+ TRIDUUM +

Initium sancti EvangélII secúndum Joánnem...

In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum 2 hoc erat in principio apud Deum 3 omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est 4 in ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum 5 et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt

6 fuit homo missus a Deo cui nomen erat Iohannes 7 hic venit in testimonium ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine ut omnes crederent per illum 8 non erat ille lux sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine 9 erat lux vera quae inluminat omnem hominem venientem in mundum 10 in mundo erat et mundus per ipsum factus est et mundus eum non cognovit

11 in propria venit et sui eum non receperunt 12 quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius 13 qui non ex sanguinibus neque ex voluntate carnis neque ex voluntate viri sed ex Deo nati sunt 14 ET VERBUM CARO FACTUM EST et habitavit in nobis et vidimus gloriam eius gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre plenum gratiae et veritatis

+ Prayer Requests and Intentions + Updated 5 Nov.

+ Blessed Mother Mary Ever-Virgin; Holy Archangels Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael; the communion of all Saints, and all holy men and women: pray for us... +

-For our Holy Father, H.H. Pope Benedict XVI
-For our Bishops and Priests, and all religious
-For our Holy Mother Church, the Bride of Christ, for Her defense from the Enemy
-For an end to all abortions and for a renewed culture of life
-For an increase in vocations, particularly to the Holy Priesthood
-For all our prayers, hear us.

-For all the faithful departed, especially Ramon and Willie, my grandfathers. Requiescant in pace.

Coming Soon...

Stay tuned.

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.

2 comments:

Judy Wibbelsman said...

Anthony, hasn't the altar done a 360 turn in orientation? I recall reading someplace that the orientation of the altar in the early churches had a "westward" orientation with the celebrant facing those assembled for the Mass. Why do you want it to go back to the pre-Vatican II orientation if it is not the original one?

Judy

Anthony said...

You mention an interesting point and I appreciate it.

It has been a tradition since Roman times to face oneself in prayer towards the East, where Christ was crucified and from whence He will return. The East is also where humanity originated. Muslims themselves always pray towards Mecca for a similar reason. In any event, for a time churches were built with the nave (the main body) facing west and the apse and altar facing east. With the development of cities, etc., this practice was not so feasible anymore, to the point that eventually it was simply agreed to build the church however possible. All the same, the priest and people would face in the same direction.

Even if, say theoretically, the priest faced the people because they were to the east of him and they happened to face him, or if they were positioned askance from him, this circumstance was due to mere pragmatics and not out of any desire or instruction to engage the people. His prayers would always be directed to God on behalf of the people and this has been the case for centuries. The difference with Vatican II is now that the priest is deliberately faced towards the people so as to actively engage them and be on par with them in a very egalitarian and, dare I say, overly participatory way.

As such, the major question regarding orientation is partly that of physical orientation, but also in large part due to pragmatics and to the theological implications of the priest as the leader of the Mass.

Your comments are greatly appreciated!