I have received no comments nor do I believe many people have endeavored to read my last blog entry. As such here is a slightly abridged version which I hope will be easier to read, and I encourage my readers to read it as it is a very important topic. AP
~~~
I have read quite frequently lately about the hot topic amongst many Catholics which is the question of priestly vocations. I intend to try my best, with the help of the Spirit, to shed some light on this.
As most of us may well know, there has been a shortage of priests in recent years as well as a decline in the number of vocations. Some parishes do not have a resident priest and do not take Holy Communion as often as other parishes do. Other parishes have closed down. The whole doomsday scenario goes on. I used to worry about this question quite a bit but now I've tried my best to confide in the Lord and surrender my qualms to Him because, in the end, He will see His Church through. Correction: He is seeing His Church through.
Here are the facts that many in the women ordination/end-priestly-celibacy camp won't tell you.
(1) The fact that priestly vocations have declined in the US does not mean they have declined all over the world. While priestly vocations have declined precipitously in the Western world, they have either remained steady in number or increased in more underdeveloped countries. Relatively modernized countries like Poland and Ireland actually have priest surpluses and are "exporting" priests around the world to help. Many parishes in secular France have at least 8 priests for tiny parishes. Consider this: statistically speaking, would it not make more sense that in a more strongly Catholic area where there are large numbers of true faithful, there would also be a comparatively adequate number of pure vocations to the priesthood?
(2) Although unfortunate, it is not the end of the world if a parish goes without Holy Communion from time to time. There are countries in the world where parishes only take the Eucharist once or twice a year at most due to supply shortages.
(3) The number of Catholics in the world right now is a bit over 1 billion (1,000,000,000)- one sixth of the world population. That is not the number of practicing Catholics, the ones who most call upon the presence of a priest, which is surely quite a bit less. So when someone says that there are well over a billion Catholics in the world, and that there are way too few priests, and that there simply aren't enough priests to deal with the massive population of Catholics- think again.
There are many groups and dissident factions within the Church today who have created a sort of doomsday sensationalism regarding the vocation question such as FutureChurch and Call to Action which have been plotting to bring down our sacred tradition and who have waited patiently for the moment to strike during which to push their divisive agenda. They scored a minor victory in Vatican II but the Church stood firm.
I have consulted graphical data from the Georgetown University Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, which I'll describe here (to see the graphs, go to the original blog). In the period where the Catholic Church in the US really got momentum going from 1899 all the way up to the period around 1956-1965, the number of religious priests and brothers rose dramatically. The rate of growth did not begin to seriously decelerate until the '65-'76 period- right in the wake of Vatican II. Then, in the 1976-1985 period, the number begins to plummet. (Incidentally, while many pro-women ordinationists would like to say that there is an ample supply of women to be priestesses, the fact is that the number of women religious has plummeted just as dramatically if not more as with the men.)
How does one account for these trends? Well, there are many reasons to explain the gradual decline in vocations in the post-WWII period- the rebellious spirit of the times, the rise of secularism in the US, the sexual "revolution", the overall assault on traditional authority and morality, etc. However, the plummeting of vocations in the period around 1975-1985 can be most easily explained by the changes enacted during Vatican II and the Protestantization of ministry with an overemphasis on the laity. If the laity are made to think that they are equal in authority as the priest, that they can perform many of the same functions as the priest, and that they do not need ordination to engage in the ministry of the Church, what reason do they have to go through the trouble of ordination? The Novus Ordo Mass in itself does not require much particular skill or expertise to perform. If I dare speak of appeal, the appeal of the post-Conciliar priesthood is not as strong as it once was, when being a priest was something exceptional, loftier, requiring a deeper spiritual retreat from the world and commitment to prayer that has been greatly de-emphasized in our modern times. The overall emphases made in the "spirit of Vatican II" create the impression that being a priest is not as necessary as just doing your duty. Let us not forget that the practice of receiving a tonsure in the pre-Conciliar Church and having strictly altar boys (who were in that position as potential seminarians) contributed greatly to the number of vocations.
Somehow I get the feeling that persisting in the modernist liberalization of the Church will not really help the vocation question since it seems to have done immense harm as the "reforms" have crept in during the past 40 or so years. Perhaps a return to the traditional theology and teachings of the Church is in order. If the Church enters and becomes of the world, it loses its moral authority and its source of strength and sanctity that has so drawn the many religious to its ranks for centuries. This is why priestly celibacy, the deepest sign of a priest's complete commitment to his supremely vital labor and his bride, the Church, must be retained. Regarding "priestesshood", I reiterate the millennial position of our Holy Mother Church that we have only male priests because Christ only chose men to be his Apostles. Men, by virtue of their bodies (as explained in JPII's Theology of the Body) and their scriptural role as the stewards of God's Creation, are the initiators of the sacrifice, they have been chosen throughout history to be God's priests. They are not superior to women nor are women, thus, inferior. Men are ordinate and women subordinate. This is in Scripture (1 Corinthians: 1-16, Ephesians 5:21-33). This is not oppression nor an expression of a lesser worth on the part of women nor even the blind assertion of social practice. Men and women have distinct roles- this is what makes society run. Rather than bicker all day about "liberation" or "rights", why don't we get to work doing what we are called to do, either as men or as women, each called in unique ways to serve God the Father. There is much work to be done. There is no time to waste on this frivolous debate.
O Holy Spirit, Spirit of wisdom and divine love, impart Your knowledge, understanding, and counsel to youth that they may know the vocation wherein they can best serve God. Give them courage and strength to follow God's holy will. Guide their uncertain steps, strengthen their resolutions, shield their chastity, fashion their minds, conquer their hearts, and lead them to the vineyards where they will labor in God's holy service.
Amen.
31 March 2008
28 March 2008
The Vocation Sensation
I have read quite frequently lately from a number of people, sources, websites, etc. about the hot topic amongst many Catholics which is the question of priestly vocations. With it comes the anti-Church quick-fix: female ordination and/or married priests. I intend to try my best, with the help of the Spirit, to shed some light on this.
As most of us may well know, there has been a shortage of priests in recent years as well as a decline in the number of vocations. Some parishes do not have a resident priest and do not take Holy Communion as often as other parishes do. Other parishes have closed down. The whole doomsday scenario goes on.
I used to worry about this question quite a bit. It still causes me an acute bit of anxiety but I've tried my best to confide in the Lord and surrender my qualms to Him because, in the end, He will see His Church through. Correction: He is seeing His Church through.
Here are the facts that many in the women ordination/end-priestly-celibacy camp won't tell you.
(1) The fact that priestly vocations have declined in the US does not mean they have declined all over the world. We like to project our problems here and think they are global in scope since, after all, the US of A is the center of humanity as we know it, right? Right?... No. While priestly vocations have declined precipitously in the Western, secular, increasingly irreligious, capitalist, economic powerhouse world, they have either remained steady in number or increased in "second" and especially Third World countries. In the poorest countries of the world God is calling the loudest for the children of the poor to shepherd His flock. Somehow this does not surprise me at all.
Relatively modernized countries like Poland and Ireland actually have priest surpluses and are "exporting" priests around the world to help. During my time in France, it was not uncommon to find parishes with 8 priests and up for dwindling parishes. So the argument that the number of Catholics is skyrocketing and the number of priests is dwindling is only an iota correct. Every area has its own situation. Consider this: statistically speaking, would it not make more sense that in a more strongly Catholic area where there are large numbers of true faithful, there would also be a comparatively adequate number of pure vocations to the priesthood? In Europe, despite its radical secularism and assaults on religion, there are still steady numbers of vocations to the priesthood. They're not as high as they used to be but they are there. Thanks be to God.
(2) Although unfortunate, it is not the end of the world if a parish goes without Holy Communion from time to time. There are countries in the world where parishes only take the Eucharist once or twice a year at most due to supply shortages. In the city where this was written (Gainesville, FL) the Eucharist is taken on at least 54 occasions PER WEEK. And this is in the South where Protestantism is strong. Consider that before you whine and complain.
(3) Throwing out data is one thing. Interpreting it is another. As we all know, 47% of statistics are made up! All the same, this we do know: the number of Catholics in the world right now is a bit over 1 billion (1,000,000,000). That is one sixth of the world population. That number is primarily compiled from parish registrations, which are required by churches. Now, any one Catholic could be registered in more than one church at any time. I am one of those. Any Catholic could also register at a church and then never go to Mass or practice his or her faith at all. Assessing the number of practicing Catholics is trickier than just looking at registrations and it is they who most call upon the presence of a priest. So when someone says that there are well over a billion Catholics in the world, and that there are way too few priests, and that there simply aren't enough priests to deal with the massive population of Catholics- think again. Yes, it would be nice to have more priests who can go out and evangelize, bring people back, etc. but at this time there aren't. This is not a bad thing. We make do with what we have and let God work His wonders.
There are many groups and dissident factions within the Church today who have created a sort of doomsday sensationalism regarding the vocation question such as FutureChurch and Call to Action which have been plotting to bring down our sacred tradition and who have waited patiently for the moment to strike during which to push their divisive agenda. They scored a minor victory in Vatican II but the Church stood firm.
Allow me to show you exhibit one: graphical data from the Georgetown University Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. I have been yearning for some time now to locate this data and see if my suspicions regarding the trends in the 20th century were true. They proved true.
As you can see from the below chart, in the period where the Catholic Church in the US really got momentum going from 1899 all the way up to the period around 1956-1965, the number of religious priests and brothers rose dramatically. The rate of growth did not begin to seriously decelerate until the '65-'76 period- right in the wake of Vatican II. Then, shockingly, in the 1976-1985 period, the number begins to plummet. (Incidentally, while many pro-women ordinationists would like to say that there is an ample supply of women to be priestesses, the fact is that the number of women religious has plummeted just as dramtically if not more as with the men.)
(If you can't see these charts, click them)
Below, exhibit two: women religious trends.
How does one account for these trends? Well, there are many reasons to explain the gradual decline in vocations in the post-WWII period- the rebellious spirit of the times, the rise of secularism in the US, the sexual "revolution", the overall assault on traditional authority and morality, etc. However, the plummeting of vocations in the period around 1975-1985 can be most easily explained by the changes enacted during Vatican II and the Protestantization of ministry with an overemphasis on the laity. If the laity are made to think that they are equal in authority as the priest, that they can perform many of the same functions as the priest, and that they do not need ordination to engage in the ministry of the Church, what reason do they have to go through the trouble of ordination? The Novus Ordo Mass in itself does not require much particular skill or expertise to perform. If I dare speak of appeal, the appeal of the post-Conciliar priesthood is not as strong as it once was, when being a priest was something exceptional, loftier, requiring a deeper spiritual retreat from the world and commitment to prayer that has been greatly de-emphasized in our modern times. Is this to say that all post-Conciliar priests are bad? NO! Nonetheless, the overall emphases made in the "spirit of Vatican II" create the impression that being a priest is not as necessary as just doing your duty. Let us not forget that the practice of receiving a tonsure in the pre-Conciliar Church and having strictly altar boys (who were in that position as potential seminarians) contributed greatly to the number of vocations.
Somehow I get the feeling that persisting in the modernist liberalization of the Church will not really help the vocation question. It seems to have done immense harm since the "reforms" crept in during the past 40 or so years. Perhaps a return to the traditional theology and teachings of the Church is in order. Perhaps doing things the way we did for so many centuries is the solution. If the Church enters and becomes of the world, it loses its moral authority and its source of strength and sanctity that has so drawn the many religious to its ranks for centuries. This is why priestly celibacy, the deepest sign of a priest's complete commitment to his supremely vital labor and his bride, the Church, must be retained. Regarding "priestesshood", I reiterate the millennial position of our Holy Mother Church that we have only male priests because Christ only chose men to be his Apostles. Men, by virtue of their bodies (as explained in JPII's Theology of the Body) and their scriptural role as the stewards of God's Creation, are the initiators of the sacrifice, they have been chosen throughout history to be God's priests. They are not superior to women nor are women, thus, inferior. Men are ordinate and women subordinate. This is in Scripture (1 Corinthians: 1-16, Ephesians 5:21-33). This is not oppression nor an expression of a lesser worth on the part of women nor even the blind assertion of social practice. Men and women have distinct roles- this is what makes society run. Rather than bicker all day about "liberation" or "rights", why don't we get to work doing what we are called to do, either as men or as women, each called in unique ways to serve God the Father. There is much work to be done. There is no time to waste on this frivolous debate.
O Holy Spirit, Spirit of wisdom and divine love, impart Your knowledge, understanding, and counsel to youth that they may know the vocation wherein they can best serve God. Give them courage and strength to follow God's holy will. Guide their uncertain steps, strengthen their resolutions, shield their chastity, fashion their minds, conquer their hearts, and lead them to the vineyards where they will labor in God's holy service.
Amen.
An explanation for the male priesthood
Priestly celibacy
Vocations Blog (Very interesting)
As most of us may well know, there has been a shortage of priests in recent years as well as a decline in the number of vocations. Some parishes do not have a resident priest and do not take Holy Communion as often as other parishes do. Other parishes have closed down. The whole doomsday scenario goes on.
I used to worry about this question quite a bit. It still causes me an acute bit of anxiety but I've tried my best to confide in the Lord and surrender my qualms to Him because, in the end, He will see His Church through. Correction: He is seeing His Church through.
Here are the facts that many in the women ordination/end-priestly-celibacy camp won't tell you.
(1) The fact that priestly vocations have declined in the US does not mean they have declined all over the world. We like to project our problems here and think they are global in scope since, after all, the US of A is the center of humanity as we know it, right? Right?... No. While priestly vocations have declined precipitously in the Western, secular, increasingly irreligious, capitalist, economic powerhouse world, they have either remained steady in number or increased in "second" and especially Third World countries. In the poorest countries of the world God is calling the loudest for the children of the poor to shepherd His flock. Somehow this does not surprise me at all.
Relatively modernized countries like Poland and Ireland actually have priest surpluses and are "exporting" priests around the world to help. During my time in France, it was not uncommon to find parishes with 8 priests and up for dwindling parishes. So the argument that the number of Catholics is skyrocketing and the number of priests is dwindling is only an iota correct. Every area has its own situation. Consider this: statistically speaking, would it not make more sense that in a more strongly Catholic area where there are large numbers of true faithful, there would also be a comparatively adequate number of pure vocations to the priesthood? In Europe, despite its radical secularism and assaults on religion, there are still steady numbers of vocations to the priesthood. They're not as high as they used to be but they are there. Thanks be to God.
(2) Although unfortunate, it is not the end of the world if a parish goes without Holy Communion from time to time. There are countries in the world where parishes only take the Eucharist once or twice a year at most due to supply shortages. In the city where this was written (Gainesville, FL) the Eucharist is taken on at least 54 occasions PER WEEK. And this is in the South where Protestantism is strong. Consider that before you whine and complain.
(3) Throwing out data is one thing. Interpreting it is another. As we all know, 47% of statistics are made up! All the same, this we do know: the number of Catholics in the world right now is a bit over 1 billion (1,000,000,000). That is one sixth of the world population. That number is primarily compiled from parish registrations, which are required by churches. Now, any one Catholic could be registered in more than one church at any time. I am one of those. Any Catholic could also register at a church and then never go to Mass or practice his or her faith at all. Assessing the number of practicing Catholics is trickier than just looking at registrations and it is they who most call upon the presence of a priest. So when someone says that there are well over a billion Catholics in the world, and that there are way too few priests, and that there simply aren't enough priests to deal with the massive population of Catholics- think again. Yes, it would be nice to have more priests who can go out and evangelize, bring people back, etc. but at this time there aren't. This is not a bad thing. We make do with what we have and let God work His wonders.
There are many groups and dissident factions within the Church today who have created a sort of doomsday sensationalism regarding the vocation question such as FutureChurch and Call to Action which have been plotting to bring down our sacred tradition and who have waited patiently for the moment to strike during which to push their divisive agenda. They scored a minor victory in Vatican II but the Church stood firm.
Allow me to show you exhibit one: graphical data from the Georgetown University Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. I have been yearning for some time now to locate this data and see if my suspicions regarding the trends in the 20th century were true. They proved true.
As you can see from the below chart, in the period where the Catholic Church in the US really got momentum going from 1899 all the way up to the period around 1956-1965, the number of religious priests and brothers rose dramatically. The rate of growth did not begin to seriously decelerate until the '65-'76 period- right in the wake of Vatican II. Then, shockingly, in the 1976-1985 period, the number begins to plummet. (Incidentally, while many pro-women ordinationists would like to say that there is an ample supply of women to be priestesses, the fact is that the number of women religious has plummeted just as dramtically if not more as with the men.)
(If you can't see these charts, click them)
Below, exhibit two: women religious trends.
How does one account for these trends? Well, there are many reasons to explain the gradual decline in vocations in the post-WWII period- the rebellious spirit of the times, the rise of secularism in the US, the sexual "revolution", the overall assault on traditional authority and morality, etc. However, the plummeting of vocations in the period around 1975-1985 can be most easily explained by the changes enacted during Vatican II and the Protestantization of ministry with an overemphasis on the laity. If the laity are made to think that they are equal in authority as the priest, that they can perform many of the same functions as the priest, and that they do not need ordination to engage in the ministry of the Church, what reason do they have to go through the trouble of ordination? The Novus Ordo Mass in itself does not require much particular skill or expertise to perform. If I dare speak of appeal, the appeal of the post-Conciliar priesthood is not as strong as it once was, when being a priest was something exceptional, loftier, requiring a deeper spiritual retreat from the world and commitment to prayer that has been greatly de-emphasized in our modern times. Is this to say that all post-Conciliar priests are bad? NO! Nonetheless, the overall emphases made in the "spirit of Vatican II" create the impression that being a priest is not as necessary as just doing your duty. Let us not forget that the practice of receiving a tonsure in the pre-Conciliar Church and having strictly altar boys (who were in that position as potential seminarians) contributed greatly to the number of vocations.
Somehow I get the feeling that persisting in the modernist liberalization of the Church will not really help the vocation question. It seems to have done immense harm since the "reforms" crept in during the past 40 or so years. Perhaps a return to the traditional theology and teachings of the Church is in order. Perhaps doing things the way we did for so many centuries is the solution. If the Church enters and becomes of the world, it loses its moral authority and its source of strength and sanctity that has so drawn the many religious to its ranks for centuries. This is why priestly celibacy, the deepest sign of a priest's complete commitment to his supremely vital labor and his bride, the Church, must be retained. Regarding "priestesshood", I reiterate the millennial position of our Holy Mother Church that we have only male priests because Christ only chose men to be his Apostles. Men, by virtue of their bodies (as explained in JPII's Theology of the Body) and their scriptural role as the stewards of God's Creation, are the initiators of the sacrifice, they have been chosen throughout history to be God's priests. They are not superior to women nor are women, thus, inferior. Men are ordinate and women subordinate. This is in Scripture (1 Corinthians: 1-16, Ephesians 5:21-33). This is not oppression nor an expression of a lesser worth on the part of women nor even the blind assertion of social practice. Men and women have distinct roles- this is what makes society run. Rather than bicker all day about "liberation" or "rights", why don't we get to work doing what we are called to do, either as men or as women, each called in unique ways to serve God the Father. There is much work to be done. There is no time to waste on this frivolous debate.
O Holy Spirit, Spirit of wisdom and divine love, impart Your knowledge, understanding, and counsel to youth that they may know the vocation wherein they can best serve God. Give them courage and strength to follow God's holy will. Guide their uncertain steps, strengthen their resolutions, shield their chastity, fashion their minds, conquer their hearts, and lead them to the vineyards where they will labor in God's holy service.
Amen.
An explanation for the male priesthood
Priestly celibacy
Vocations Blog (Very interesting)
23 March 2008
Happy Easter
A very blessed and happy Easter to all, in commemoration of the Resurrection of our Lord, which opened the doors of Heaven to humanity and sealed our fates to our discipleship to Him and His Church.
Et cum transisset sabbatum Maria Magdalene et Maria Iacobi et Salome emerunt aromata ut venientes unguerent eum 2 et valde mane una sabbatorum veniunt ad monumentum orto iam sole 3 et dicebant ad invicem quis revolvet nobis lapidem ab ostio monumenti 4 et respicientes vident revolutum lapidem erat quippe magnus valde 5 et introeuntes in monumento viderunt iuvenem sedentem in dextris coopertum stola candida et obstipuerunt
Et cum transisset sabbatum Maria Magdalene et Maria Iacobi et Salome emerunt aromata ut venientes unguerent eum 2 et valde mane una sabbatorum veniunt ad monumentum orto iam sole 3 et dicebant ad invicem quis revolvet nobis lapidem ab ostio monumenti 4 et respicientes vident revolutum lapidem erat quippe magnus valde 5 et introeuntes in monumento viderunt iuvenem sedentem in dextris coopertum stola candida et obstipuerunt
6 qui dicit illis nolite expavescere Iesum quaeritis Nazarenum crucifixum surrexit non est hic ecce locus ubi posuerunt eum 7 sed ite et dicite discipulis eius et Petro quia praecedit vos in Galilaeam ibi eum videbitis sicut dixit vobis 8 at illae exeuntes fugerunt de monumento invaserat enim eas tremor et pavor et nemini quicquam dixerunt timebant enim 9 surgens autem mane prima sabbati apparuit primo Mariae Magdalenae de qua eiecerat septem daemonia 10 illa vadens nuntiavit his qui cum eo fuerant lugentibus et flentibus
11 et illi audientes quia viveret et visus esset ab ea non crediderunt 12 post haec autem duobus ex eis ambulantibus ostensus est in alia effigie euntibus in villam 13 et illi euntes nuntiaverunt ceteris nec illis crediderunt 14 novissime recumbentibus illis undecim apparuit et exprobravit incredulitatem illorum et duritiam cordis quia his qui viderant eum resurrexisse non crediderant 15 et dixit eis euntes in mundum universum praedicate evangelium omni creaturae
16 qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur 17 signa autem eos qui crediderint haec sequentur in nomine meo daemonia eicient linguis loquentur novis 18 serpentes tollent et si mortiferum quid biberint non eos nocebit super aegrotos manus inponent et bene habebunt 19 et Dominus quidem postquam locutus est eis adsumptus est in caelum et sedit a dextris Dei
19 March 2008
Chat With an Anglican & What is Community?
(This is very long, but I beg that you will read it all attentively).
I will begin my post saying that I spent about two and a half hours this evening having come across, quite fortuitously, a devout Anglican with whom I had perhaps the most enriching, profound, and just plain amazing conversation about faith and Catholicism that I've had in eons. It goes beyond words how great it was. Conversations like that are few and very far between. Part of our conversation involved a chat on the meaning of community, which I'll get to in a bit.
As I was doing my barista work at the Christian Study Center, this good gentleman, about 50 years old or so, happened to come in to purchase a coffee and casually asked me what the Study Center was. I don't know how it began but we got into a preliminary chat on theology. We quickly realized who we were and our stances on this and that and the conversation took off from there.
I was stunned to find that on virtually every single point on theology, traditional Catholicism, the liturgy, in a word- everything- we were in perfect agreement. I daresay I have spoken so candidly about my Catholicism with few if any Roman Catholics. Why is this man an Anglican you ask? Well, he was raised Catholic, but left the Church to become an Anglican because after Vatican II, the Church was simply not that Catholic anymore. The traditional Anglican Church, so it seems, has maintained virtually intact so many practices and beliefs, &c. &c. that its brand of Catholicism, per se, is more "Catholic" than that which emerged from the chaos of the 60's post-Vatican II.
Take a moment and digest that.
Wait, you mean, a Protestant thinks the post-Vatican de facto Church is not Catholic enough?! Now, hold your horses! Don't go running off to Westminster now! All is not lost in Rome. In fact, nothing is lost! The reforms of Vatican II were just hijacked by, dare I say, ideological flappers that just took off into Kumbayah land such that it really, really looks like all hell and happy-holding-hands-quasi-Protestantized-Catholicism has broken loose. In many ways it has, but fear not! The gates of hell will not prevail and Sacred Tradition will triumph! It is already happening! I desist.
Why am I so excited about the long and exciting chat I had with this gentleman? I am excited because it gives me hope- profound hope. It gives me hope that the Church will reunify, not in the ridiculous ecumenical way whereby everyone descends into a sort of least-common-denominator Christianity, which really has no semblance to Christianity, and which ultimately will spell the doom for what Catholicism has stood for for 2000 years. NO! The body of Christ will reunify into one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church when all Christians the world round come to the realization of the Gospel Truth (can I hear an Amen?) that is professed and safeguarded by the Holy Catholic Church as it has been all these centuries past. It will be, once again, a genuine, unified, body of believers in true community, i.e., in true COMMUNION with Christ the Bridegroom.
Can I hear an amen?
That brings me to the coup de grâce: what is community? Why do I suddenly decide to talk about this? You shall see.
The man with whom I spoke, named Ed, is an architectural historian. He is about to write a book on the liturgical functionality of traditional churches; quite fascinating, I'd say. Anyways, as we all know, one of the developments in contemporary churches is the abandonment of traditional church architecture- the Latin cross form, the altar is smack in the middle and nothing obstructs its view, etc.- for a more "open" and "liberal" architecture. One predominant form is the circle, whereby a church is designed in such a way that the congregation surrounds the altar and forms a circle with the priest, who faces them. "This is," Ed stated, "quite a communistic arrangement."
Whoa! Communism? Yes. Communism. Not the Fidel Castro kind, but rather the "we're all equal and we're happy holding hands" etc. This begs the question: isn't a community formed of a group of equals, all together and loving each other. Well, yea, but that's just a super tiny aspect of it.
Ever since the dawn of humanity, human societal organization, from the most primitive hunter-gatherers to the most advanced societies, have been characterized by a number of shared characteristics. Here are the big ones:
~Shared customs, practices, beliefs, ideals, etc.
~A common language or communicative symbology
~Sacred places and/or dwellings/places of gathering
~A leader (uh-oh...)
Just think a little bit and see that it is virtually impossible for a human society to function without these things. Is not a religious denomination organized thus, as well? Catholicism sure is! We have shared customs and beliefs, etc. that define us and distinguish us as Catholics. We share a common language of worship, be it the literal language which, traditionally, is Latin, or be it the vocabulary of the faith. We have sacred places set aside for special purposes called CHURCHES to which we invest much time and energy to make beautiful and useful in keeping with their extraordinary purpose. Lastly, we have a leader/leaders. Our Leader is the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. We are led by bishops and by priests, who lead us in prayer. When one or more of these things is absent, community degenerates into a mob, or at best a gaggle (since mobs often have leaders, too!).
Armed with these weapons, we now proceed to take a good look at our contemporary situation. The "spirit of Vatican II" has caused a (fictitious) shift in the Church's thinking from a more individualistic notion of salvation to a more socialized one. Therefore, we throw around the word "Church community" quite a bit and forget what that means. Point blank: this is false. Why? Well, if everyone is allowed to believe whatever they want to believe (shopping at the cafeteria, being "open-minded"), criteria number 1 breaks down. Suddenly, we are no longer united in belief and such. Then, every church in the world is allowed to use its own vernacular, such that an American Catholic going to an Ethiopian Catholic church has no idea what the heck is going on in terms of language. He is not a part of that community. Criteria 2 has been shot down. Don't even get me started on how 3 has been chiseled away with these hideous modern megachurches, or outdoor "camp" masses on the grass, etc.
The kicker is with number 4. It is anthropologically impossible for a human society, on whatever scale, to exist without at least a rudimentary degree of leadership. And we wonder then how it is that liberal Protestantism has shamed Christianity with this indescribable multiplicity of beliefs and sects. Why has this happened? There is NO leadership of any sort. Anyone who says that they can be in a church community or a legitimate religious denomination without a spiritual leader is absolutely off their rocker! Is a church pastor who preaches day in and day out a leader to his flock? NO! Somebody who stands in front of you and talks to you is not leading you. They are talking to you. Now, is a person, specially set aside for a particular purpose- as a military officer is set aside with a distinct uniform, distinct responsibilities, and a distinct role- a leader? Yes. A leader is not a God-like figure, although if they do well they can be a beautiful manifestation of God's presence. He does not have to be divine or all holy, although an extraordinary degree of exemplarity is a prerequisite to leadership. Who on earth plays such a role in the ordinary Catholic Church adherent to the true Faith?-- a priest. A priest, like a person driving a car, faces his back to the group not because he does not care about them, but because he is leading. (Who ever saw a general run into battle with his troops running backwards on his horse? I mean, seriously). He has exceptional knowledge in his role, appears slightly different, etc. but has the same innate essence as those he leads. THIS IS TRUE COMMUNITY. United behind the priest, the Catholic parish offers itself up as a group in the purest form of community, most especially while taking Holy Communion (communion = come + union), in a specially set-aside place, with a set of shared practices and beliefs, and with a common language. Nothing comes closer to community than this. The parishioners in this community understand that from among them is a person chosen to perform special different roles in order to help preserve their community. They come to him for advice, address their grievances and troubles to him, and trust in his expertise in his specially-assigned role, reserving judgment of his capacities to a more competent authority higher than him out of humility, reverence, and respect for a fellow man.
I can not stress any more strongly how profoundly the traditional faith of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the purest and most beautiful manifestation of human community united in love of God in Christ ever witnessed on the face of this earth. Nothing else competes at all.
I will begin my post saying that I spent about two and a half hours this evening having come across, quite fortuitously, a devout Anglican with whom I had perhaps the most enriching, profound, and just plain amazing conversation about faith and Catholicism that I've had in eons. It goes beyond words how great it was. Conversations like that are few and very far between. Part of our conversation involved a chat on the meaning of community, which I'll get to in a bit.
As I was doing my barista work at the Christian Study Center, this good gentleman, about 50 years old or so, happened to come in to purchase a coffee and casually asked me what the Study Center was. I don't know how it began but we got into a preliminary chat on theology. We quickly realized who we were and our stances on this and that and the conversation took off from there.
I was stunned to find that on virtually every single point on theology, traditional Catholicism, the liturgy, in a word- everything- we were in perfect agreement. I daresay I have spoken so candidly about my Catholicism with few if any Roman Catholics. Why is this man an Anglican you ask? Well, he was raised Catholic, but left the Church to become an Anglican because after Vatican II, the Church was simply not that Catholic anymore. The traditional Anglican Church, so it seems, has maintained virtually intact so many practices and beliefs, &c. &c. that its brand of Catholicism, per se, is more "Catholic" than that which emerged from the chaos of the 60's post-Vatican II.
Take a moment and digest that.
Wait, you mean, a Protestant thinks the post-Vatican de facto Church is not Catholic enough?! Now, hold your horses! Don't go running off to Westminster now! All is not lost in Rome. In fact, nothing is lost! The reforms of Vatican II were just hijacked by, dare I say, ideological flappers that just took off into Kumbayah land such that it really, really looks like all hell and happy-holding-hands-quasi-Protestantized-Catholicism has broken loose. In many ways it has, but fear not! The gates of hell will not prevail and Sacred Tradition will triumph! It is already happening! I desist.
Why am I so excited about the long and exciting chat I had with this gentleman? I am excited because it gives me hope- profound hope. It gives me hope that the Church will reunify, not in the ridiculous ecumenical way whereby everyone descends into a sort of least-common-denominator Christianity, which really has no semblance to Christianity, and which ultimately will spell the doom for what Catholicism has stood for for 2000 years. NO! The body of Christ will reunify into one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church when all Christians the world round come to the realization of the Gospel Truth (can I hear an Amen?) that is professed and safeguarded by the Holy Catholic Church as it has been all these centuries past. It will be, once again, a genuine, unified, body of believers in true community, i.e., in true COMMUNION with Christ the Bridegroom.
Can I hear an amen?
That brings me to the coup de grâce: what is community? Why do I suddenly decide to talk about this? You shall see.
The man with whom I spoke, named Ed, is an architectural historian. He is about to write a book on the liturgical functionality of traditional churches; quite fascinating, I'd say. Anyways, as we all know, one of the developments in contemporary churches is the abandonment of traditional church architecture- the Latin cross form, the altar is smack in the middle and nothing obstructs its view, etc.- for a more "open" and "liberal" architecture. One predominant form is the circle, whereby a church is designed in such a way that the congregation surrounds the altar and forms a circle with the priest, who faces them. "This is," Ed stated, "quite a communistic arrangement."
Whoa! Communism? Yes. Communism. Not the Fidel Castro kind, but rather the "we're all equal and we're happy holding hands" etc. This begs the question: isn't a community formed of a group of equals, all together and loving each other. Well, yea, but that's just a super tiny aspect of it.
Ever since the dawn of humanity, human societal organization, from the most primitive hunter-gatherers to the most advanced societies, have been characterized by a number of shared characteristics. Here are the big ones:
~Shared customs, practices, beliefs, ideals, etc.
~A common language or communicative symbology
~Sacred places and/or dwellings/places of gathering
~A leader (uh-oh...)
Just think a little bit and see that it is virtually impossible for a human society to function without these things. Is not a religious denomination organized thus, as well? Catholicism sure is! We have shared customs and beliefs, etc. that define us and distinguish us as Catholics. We share a common language of worship, be it the literal language which, traditionally, is Latin, or be it the vocabulary of the faith. We have sacred places set aside for special purposes called CHURCHES to which we invest much time and energy to make beautiful and useful in keeping with their extraordinary purpose. Lastly, we have a leader/leaders. Our Leader is the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. We are led by bishops and by priests, who lead us in prayer. When one or more of these things is absent, community degenerates into a mob, or at best a gaggle (since mobs often have leaders, too!).
Armed with these weapons, we now proceed to take a good look at our contemporary situation. The "spirit of Vatican II" has caused a (fictitious) shift in the Church's thinking from a more individualistic notion of salvation to a more socialized one. Therefore, we throw around the word "Church community" quite a bit and forget what that means. Point blank: this is false. Why? Well, if everyone is allowed to believe whatever they want to believe (shopping at the cafeteria, being "open-minded"), criteria number 1 breaks down. Suddenly, we are no longer united in belief and such. Then, every church in the world is allowed to use its own vernacular, such that an American Catholic going to an Ethiopian Catholic church has no idea what the heck is going on in terms of language. He is not a part of that community. Criteria 2 has been shot down. Don't even get me started on how 3 has been chiseled away with these hideous modern megachurches, or outdoor "camp" masses on the grass, etc.
The kicker is with number 4. It is anthropologically impossible for a human society, on whatever scale, to exist without at least a rudimentary degree of leadership. And we wonder then how it is that liberal Protestantism has shamed Christianity with this indescribable multiplicity of beliefs and sects. Why has this happened? There is NO leadership of any sort. Anyone who says that they can be in a church community or a legitimate religious denomination without a spiritual leader is absolutely off their rocker! Is a church pastor who preaches day in and day out a leader to his flock? NO! Somebody who stands in front of you and talks to you is not leading you. They are talking to you. Now, is a person, specially set aside for a particular purpose- as a military officer is set aside with a distinct uniform, distinct responsibilities, and a distinct role- a leader? Yes. A leader is not a God-like figure, although if they do well they can be a beautiful manifestation of God's presence. He does not have to be divine or all holy, although an extraordinary degree of exemplarity is a prerequisite to leadership. Who on earth plays such a role in the ordinary Catholic Church adherent to the true Faith?-- a priest. A priest, like a person driving a car, faces his back to the group not because he does not care about them, but because he is leading. (Who ever saw a general run into battle with his troops running backwards on his horse? I mean, seriously). He has exceptional knowledge in his role, appears slightly different, etc. but has the same innate essence as those he leads. THIS IS TRUE COMMUNITY. United behind the priest, the Catholic parish offers itself up as a group in the purest form of community, most especially while taking Holy Communion (communion = come + union), in a specially set-aside place, with a set of shared practices and beliefs, and with a common language. Nothing comes closer to community than this. The parishioners in this community understand that from among them is a person chosen to perform special different roles in order to help preserve their community. They come to him for advice, address their grievances and troubles to him, and trust in his expertise in his specially-assigned role, reserving judgment of his capacities to a more competent authority higher than him out of humility, reverence, and respect for a fellow man.
I can not stress any more strongly how profoundly the traditional faith of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the purest and most beautiful manifestation of human community united in love of God in Christ ever witnessed on the face of this earth. Nothing else competes at all.
11 March 2008
Thou shalt not...pollute your backyard?
A top Vatican official just recently "updated" the old list of sins by adding in such things as polluting the environment, genetic manipulation, and (my favorite) extreme inequality as exemplified by the quote: "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." It seems that the modern legalistic spirit of wanting to get away with anything that is not expressly forbidden has necessitated that the Vatican spell things out.
The hallmark of a liberal moral conscience, and by that I mean an unrestrained one (not a hippy one, although those come close), is the usage of moral laws only when they are to one's moral benefit. For example, freedom of speech is essential! (but it must exclude religious talk in schools). Freedom of assembly is crucial! (but churches must keep wholly on their own property and not demonstrate publicly). Killing is evil! (unless I need to abort my baby because of my own irresponsibility). See the inconsistency?
The same sense of moral exploitation, if you will, rears its head when it comes time for an examination of conscience before confession. One of the main definitions of a mortal sin is that it is a grave and wanton violation of God's law. More often than not, the benchmark for God's law is the Ten Commandments. Ok, let's begin there. Now, (to borrow names from the Baltimore Catechism), Felonius may egg on a buddy of his to view pornography but, since Felonius is such an angel, he refrains from doing so while his friend does. Confession times comes about. Felonius says, "I didn't commit the sin by watching the pornography so I don't need to confess!" Well, yeah, that's right, Felonius, you didn't watch the pornography. But you forgot one minor detail: you drove your neighbor to sin, and to sin quite gravely. The Pharisees had a similar logic when they felt that by paying Judas to betray Jesus they would have no blood on their hands. And yet, even they accept their own guilt when the blood money is returned and they do not place it in the temple coffers. This act of leading someone else to sin is called "scandal" and it is indeed mentioned in the Ten Commandments as "Thou shalt not kill." In this case, scandal spiritually kills by driving another to sin. It could be said that one who commits scandal is a particularly nasty opponent of God's will, an accomplice of Satan one might say.
Allow me to venture a bit further on my scandal tangent. Now, what about free will? The dude who watched the pornography could easily have just not done so. True. We do not know the circumstances by which, let's call him Jasper, was driven to view pornography. All the same, Felonius was what the Church calls an "accessory to sin". Had Felonius not egged Jasper on the chances of his viewing pornography on his own may have been far less or even nonexistent. Maybe he used such Satanic poetry as "Oh, it's not that bad! You have to release your sexual urges somehow! EVERYONE DOES IT!"
Right there before your eyes is an examination of conscience over one sin- a particularly grave one. Contrary to the legalistic cognition of our time, things do not need to be spelled out all the time for us to know that they are immoral. If we approach confession and sin in terrible fear of the Judgment, like we ought to, we would not be so lax in our "interpretations"- another lovely word from Satan's opus.
The Vatican is to be commended for being well abreast of the times as it has always been and reiterating the need to look between the lines when it comes to examining our moral conscience. The need to care for our environment, avoid genetic manipulation, and fight economic inequality are perennial Christian virtues with a slightly different look but with all the same essence.
"Si iniquitátes observáveris Dómine: Dómine quis sustinébit?"
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/vatican-updates-thou-shalt-not-list/20080310151509990001
The hallmark of a liberal moral conscience, and by that I mean an unrestrained one (not a hippy one, although those come close), is the usage of moral laws only when they are to one's moral benefit. For example, freedom of speech is essential! (but it must exclude religious talk in schools). Freedom of assembly is crucial! (but churches must keep wholly on their own property and not demonstrate publicly). Killing is evil! (unless I need to abort my baby because of my own irresponsibility). See the inconsistency?
The same sense of moral exploitation, if you will, rears its head when it comes time for an examination of conscience before confession. One of the main definitions of a mortal sin is that it is a grave and wanton violation of God's law. More often than not, the benchmark for God's law is the Ten Commandments. Ok, let's begin there. Now, (to borrow names from the Baltimore Catechism), Felonius may egg on a buddy of his to view pornography but, since Felonius is such an angel, he refrains from doing so while his friend does. Confession times comes about. Felonius says, "I didn't commit the sin by watching the pornography so I don't need to confess!" Well, yeah, that's right, Felonius, you didn't watch the pornography. But you forgot one minor detail: you drove your neighbor to sin, and to sin quite gravely. The Pharisees had a similar logic when they felt that by paying Judas to betray Jesus they would have no blood on their hands. And yet, even they accept their own guilt when the blood money is returned and they do not place it in the temple coffers. This act of leading someone else to sin is called "scandal" and it is indeed mentioned in the Ten Commandments as "Thou shalt not kill." In this case, scandal spiritually kills by driving another to sin. It could be said that one who commits scandal is a particularly nasty opponent of God's will, an accomplice of Satan one might say.
Allow me to venture a bit further on my scandal tangent. Now, what about free will? The dude who watched the pornography could easily have just not done so. True. We do not know the circumstances by which, let's call him Jasper, was driven to view pornography. All the same, Felonius was what the Church calls an "accessory to sin". Had Felonius not egged Jasper on the chances of his viewing pornography on his own may have been far less or even nonexistent. Maybe he used such Satanic poetry as "Oh, it's not that bad! You have to release your sexual urges somehow! EVERYONE DOES IT!"
Right there before your eyes is an examination of conscience over one sin- a particularly grave one. Contrary to the legalistic cognition of our time, things do not need to be spelled out all the time for us to know that they are immoral. If we approach confession and sin in terrible fear of the Judgment, like we ought to, we would not be so lax in our "interpretations"- another lovely word from Satan's opus.
The Vatican is to be commended for being well abreast of the times as it has always been and reiterating the need to look between the lines when it comes to examining our moral conscience. The need to care for our environment, avoid genetic manipulation, and fight economic inequality are perennial Christian virtues with a slightly different look but with all the same essence.
"Si iniquitátes observáveris Dómine: Dómine quis sustinébit?"
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/vatican-updates-thou-shalt-not-list/20080310151509990001
07 March 2008
De profúndis clamávi...
Out of the depths I have cried to thee, O Lord: Lord, hear my voice. Let thy ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication. If thou, O Lord, wilt mark iniquities: Lord, who shall stand it? For with thee there is merciful forgiveness: and by reason of thy law, I have waited for thee, O Lord. My soul hath relied on his word: My soul hath hoped in the Lord.
From the morning watch even until night, let Israel hope in the Lord. Because with the Lord there is mercy: and with him plentiful redemption. And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.
From the depths we cry to thee, O Lord, from this valley of tears, this burdensome world! How we long to be united with Thee, how we so desire the pure joy and love that only Thee may furnish. Be attentive with Thine merciful ears, behold our humble pleas for your infinite mercy. We pray, hear us!
I am overjoyed to finally begin this blog which I seek to devote to my manifold ruminations, thoughts, praises of, etc. regarding my beloved faith, the faith of the ages and of all time- my Roman Catholic creed. There has never been a more joyful time in the history of mankind to be Catholic because never before have so many challenges emerged and never before have the stakes been higher. To us, the new generation of Catholics, has been entrusted the most solemn of obligations- to love, cherish, and defend the Sacred Traditions and the Divine Revelations of Scripture from the gates of Hell, which our Lord promised us would never prevail. The profound Truth that our Blessed Lord has passed to us through His Apostles, us, most unworthy and most sinful, lights our way, and we will never stray should we keep our eyes set on His Divine Grace.
May we never forget, "I am with you always, to the end of the age." Blessed are those who hold the narrow path, for the broad one leads to Gehenna, but those who are true to the difficult and burdensome one will see the light of salvation.
Lord, bless these chronicles of Your revelation in my heart and may they be a light for all to see, a light to guide all to the fullest truth of Your Church on Earth.
What I intend to write by the guidance of the Spirit on this blog is hidden from my eyes as yet. Whatever I feel worthy to publish, however, I will do so with unflagging devotion and, if necessary, unabashed frankness. Many were the words of Our Lord that comforted and inspired. Equally many were His words that turned away the weak and faithless and brewed fear in the hearts of the unworthy. My heart trembles with fear of the Lord, for His forthcoming wrath on the Day of Judgment is terrible indeed, but boundless is the love by which we are saved. And yet, woe, so often do I forget my place, that I am but a speck of sand, that I am but a sinner! So often do I wander onto the broad path and spurn the sweet tender love and guidance of my Heavenly Master. I pray that all that is written in this blog will be ad majorem Dei gloriam and that it will bring the doubtful and the faithless to sincerity and truth.
For the more technical aspects of this blog, I have a few things to say.
1) I will not tolerate anonymous posts. I GREATLY encourage posts. All the same, if you are so cowardly as to not even identify yourself when you write, especially a sharp retort, I will not consider your opinion. I will delete it without so much as looking at it.
2) Any comments as to things anyone would like to see here, things I can improve, etc. would be greatly welcomed. Your prayers, most especially, are always very much welcome.
3) If I ever err in any way in terms of dogma, Church teaching, etc., I urge you to alert me immediately so my errors may be amended. I adhere as faithfully as possible to the teachings of the Church, but I admit that I am by no means perfect.
4) For you, PRAY. ALOT. It is good for your soul and pleasing to the Lord to communicate often with Him.
God bless everyone,
Anthony
I am overjoyed to finally begin this blog which I seek to devote to my manifold ruminations, thoughts, praises of, etc. regarding my beloved faith, the faith of the ages and of all time- my Roman Catholic creed. There has never been a more joyful time in the history of mankind to be Catholic because never before have so many challenges emerged and never before have the stakes been higher. To us, the new generation of Catholics, has been entrusted the most solemn of obligations- to love, cherish, and defend the Sacred Traditions and the Divine Revelations of Scripture from the gates of Hell, which our Lord promised us would never prevail. The profound Truth that our Blessed Lord has passed to us through His Apostles, us, most unworthy and most sinful, lights our way, and we will never stray should we keep our eyes set on His Divine Grace.
May we never forget, "I am with you always, to the end of the age." Blessed are those who hold the narrow path, for the broad one leads to Gehenna, but those who are true to the difficult and burdensome one will see the light of salvation.
Lord, bless these chronicles of Your revelation in my heart and may they be a light for all to see, a light to guide all to the fullest truth of Your Church on Earth.
What I intend to write by the guidance of the Spirit on this blog is hidden from my eyes as yet. Whatever I feel worthy to publish, however, I will do so with unflagging devotion and, if necessary, unabashed frankness. Many were the words of Our Lord that comforted and inspired. Equally many were His words that turned away the weak and faithless and brewed fear in the hearts of the unworthy. My heart trembles with fear of the Lord, for His forthcoming wrath on the Day of Judgment is terrible indeed, but boundless is the love by which we are saved. And yet, woe, so often do I forget my place, that I am but a speck of sand, that I am but a sinner! So often do I wander onto the broad path and spurn the sweet tender love and guidance of my Heavenly Master. I pray that all that is written in this blog will be ad majorem Dei gloriam and that it will bring the doubtful and the faithless to sincerity and truth.
For the more technical aspects of this blog, I have a few things to say.
1) I will not tolerate anonymous posts. I GREATLY encourage posts. All the same, if you are so cowardly as to not even identify yourself when you write, especially a sharp retort, I will not consider your opinion. I will delete it without so much as looking at it.
2) Any comments as to things anyone would like to see here, things I can improve, etc. would be greatly welcomed. Your prayers, most especially, are always very much welcome.
3) If I ever err in any way in terms of dogma, Church teaching, etc., I urge you to alert me immediately so my errors may be amended. I adhere as faithfully as possible to the teachings of the Church, but I admit that I am by no means perfect.
4) For you, PRAY. ALOT. It is good for your soul and pleasing to the Lord to communicate often with Him.
God bless everyone,
Anthony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
