Different categories of liturgical feast days

Tridentine Community News (January 18, 2009):

Classes of Feast Days

The Church Calendar incorporates a broad range of feasts throughout the year. On the one hand are self-evidently major feast days such as Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, and the Immaculate Conception. On the other end of the spectrum are days for which no particular Mass is specified. Let’s examine how this works.

In the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass, every day of the year is assigned a Feast Class of 1 through 4. First Class feasts are the equivalent of “Solemnities” in the Ordinary Form. Nothing can preempt them. The Gloria and Credo are said at those Masses, even on weekdays.

Second Class feasts commemorate major events, e.g.: the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or major Saints, e.g.: St. Matthias. These are roughly equivalent to “Feasts” in the Novus Ordo calendar. The Gloria and Credo are said. A few named Ferias, such as the “Greater Ferias of Advent”, are Second Class feasts and may not be preempted.

Most saints’ feast days are Third Class feasts. These are somewhat equivalent to “Obligatory Memorials” in the Ordinary Form. In the Extraordinary Form, the Gloria, but no Credo, is said.

Most Ferial days, as well as feasts of lesser-known saints, are Fourth Class feasts. These are roughly equivalent to “Optional Memorials” in the Novus Ordo. Some days may actually allow several options. For example, January 19 may be celebrated as a Feria (Mass of the preceding Sunday); as the feast of Ss. Marius, Martha, Audifax, & Abachum; or as the feast of St. Canute. The celebrant chooses. The Gloria is omitted.

When a certain feast day does not have its own complete set of Propers and Readings, the Missal specifies that one of a variety of standard Masses be said for that saint. Again taking January 19 as an example, if the Feast of St. Canute is chosen, the Mass is the “Common of Martyrs”, a standard Mass Propers/Readings set used for a variety of Martyrs’ feasts, along with the “Commemorations”, or second Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion, of St. Canute. No matter which Mass is chosen, the other saint(s) are to be commemorated, as you can see in the upper left section of the accompanying missal page image.

Mandatory and Optional Displacement of the Sunday

A limited number of First and Second Class feasts must displace the Sunday Mass. For example, the Dedication of the Archbasilica of Our Savior (St. John Lateran) takes precedence on November 9.

Previous columns have addressed External Solemnities, the optional moving of a major feast to the nearest Sunday. The feast of the patron saint of a parish is an example of one such feast that the Universal Church permits to be transferred to Sunday. Corpus Christi is an example of a feast that U.S. Bishops permit to be moved to Sunday. The Canadian Bishops may permit moving Corpus Christi as well, though we have not yet been able to find documentation proving or disproving this.

If the transferred feast is not a feast of Our Lord, the Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion of the Sunday that has been replaced are recited as Commemorations after the prayers of the Mass are read. This is why you will occasionally notice a second set of these prayers in our Latin/English Propers Handouts.

A Votive Mass is one of a number of elective Masses in the Missal that a celebrant may choose to say on a Fourth Class, or in certain cases on a Third Class, feast day instead of the specified Mass. One example is the “Votive Mass for the Sick”. At St. Josaphat, we have become familiar with the Requiem Mass being celebrated on certain Mondays on which it may preempt the specified feast.

The Fine Print

There are many confusing and subtle rules in the Church Calendar. National and diocesan feasts are part of the possibilities. Even experienced priests need to refer to an Ordo, or official calendar with explanations, to know what Mass(es) may be celebrated on a given day. And even then, it can be rather puzzling.

For example, Monday, January 12 was listed as a “Feria After the Epiphany” in the FSSP Ordo. This nomenclature hints that there may be something different from a regular Feria. The Ordo notes do not give a clue, so we next turn to Fortescue’s Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described. That book says that the first Sunday After Epiphany is to be the Feast of the Holy Family. It goes on to say that Ferias later that week must use the Mass of the “first Sunday After Epiphany” (note the lower case “f”). Looking in the altar missal, the Feast of the Holy Family is indeed specified for the first Sunday After Epiphany. But right afterwards, there is another Mass for the “First Sunday After Epiphany” [upper case “F” - now exactly when would that Mass be used?]. So which Mass did we use on Monday, January 12? That of the Holy Family, because the Fortescue book used a lower case “f” in “first”, which seems to indicate not to use the more specific “First Sunday After Epiphany” Mass. There is only so much time for research, thus common sense must be relied upon from time to time.

[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, with minor editions, is from the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for January 18, 2009. Hat tip to A.B.]

Ecclesia Dei versus Ecclesia Hominis

Fr. Dwight Longenecker, "The Battle Within" (Standing on My Head, January 15, 2009):

I know Michael Rose's book has been out for about five years now, but I've only got around to reading it this week. If you're not familiar with it, Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church chronicles the corruption, spiritual abuse, heresy and persecution of orthodox seminarians within Catholic seminaries over the last twenty-thirty years.

Much of Rose's research is anecdotal and one sided. He doesn't spend much time telling us anything good at all about American seminaries, but then I guess he would argue that he wasn't writing a balanced report on American seminaries, but an expose of the abuses. Fair enough. If you know what a book is aiming for you know how to judge it best.

I wish I could dismiss Rose as an angry traditionalist with an axe to grind, and that he's biased and it all ain't true. But I'm afraid my own experiences with the Catholic Church in England only echoes what Rose writes about the situation in the USA. I know at least three Dioceses in England where the unspoken policy was not to accept any former Anglican priests (either married or celibate) for ordination. The guys were not even interviewed. They didn't even get their letters answered by the bishop. It was assumed that they were all dangerous conservatives, and therefore unworthy.

Thankfully, many former Anglicans did make it through to Catholic ordination. In fact the majority did. But the ones who were rejected for no good reason are the ones we're talking about, and they were rejected because of a deliberate and conscious liberal bias and 'progressive' agenda [on the part of those evaluating them].

I worked for seven years with a Catholic charity and every Saturday night I was in a different presbytery. I shared meals with parish priests, bishops, vicar generals, area deans, archbishops, cathedral deans....all of them. I heard them say with pride that they planned for their dioceses to have fewer priests, not more. They planned to have a few priests living together to provide the sacraments for a whole deanery while the parishes were run by 'lay administrators'. I heard them speak with admiration of the Church in Peru -- where they have one priest for an area the size of Delaware (or some such) and how wonderful it was that all the parishes were run by the laity as little 'faith communities' led by their lay catechist (who was often a woman).

From the orthodox young men I would meet at places like Youth2000 and Catholic Charismatic Conferences and Faith Conferences and the other new movements I heard how the seminaries were practically empty, and how liberals dominated the faculty with the usual mish mash of New Age spirituality, feminism, sex therapy, psycho babble and modernism of all stripes. They too spoke of the homosexual subculture, the suspicion of those who were orthodox for being 'rigid' and the dismissal of traditional devotions such as the rosary and Eucharistic Adoration.

I think the problem with Rose's book is that, if we're not careful, we'll assume that the bad news is the only news. It's not. There are good people out there and good seminaries and good bishops and good faithful Catholics right through the whole church, but what Rose's book should do, and what my own experience in the Church reminds me, is that within the Catholic Church there are actually two churches.

One follows the Pope and the Magisterium. It seeks to be changed by the Church, not to change the Church. It considers the Church to be divinely established through the once for all sacrifice of Christ for the salvation of the world. The other 'church' dissents from the Pope and the magisterium whenever posible. It seeks to change the Church, not be changed by her. It considers the church to be a human construct and the result of historical accidents. They believe the Church is there to change the world, but not necessarily to save the world.

This is the reality, and it is all well and good pretending that we can all work together and that unity is all that matters and that we mustn't be 'divisive'. However, that is lily livered talk. The fact is, these two 'churches' are diametrically opposed. Their philosophical and theological foundations are so radically different as to be irreconcilable. As one traditional bishop said after an attempt at dialog with a progressive, "It was like trying to play tennis on two adjacent courts."

Let's be honest. Progressives have, for a long time, been absolutely clear that faithful Catholics are the enemy. They've been very transparent in their contempt for us, and have been proactive in their persecution. While still striving to retain charity and the spirit of reconciliation, we must also see clearly who the enemy is, and willingly engage in the conflict.

It's hard to fight. It's especially hard when the enemy is a fifth column within your own community. But when the enemy is within, that's when the battle becomes most important.

If we must fight, then we must never do so with bitterness, dirty tricks, cynicism or hatred. Instead we battle with the prayerful, cheerful, buoyance of the cavalier. We must don our armor, sharpen our sword and, like Cyrano de Bergerac, step into battle with wit, intelligence and confidence. Like the mouse Reepicheep we do so with honor, valour and not a little awareness of our own ridiculousness.

UPDATE: Here is an item on the report on the most recent visitation to American seminaries. There is still much work to be done.

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Marks of the Church

A common reaction found among Catholic converts from evangelical Protestant backgrounds is dismay over the state of the Church. Some cradle Catholics are put off by their dismay and wonder why they cannot be more grateful to be aboard the Ark of Salvation.

Just a few thoughts about this. It's true that the Church Fathers have likened the Church of Christ to Noah's Ark, wherein there were clean and unclean animals together. Again, they have likened the Church to a net in which various creeping things are also drawn in together with the fish. Our Lord Himself, in one of His parables, suggests that the Church is like a field in which both wheat and tares (weeds) are left to grow together until the final harvest (Matthew 13: 24-30). St. Augustine, noting that not even the perfectionist sect, the Donatists, lived up to its own standards, wrote of the parable: "And so the Church until the end of the age will combine within Herself the good and the evil, without harm to the good. If it turns out that there are tares in the Church, this does not hinder our faith and love; upon observing tares in the Church, we should not fall away from Her. We ourselves must only try to be wheat ..." More on this anon.

The experience of many Catholics from evangelical Protestant backgrounds may be illustrated, for the sake of our purposes here, by a denomination such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), a small splinter group founded in 1935 by conservative members of the Presbyterian Church--USA (PCUSA) who objected to the creeping Modernism of the 1930s and endorsed the conservative Presbyterian manifesto of 1910-15 called The Fundamentals -- five essential 'litmus test' doctrines (divine Biblical inspiration, Christ's virgin birth, atoning death, bodily resurrection, and the historical reality of Christ's miracles) -- the 'five fundamentals' from which the original use of the term 'fundamentalism' derives. These 'fundamentalists' aren't the snake-handling yahoos of popular caricatures. The OPC denomination has more PhD's per capita than any other American denomination. Of course it helps that it's a small denomination. With under 28,000 members worldwide, it is a small, lean, well-educated and deadly serious little group. During Sunday morning sermons, which may last upwards of 40 minutes, it's not uncommon to see individuals taking notes and later offering the homilist a grilling, if friendly, critique over coffee and donuts. If you have ever studied Koine (NT) Greek, even in a Catholic seminary, chances are you are acquainted with the little Greek primer by J. Gresham Machen, the Princeton Seminary professor who founded Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, as well as the OPC denomination.

It goes without saying that such a disciplined little platoon of solemn, like-minded souls as this is a far cry from the vast assembly of the Catholic Church, which James Joyce once reputedly described as "Here comes everybody!" Securus iudicat orbis terrarum ("The secure judgment of the whole world"), declared St. Augustine of the Church's all-embracing Catholicity. Yet the example above may nevertheless help to understand why many Catholic converts from such backgrounds, where not only parentally-enforced moral discipline but the propositional content of Christian Faith is taken seriously by nearly everyone in their denomination, often find their heads spinning when they find themselves among the vast and diverse array of animals amassed together in the often odoriferous quarters of Noah's Ark.

If I may presume to speak for these 'many', I do not think for a moment that their concerns stem from regrets about their conversion or from lack of gratitude in finding themselves at last within the fold of Mother Church. Most of them will attest to having been driven into the fold of the Church by the unshakable conviction that what she officially teaches in her catechisms and magisterial decrees is ineluctably true. Most will readily confess to having found the "fullness of truth" in the Church, which also entails the sobering admission of having been deprived of that fullness in their previous religious affiliations. Most are also personally acquainted with devout Catholics who faithfully practice their faith and lead exemplary lives. I don't think most are altogether surprised when they run into Catholics who aren't practicing their faith or are ignorant of their own tradition, since this phenomenon is found increasingly among the younger generations of nearly all religious communions.

I think, rather, that their chief concerns stems from what may strike them as a startling indifference at the frequent absence of clear and detailed doctrinal instruction and firm moral discipline, starting with the grass-roots level of families and their local parishes and parochial schools, but often extending to the diocesan level. Granted, the 'tares' will grow with the 'wheat' until the harvest. "And so the Church until the end of the age will combine within Herself the good and the evil," said St. Augustine, "without harm to the good." Yet here the convert will be inclined ask: "Really? 'Without harm to the good'? Is there no point at which the wheat, if it has become infested with tares (at least in some places), can ever be jeopardized?"

One of the problems with Catholic converts from such backgrounds is, of course, that they are typically accustomed to thinking of their life of faith as something that reposes primarily in intellectual propositions and in moral habits. The metaphysical centrality of the Church in her sacramental and liturgical life may take some time to sink down into their souls in such a way that they can even begin to see its full importance. Yet, to be fair, is it not also possible that the often confusing contemporary Catholic milieu, for many who are born and raised through the ranks of its parishes and parochial schools today, may effectively leave them sacramentalized pagans?

The queering of mainline Protestant seminaries

A reader sent me the link to the following two articles (the one in this post, and the one in the post immediately following) along with the comment:

If the Church is indeed protected by divine oversight, it will take just that to withstand the coming gales portended by these items. From Mohler's blog, two entries I thought unintentionally related for the Catholic reader, the first talking [about] things Protestant and current, and the second offering the bridge to how scandal could follow suit in the Catholic universe based on historical scenarios.

Albert Mohler, "Sex and the Seminary?" (www.AlbertMohler.com, January 13, 2009) writes:

The release of a report entitled "Sex and the Seminary" is certain to attract attention -- which is no doubt why the report was produced in the first place. In this case, the report is an attempt to push the sexual revolution through institutions designed for the training of ministers. As "Sex and the Seminary" makes clear, many liberal institutions joined the sexual revolution long ago.

The report was released January 8, 2009 by the "Sexuality Education for the Formation of Religious Professionals and Clergy" project, which is jointly sponsored by Union Theological Seminary in New York City and the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing in Connecticut. As might be expected, the report calls for an overhaul of how issues of sexuality are treated within the seminary curriculum.

"At the time when many denominations and faith communities are embroiled in sexuality issues, there is an urgent need for leaders who understand the connections between religion and sexuality," the report announces.

Then:

Seminaries are not providing future religious leaders with sufficient opportunities for study, self-assessment, and ministry formation in sexuality. They are also not providing seminarians with the skills they need to minister to their congregants and communities, or to become effective advocates where sexuality issues are concerned.

As a reading of the report reveals, the entire project is really about turning seminaries into agencies for a liberal and revisionist sexual agenda. As the analysis in the report demonstrates, some of these schools embraced those agendas long ago -- and in a big way.

The study was conducted by Kate M. Ott, study director for the project, with assistance from many others. Among those most frequently acknowledged is Rev. Debra W. Haffner, director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing. Debra Haffner's name will be recognized immediately by anyone involved in issues of sexual controversy in recent decades. She is an ordained Unitarian Universalist minister, but previously she served as chief executive officer of SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, and, among other positions, as an official with Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington. She has been pushing a radical sexual agenda for a long time.

Thirty-six seminaries cooperated with the study -- almost all on the liberal side of the theological divide. These schools were measured in light of the "Criteria for a Sexually Healthy and Responsible Seminary" document that had been "developed by a multifaith group of seminary educators, administrators, and sexuality educators."

The report found virtually all of the seminaries deficient to some degree. The report lamented the fact that half of the schools "do not have policies for full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons" and over 60% "do not have full inclusion policies for transgender persons."

While the report calls for a thorough restructuring of seminary education, it also calls upon the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada [ATS], the main accrediting agency for theological schools to require accredited schools to make sexuality issues (in terms of "sexual justice") standards for accreditation. The Religious Institute also pledged to "work with ATS member schools as they advocate for changes in and contribute to revisions of the ATS Standards for Accreditation scheduled for 2012."

Well, we have been warned.

The report makes for riveting reading. Almost half of the schools queried indicated that worship experiences in chapel at least occasionally focused on gay, lesbian, or bisexual experiences. Seven of the 36 schools also offered worship focused on transgender issues.

Consider this section of the recommendations:

Seminaries also must assure a supportive environment for sexuality-related issues. Seminaries must have anti-discrimination, sexual harassment, and full inclusion policies that reflect sexual and gender diversities. It was a welcome surprise that almost 9 out of the 10 seminaries have anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, and half have such policies for transgender students, staff, and faculty; other seminaries, unless prohibited by their faith traditions, should implement such policies. In addition, seminaries must provide opportunities for worship and advocacy that reflect the diversity of sexuality issues students will encounter in their ministry.

All this adds up to a huge effort to redefine what is normative in theological education, but the larger agenda is to remove the churches as obstacles to the deconstruction of biblical sexual morality.

Obviously, many of these schools have already joined that bandwagon. They long ago abandoned biblical authority and the Gospel and transformed Christianity into a form of sexualized paganism. The "worship" practices revealed in the report suffice to establish that point.

If nothing else, this report underlines the great divide that now exists among America's theological schools. There is good reason to ask whether any shared basis of accreditation is possible, given the depth and significance of this divide. Time will tell, but the aim is clear -- to put seminaries committed to a normative biblical morality on notice that such schools may for a time be tolerated, but the standards will push schools toward "inclusion" of "sexual and gender diversities" among students, staff, and faculty.

The moment regional accrediting agencies or the ATS moves in that direction, the writing on the wall will be clear. Sanity may yet prevail, but "Sex and the Seminary" is a sign of where the liberal schools want to see theological education, the church, and the society go.

No doubt, schools committed to biblical authority and confessional integrity must do a better job of preparing ministers to understand the issues of sexuality. But the goal must be to inculcate knowledge of and commitment to a biblical model of human sexuality centered in the glory of God and obedience to God's Word. We must also train pastors to be compassionate in teaching and applying God's revealed truth. These goals are not, however, the goals or recommendations of "Sex and the Seminary."

"Together," the report concludes, "we can assure that future religious leaders will indeed be pastors for sexual health and prophets for sexual justice." If you understand what those words mean, you will see that statement for the threat that it is.

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Related

• By contrast: Vatican Report: Most U.S. Seminaries are generally healthy" (Catholic News Service, January 14, 2009).

The Devil's Fifth Column & the seduction of the religious left

Albert Mohler, "A Chilling Account and a Word of Warning" (www.AlbertMohler.com, January 9, 2009), writes:

Most Americans would probably be surprised to know that Sen. Edward Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, and former Vice President Al Gore all were once solidly anti-abortion. That seems almost incomprehensible now, but the record is clear -- and the pattern is chilling.

By the time Jesse Jackson and Al Gore came onto the national stage, abortion rights represented a major plank in the Democratic Party platform. Jackson had actually written attacks on the abortion culture, pointing to the disproportionate number of aborted African-American babies as evidence of racism. Al Gore ran for both Congress and the U.S. Senate on a pro-life record. When both men launched campaigns for the presidency, they changed positions on the abortion issue.

As for Ted Kennedy; he was pro-life as late as 1971, after New York had already legalized abortion. As Anne Hendershott documents in her article, "How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma," in 1971 Sen. Kennedy wrote to one of his Massachusetts constituents with these words: "When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."

From the very moment of conception. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Hendershott then explains:

But that all changed in the early '70s, when Democratic politicians first figured out that the powerful abortion lobby could fill their campaign coffers (and attract new liberal voters). Politicians also began to realize that, despite the Catholic Church's teachings to the contrary, its bishops and priests had ended their public role of responding negatively to those who promoted a pro-choice agenda.

Anne Hendershott wrote her article in light of the possibility that yet another Kennedy may sit in the U.S. Senate. "Caroline Kennedy knows that any Kennedy desiring higher office in the Democratic Party must now carry the torch of abortion rights throughout any race," she explains. Hendershott documents the assurances that Caroline Kennedy has already paid to the abortion rights movement: "Ms. Kennedy was so concerned to assure pro-abortion leaders in New York, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Dec. 18, that on the same day Ms. Kennedy telephoned New York Gov. David Patterson to declare interest in the Senate seat, 'one of her first calls was to an abortion rights group, indicating she will be strongly pro-choice.'"

Indeed, Caroline Kennedy's unusual campaign for the appointive senate term from New York -- the seat now held by Sen. Hillary Clinton -- has prompted her to reveal that she supports same-sex marriage and virtually unrestricted abortion rights. She opposes parental notification laws and seems to advocate the entire body of pro-abortion orthodoxy.

The most important section of Anne Hendershott's article does not concern Caroline Kennedy, however. Instead, she documents a strategic meeting in the 1960s when the Kennedy family met with liberal Catholic theologians to formulate a mechanism for changing their position on abortion -- and thus for taking the position directly opposed by their church.

Look carefully at Hendershott's narrative:

At a meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass., on a hot summer day in 1964, the Kennedy family and its advisers and allies were coached by leading theologians and Catholic college professors on how to accept and promote abortion with a "clear conscience."

The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion.

Some of these names are well known, even to non-Catholics. Robert Drinan served in the U.S. Congress from 1971 to 1981, when Pope John Paul II ordered all ordained priests to refrain from electoral politics. Drinan was so pro-abortion that he opposed the partial-birth abortion ban until ordered by superiors to drop his opposition. Charles Curran, an ethicist and moral theologian, was later removed from the faculty of the Catholic University in America for his views in opposition to the church's teaching and authority. He currently teaches at Southern Methodist University.

Hendershott provides more details of the meeting at Hyannisport:

Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that "distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue." It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians "might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order."

Father Milhaven later recalled the Hyannisport meeting during a 1984 breakfast briefing of Catholics for a Free Choice: "The theologians worked for a day and a half among ourselves at a nearby hotel. In the evening we answered questions from the Kennedys and the Shrivers. Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics . . . and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion.

This is a chilling account of a meeting that, without any doubt, contributed to the deaths of countless unborn babies. At this meeting the Kennedy family was handed a theological rationale that served as political cover. It was a rationale that allowed this powerful family to put its influence in service of abortion rights, even as family members continued to claim identity as members of their church.

There are important lessons here, to be sure. One lesson must be this: There will be theologians who seem ever ready to find a way to subvert the teachings of their church, even as they seek to remain in its employ and trust. The second lesson is like unto the first: There will ever be politicians who are looking for political cover, and will gladly receive this cover from those willing to subvert their church's teaching. These lessons are by no means limited to the Roman Catholic Church.

We are all in Anne Hendershott's debt for her documentation of this sad spectacle. The warning represented by this historical account is troubling to see, but impossible to miss. [emphasis added throughout]

[Hat tip to J.M.]

A Prayer of Trust in God

God has created me to do Him some definite service; He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. I have my mission -- I may never know it in this life, but I shall be told it in the next. I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons. He has not created me for naught. I shall do good, I shall do His work; I shall be a preacher of truth in my own place, while not intending it, if I do but keep His commandments and serve Him in my calling.

Therefore, my God, I will put myself without reserve into Thy hands. What have I in heaven, and apart from Thee what do I want upon earth? My flesh and my heart fail, but God is the God of my heart, and my portion for ever.

--The Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman

[Acknowledgement: A Newman Prayer Book (Vincent F. Blehl, S.J., 1990), p. 4]

Why this attempt to manufacture new scandals now?

Anyone who knows anything about the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (declared an excommunicant in 1988 for his illicit ordination of four bishops), knows that despite his public opposition to the final drafts of Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae, he signed his name, along with all the other bishops present, to the ceremonial lists of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Now this signature is apparently being revisited as though it were a new and scandalizing discovery -- the "signature that unmasks Lefebvre." The question is "Why?" and "Why now?"

"The most underwhelming 'news' of the year" (Rorate Caeli, January 11, 2009) reports:

Italian religious website Petrus repeats the "amazing" news "reported" by Italian weekly Panorama. In an article dedicated to several "finds" in the "Secret heart of the Vatican" (Nel cuore segreto del Vaticano, Panorama, n. 3/2009, p. 130-134), the newsweekly's reporters found the damning evidence that... Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre signed the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

... The problem is: it is well known that Lefebvre placed his name upon the ceremonial lists of documents (for instance, both the list provided by Panorama and the one in our repository include a very diverse array of conciliar documents and, below them, signatures of bishops - the second list includes not only the above-mentioned documents, but also the only one which the Archbishop publicly praised, Presbyterorum Ordinis).

Careful "not to be especially Christian" at the inauguration

Richard Swier, "Obama Levels the 'Praying' Field" (Red Country, January 13, 2009), writes:

The pulpit is getting even more crowded at the Inauguration festivities next week. After miffing gay and lesbian groups by picking pro-Proposition 8 Rev. Rick Warren to offer the invocation on his big day, President-elect Obama is giving homosexuals a turn in the limelight. In a surprise announcement, it appears the Obama team is trying to soothe the ruffled feathers over Warren's role by asking Bishop Gene Robinson, an open homosexual, to kick off the We Are One event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial January 19.

"It is also an indication of the new president's commitment to being the President of all the people. "...[I]t will be my great honor to be there representing... all of us in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community" Robinson said. Robinson will deliver the invocation at Sunday's ceremony, which both Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden are scheduled to attend. According to the AP, "Robinson said he doesn't yet know what he'll say, but he knows he won't use a Bible. 'While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans,' Robinson said. 'I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer.'" [emphasis added]

While the choice of Robinson may be designed to placate angry liberals, the irony of it isn't lost on religious conservatives. The ballyhoo over Pastor Warren's selection was in large part because he was "divisive" in supporting Prop 8. Yet if there was ever a pastor whose actions were divisive it was Gene Robinson who almost single handedly devastated one of America's oldest Christian denominations. Robinson's confirmation in 2003 as the first openly gay Bishop shattered the once-conservative Episcopal Church and created a painful split between the liberal leadership and faithful Anglicans that cost it hundreds of thousands of followers.

Robinson says, "I believe in my heart that the church got it wrong about homosexuality." This view, which he emphasized in at least three private meetings with Obama, may be reflective of the next president's ideology, but it's far from mainstream. While liberals may not appreciate Warren's position on marriage, a majority of voters happen to agree with him. Far more states--including California--have banned counterfeit marriage than have ratified it.

Garrison Keillor: "Why can't Episcopalians play chess? Because they can't tell a bishop from a queen . . . snip"

[Hat tip to E.E.]

More whistling in the graveyard

Posters with such slogans have reportedly appeared on 800 buses in angst-ridden England, Scotland and Wales, as well as on the London Underground: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Note the word: "probably." Hah! Such confidence. Whistling in the graveyard. If you're into probabilities, I'd suggest Pascal's wager: he knew something about the odds at stake in gambling one's life. And now, apparently, the 'No God' campaign of these desperate wannabe-reassured-but-not-so-confident 'atheists' is drawing criticism from the opposition; and the best they can answer in reply is "peals of laughter." Breathtaking intellectual integrity. Funny how wannabe 'atheists' worry and fret so ... while accusing the impassive Church of being animated by fear.

'Sign of Peace' to be moved?

According to my friend Jimmy Akin over at Catholic Answers "Sign of Peace Update" (JimmyAkin.org, January 5, 2009), one of the truly notable items in the post-synodal apostolic exhortation document that came out after a long delay following the 2005 Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist was practically relegated to a footnote: "That was the announcement that the question of where the Sign of Peace is located in the Mass had been forwarded to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. (Actually, I think it referred to the appropriate dicasteries, but the CDWDS would be the key one.)

After discussing some of the problems centering on the 'Sign of Peace' in many contemporary Masses of the ordinary form, which have tended to turn it "into a big, distracting celebration of 'us'-ness,", Akin says:

"Anyway, it's been going on four years now and I've heard nothing about the proposal to move the Sign of Peace.

Until now.

I was just reading the newsletter of the U.S. Bishops' Committee for Divine Worship (formerly the Bishops' Committee on Liturgy) and ran across this item:

Survey of the Sign of Peace at Mass

The Committee [for Divine Worship] reviewed the findings of a survey requested of the USCCB by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disicpline of the Sacraments regarding the placement of the Sign of Peace at Mass. Of the 89 Bishops who responded, 66% supported moving the Sign of Peace after the Prayer of the Faithful and before the Presentation of the Gifts, 32% recommended retaining the Sign of Peace at its current location before the Agnus Dei, and 2% offered alternative opinions. A report from the USCCB was submitted to the Congregation's then-Prefect, Francis Cardinal Arinze.

Akin's comment: "Cool. Good to hear that there is some motion on this and that the bishops seem to be responding favorably.

Related

• Michael Foley, "A Crisis of Meaning in the Sign of Peace" (Scripture and Catholic Tradition, March 5, 2008).

Korean Catholic charismatic movement

"Korean Bishops denounce Charismatic excesses" (Rorate Caeli, January 9, 2009) -- specifically practices associated with "family tree healing."

Rumor has it ...

"Pell as new Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops?" (Rorate Caeli, January 10, 2009):

French ultra-"Progressive" religious weekly Golias reports on possible replacements for some important heads of dicasteries who have reached the age limit or will reach it soon.

Cardinal Re, Prefect of Bishops, reaches the age limit next January 30. Other rumors are included in the article, but none so interesting as this one: Golias reports that it "should be known that one of the most mentioned names for the Congregation for Bishops is that of the ultra-Conservative [sic] Cardinal George Pell, of Sydney".

Liturgical endnotes

• "British journals publicize Traditional Calendar" (Rorate Caeli, January 11, 2009).
  
  
• "The Vigil of the Epiphany" (Tridentine Community News, January 11, 2009):

  A reader had a question as to why the Mass this past Monday, January 5 at St. Josaphat was a Feria and not the Vigil of the Epiphany. The answer is that the Vigil of Epiphany, plus some other vigils, were suppressed in the 1955 Calendar changes. Pre-1955 hand missals that have been reprinted, such as the Fr. Lasance and St. Andrew Missals, contain this feast, however it is no longer celebrated.
  
  As we have stated before, we highly recommend the use of 1955 or later hand missals, not only because they contain the 1962 Calendar that Rome requires that we use, but also because they tend to have less typographical errors than older missals.

Detroit Archbishop-designate Vigneron on liturgy

I found a couple of interesting discussions of Archbishop-designate Vigneron's liturgical views this week. The first I discovered via "More on Archbishop-elect Vigneron" (Exsultate Iusti in Domino, January 9, 2009) -- namely "(Arch)Bishop Vigneron on Liturgy" (Thrown Back, January 9, 2009), where a certain Fr. Rob Johanesen, a priest of Diocese of Kalamazoo, Michigan, writes:

I know Bishop Vigneron from his days as rector of Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, where I had the good fortune to complete my studies for the priesthood from 1998-2001. He is an outstanding teacher and pastor. He is loyal to the Church and her Magisterium, and patient and generous as well.

Bishop Vigneron is deeply concerned with the state of the liturgical life in the church in the country, and as rector of the seminary tried to inculcate in us seminarians a sense of reverence and a respect for the liturgy as something given. Toward that end he implemented significant reforms of the seminary's liturgical practice, most notably introducing and establishing as normative the use of the Proper antiphons at seminary Masses, and moving away from the use of hymnody. He brought the late Calvert Shenk to Sacred Heart, and one of his specific charges to Cal was to restore the Propers to their rightful place in the liturgy.

... Back in 2000, while I was still a seminarian, I wrote an article for Adoremus based on an interview I had with Bishop Vigneron. The article, titled "Liturgy as Ecology" discusses the liturgical formation and training offered by the seminary. However, it provides insight not only into Bishop Vigneron's approach to the liturgical life of the seminary, but into his broader liturgical vision as well:

The single greatest problem is the tendency to turn the Liturgy into a focus on the self, rather than on God. Bishop Vigneron believes these tendencies are misguided, because they "obscure the Christological and Trinitarian focus inherent in liturgy."

"Liturgy", he says, "is not entertainment, it is not self-validated. Liturgy is the experience of heaven, not something that happens to me in some sort of emotional-personal state."

The second discussion comes from the weekly online column, "Tridentine Community News" [PDF] (January 11, 2009), which is also printed as part of the Sunday St. Josaphat Church bulletin. Here is the relevant portion of that discussion:

Archbishop-designate Vigneron and the Tridentine Mass

Much has been, and will be, written about newly-announced Archbishop-designate of the Archdiocese of Detroit, Bishop Allen Vigneron. Readers of this column, of course, will be most curious about his stance on the Tridentine Mass. We believe that our Holy Father’s selection of this particular man bodes well for the cause of the Classic Roman Liturgy in our region.

Let’s consider Bishop Vigneron’s record as Bishop of Oakland, California. In the March, 2003 edition of San Francisco Faith, an interviewer asked His Excellency:

“Q: What's your opinion of the Tridentine Mass?

A: The Holy Father has certainly encouraged the indult for Ecclesia Dei, and I certainly want to respond to the leadership of the pope in that matter.”

Bishop Vigneron followed up this statement with action: St. Margaret Mary Church near downtown Oakland had always been an impressive parish. With both Novus Ordo Latin and Tridentine Masses on the schedule, traditional architecture, and a competent music program, St. Margaret was already a home for those who prefer classic liturgy. In January, 2005, Bishop Vigneron brought in the Institute of Christ the King to assist at the parish. In addition to being made Assistant Pastor, the Institute priest was given the title “Episcopal Delegate [to the Diocese of Oakland] for the Latin Rite of 1962”. Bishop Vigneron instituted weekday Mass and permitted all of the sacraments to be celebrated according to the Extraordinary Form. A catechetical program conducted according to traditional norms was also begun.

What happened next was instructive: This longstanding home of the Traditional Mass saw their Sunday Tridentine Mass attendance increase from about 130 to over 300, essentially filling this medium-sized church. Virtually nothing about the Mass itself had changed; what was new, and obviously attractive to people, was the evident commitment of the bishop to creating a fuller traditional parish experience than just Sunday Mass.

Bishop Vigneron has participated in at least two events at St. Margaret Mary: On December 10, 2005, he celebrated the Sacrament of Confirmation according to the Extraordinary Form, then celebrated [what appears to have been from the photos] a Pontifical Low Mass. On January 23, 2008, he delivered a homily about St. Francis de Sales at, but did not celebrate, a weekday evening Tridentine Mass. For copyright reasons, we cannot reproduce the photos here, but they are available at www.institute-christ-king.org.

In the kind of cross-diocese cooperation that we see here between the Tridentine Communities of the Diocese of London (Windsor) and the Archdiocese of Detroit, Bishop Vigneron and Diocese of San Jose Bishop Patrick McGrath established an arrangement where St. Margaret’s Institute priest was also given charge of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Chapel in Santa Clara, south of Oakland. This formerly schismatic chapel had been regularized with the San Jose Diocese.

The September 19, 2005 edition of Bishop Vigneron’s column in “The Catholic Voice,” the Oakland diocesan newspaper, was entitled, “10 Rules for Handling Disagreement Like a Christian”. Rule #3 is pertinent to us today:

“3. The Rule of Legitimate Freedom: ‘What the Church allows is not to be disallowed.’

This rule means that in situations where the Church says that a variety of views or opinions is legitimate, I should not impose my option as a mandate on others. For example: we can receive Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue. Either one is acceptable.”

In other words, if the Holy Father supports Latin in the liturgy, so should we. If he supports wider use of the Extraordinary Form, so should we. Liberality is not merely about permitting innovation, it is also about restoring the traditions of the Church. Again, His Excellency walks the talk: Prior to being assigned to Oakland, during his tenure as rector of Detroit’s Sacred Heart Seminary, Gregorian Chant was reintroduced and a schola was formed.

We cannot imagine that Detroit could realistically have been assigned a greater friend to the Tridentine Mass, and to sound liturgical practice in general. But let us be realistic and understand that he will be the archbishop to all Catholics in the Archdiocese, and as such, support for Latin Liturgy will occupy a tiny fraction of his time. The wonderful news is that we have reason to be optimistic that His Excellency’s proven sympathy and support for the Extraordinary Form will translate into additional growth of, and events involving, our beloved Traditional Liturgy.

Discussion?

The Christmas gift no one should have missed

An excellent article about fakes and impositors as well as the genuine article, by Cal Thomas, "THE ULTIMATE GIFT: FAITH" (Tribune Media Services, December 22, 2008):

Examples of faith abound at this time of year. There is the faith children put in Santa Claus to bring them stuff that magically no one seems to have paid for. Call it a "bailout" for kids.

There is adult faith which believes that a Bernard Madoff can do what no one else can: guarantee a consistent rate of return on money invested with him while others who invest the legal and old-fashioned way experience the normal ebb and flow of the stock market.

Then there is the messianic-like faith many have placed in Barack Obama, the faux messiah of our time, who has been sent by the political gods to deliver us, if not from our sins, than at least from George W. Bush. Those who place their faith in Obama see him as god-like and Bush as the devil. These metaphors serve them well as substitutes for the genuine articles, in whom they either do not believe or have re-created in their own image.

A Broadway play and film called "Doubt" has won fans, many of whom probably do when it comes to God. Bill Maher made a movie about faith, mocking those who believe in God and ignoring the warnings, "The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1) and "the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Corinthians 1:18). If Maher thinks the Christmas story is foolish, isn't that evidence he is perishing?

Shoplifting increases during the Christmas season and so does its spiritual equivalent: those who want the blessings of Christmas without paying the price. Laura Miller, a staff writer for Salon, engaged in this practice in a New York Times column, "It's a Narnia Christmas." Miller said about the C.S. Lewis classic, "That I'm not a Christian doesn't much hinder my enjoyment of either the holiday or the book."

Lewis' "The Chronicles of Narnia" series was not meant solely to entertain, though entertaining it is. The books are metaphors for great truths. Elsewhere, Lewis writes that those who claim Jesus as just a great teacher have it wrong. Lewis said Jesus is either who He said He is -- the Son of God -- or a liar, a fool, or deranged. Call him anything you like, said Lewis, but don't call Him a great teacher. That is an option He does not allow. Besides, how can anyone be a great teacher if he teaches something that is not true?

The mockers and doubters, like the poor, have always been with us. They have nothing new to say. Their unbelief is as familiar as it is predictable.

Faith is a gift, the ultimate gift. It is of far greater and eternal value than anything to be found under a Christmas tree. While clothes and toys wear out or are forgotten, faith lasts. It has the additional benefit of already having been bought and paid for by Someone else. It is the "substance of things hoped for, the assurance of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

Faith cannot be taught (though teaching plays a role). No one is argued to faith, which is why it is fruitless to debate those who lack it. Better to demonstrate the faith one has than berate and belittle people who do not yet have it.

Christmas offers an opportunity to again consider what matters most. Especially this year with the anemic economy and multiple challenges to our misplaced faith in prosperity and politicians, now would be a good time to consider the song lyric: "Fame, if you win it, comes and goes in a minute. Where's the real stuff in life to cling to?"

The answer to that question is to be found where it has always been: Start in the manger and then move to the cross and the empty tomb and consider the carol, "where meek souls will receive Him still, the dear Christ enters in."

You don't have that kind of faith? You asked someone for a Christmas gift, didn't you? Ask God for the ultimate gift.

[Hat tip to Donegan Smith]