have the consequence of limiting the liberties of others, even though each is not likely to see that consequence as a net harm, since each will see it as an advancement of justice and the public good. Consider the following example.

In Massachusetts soon after the state’s Supreme Judicial Court in Goodrich v. Department of Public Health (2003) required that the state issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Catholic Charities, which was at the time in the child adoption business, was told by the state that it could no longer exclude same-sex couples as adoptee parents. Because the Catholic Church maintains that same-sex unions are deeply disordered and sinful, and, because it did not want to compromise its moral theology, Catholic Charities ceased putting children up for adoption.

Thus, from the perspective of Catholic citizens who oppose same-sex marriage, this state of affairs limits their liberty and that of their Church based on an understanding (e.g., arguments for same-sex marriage that its advocates find persuasive, a philosophical anthropology and view of human sexuality that same-sex marriage proponents find intuitively obvious, etc.) that they do not share with those who support same-sex marriage, including Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court.

As it happens, the proponents of same-sex marriage, including Stone and many gay citizens, see this state of affairs as an advancement of justice and the common good. For that reason, they find same-sex marriage is almost a logical entailment of what they think the ends of liberal democracy should be. For, in their minds, the state is unjust if it denies citizens the opportunity to marry whomever they choose, particularly when the state’s denial is based on an understanding of human sexuality inexorably tied to a source of authority that gay citizens reject. Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriage see injustice in the state’s coercing them to embrace a policy that they maintain is deleterious of social justice and the public good.

My point is this: If we interpret Stone and the post–Proposition 8 protesters as embracing the position that one cannot support a law that limits another’s liberty if one’s reason for the law is based on premises and sources of authority not shared by one’s fellow citizens, neither side in the same-sex marriage debate can escape the scope of that prohibition. It is, in the words, of Robert P. George, a “clash of orthodoxies,” for which the dominant understanding of liberal democracy is ill suited to secure peace.

[Francis J. Beckwith is professor of philosophy and church–state studies at Baylor University, and the 2008–2009 Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture at the University of Notre Dame. His most recent book is Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic (Brazos Press, 2009).]

Gagnon responds to Newsweek on same-sex 'marriage'

Religious proponents of gay marriage routinely ignore or twist the major arguments in Scripture and philosophy against homosexual practice. The cover story by Religion Editor Lisa Miller in the Dec. 15, 2008 issue of Newsweek, wholeheartedly endorsed by Managing Editor Jon Meacham, is a perfect case in point.

Robert A.J. Gagnon, "More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus" (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, December 10, 2008):

Newsweek offer readers a hopelessly distorted and one-sided propaganda piece on "gay marriage" entitled "Our Mutual Joy." The 2800-word article is by Lisa Miller, religion editor and author of the "Belief Watch" column for the magazine (her academic credential is a B.A. in English at Oberlin College). She claims that Scripture actually provides strong support for validating homosexual unions and no valid opposition to "committed" homosexual practice. She quotes from scholars such as Neil Elliott and "the great Bible scholar" Walter Brueggemann, who are strongly supportive of "gay marriage."

There is not the slightest effort on Miller’s part to think critically about her own line or reasoning. The lone voice that she cites against homosexual practice is not from a scholar but from a certain Rev. Richard Hunter, a United Methodist minister who offered a short comment for a "roundtable" discussion sponsored by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In the thousand pages or so that I have written on the subject over the past decade Miller cites not a word, including my critique of Elliott’s untenable claim that Paul in Romans 1:24-27 was thinking only of the exploitative homosexual intercourse practiced by depraved emperors like Nero and Caligula; and my critique (pp. 11-12) of “Brueggemann’s” use of Gal 3:28 (“there is [in Christ] no ‘male and female’”) as support for homosexual unions (my critique is directed at Prof. Stacy Johnson of Princeton Seminary but it applies equally to Brueggemann’s claim).

Miller’s article reminds me of the equally distorted (but thankfully much shorter) op-ed article put out in The New York Times four years ago by Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof (“God and Sex,” Oct. 23, 2004). My response to Kristof, “‘God and Sex’ or ‘Pants on Fire’?”, showed how bad that piece was. My response to Miller will do the same. This essay has three primary components: a discussion of Scripture apart from the witness of Jesus; a discussion of Jesus’ witness; and concluding thoughts, which takes in also Meacham’s “Editor’s Desk” column.

Read the rest of Gagnon's thoroughgoing fisking of Miller's article here. The people perish for lack of knowledge, and Gagnon provides knowledge with understanding. Lots of it. Gagnon is not a Catholic; yet he has done Catholics a great service in providing all the footwork needed to see how the enemies of the Church distort Scripture in order to oppose Church teaching. Read and learn.

The future of America and the world

A reader sent me the link to the following article with the comment, "Why Obama will be a one term president." The article is entitled "DE BORCHGRAVE: Nostradamus redux" (Washington Times, November 24, 2008):

Although political forecasting and economic prognostication have long made astrology look respectable, there is still a latter-day Nostradamus who has defied the odds. "If Nostradamus were alive today," said the New York Post, "he'd have a hard time keeping up with Gerald Celente" - the man who tracks the world's social, economic, and business trends for corporate clients.

Mr. Celente's accurate forecasts include the 1987 stock market crash, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the 1997 Asian currency crash, the 2007 subprime mortgage scandal that he said would soon engulf the world at a time when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a macroeconomist and expert on the Great Depression, told us, "the worst is behind us." In November 2007, Mr. Celente also told UPI a massive devaluation of the dollar was coming and that some Wall Street giants were headed for total collapse. He called it "The Panic of 2008."

"Worse than the Great Depression," Mr. Celente opined. Beginning with a sharp drop in standards of living, and continuing with an angry urban underclass that threatens a social order that allowed the mega-rich to continue living behind gated communities ...

Mr. Celente says, "There will be a revolution in this country," though not until 2012, and it will take the form of a bloodless coup and the meteoric rise of a third party. While all this sounds like claptrap to sophisticated observers inside the Beltway, one can't ignore the high marks his forecasting gets from such prestigious global publications as the Economist: "A network of 25 experts whose range of specialties would rival many university faculties."

There's a good bit more, and quite entertaining.

Whatever became of sin?

In "And It Was Night: The Real Story of Original Sin" (www.chiesa, December 11, 2008), Sandro Magister writes:

It is one of the most overlooked and rejected dogmas. But for Benedict XVI, it is "overwhelmingly obvious." He has talked about it three times in eight days. Without it, he says, Christian redemption "would lose its foundation" ....

Three times in eight days, Benedict XVI has insisted on a dogma that has almost disappeared from ordinary preaching, and is rejected by the neomodernist theologians: the dogma of original sin....

"The existence of what the Church calls 'original sin' is, unfortunately, overwhelmingly obvious, if we only look around ourselves, and above all within ourselves. The experience of evil is, in fact, so significant that it raises within us the question: where does this come from? Especially for a believer, the question is even deeper: if God, who is absolute Goodness, has created everything, where does evil come from?

... our human history has been tainted from the beginning by the abuse of created freedom, which intends to emancipate itself from the divine will. And in this way it does not find true freedom, but opposes itself to the truth, and as a result falsifies our human realities. Above all, it falsifies the fundamental relationships: with God, between man and woman, between man and the earth. We said that this tainting of our history is spread through the entire fabric, and that this inherited defect has increased, and is now visible everywhere.

... there is a new beginning in history and of history in Jesus Christ, He who is man and God. With Jesus, who comes from God, there begins a new history formed by his yes to the Father, and thus founded not on the pride of a false emancipation, but on love and truth.

"But now the question arises: how can we enter into this new beginning, into this new history? How does this new history reach me? With the first tainted history, we are inevitably connected by our biological origin, we all belong to the one body of humanity. But communion with Jesus, the new birth in order to enter to become part of the new humanity, how does this take place? How does Jesus come into my life, into my being? The fundamental answer of St. Paul, and of the entire New Testament, is: he comes through the work of the Holy Spirit. If the first history gets underway, so to speak, with biology, the second gets underway in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the risen Christ. This Spirit created, at Pentecost, the beginning of the new humanity, of the new community, the Church, the Body of Christ."

Scroll down in Magister's article to read the whole of a discussion by the Holy Father entitled "Adam and Christ: from original sin to freedom."

So your favorite "Protestant hymn" was written by a die-hard Catholic?

This is a scenario that's not only fun to imagine, but one that is all-too-often borne out in experience. A Protestant from a devoutly evangelical background will recall a favorite hymn, say, "Faith of Our Fathers," which he remembers being taught at an evangelical boarding school, where he and his classmates were all taught to sing the hymn in four-part harmony, picturing in their minds their Protestant ancestors, as recorded in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, dragged to the scaffold at Tyburn to be hanged, disemboweled, drawn and quartered by the demonic ministers of Satan under the Catholic reign of Bloody Mary.

Not only will such a Protestant soul be stunned to discover, if he reads William Cobbett's The Protestant Reformation in England (1824-26), for example, that not a few of the subjects of John Foxe's book were surprised to find themselves described as martyrs at all (!), but that the words of the hymn, "Faith of our Fathers," were composed by Fr. Frederick William Faber, shortly after his conversion to Catholicism under the influence of the Oxford Movement in 1845, and that the martyrs he had in mind were neither the Protestants killed under Good Queen Mary, nor the ancient Christians martyrs in Rome during the persecutions of Nero and Diocletian, but the Catholic martyrs in England who were beheaded, burned at the stake, crushed to death, or dragged to Tyburn and hanged, disemboweled, drawn and quartered under the reign of Henry VIII and his good Protestant successor regents, particularly "Good Queen Bess" and her minister of mercy, William Cecil (Baron Burghley); and, furthermore, that Fr. Faber was also the author of other hymns widely used in traditional Protestant collections.

Oh, my! It's time to re-think some things here! The Anglo-Protestant textbook tradition of Reformation history has led a vast number of unsuspecting English-speakers into accepting mind-numbing distortions concerning the events of the 16th Century. In any case, my interest at the moment is confined to hymns.

It goes without saying that the Protestant tradition has yielded a goodly number of outstanding hymns. Some of these compositions (words as well as music) are well-known to Catholics, whether they are acquainted with their composers or not. If you are a Catholic, the next time you are at Mass, thumb through the index of composers in the back of your hymnal or misallette, if it has one, and check for Reginald Heber ("Holy, Holy, Holy"), Isaac Watts ("Joy to the World") or Charles Wesley ("Christ the Lord Is Risen Today," "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling," "Rejoice, the Lord is King") for example -- heavens, you'll even find Martin Luther there ("A Mighty Fortress" has practically become a standby among those Catholic missalette publishers bent on bending over backward to prove they are more Protestant than Luther)! Everybody will be familiar with the musical compositions of the Lutheran maistro, J.S. Bach.

What comes as more of a surprise is the number of hymns from Catholic tradition that have made their way into traditional Protestant hymnals. Die-hard Protestants who are aware of this fact either feel "compromised" by it and take umbrage, or take it upon themselves to devise elaborate justifications for including hymns by God-foresaken Papists in their saved-by-faith-alone hymn collections (see, for example, this delightful little hand-wringing undertaking by Alan Pibworth, entitled simply: "Does it matter who the author is?"). For the most part, however, those Protestants who have been singing these hymns for generations are blissfully unaware of that the authors of many of their favorite hymns were members of the Synagogue of Satan, patrons of the Whore of Babylon, subjects of the Roman (Antichrist) Pontiff.

While hymns are not a part of the traditional Roman liturgy, hymns are nevertheless part of the Roman Catholic musical tradition. Moreover, around this time of year, during Advent and Christmastide, the number of traditional Catholic hymns one hears among the hymns and carols is particularly notable. Here are just a few:

• Angels We Have Heard on High (traditional French Catholic carol, Les Anges dans nos Campagnes);
• Good Christian Men Rejoice (attributed to the German Catholic mystic, Heinrich Seuse, ca. AD 1328)
• The First Nowell (Noel) (a traditional English carol, probably dating from as early as the 13th Century);
• O Come, All Ye Faithful (melody composed by a Catholic layman, John Francis Wade, in 1743; the Latin text, "Adeste Fidelis," probably dating from as early as the 13th Century);
• O Come, O Come, Emmanuel (from a traditional Catholic plainchant, "Veni, Veni Emmanuel," from the 12th Century, possibly as early as the 8th Century);
• Of the Father's Love Begotten (original Latin text by Catholic Roman poet, Aurelius Prudentius Clemens, AD 348 - ca. 413);
• Silent Night (original German text composed by an Austrian Catholic priest, Fr. Josef Mohr, in 1816; music by his collaborator, an Austrian headmaster, Franz Xaver Gruber, two years later, in 1818).

I wonder whether anyone has considered what value Catholic hymns have just in terms of the New Evangelization alone. I should think that the recognition that a dearly beloved Advent hymn or Christmas carol, with all of its beloved sentiments and pious associations, was authored by a Roman Catholic, would give pause to some of the more deep-seated anti-Catholic prejudices engrained over the generations in the Anglo-Protestant textbook traditions. Such pause, as I know very well, can serve to jump-start a search for truth that can land one in the hithertofore unexpected precincts of the Vatican.

Outside the Advent and Christmas seasons, there are many other hymns with which Protestants are familiar as well. Here are only a very few:

• Crown Him with Many Crowns (text composed in 1851 by Matthew Bridges, three years after he converted to Catholicism under the influence of the Oxford Movement in 1848);
• Faith of Our Fathers (text by Fr. Frederick William Faber, after his conversion to Catholicism under the influence of the Oxford Movement, in 1845);
• Holy God, We Praise Thy Name (from an ancient Latin Catholic hymn attributed to several 4th-century authors, including St. Augustine and Nicetas of Remesiana; also known as the Ambrosian Hymn and attributed to St. Ambrose, first bishop of Milan in 4th Century; but better known as the Te Deum, based on the outline of the Apostles' Creed);
• Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence (from the "Prayer of the Cherubic Hymn" from the Catholic Litany of St. James, written during the 4th century);
• O Sacred Head Now Wounded (Latin text, Salve caput cruentantum, attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux, ca. AD 1153).

Not only is reality, as Ripley repeated, stranger than fiction; it is also so much more fun.

"I am the Immaculate Conception"

THE WITNESS



Bernadette Soubirous, 1858.
The feast of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated on 8 December, was established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV. It was not until the nineteenth century, however, that the Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on December 8, 1854. It was four years later at Lourdes, France, that a 14-year-old girl, Bernadette Soubirous, witness the apparition of a beautiful lady who, when asked who she was, responded: "I am the Immaculate Conception."

Tridentine Community News, December 7, 2008

Extraordinary Form Confessions Now Available

Confessions are now being heard according to the Classic Form of the Sacrament beginning at 1:30 PM every Sunday at Windsor’s Assumption Church. Penance now joins Baptism, Requiem, Matrimony, and of course the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as Sacraments available in the Tridentine forms in metropolitan Detroit. Fr. Peter Hrytsyk will assist first-time penitents in becoming accustomed to the Traditional formula.

St. Josaphat Church continues to offer Confession at 9:15 AM each Sunday according to the Ordinary Form. If you are interested in having Confession according to the Traditional Form at St. Josaphat, please inform Fr. Borkowski of your interest, so that he may consider familiarizing himself with the Extraordinary Form. If you write or e-mail, please provide your name and contact information, as anonymous requests will not be considered.

Below we reprint (an updated version of) our column of August 12, 2007, to reacquaint our readers with the Tridentine formula for Confession. From the perspective of the penitent, the Extraordinary Form of Penance is not all that different from what one would experience in a more traditional Novus Ordo setting.

The penitent enters the confessional and says, “Bless me Father, for I have sinned.”

The penitent makes the Sign of the Cross while the priest says, “The Lord be in Thy heart and on thy lips, that thou mayest rightly confess thy sins. In the name of the Father †, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

The penitent tells the priest how long it has been since his last Confession, then recites the number and kind of his sins. The penitent concludes with a statement to the effect of, “For these and all my other sins, which I cannot presently remember, I am heartily sorry.”

The priest may ask some questions and give some advice. The priest will assign a penance.

The priest then says: “Misereátur tui omnípotens Deus, et dimíssis peccátis tuis, perdúcat te ad vitam ætérnam. Amen.”

(In English: “May almighty God have mercy on thee, and forgive thee all thy sins, and bring thee to life everlasting. Amen.”)

Holding his right hand over the penitent, the priest says: “Indulgéntiam, absolutiónem, et remissiónem peccatórum tuórum tríbuat tibi omnípotens et miséricors Dóminus. Amen.”

(In English: “May the almighty and merciful God grant thee indulgence, absolution, and remission of all thy sins. Amen.”)

Still holding his right hand over the penitent, the priest removes any impediments to the validity of the absolution he is about to give: “Dóminus noster Jesus Christus te absólvat; et ego auctoritáte ipsíus te absólvo ab omni vínculo excommunicatiónis, (suspensiónis,) et interdícti, in quantum possum et tu índiges.” If the penitent is a layman, the word “suspensiónis” is omitted.

(The English translation: “May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee; and by His authority I absolve thee from every bond of excommunication, (suspension,) and interdict, in proportion to my power and thy need.)

The priest recites the words of absolution while both the priest and the penitent make the Sign of the Cross. A bishop makes the Sign of the Cross three times: “Deínde ego te absólvo a peccátis tuis, in nómine Patris †, et Fílii, et Spíritus Sancti. Amen.”

(In English: “Thereupon, I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father †, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”)

Finally, the priest says a prayer for the remission of temporal punishment due for sins: “Passio Dómini nostri Jesu Christi, mérita Beátæ Maríæ Vírginis, et ómnium Sanctórum, quidquid boni féceris, et mali sustinúeris, sint tibi in remissiónem peccatórum, augméntum grátiæ et præmium vitæ ætérnæ. Amen.”

(In English: “May the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of all the saints, whatever good you shall have done, and evil you shall have endured, be to you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and reward of eternal life. Amen.”)

Note that the Extraordinary Form of the Sacrament does not require the penitent to make an Act of Contrition. The priest does retain the option to request this, a sensible and laudable custom, prior to giving absolution.

Also note that canonically, a priest does not have the right to remove every kind of bond of excommunication. That is reserved to the diocesan Ordinary (bishop). Therefore, the prayer is careful to say, “in proportion to my power”. A priest must refrain from absolving difficult cases and refer the matter to a bishop.

The concluding prayer for remission of temporal punishment is a beautiful and appropriate follow-up to absolution, and is unique to the Extraordinary Form. The wording of the whole Sacrament helps to remind us that absolution is a serious matter, and emphasizes that the priest is acting in persóna Christi.

[Comments? Ideas for a future column? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News is that of the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for November 30, 2008, with minor editions. Hat tip to A.B.]

Biblical criticism in the life of the Church

A reader recently wrote me with a number of thoughtful observations, which, I think, merit discussion. I share them with you here for your reflection and comments:

I really, really think a history of biblical criticism and the Catholic Church needs writing, and would have far more impact than many of the books being cranked out looking at individual books of Scripture. Especially in light of the Biblical Renewal jag. A generation ago there were names Hugh Pope and G. Ricciotti and Cuthbert Lattey. Now folks like Scott Hahn have to labor alone and landlocked, under the label of 'Fundamentalism.' And Brown and Fitzsmyer are meanwhile enshrined as the watershed figures, while Ignatius Press diplomatically demurs from publishing George Kelley's dead-on 'New Biblical Theorists.'

I think part of the problem is Catholicism's reliance on theology and philosophy over and above Scripture on a clerical level. Hence the Nouvelle Theologians were oblivious to the threat [historical criticism] posed, since they were dealing with things on a higher theoretical level in their minds.

The just-ended Synod does not seem too much more encouraging, given the 'fear' of 'Literalism' and embarrassed attitude towards the Old Testament, so I don't know when the self-inflicted wounding will cease. At least Providence keeps anyone from saying or defining anything bad in an officious sense. That much is a cause for gratitude.

But this is a fascinating conversation. Reminds me at the start of Sobrino at Catholic Analysis who also sees great things from the Synod [Link]

Scroll down to read the comment by Josh S about fusing middle ages pontifical attitudes to higher criticism and the resulting cognitive dissonance. A Eureka moment for my confused thoughts:

What I am saying is that if one were to apply the same historical-critical tools to the Assumption story, one ends up with the same conclusions that your average Jesuit scholar draws about the most of the Bible–the Assumption story is a mythic expression of the piety of later Christians. Papal infallibility is supposed to be the safeguard, but it ends up in a tension, because Catholic scholars have the “liberal critic” mask they wear when dealing with the Bible, but the “unquestioning fundamendalist” mask they put on when the criticism is about to push them into denying this or that medieval theory or story. A good example is Al Kimel arguing that indeed, historical criticism proves that Paul didn’t write most of the letter attributed to him, but since God guided the Church to infallibly define the canon, we can still rest assured that they are the Word of God.

In other words, 20th century historical criticism gets fused with 19th-century anti-modernist infallibility theories. The result is redefinition of just about everything you can find pertaining to Scripture and dogma in pre-V2 Catholic literature and dogma.

To those of us on the outside, the incongruity in Catholic thought is real and obvious. You can’t spend half your time attacking and undermining Hebrew miracle stories as myths and jeer at people who believe the Bible is inerrant, then insist that everyone believe certain medieval miracle stories are literally true because papal dogmas are inerrant. Excommunicating Hans Kueng was only a stopgap measure and did nothing to address the underlying problem.

Also: [comment by 'Greg']

Fitzmyer, Brown, Meier, et al don’t really believe in the historicity of much of the Gospels. Honestly, if you really read them, you would know that. As “magisterial” as Birth/Death of the Messiah may be in one sense, they are essentially arguments that the pertinent elements of Scripture are nothing more than pastiche. Same with Meier’s major two volumes.

Michael, if you wonder why Catholics aren’t evangelistic it is because they are preached at by priests who have been trained in seminaries in which these guys are the center of exegesis, therefore they have no compelling reason to believe any of it is true, and their preaching shows it.

The idea that Reese was removed by B16 is a myth, unsubstantiated, promoted coyly by Reese himself. If you go back and trace the chronology, what you find is that Reese resigned very soon after B16 was elected, dropping all kinds of hints that he was removed, but never directly coming out and saying so. It was fairly despicable.

I, too, attend Catholic schools in the 1970’s. We were given a Jerusalem Bible in the first week of 9th grade, read it throughout the curriculum and read Dei Verbum as well. Tough slog, that last one, was, but nonetheless, we read it. Anecdotes are pretty useless. They only express one individual’s experience, not the general picture.

And then this: "The Vanishing Bible" (Off the Record, November 19, 2004):

I was reminded in this connection of an excellent article by Prof. James Hitchcock, in which he explains how it happened that the considerable Catholic hunger for Sacred Scripture was exploited so as to undercut the very reasons that gave birth to it. An excerpt:

Well-meaning, not highly educated Catholics who eagerly joined bible-study groups after the Council not uncommonly found their inherited faith shaken, as they were invited -- by group leaders and by written materials -- to scrutinize Catholic teachings and practices sceptically and to measure them against the New Testament in classical Protestant fashion, a scrutiny which usually seemed to work to the Church's disadvantage. Although this was not their original intention, many people became liberal Catholics through the medium of Bible study. (Thus liberal Catholics are quick to ask, for example, "Where does the New Testament condemn homosexuality?" or "Where does it say that women cannot be ordained priests?")

Such attitudes would be defensible if they rested on an unwavering confidence in Scripture as the revealed Word of God. However, Catholic Bible study after the Council also moved towards a liberal Protestant scepticism towards the Scripture itself, so that in a way it became irrelevant what the Bible might or might not say about a particular question, since it is naive and obscurantist to assume that the Scripture in some direct way constitutes the Word of God.

In effect liberals first used the Bible to "deconstruct" the teachings of the Church, then in turn "deconstructed" the Bible itself. The result -- intended by some, stumbled into by others -- was to eliminate all objective source of religious authority, leaving the individual as the ultimate judge of authentic belief.

The entire article -- it's not long -- repays a careful reading. It's an open question whether a new initiative to encourage Bible-reading would ultimately strengthen faith, or would be hijacked by the familiar summer-workshop-apparat and used to advance its own agenda. As Hitchcock points out, the institutional precedents are not reassuring:

In the final and most astonishing irony, modern biblical scholarship is unable to explain why the Bible should be studied at all, except as an important historical document, or why it should be accorded any unusual respect. Only the Church can justify this, but it has been precisely the rule of modern scholarship to exclude the Church from any meaningful capacity to interpret Scripture. Thus, if it continues on its present well-worn path, even moderate biblical scholarship will continue to contribute to the undermining of the Bible’s influence over human hearts and minds, not exactly what was intended when Catholics of thirty years ago were urged to make themselves more biblical

Our correspondent concludes his email:

The whole thing is aggravated by the question, if the Bible is reliable like conservatives propose, WHY does the evidence so mislead great minds? Why does the [Pontifical Biblical Commission] trip over itself acknowledging newer scholarship but ignoring NT Wright? Why was Raymond Brown so convinced of the nebulous nature of evidence? Why can Newsweek's Meachem write a great bio of Hamilton and then flounder on the New Testament? In a vaguely related phenom., why can Luke Timothy Johnson write on the Gospels and get it, and so miss the boat on Papal Infallibility? Quite a mystery.

But perhaps the tide is turning just a bit. A while back Our Sunday Visitor had a cover story by Scott Hahn suggesting Matthew was actually the first Gospel after all. And, Get... THIS... Aidan Nichols' new book on the Old Testament actually suggests perhaps there was only one Isaiah. Whaaaat?! I have never EVER seen such [a position] condoned by a name Catholic academic writing today before now. Quite amazing and encouraging. Perhaps there are cracks in the damn.

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Rome: the best of music, the worst of music

Interesting headline from Sandro Magister, "Great Music in the Churches of Rome. But in the Vatican, They're Deaf" (www.chiesa, December 3, 2008): "The Wiener Philarmoniker and other illustrious performers have played in the Roman basilicas, in one case with the pope present. But there's paralysis in the curia. The musical accompaniment of the papal Masses continues to be of appalling mediocrity."

No intelligence allowed

I just saw "Expelled" for the first time. It's always been a fascinating question to me why so much controversy is generated by anyone who simply questions the sacred cow of reigning scientific orthodoxy, the Sacred Tradition of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Stein's movie does so with occasional Monty-Python-esque humor, as in the clip "Expelled: How Life Began" (scan down to the lower of the two videos linked here), which is based on a movie I remember seeing at the Smithsonian as a child. The hue and cry from the Holy Office of the Inquisition is unimaginably and boringly predictable. Which also has me wondering why a sense of humor seems to be confined to the side of traditional Jews (like Ben Stein) and Christians (like Alvin Plantinga), and why professed atheists are so lugubriously humorless on this issue. Go figure.

Instruction on the Motu Proprio "in the Pope's hands"

"Instruction 'in the Pope's hands'" (Rorate Caeli, December 1, 2008):

Italian religious journalist Bruno Volpe interviews Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos for his website Pontifex, and asks him about the interpretive instruction on the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The Cardinal confirms once again that the instruction is now in the Pope's hands.

[Bruno Volpe]: The by now famous instruction on the Motu Proprio that liberalized the Mass according to ancient Roman rite: at what stage is it?

[Cardinal Castrillon:] "In the Pope's hands, it pertains only to him now. Let us trust in the Pope's wisdom."

French admiration for Americans???

"French Praise for American Soldiers" (the Anchoress, November 21, 2008):

Via Friend Michael, this must must must read. It will do your heart, soul, sinews, lungs, kidneys and brain good, translated Via.

("American Troops in Afghanistan Through the Eyes of French Infantryman")

[Hat tip to American Papist]

Veni veni Emmanuel

1. Veni, Veni Emmanuel!
Captivum solve Israel!
Qui gemit in exsilio,
Privatus Dei Filio. R.

R. Gaude, gaude, Emmanuel
Nascetur pro te, Israel.

2. Veni, O Sapientia,
Quae hic disponis omnia,
Veni, viam prudentiae
Ut doceas et gloriae. R.

3. Veni, Veni Adonai!
Qui populo in Sinai
Legem dedisti vertice,
In Majestate gloriae. R.

4. Veni, O Jesse virgula,
Ex hostis tuos ungula,
De specu tuos tartari
Educ et antro barathri. R.

5. Veni, Clavis Davidica,
Regna reclude caelica,
Fac iter tutum superum,
Et claude vias inferum. R.

6. Veni, Veni O Oriens!
Solare nos adveniens,
Noctis depelle nebulas,
Dirasque noctis tenebras. R.

7. Veni, Veni, Rex gentium,
veni, Redemptor omnium,
Ut salvas tuos famulos
Peccati sibi conscios. R.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1. O come, O come, Emmanuel
And ransom captive Israel
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear. R.

R.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

2. O come, Thou Wisdom, from on high,
and order all things far and nigh;
to us the path of knowledge show,
and teach us in her ways to go. R.

3. O come, o come, Thou Lord of might,
who to thy tribes on Sinai's height
in ancient times did give the law,
in cloud, and majesty, and awe. R.

4. O come, Thou Rod of Jesse's stem,
from ev'ry foe deliver them
that trust Thy mighty power to save,
and give them vict'ry o'er the grave. R.

5. O come, Thou Key of David, come,
and open wide our heav'nly home,
make safe the way that leads on high,
that we no more have cause to sigh. R.

6. O come, Thou Dayspring from on high,
and cheer us by thy drawing nigh;
disperse the gloomy clouds of night
and death's dark shadow put to flight. R.

7. O come, Desire of the nations, bind
in one the hearts of all mankind;
bid every strife and quarrel cease
and fill the world with heaven's peace. R.

[Latin, paraphrase of the great "O antiphons"; translation by T. Helmore (1811-1890), J.M. Neale (1818-1866) et al.]