Friday, January 09, 2009

Breaking News! Pope to Crack Down on Alleged "Apparitions"

This was sent to me today from reader of this blog: it is an English translation (done by Fr. Philip Pavich, OFM) from the Italian of an article that just came out today on the Italian website Petrus (view the original Italian article on the link). It is rumored in this article that Benedict XVI will soon make public a "Directory" for the examination of alleged apparitions to be used by Bishops' and Diocese's around the world. The Directory will contain stricter guidelines for discerning such apparitions and will assist the hierarchy in weeding out some of the less credible ones more quickly - foremost on this list is Medjugorje, cited in this article. The article also points out that the Pope has had Medjugorje removed from the Opera Romana Pellegrinaggi (one of the most important agencies of religious tourism which belongs to the Vicariate of Rome), though it does not say when this happened and it may be old news.

If this Directory is made public soon, it would mean that Medjugorje would be subject to a new rigorous, standardized scrutiny approved by the Vatican, the failure of which would mean as definitive rejection of its authenticity, if I am understanding this article correctly (it is somewhat awkwardly rendered from the Italian). Anyhow, here is the article:

In a “Vademecum” the crackdown by Benedict XVI on Marian apparitions, with a ‘pool’ of theologians, psychiatrists and exorcists at the service of the bishops for exposing false visionaries

VATICAN CITY [January 8, 2009] - Civitavecchia and Medjugorje represent the most recent and sensational cases: places where the alleged visionaries say they have had and continue to have apparitions of the Virgin, even if Our Lady would simply give them absolutely inconsistent messages from a theological and spiritual point of view . The result: the faithful are bewildered because of the display that the Church not only has not yet recognized them as truthful, but will hardly approve them in the future.

As we know, however, the caution of the Church is very great in the matter: there are hundreds of cases of apparitions rejected and branded as false in the past fifty years. Nevertheless, there are those who continue to swear to see Madonna, drawing to their places crowds of desperate faithful, many times in search of a miracle or a grace that, however, does not come. How then, to deal with this phenomenon? How to prevent the spreading of untruthful messages of the Mother of Christ to mankind?

The answers to these and other questions are contained in a ‘directory’ Benedict XVI has made to instruct the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and that will soon be made public and sent to the diocesan bishops of the whole world. With this document, which integrates the Instructions already issued in 1978 by the Vatican, the Pope calls for the greatest severity in the verifications related to the establishment of the truthfulness Marian apparitions.

The bishops, having set up a commission of psychiatrists, psychologists, theologians and educators, should impose silence on the pseudo-visionaries. This will be a first test: history teaches, from Lourdes to Fatima, from Guadalupe in La Salette, that those who really have the gift of being in direct contact with the Madonna, follow the directives of the local Church, even in the face of enormous sufferings. Therefore, one who will not remain silent but causes the news of these alleged apparitions to circulate freely, attracting around themselves the presence of the curious, journalists and the faithful in search of a particular grace will have already given a sign that shows the falseness of their mysticism. Mary herself, in fact, would never validate an act of disobedience against a bishop, even if they were in error.

The second point: the pseudo-visionaries will be visited by psychiatrists and psychologists, possibly either atheists or Catholics, to certify their mental health and to verify whether or not they are suffering from diseases of a hysterical or hallucinatory character or from delusions of leadership.

The third step to do: determine the level of education of the one being proclaimed a ‘mystic’ so as to avoid one who might mislead the church authorities and the faithful after having carefully studied writings on theology and Mariology. In that sense, one who is under investigation by church authorities will be called upon to deliver to the Commission established by the Diocese the informational equipment in his possession, including personal computer, to make it possible to verify whether he has ever done research in the field of apparitions on the Internet, a wealth of information for those wishing to copy or learn the theological meaning of heavenly messages from true visionaries.

In the directory, also, the bishops are asked to determine whether pseudo-visionaries have direct or indirect economic interests in connection with the pilgrimages and in the inevitable sale of religious souvenirs in the places where they say they see the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Then there is the question of respect for orthodoxy: all that is revealed by the apparitions should not result in being contrary either to the Gospel or doctrine of the Church but be in harmony with them. Needless to say, therefore, that if a visionary attributes to the Madonna phrases or concepts contrary to the Magisterium, he or she is to be considered false.

If directly from the analysis nothing abnormal should result, and then the visionary be considered credible, ultimately that visionary will have to be questioned by one or more demonologists and exorcists to exclude the possibility that Satan (as has happened already so many other times in the history of Christianity) is hiding behind the apparitions in order to deceive the faithful.

Under the new instructions ready to be issued by the Holy See on behalf of Benedict XVI, who already had to deal with the phenomenon of Marian apparitions during his more than twenty-year mandate as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, one can therefore expect a real crackdown with longer, more meticulous and strict processes on the part of the Dioceses, also in order to provide correct information to the faithful, so that no more events will take place like those in Civitavecchia and Medjugorje, where thousands of people continue to come even though the Vatican has never recognized as true and supernatural the phenomena reported there.

Of course, according to the ‘Vademecum’ which the Pope had written for the competent Congregation, the same investigative practice will be used if someone should claim to see and talk to Jesus, the angels or the saints, or even (a recent case is in the province of Salerno) manifest the stigmata or say they have statues and sacred images that shed tears in the house.

To know the mind of Benedict XVI on the subject, it suffices to remember what he said, while still a Cardinal, to the journalist and author Vittorio Messori:

“In this field, more than ever before, patience is a fundamental element. No apparition is indispensable to the faith, Revelation ended with Jesus Christ.”

The well-known theologian Rene Laurentin, after years of research, has recorded over 2,450 Marian documented events in the history of the Church. But out of almost 300 requests for investigation initiated in the last century, church authorities have officially certified as true only a dozen appearances. The most recent recognition is that of Our Lady of Laus, in France, which took place May 8, 2008, but the faithful had to wait three centuries before obtaining it. The other approved apparitions are mainly concentrated in Europe (Fatima, La Salette, Tuy, Beauraing, Banneux, Syracuse), but also in Egypt (Zeitun), Syria (Damascus) and Rwanda (Kibeho.

At the beginning of this article we mentioned Civitavecchia and Medjugorje; in the first case it is a little girl that claims to have had apparitions of the Virgin. In that context, a statue of Our Lady of Medjugorje placed in the garden of her home would have wept blood; the same phenomenon was supposed to have been repeated in the presence of then Bishop Girolamo Grillo, who was initially skeptical. John Paul II himself, when made aware of what happened, wanted that statue in his private chapel for several hours, but the Vatican has never come out in favor of the apparitions and the tears as being supernatural.

More complex is the case of Medjugorje: for more than a quarter of a century, the Madonna would appear every day to the visionaries, and once a month would speak a message for mankind. But Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Pope's right-hand man, has never hidden his skepticism: "Since 1981, Mary would have appeared tens of thousands of times in Medjugorje. This is a phenomenon that cannot even be compared to other Marian apparitions”. For this reason, the Vatican has asked Opera Romana Pellegrinaggi (one of the most important agencies of religious tourism which belongs to the Vicariate of Rome) to delete from their catalogue visits to the most famous place in Bosnia-Hercegovina, where, nevertheless, more than two million faithful are visiting every year.

Where is the problem? Two factions have been created: one in favor of the apparitions, and therefore on the side of visionaries; the other one openly sided with the diocesan bishop, Msgr. Ratko Peric, who like his late predecessor, does not believe in the truthfulness of these phenomena, and after never having been listened to, already some time ago requested the alleged visionaries to live a hidden life and not disclose any message attributed to the Madonna.

This failure to obey the Bishop would already be enough, according to the ‘Vademecum’ devised by Benedict XVI, to declare the apparitions of Medjugorje to be false.

[Amateur translation from the Italian by Fr. Philip Pavich OFM]

Chaldean Rite (part 3)


I hope you are enjoying these posts on the text of the Chaldean rite liturgy. The first time I read through them I was very moved - but at any rate they do not take very long to post on and I am using some spare time I have to put together a rather in depth post on the subject of courtship & dating upon request from a friend. Keep an eye out for that in the next week or so. In the meantime, let's get to the next section of the Chaldean Mass: the Creed, the consecration and the epiclesis.

The first thing we must notice is that the Creed recited is the Apostles' Creed instead of the Nicene Creed. I can think of two possible reasons for this: one, that the liturgy dates from a time prior to the Council of Nicea, or two, that because the Chaldeans were once Nestorians, they rejected the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed on doctrinal grounds and were permitted to retain the use of the Apostles' Creed upon reunion. It would be interesting to look into, though I admit I know very little about it.

Notice also the words of the deacon at the sign of peace. He tells everybody to make the sign of peace, but then goes on and tells them to cast down their pride and be attentive to what is going on at the altar. From the text I am uncertain whether the sign of peace is actually given by the congregation or whether the deacon says it but it is not actually carried out.

It is also interesting that in the words of consecration the word "all" is used in the consecration of the chalice. I don't know if there are any nuances in Chaldean between the words "many" and "all" or anything like that, but this is the way this English translation has rendered it.

Here we pick up with the Creed:

People: [Here the people recite the Apostles' Creed]

Servers: Let us pray in memory of our Spiritual Fathers; patriarchs, bishops, priests, deacons, and all the consecrated; the laity and the youth and all those who have departed this world in faith. Let us also pray for our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and for all leaders. May our sacrifice be accepted and sanctified by the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, that it may be for our benefit and salvation, and life everlasting in the kingdom of heaven through the grace of Christ.

Priest: To You Lord we offer glory, honor, thanksgiving and worship; now and forever.

People: Amen.

Priest: Peace be with you.

People: And also with you.

Deacon: Let us give peace to one another in the love of Christ. Let us praise and beseech the Lord in purity and penance. Reverently look at what is taking place before you; the consecration of these sacred mysteries. The priest has approached to pray that through his mediation peace may increase among you. Cast down your pride and life your thoughts to heaven. Be attentive, and pray that peace be with us.

Priest: May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father, and the joy of the Holy Spirit be with you all, now and forever.

People: Amen.

Priest: Lift up your thoughts.

People: Unto You, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the King of Glory.

Priest: This sacrifice is offered to God, the Lord of all.

People: It is right and just.

Deacon: Pray that peace be with us.

Priest: Worthy of glory from every tongue and adoration from all creation is Your glorious name; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You have created the world and its inhabitants in Your goodness and mercy. Your love has redeemed us and brought unto us a wonderful grace. Myriads of angels cast themselves down before Your majesty; offer adoration to Your holy Name; crying out, praising without ceasing and proclaiming to one another [all kneel]:

People: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord, Almighty God, Heaven and earth are full of His glory. Hosanna in the highest, Hosanna to the Son of David. Blessed is He who came and will come in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest,

Priest: When the time was drawing near for Jesus to suffer and meet His death, on the night He was betrayed, He took bread in His sacred hands, raised His eyes to You God, His Almighty Father, and gave You thanks and blessing. He broke the bread, gave it to His disciples and said:

Take this, all of you, and eat it: THIS IS MY BODY, which will be given up for you, so that sins may be forgiven.

People: Amen.

Priest: In the same way, after the supper, He took the cup in His sacred hands, and gave You thanks and blessings. He gave the cup to His disciples and said:

Take this, all of you and drink from it: THIS IS MY BLOOD, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. The mystery of faith which will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven.

People: Amen.

Priest: Whenever you do these, call to mind the memory of me.

People: Amen.

Priest: As we have been commanded O Lord, we are gathered here in Your name to celebrate Your great mercy towards us. In return for all Your help and blessings, we offer You glory, honor, thanksgiving and praise; now and at all times and forever.

Deacon: Let us pray, peace be with us.

Choir: [sings a Eucharistic hymn]

Priest: [The following prayer is recited silently by the priest] Lord, God Almighty, accept this sacrifice which we offer You for all Your blessings bestowed on our Lady, the blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to all the just and pious fathers who have been pleasing to You, to all the prophets and apostles, martyrs and confessors. We offer it also for the Holy Catholic Church, and for our Holy Father Mar Benedict, the Supreme Pontiff and Pope of Rome, Mar _____________ our Patriarch and Mar ___________, our Bishop, and for all the bishops, priests and deacons. We offer it also for all those who are in sorrow or distress, the needy and the weary, the sick and the afflicted, for all who have departed from our midst, for this people who gaze and await for Your mercies, and for me, a sinner. Lord God, we are Your people who are gathered in Your name ad stand here before You at this moment; we have received joy through handing on the order of Your Son. Therefore, it is with joy, praise and exaltation that we remember this great, revered, holy, life-giving and divine mystery which is the memorial of the passuon, death, burial and resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Priest: [out loud] May Your Holy Spirit come, O Lord, and rest upon our sacrifice. May it be blessed and hallowed to become for us the forgiveness of our sins, the hope in the resurrection of the dead, and the new life in the kingdom of heaven with all who have pleased You. For Your wondrous graces towards us, we praise and glorify You in Your Church, redeemed by the precious blood of Your Son Jesus Christ.

Deacon: Remain silent and with respect, pray that peace be with us.

Priest: With pride and delight let us give praise, honor, glory and worship to Your life-giving and holy name; now and forever.

People: Amen. In Your goodness O God have mercy on us. In the greatness of Your compassion wipe out our offenses. For we acknowledge our faults and our sins are always before us. Let us hear the sound of joy and gladness. Turn away Your face from our sins and blot out all our guilt. A clean heart create for us O God, and a steadfast spirit renew within us. Cast us not from Your presence, and Your Holy Spirit take not from us. Give us back the joy of Your salvation and a willing spirit sustain in us.

Next time we'll get to the breaking and signing, the elevation and the communion of the people. I think I should be able to wrap it up in the next post.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Chaldean Rite (part 2)


Today we'll be looking at the readings, the prayers of the faithful and the presentation of the gifts. Two things I like about this section of the Mass: first, the lector, before reading, asks for the blessing of the priest, which I believe (though I may be mistaken) is an element in the Byzantine Catholic rite as well. Another similarity with the Byzantine rite is the exclamation before the Gospel to "let us be attentive," which hearken to the Byzantine "Wisdom! Be attentive!" prior to the Gospel. Perhaps Anselm would know more since he frequents that liturgy.

Also I like the traditional prayers for good weather and a fruitful harvest, which hearken back to another age. If there is one thing that is probably not pertinent to the modern age, it is prayers for a good harvest - not that farming is not important, but only 2% of the US population at least are involved in agriculture and many kids in the cities don't know where milk and bread come from. If anything merite dbeing removed or "updated" it would have been this. But did they remove it? Nope. It sits tenaciously where it has sat for centuries and probably will remain for centuries more. That's why we should still have prayers for the Holy Roman Emperor in our rite! Well, I digress...

Also interesting is the way the Eucharistic elements are referred to as the Body and Blood of Christ long before the consecration, at the period when they are simply being set out on the altar. I don't know anything about this, so if anybody has any insight please let me know.

We'll pick up from the beginning of the readings:

Priest: Enlighten our thoughts, O Lord and God, that we may savor the sweetness of Your life-giving and divine words; and give us through them love, hope, salvation and all the benefits needed for our bodies and souls, that we may ever sing Your praises, O Lord of all; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, forever.

Reader: A reading from the letter of St. Paul to ____________________. (Bless me Father).

Priest: May Christ enlighten you with His teaching (and make you His worthy messenger for those who hear you).

After the Reading

Reader: The Word of the Lord.

People: Thanks be to God.

All Stand

People: Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.

Deacon: Let us be attentive and hear the Gospel of the Lord.

Priest: Peace be with you.

People: And also with you.

Priest: A reading from the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to __________.

People: Glory to You O Christ, glory to You.

At the conclusion of the Gospel

Priest: Glory to God forever.

People: Glory to Christ our Lord.

Priest: Homily

Deacon: Let us all stand well, with joy and gladness let us implore and say: Lord have mercy.

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: O Father of mercies and God of every consolation; we implore you...

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: For peace and harmony in all the Churches throughout the world; we implore You...

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: For good weather, a fertile season, the abundance of fruits and for the wll being of the whole world; we implore You...

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: For the good health of our Spiritual Fathers: Mar Benedict the Supreme Pontiff and Pope of Rome, Mar ______________ our Patriarch, Mar ______________ our Bishop, for all our priests and deacons and for all those who serve with them; we implore You...

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: For all our beloved brothers and sisters who passed away in the hope of the resurrection, grant them eternal joy in Your kingdom; we implore You...

People: Lord have mercy.

Servers: Together let us entrust ourselves to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Priest: We ask and beseech You Almighty God, to fill us with Your grace. May your divine mercy bring pardon to Your people and forgiveness of sins to the faithful that are chosen byYour goodness and compassion, O Lord of all; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, forever.

Servers: Let us bow our heads and pray for God's blessing.

Priest: Grant us in Your mercy, Lord, that together we may please Your majesty in good works of righteousness all the days of our lives, and that our service may be pleasing to You. And with the help of Your grace, may we always be worthy to offer You glory, honor, thanksgiving and praise, O Lord of all; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, forever.

Servers: Our hope is in the Lord.

People: The precious body and blood of Christ are being set upon the holy altar. Let us draw near, in reverence and love, and with the holy angels let us raise a joyful cry unto the Lord: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord, Almighty God.

Servers: Our hope is in the Lord.

People: The precious body and blood of Christ are being set upon the holy altar. Let us draw near, in reverence and love, and with the holy angels let us raise a joyful cry unto the Lord: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord, Almighty God.

Priest: May Christ who was sacrificed for our salvation and who also ordered us to celebrate the memory of His death, burial and resurrection, accept this sacrifice from our hands by His mercy forever.

By Your command, O Lord and God, these glorious, holy, life-giving and divine mysteries are set upon this holy altar until the coming of our Lord from heaven. To Him be glory at all times and forever.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. Let us remember the Virgin Mary, Mother of God upon this altar.

People: From the beginning and unto all ages, amen. Holy Apostles, and beloved of the only begotten, pray that peace be throughout the world.

Priest: Let us all say "amen." Our holy patron, St. ________________, we remember you upon this holy altar with the just who have triumphed and with the martyrs who have been crowned.

People: All the departed are resting in hope that through Your glorious resurrection You will raise them up in glory.

That's enough for now - next time we'll pick up with the Creed and the consecration. It is interesting how towards the end (if I am understanding it right) the sacred elements are set upon the altar and the expected transubstantiation that will soon occur is referred to as a "coming" of the Lord from Heaven. This is very much in keeping with the New Testament idea of the "coming" (parousia) of Jesus as an abiding presence among the Church gathered in Eucharistic worship.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Chaldean Rite (part 1)


I've been laying plans recently to take my Youth Group down to Southfield to participate in a High Mass done according to the Chaldean Rite in the Chaldean language. Chaldeans are groups of Christians in Iraq and Turkey who were once part of the Nestorian schism but were first reconciled to the Church in the year 1247 and then finally fully reconciled in 1692. I drove down to the Chaldean Church and prayed in their sanctuary for a while (a newer building constructed in the romanesque style with a modern but aesthetically pleasing look to it) and spent some time going through their liturgy. As I read through the liturgical pamphlet, I was very impressed and knew I had to come back and blog about it!

The first thing that impressed me about the Chaldean Mass was the fact that they are eminently proud of its antiquity. When you open the Mass booklet up, on the first page the title simply say, "The Mass of the Apostles: written by Mar Addai and Mar Mari, Blessed Apostles of the East." Mar means "saint," and Mar Addai is none other than St. Thaddeus the Apostle. Mar Mari was his most important disciplie, St. Maris. It is to Addai and Mari that we attribute the Edessa story about King Agbar being healed by means of a picture of Christ presented to him by one of the disciples. As far as I know the story is not taken to be historical, it is shows at least the great antiquity which the Chaldeans would like to ascribe to their rite, so much so that they boast of it being written by St. Thaddeus. A more realistic date for it may be in the 7th century (around the same time the Gregorian form was developing in the west), but some date it to the middle-patristic period around the Church of Antioch. Either way, it is of great antiquity, and reading this first page alone impressed me much more than when I pick up the little red NO books that say "The Mass of Vatican II" or "The Mass of Pope Paul VI," which almost boast of being "the latest thing."

Another thing I never thought about too much but liked was that the entire Mass is called "The Eucharistic Liturgy." In the Chaldean Mass, there is no breaking of the liturgy into a Liturgy of the Word and a Liturgy of the Eucharist. The enitre Mass is referred to as the liturgy of the Eucharist. I know that even if we have two separate names for the parts of the Mass it is still one single act of worship, but the Chaldean rite expresses this better by calling the whole Mass by the name of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Now I'm going to transcribe the entire liturgy, though of course I won't do it all at once. I'll try to resist the urge to comment too much. You'll notice how this liturgy, from start to finish, is a liturgy of pure praise and adoration. Please be aware that at times this liturgy will repeat itself (as with the Our Father). It is not a typo-it really does repeat itself like this. Notice also how the servers have parts, too, just like in the TLM. In cases where there are alternate prayers (very few), I have opted for the longest form. Forgive me if you already know all about this liturgy, but I am sharing with you the enthusiasm I feel as one who has come across something wonderful for the first time.

Today I will do just the introductory prayers and the penitential rite, though they do not seem to divide it up by those names.

Priest: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; Amen. Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, and hope to all forever.

People: Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Holy, Holy, Holy are You. Our Father who art in Heaven, heaven and earth are full of Your glory, angels and people cry out to You: Holy, Holy, Holy are You.

Our Father, Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, now and forever. Amen.

Priest: Strengthen O Lord our weaknesses by your mercy, that we may be worthy to celebrate the Holy Eucharist given for our renewal and redemption through the great mercy of Your Beloved Son, forever.

People: Amen.

Priest: For all the blessings You have given us, we thank You Lord and praise You in Your Holy Church forever.

People: Amen. To You Lord of all, our thanksgiving. To You, Jesus Christ, our praise. For You are the giver of life to our bodies and savior of our souls.

Servers: It is good to thank the Lord and praise His Holy Name.

People: To You Lord of all, our thanksgiving. To You, Jesus Christ, our praise. For You are the giver of life to our bodies and savior of our souls.

Servers: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, forever and ever, amen and amen.

People: To You Lord of all, our thanksgiving. To You, Jesus Christ, our praise. For You are the giver of life to our bodies and savior of our souls.

Deacon: Let us pray that peace be with us.

Priest: Lord You are truly the giver of life to our bodies, the good Savior of our souls and the guardian of our lives. It is right to adore, glorify and praise You forever.

People: Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us.

Servers: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.

People: Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us.

Servers: From the beginning unto all ages, amen and amen.

People: Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us.

Deacon: Let us pray that peace be with us.

Priest: O Holy, Mighty and Immortal, who delights in the company of His holy ones, turn to us, O Lord and have mercy on us as always; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, forever.

People: Amen.

Of course, this is all done in the Chaldean language, which unless I am mistaken, is some form of Syriac. If you are curious about what Chaldean sounds like, here is a transliteration of the phrase "To You Lord of all, our thanksgiving. To You, Jesus Christ, our praise. For You are the giver of life to our bodies and savior of our souls" that you can say out loud to yourself:

La-khou Mara d-khoul-la maw-de-nan, ou-lakh Isho' Mshee-ha mshab-hee-nan datto mnah-ma-na dpagh-rain watto Pa-ro-qa dnaw-sha-than.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

J.R.R. Tolkien on the Post-Conciliar Church


As I was plowing through the massive Letters of JRR Tolkien this week I came across a little gem that I'm sure many people have read but I have never heard any commentary on. This gem is a lengthy letter from Tolkien to his grandson Michael in which he expresses his views on the chnages to the Catholic Church within his lifetime. The letter was written in 1967, before the Novus Ordo had come in but while a lot of the crazy post-Conciliar implementation was going on. In the letter, Tolkien appears to be answering an inquiry from his grandson about the nature of the "trends" in the 1960's Church. It would definitely be something worth forwarding to Traditionalist Tolkien fans. I'm not going to offer any commentary on his thoughts, but I will put certain phrases in bold which I find particularly interesting.
The letter in number 306 in the Tolkien collection:

"'Trends' in the Church are...serious, especially to those accustomed to find in it a solace and a 'pax' in times of temporal trouble, and not just another arena of strife and change. But imagine the experience of those born (as I) between the Golden and Diamond Jubilee of Victoria. Both senses of imaginations of security have been stripped away from us. Now we find ourselves nakedly confronting the will of God, as concerns ourselves and our position in Time. 'Back to normal' - political and Christian predicaments - as a Catholic professor once said to me when I bemoaned the collapse of all my world that began just after I achieved 21. I know quite well that, to you as to me, the Church which once felt like a refuge, now often feels like a trap. There is nowhere else to go! (I wonder if this desperate feeling, the last state of loyalty hanging on, was not, even more often than is actually recorded in the Gospels, felt by Our Lord's followers in His earthly life-time?) I think there is nothing to do but pray, for the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and for ourselves; and meanwhile to exercise the virtue of loyalty, which indeed only becomes a virtue when one is under pressure to desert it.

There are, of course, various elements in the present situation, which are confused, though in fact distinct...The 'protestant' search backwards for 'simplicity' and directedness-which, of course, though it contains some good or at least intelligible motives, is mistaken and indeed vain. Because 'primitive Christianity' is now and in spite of all 'research' will ever remain largely unknown; because 'primitiveness' is no guarantee of value, and is and was in great part a reflection of ignorance. Grave abuses were as much an element in Christian 'liturgical' behavior from the beginning as now. (St. Paul's strictures on eucharistic behavior are sufficient to show this!) Still more because 'my church' was not intended by Our Lord to be static or remain in perpetual childhood; but to be a living organism (likened to a plant), which develops and changes in externals by the interaction of its bequeathed divine life and history - the particular circumstances of the world into which it is set. There is no resemblance between the 'mustard seed' and the full-grown tree. For those living in the days of its branching growth the Tree is the thing, for the history of a living thing is part of its life, and the history of a divine thing is sacred. The wise may know that it began with a seed, but it is vain to try and dig it up., for it no longer exists, and the virtue and powers that it had now reside in the Tree. Very good: but in husbandry the authorities, the keepers of the Tree, must look after it, according to such wisdom as they possess, prune it, remove cankers, get rid of parasites, and so forth (with trepidation, knowing how little their knowledge of growth is!). But they will certainly do harm, if they are obsessed with the desire of going back to the seed or even to the first youth of the plant when it was (as they imagine) pretty and unaffected by evils.

The other motive (now so confused with the primitivist one, even in the mind of any one of the reformers)" aggiornamento: bringing up to date: that has its own grave dangers, as has been apparent throughout history. With this 'ecumenicalness' has also become confused. I find myself in sympathy with those elements that are strictly 'ecumenical,' that is concerned with other groups or churches that call themselves (and often truly are) 'Christian.' We have prayed endlessly for Christian reunion, but it is difficult to see, if one reflects, how that could possibly begin to come about except as it has, with all its inevitable minor absurdities. An increase in 'charity' is an enormous gain."

After this Tolkien goes off into a reminiscence about his own Catholic upbringing and offers a brief reflection on the legal changes to the status of Catholics in England from the time of his birth (1892) up until then. What a great statement from one of my favorite authors on some of the pitfalls of the post-Conciliar reform!

Friday, January 02, 2009

Conciliarism Revisted


I have been reflecting on what Athanasius said in his recent post about the Synod on the Word of God and the “Talking Church” and it brought to mind a very interesting paradox. How often is the accusation leveled against the pre-Vatican II Church that it was an impersonal bureaucracy out of touch with the common people? This assumption lies behind many of the shallow arguments in favor of things like Mass versus populum, multiple Eucharistic prayers, etc. “The old Church was so bureaucratic and impersonal! The new Church is so much more friendly, blah blah...”

So let's look at this faceless bureaucracy idea. What is the number one thing that ineffectual bureaucracies are known for? If nothing else, I'd say the perennial mark of the bureaucracy is endless mountains of documents and paperwork. Isn't this the case? There are many more marks of a bureaucracy of course, but let's just stick with the “document overkill” idea for a moment, as it relates to the topic at hand. Now, which era of the Church do we associate with mounds of useless documents, pre-Vatican II or post-Conciliar? Obviously the modern Church wins the award for the most copious amount of documents. Both the rate at which documents are churned out and the length of individual documents are greater in the post-Conciliar Church. Fides et Ratio and Familiaris Consortio are novellas. Even a relatively large pre-Vatican II encyclical (like Divini Redemptoris or Rerum Novarum) is thin in comparison.
Catholic theologian attempting to keep abreast all of the Church's post-Conciliar statements


Now I do not care personally if a document is long or verbose. It's not that I can't or won't read them because I'm lazy or dumb (although, for a Church that insists so strongly on being pastoral, the post-Conciliar documents are very inaccessible to the average Joe because of their excessive verbosity and philosophical jargon – how is a layman to approach works with titles like “On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church?” The faithful are too dumb to understand “ineffable” but are supposed to get interested in a document with a sub-title like that?). My irritation is that the current Magisterium feels like it always needs to be saying something. And saying is all, because as Athanasius pointed out, it really isn't doing a whole lot. Perhaps the idea is that by issuing so many statements and documents people will see how compassionate, relevant or in-touch the Church is. Isn't there a Proverb about not being too eager to speak? Ah, yes: “He who guards his mouth and his tongue keeps himself from trouble” and “He who guards his mouth protects his life; to open wide one's lips brings downfall” (Pro. 21:21, 13:3). It is a biblical principle that it is much better to act more and say less, and yet in the current Magisterium we see the opposite: a lot of talk and very little action.

In the 15th century, a radical movement within the Church that has come to be known as Conciliarism attempted to force an ecclesiology on the pope which demanded a submission of Pope to Council and the creation of a permanently sitting Council, a kind of ecclesiastical parliament. The popes zealously denounced this as a heresy and had completely triumphed over it by the early 16th century. But like other heresies, this one has crept back into the Church through the back door, winning many adherents in the hierarchy. But it is not so much a formulated dogma as it is a praxis which is taken for granted; i.e., The pope should always be saying something about something, making statements, going over talking points, etc. Perhaps this is supposed to create the illusion of action – perhaps the Magisterium thinks this sort of endless talk really is action. Whatever you attribute it to, what we are left with is a de facto permanent Council churning out documents year after year that are hastily put together (the working document for the Synod on the Word of God is a disaster), overly wordy, of an ambiguous nature, questionable in their authority and their veracity and seldom implemented or followed up on. If anything, this sort of routine does nothing but conditions the faithful to ignore Rome. Isn't that how we treat a person who talks too much – we shut them out?

Contrast this with the impact that short yet succinct documents are able to have – consider the firestorm that was set off by the Syllabus or Errors, a document that can be printed in three pages. Or, to take even a post-Conciliar example, look at Humanae Vitae. Compared to the tomes of JP2 it is quite short, and yet we'd have to agree that this encyclical has been the most consequential of modern times. A brief statement can be full of power and clarity.

Well, I'm sure we'll revisit this in the future, but check out this post if you want to read some analysis of the working document itself. Long story short: the Magisterium needs to issue documents that are brief, concise and theologically accurate, not rambling booklets that are dense, theologically sloppy and way too long.

Critique of Obsession


Like many other Catholics I have talked to, I recently received a complimentary copy of the DVD Obsession: Islam's Radica; War Against the West in the mail from the Clarion Fund. For the most part this DVD was very good - it had some great eye-opening scenes of radical Muslim clerics inticing their followers to become suicide bombers and of children in Muslim schools being taught hatred for Jews and Christians. It also showed the duplicity of certain Muslim spokemen is claiming to be moderate and pluralistic in public while privately holding violent anti-Western views. This is an example of the practice of al-Taqiyya, or lying to the infidel, and the video catches some Muslim cleric right in the act. Most of those who read this blog already know this stuff, but it was refreshing (and chilling) to see it again in this video.

However, I have to take this DVD to task for an assumption that lays beneath much of what it exposes about Islam. It presents the radical jihadists in their native element and shows how dangerous they are, and then gives the viewer several warnings about radical Islam's desire for world domination. We are rightfully supposed to be concerned about the desire of jihadist Islam to dominate the world, but what is it about their intended domination that we object to and what does it say about our own beliefs when we object to it?

For the conservative, pop-Catholic, neo-conservative mentality, the desire of radical Islam for world conquest is one of the most offensive things about Islam. When they look at radical Islam, they say, "Isn't that terrible! Those people want the whole earth to convert to their religion and they won't stop at anything until they rule the world!" Too often I think we just nod our heads and say, "Yeah, that's awful."

But what are we objecting to? Is it the principle of one religion dominating the world? Or is it a question about the nature of the religion that wants to dominate the world? I would argue that as Catholics, we cannot object to the concept of a religion wanting to dominate the world. This is the objective of the Catholic Church in the end, after all. This very weekend at my parish one of the general intercessions was , "That the entire human race may be converted to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Gospel spread to the ends of the earth." How can we say "Lord, hear our prayer," to a petition like that and then huff and puff when Islam says it wants to take over the world?

Well of course, the nature of Islam's dominance and the type of dominance that the Church desires are entirely different - one is based on submission and one on charity. But the idea is similar: each religion is evangelistic, believes it is the only true faith, and sees its mission as to convert the entire world. Let's be clear about this: Catholicism is a religion that seeks world domination. But it is a domination based on the proclamation of the Good News, the movement of grace, and the free joining of peoples into the Kingdom of Christ, a kingdom which is built on charity and is not of this world.

When neo-cons object to Islam on the basis that it wants to dominate the world, what they are really saying in effect is that religious pluralism is the ideal state of affairs, something no person who loves the Lord Jesus could say. Christ said to preach the Gospel to all men, to the very ends of the earth, and promised through the Spirit that in the end "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Php. 2:8-10). But the neo-con ideal is a world in which different religions coexist and no one is put forward as being more right than any other, because after all, religion is a private affair.

Catholics need to be aware that this is what we are implying whenever we take issue with Islam's desire to dominate. Instead, we ought to say, "Yes, it is horrible to think about that religion dominating the world, but let us pray instead that Christ's Kingdom is established to the ends of the earth." Our issue should be not with Islam's will to dominate, but with the type of domination Islam proposes and the nature of the religion of Islam.

It is tempting to simply accept religious pluralism as the ideal just because that is what we have in America - this is an ideal that was condemned as "Americanism" by Leo XIII in the bull Longinqua, where he stated:

"[I]t would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced." (Longinqua, 6)

So, when we approach the question of Islam, do we take it for granted that our own state of affairs here in the normative one? If so, we are in for failure. A pluralistic society has never managed to stand up to the assault of a culture that demands total religious conformity. In opposing Islam, we have to take as our fixed point not the religious status quo of America, as Sean Hannity would have us believe, but the perennial vision of the Church: a vision that culminates in the establishment of the kingdom to the uttermost ends of the earth.

So, Obsession is a pretty good video. But don't be lulled into taking the default position that it seems to adopt. It also tries to show how only some Muslims are violent and that the peaceful Muslims are the "real" Muslims. Well, whatever. It certainly makes it more easy to convert them if they are peaceful, but conversion is the end goal. Let's not forget that!

Here's an earlier article I wrote on this same topic and an explanation of the Muslim "duty" to lie in the cause of religion.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Is charity still a mandate?

A few days back I was driving the long, rural commute between my house and my parish when my crummy, 1992 Dodge Caravan rust-bucket broke down on the side of the road. Breaking down is always inopportune, but this happened to be right in the height of the great Michigan blizzard of 2008 (see this post for some pics). Being that I am a frumpy anti-modernist with a strong streak of neo-Luddite in me, I of course have no cell phone, so my only plan of action was to get out and walk somewhere. The temperature was 10 degrees, and about 7 below zero with wind chill. Being that it is Michigan and winter, I did have a pair of snow boots, and I did have my winter coat and scarf. But through two odd flukes I did not have my winter hat and gloves, which I usually would have had with me. Therefore, I ventured out into the cold and began walking south towards the nearest town, probably a two mile walk.

Well, without boring you with all the details of that horrible walk, let me just say that I almost froze to death. I've never been so cold in all my life. My ears hurt so bad I thought they'd have to be amputated (do they amputate ears for frostbite?). I had to keep my hands in my pants against the flesh of my thighs to keep them warm. At first I was not too intimidated by the two mile walk: most humans walk three miles an hour at their normal walking pace. But in this frigid wind in seemed like a desperate distance. I decided to try hitch-hiking, and wouldn't you know it, car after car after car drove by me without so much as a second look.

I wasn't dressed shabbily. I was in my work clothes (office attire) with a very nice black dress coat on. I can understand single women passing me by, but time again I saw trucks with grown, burly men drive by and ignore me. There was also a lot of wimpy looking little guys in Hondas and Jettas as well. Everybody knew there was a town only two miles up. Everybody saw I was walking that way. Everybody knew it was 7 below zero. Everybody saw me frigid with no gloves or hat. Everybody saw my broken down van sitting on the side of the road. Yet nobody stopped. I couldn't help thinking of the parable of the Good Samaritan, and between my prayers for a ride and prayed, "Lord, don't hold it against them!" I even thought that perhaps I'd have better luck getting picked up if I layed down and pretended to be dead - then somebody would see the body, stop to call the police or something, and I could get up and say, "Hey, thanks for stopping!" But I was so cold that I thought I might actually die if I layed down and stopped walking. So, I lumbered on through the freezing air and biting wind.


To make a long story short, I did get picked up a half mile from town by a guy on his way to work. He was a lot bigger than I and could have easily taken me out had I been one of those evil hitchhikers of urban myth. Everything worked out okay in the end, but not before at least thirty cars passed me by and my fingers almost froze. I was a little indignant at society that nobody would have mercy on someone obviously in dire need.

But then I was even more shocked when I told my parish priest about it later in the day and he said, "Well, I don't blame them. In today's world you can't pick up hitchhikers. I probably wouldn't have picked you up if I were them either. You just can never be sure." It has been several days since I had this conversation with my pastor, and it has been rubbing on me all week. I knew I disagreed with something about his position there, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

This, I think, is the crux of why my pastor's words irked me so: do we or do we not have an obligation to exercise charity when it is possible? Obviously we do. One of the corporal works of mercy is "clothe the naked." Now, I wasn't naked, but I think shelter someone who is freezing could be an extension of this precept. You will notice that there is no disclaimer, "Unless you live in 21st century America." This rule is binding at all times universally - to suggest that circumstances are different because we are modern and live in America would be, I think, a hint of the belief known as Americanism: that the doctrines and disciplines of the universal Church need to be interpreted differently in this country because we are somehow a "special case."

Now, I'm not accusing my pastor of Americanism or anything. He's a great guy who is the most orthodox priest around. Since he is a pastor, he was coming at the problem from a pastoral angle that prioritized the safety of the persons involved. It is true, charity obliges us to love our neighbor, but it does not oblige us to recklessly put ourselves in danger (although that can be an act of heroic virtue at times). I understand that picking up hitchhikers has dangers inherent to it. I understand that I would not expect a woman driving alone who was 5'2" and 100 pounds to big up a 5'10", 178 lbs guy like me. But it is to the men who passed me by that I am addressing: to the construction guys, laborers, roofers and burly men that passed me by the dozens. Realistically, how much inherent danger is there for a big guy like that to pick up somebody? Is picking up a hitchhiker a "reckless" activity?

"Boniface, it doesn't matter how big they are. You could have had a gun or something."

True, true, but why do we apply this logic only when it comes to hitchhikers and not to so any other aspects of social interaction? Most people will answer their door if the doorbell rings. This is a much more threatening situation, I think. Why do you answer the door? After all, "he could have a gun?" What about when you are at the gas station pump and somebody comes up asking for directions? He could have a gun! Do you jump in your car and lock the door? Of course not; you give directions if you can. It's only with hitchhikers that we jump to this conclusion that they may be murderers - as if there is something inherently shady or devious about a person with no car needing a ride!

I know what you're thinking. "Those all happen in day-time out in public. That's different." Well guess what, I was broke down in day-time in public too! It was 8:45 AM on a rural road that had plenty of houses all around and dozens of cars going by because it was that time of day. What type of murderer hitchhikes at 8:45 AM? The especially irking thing is everybody could see my broken down van sitting there with my footprints in the snow leading right from the van to me. It was painfully obvious to any unbiased observer that I was in need - the fact that it was 7 below made my need even more urgent.

"Well, no matter what you say, I just never pick up hitchikers."

Like I said, if you are a defenseless woman, okay, fair enough. That may be prudent. And I'm not even saying that men should pick up all hitchhikers. I've seen some hitchhikers with scraggled beards and wild-eyes that sent chills down my spine. I've also picked up a lot of decent ones who were just having a hard day. In my opinion, there is no reason why a man should not pick up a hitchhiker when:

a) You see somebody outdoors improperly dressed when it is below zero and they are in obvious discomfort.

b) Their car is broken down right down the road in plain sight.

c) It is the middle of the day.

There's just no excuse. We can't let our society's own fears and paranoia's be some kind of justification for not exercising charity, especially if life could be on the line and the weather is extreme. I should also mention that its only Americans who have these scruples. In Europe hitchhiking is a commonly accepeted mode of transportation. I hitchhiked in Austria once and got picked up in about two minutes.

But what about the possibility that the person could be armed or dangerous? Really, you never know. You can't make judgments based on appearances that are full proof. But there are two examples from the lives of the saints where men were shown hospitality, despite the fact that they were rogues.

From the Little Flowers of St. Franics:

Now at that time three notorious robbers frequented the district, the which wrought many ill deeds therein; and upon a day they came to the said Place of the friars and besought Friar Angelo, the guardian, that he would give them something to eat; whereupon the guardian answered them after this manner, rebuking them harshly: "You robbers and cruel murderers, not only are ye not ashamed to rob others of the fruits of their toil, but, presumptuous and impudent that ye are, ye would even devour the alms which are sent to the servants of God. Unworthy are ye that the earth should bear you up; for ye have no reverence for men or for the God who created you. Go, then, about your business, and never show yourselves here again." Therefore were they wrath and got them thence in indignation.

And lo! St. Francis returned from without, with his wallet of bread and a small vessel of wine, which he and his companion had begged; and, when the guardian had told him how he had driven those men away, St. Francis rebuked him severely, saying that he had borne himself cruelly, inasmuch as sinners are better led back to God by gentleness than by cruel reproofs; " For [said he] our Master Jesus Christ, whose Gospel we have promised to observe, saith that they that are whole need not a physician but they that are sick, and that He was not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; and therefore often did He eat with them. Seeing, then, that thou hast done contrary to charity and contrary to the Holy Gospel of Christ, I command thee, by holy obedience, that thou forthwith take this wallet of bread, which I have begged, and this vessel of wine, and seek them diligently, through mountains and valleys, until thou find them, and give them all this bread and wine in my name; and afterward do thou kneel down before them and humbly confess to them thy sin of cruelty; and then pray them in my name to do evil no longer, but to fear God and offend Him no more; and, if they will do this, I promise to provide for their needs, and to give them to eat and drink continually; and when thou shalt have told them this, return hither humbly." While the said guardian went to do his commandment, St. Francis betook himself to prayer and besought God that He would soften the hearts of those robbers and convert them to repentance.

The obedient guardian came up with them and gave them the bread and wine, and did and said that which St. Francis had laid upon him. And, as it pleased God, while yet those robbers ate the alms of St. Francis, they began to say, one to the other: "Woe unto us, unhappy wretches that we are! how sore are the pains of hell which await us! for we not only go about robbing our neighbours and beating and wounding them, but also slaying them; and yet, notwithstanding all the enormous wrongs and wickednesses which we do, we have no remorse of conscience, nor fear of God; and lo! this holy friar, who hath come to us on account of a few words which he spake unto us justly by reason of our wickedness, hath humbly confessed his fault to us; and more than this, he hath brought us bread and wine, and so gracious a promise from the holy father."... And, when one of them had spoken these and like words, the others aid: "Verily thou speakest the truth, but what then ought we to do?" "Let us go," said one, "to St. Francis; and if he gives us hope that we may be able to turn from our sins to the mercy of God, let us do that which he commands us, if so be we may deliver our souls from the pains of hell." (Chapter XXVI)

Obviously Francis had in mind their repentance and conversion, but note how he said the friar who drove the away was guilty of the "sin of cruelty." And Francis made this statement concerning men who were known to be robbers and brigands. If the friar was guilty of cruelty by treating known criminals this way, what are we guilty of who ignore the needs of someone in the freezing wind just because we are scared they might be evil?

Another great example is the 9th century St. Meinrad of Einsiedeln, Martyr of Hospitality. He lived alone as a hermit upon a mountainside in Germany. One day, he was warned in a vision that two men were coming to see him who would bring about his death. Indeed, soon enough two men approached his hermitage. Their names are recorded as Richard and Peter, and the were notorious bandits from the region. Nevertheless, St. Meinrad went out and welcomed them and invited them into his house for food and drink. When the men went inside with him, they beat him to death with clubs. St. Meinrad knew the men were robbers, and knew by a vision that they would do him violence. Yet he thought this a lesser evil than to offend against charity by denying them hsopitality. If St. Meinrad acted thus for murderers, how should we act towards our fellow man?

One last thing: I'm not just mad about this because it inconvenienced me. Like I said, I turned out okay. Somebody picked me up. I'm upset because of the mentality that we give in to fear by not assisting people, the idea that our fundamental, default attitude towards strangers is one of fear and wariness until they prove otherwise: an attitude of guilty until proven innocent. I'm upset because I'm sure this happens to a lot of people everyday who maybe never get picked up, and I don't think we ought to make justifications as to why the command to clothe the naked or feed the hungry somehow doesn't apply strictly to us. Wasn't the Middle Ages or the time of Christ more violent and dangerous than our own? Yet these rules applied then. Today really is no different.

So, this is going to be one of those times (rarely) when I respectfully disagree with my pastor's opinion.

Just to answer a questions I know will come up: no, that's not me in the picture. And, no, I'm still not going to get a cell phone.

Please feel free to tell us about your own nightmarish hitchhiking stories.

Monday, December 29, 2008

Catholics Massacred in Congo


Yesterday in the Democratic Republic of Congo over 100 Catholic villagers were massacred inside a local parish church while worshipping. The attack was carried out by the Ugandan group the "Lord's Resistance Army." Worshippers were hacked to death with machetes and swords. There is not too much info out right now on the attack, nor is it clear why these particular villagers were targeted. One of the military captains who came upon the scene afterward said, "The scene at the church was unbelievable. It was horrendous. On the floor were dead bodies of mostly women and children cut in pieces.” Many of the LRA are none other than the same Hutu death squads who carried out the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Following the end of the genocide in 1994, the death squads were pushed out of Rwanda into neighboring Congo where they have continued an intermittent guerilla war for years.

Please pray for the victims of the massacre and an end to violence in this region.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

And now for something on the lighter side...

No matter how many times I watch this I am still stupidly amused...


Friday, December 26, 2008

Underrated Christmas Songs


One of the things I look forward to most about this time of year is the music. I love Christmas music and think it has a wonderful appeal not only to the majestic truth of Our Savior's Incarnation, but from a musical standpoint I think it is some of the most beautiful music ever composed. I'm speaking, of course, of true Christmas music, not secular tunes like Winter Wonderland, the likes of which is repeated so ad nauseam that I cannot see how the cheesy line about "Parson Brown" is even remotely amusing to anybody anymore.

However, I am still conflicted. There is such an amazing corpus of religious Christmas music available out there, yet year after year we seem to stick to the same, tired dozen or so songs that we have always sung. Joy to the World. Hark! The Herald Angels Sing. We Three Kings (really an Epiphany song). Silent Night. The First Noel. Come All Ye Faithful. O Come, O Come Emmanuel (technically an Advent song). Angels We Have Heard On High. God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen. Away in a Manger. What Child is This? Taken in isolation, these are all great songs. They are some of the best loved melodies of all time. I still get teary eyed at times when I hear a really good rendering of Hark! The Herald Angels Sing or The First Noel.

The problem is that these songs are not only played for Christmas Masses in Church, but are also repeated endlessly in the secular world. From Thanksgiving on we hear these songs in Wal-Mart, on the phone when we are on hold with a utility company, over the annoying local station that plays Christmas music 24/7, on the Musak at McDonalds, at the office Christmas party. We are utterly inundated. Therefore, these hymns, beautiful in themselves, come to be robbed of much of their majesty by the time we hear them on Christmas.

Furthermore, since Christmas is traditionally an octave in the Catholic Church, we end up hearing these songs in Mass for eight more days after the Christmas Vigil. By that time I usually find myself utterly exhausted by them, and dealing with some sort of spiritual jet-lag: that is, the secular world has moved on past Christmas but spiritually I am supposed to be still singing Christmas songs as late as the first week of January. Another ill side effect of living in a culture where the sacred and the secular are so at odds.

But this year I have really dug down into some of the lesser known Christmas carols and composed a list of my top five favorite non-conventional Christmas carols. Any one of these would be great to be incorporated into a Christmastide liturgy, though perhaps not all for participation by the congregation; some would be better just sung by a skilled choir. So, get ready for


MY TOP FIVE UNDERRATED CHRISTMAS SONGS


I've posted the lyrics in italics below each of the videos with a little commentary on what I like about the song. Enjoy.

Number Five: The Holly and the Ivy




The holly and the ivy, when they are both full grown, Of all the trees that are in the wood, the holly bears the crown. Refrain: Oh, the rising of the sun and the running of the deer, The playing of the merry organ, sweet singing in the choir. The holly bears a blossom as white as lily flower, And Mary bore sweet Jesus Christ to be our sweet saviour (Refrain). The holly bears a berry As red as any blood And Mary bore sweet Jesus Christ To do poor sinners good (Refrain).The holly bears a prickle As sharp as any thorn; And Mary bore sweet Jesus Christ On Christmas Day in the morn (Refrain). The holly bears a bark As bitter as any gall; And Mary bore sweet Jesus Christ For to redeem us all (Refrain).

Some dismiss this song as too pagan because of its references to holly and ivy and their connection to Norse paganism. I would say that a revival of Norse paganism is probably the last thing we need to worry about in our liturgies (unless you live in the neo-pagan Diocese of Albequerque), and that any connection with medieval tradition is good; but I would also point out that despite the Nordic elements, the verses are very Christian and contain some beautiful medieval typology regarding the various elements of the holly plant and how they symbolize Christ. This tune is believed to be over a thousand years old, and the reference to the organ as "merry" points to a very Catholic origin for this hymn, since English literature in the post-Reformation times always refers to the organ as "somber" or "majestic."

The arrangement above is not my favorite, though it is by far the most well known. The best arrangement I know of this song I have only ever heard on this CD; I have actually uploaded this version onto YouTube and made my own video of it, which you can see here. I highly recommend listening to this if you are only familiar with the popular arrangement; It is more upbeat and contains alternating parts for males and female voices, and (in my opinion) does a much better job of matching the text to the music. I am not sure, but I think the arrangement may be by Robert Shaw.

Number Four: Lo, How a Rose Ere' Bloometh




Lo how a rose e'er blooming From tender stem hath sprung Of Jesse's lineage coming As seers of old have sung. It came a floweret bright Amid the cold of winter When half spent 'twas the night. Isaiah 'twas foretold it, This rose I have in mind. With Mary we behold it The Virgins mother kind. To show His love so bright She bore for us a Savior when half spent was that night. O flower whose fragrance tender With sweetness fills the airDispel in Glorious splendor. The darkness everywhere True man yet very God From sin and death now save us And share our human load.

This is undoubtedly one of my favorite Christmas songs of all time, and to be fair, I have heard it included in the Christmas liturgy at some parishes, though not as frequently as I would like. Its typology is simple yet profound, based on the Book of Isaiah, speaking of Jesus as the Root of Jesse and the Branch of the House of David, not unlike the O Antiphon for December 19th, O Radix Jesse. Of all the hymns for Christmas, I think this one best expresses the wonder with which we marvel at the Incarnation of the Word. Charlotte Church actually has a version of this that is really beautiful.

Number Three: King Jesus Hath a Garden


King Jesus hath a garden, full of divers flowers,Where I go culling posies gay, all times and hours. Refrain: There naught is heard but Paradise bird, Harp, dulcimer, lute,With cymbal, trump and tymbal, And the tender, soothing flute. The Lily, white in blossom there, is Chastity:The Violet, with sweet perfume, Humility (Refrain). The bonny Damask-rose is known as Patience: The blithe and thrifty Marygold, Obedience (Refrain). The Crown Imperial bloometh too in yonder place,'Tis Charity, of stock divine, the flower of grace (Refrain). Yet, 'mid the brave, the bravest prize of all may claim The Star of Bethlem-Jesus-bless'd be his Name! (Refrain). Ah! Jesu Lord, my heal and weal, my bliss complete, Make thou my heart thy garden-plot, fair, trim and neat (Refrain).

I think of all the hymns listed here, this one has some of the most beautiful typology, in which the classic theme of comparing virtues to different flowers is taken up. This song is very contrary to the modern mindset, in which something like a flower is seen only in context of its scientific or biological category and without any typological consideration as to what the flower as such may represent in the bigger picture. I think this hymn is a great meditation on virtue and the beauty of the good life, and though it does not have anything to do with Christmas per se, it is traditionally labeled as a Christmas song and this seems to be fitting for such a lovely song on the garden of Christ.

Number Two: Hail, Blessed Virgin Mary




Hail! Blessed Virgin Mary! For so, when he did meet thee Spake mighty Gabriel, and thus we greet thee. Come weal, come woe, our hymn shall never vary. Hail! Blessed Virgin Mary!Hail! Blessed Virgin Mary! Ave! Ave Maria! To gladden priest and people The angelus shall ring from every steeple,To sound his virgin birth. Alleluia! Ave! Ave Maria! Ave! Ave Maria! Archangels chant, 'Hosanna!'And, 'Holy! Holy! Holy!' Before the Infant born of thee, thou lowly, Aye-maiden child of Joachim and Anna. Archangels chant Hosanna! Archangels chant Hosanna!

This song is a straightforward hymn of praise. Can there be any doubt about it with all the hosannas, aves, alleluias and hails? Despite being a very simple, yet powerful melody and lyrics very accessible to the common person. I have for some reason never heard this beautiful hymn incorporated into any liturgy, whether Christmas or Marian. It's reference to the "angelus" ringing from every steeple marks it as unquestionably Catholic and fitting for any Marian feast, or especially for the Nativity.

Number One: Jesus Christ the Apple Tree



The tree of life my soul hath seen, Laden with fruit and always green:The trees of nature fruitless be Compared with Christ the apple tree. His beauty doth all things excel: By faith I know, but ne'er can tell The glory which I now can see In Jesus Christ the apple tree. For happiness I long have sought, And pleasure dearly I have bought: I missed of all; but now I see' Tis found in Christ the apple tree. I'm weary with my former toil, Here I will sit and rest awhile: Under the shadow I will be, Of Jesus Christ the apple tree. This fruit doth make my soul to thrive, It keeps my dying faith alive; Which makes my soul in haste to be With Jesus Christ the apple tree.

Besides having a beautiful melody, this song has much to endear itself to us: it speaks of the bitterness of the world and compares the beauty of Christ with the most beautiful of all blossoms, that of the apple tree. The comparisons throughout between the tree of life, Jesus, and the apple tree are very vivid and do what allegory does best: fuse images of the beautiful according in the natural world with the spiritually beautiful truths of the faith. A very wonderful and edifying song.

* * * * *

Besides Hail, Blessed Virgin Mary, all these songs have one thing in common: a rich typological vocabulary that helps our minds rise to marveling at the heavenly truths of the faith by means of beautiful images from the natural world. I want to issue a challenge to pastors, liturgists and music directors: next Christmas, consider temporarily retiring some of the weary old popular songs that we here year after year and incorporate some of these lovely but underappreciated classics into your Christmas/Advent lineup. You will be doing everybody a big favor.

Papa B Singing Anthem

Here's a neat little video of Pope Benedict XVI singing the national anthem of Bavaria during a papal visit. Of course, this would be the Pope's own national anthem since he is from Bavaria. Notice how much the Bavarian anthem invokes the blessing and protection of God in contrast to our anthem which does not mention Him. It is also interesting how in Germany different regions have their own anthems. Of course Bavaria is the largest German state and the last German kingdom to lose its sovereignty and be incorporated into the German Empire in 1870.


Monday, December 22, 2008

Cayuse Indians & Whitman Massacre

A depiction of the killing of Dr. Marcus Whitman in the 1847 Whitman Massacre. As if he'd be reading a book at the fireplace completely oblivious to all that commotion behind him!

I seem to have been reading alot about Native Americans and Indian-white conflicts as of late. I think this was partially inspired by my reading of Saint Among Savages (bio of St. Isaac Jogues) earlier this year, as well as a history of the Seneca Indians, followed by a rewatching of Last of the Mohicans and the presentation of two-part class on Church history for the parish with a large focus on the Jesuit missions in Canada. Following along on this Indian theme, I recently started reading the Atlas of the North American Indian by Carl Waldman (linked up on the sidebar). It is a comprehensive atlas of the locations of every major (and some minor) Indian tribes from the mound builders right up to today. The book is politically correct and very shabbily written, but its a nice resource for its many maps showing Indian tribal lands in relation to modern boundaries.

At any rate, it also has a lengthy tribe-by-tribe history of each group's conflicts with whites. One interesting situation I read about had to do with the Cayuse Indians who lived in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington in the Blue Mountains region. Their geographical location made them an interesting case: due to their proximity to California, they had already been contacted by Spanish settlers and had been introduced to Catholicism. From what I've read, the Cayuses had not been exposed to the Spanish Franciscan missionary activity long enough to have adopted the Faith in any real way, but they were friendly to the priests at least.

In 1836 American pioneers began coming into the Cayuse lands from the east under Protestant missionary Marcus Whitman. Whitman came with an influx of a thousand other pioneers and trappers, and has been described as rigid and contemptuous of the Cayuse Indian traditions. Other sources attribute this hostility to the Indians not to Marcus but to his wife, Narcissa. At any rate, the Indians soon found themselves with the Catholics on their west and the Protestants on their east, each vying to convert them. However, shortly after the arrival of the Americans, a smallpox epidemic broke out and decimated the Cayuse population.

The Cayuse held Whitman personally responsible for the outbreak of the epidemic, and the Cayuses plotted to kill him. On November 27th, 1847, a band of Cayuse descended upon the Whitman homestead and murdered Whitman, his wife and thirteen others. This violence sparked a war called the Cayuse War that ravaged the Oregon Territory for the next eight years. At the end of the fighting, the Cayuse who had committed the murders were turned over to the American authorities and given the choice of choosing either Catholic or Protestant rites at their executions. They unanimously chose Catholic rites and received baptism, confirmation and eucharist before being hanged.

Despite the fact that a Catholic priest, Fr. John Baptist Brouillet, aided the victims of the Whitman massacre and helped bury the dead, local Protestant clergymen soon began accusing the Catholic missionary priests of inciting the Cayuse to commit the murders. The Protestant minister Rev. Henry H. Spalding, a companion of Whitman's and an anti-Catholic agitator, acutally published a tract in which he formally accused the local Catholic clergy of instigating the revolt, a charge that was strongly denied by the local Catholic priests. However, Spalding's tract was reprinted many times for the next fifty years and accepted as fact by many Protestants in Oregon and abroad until it was discredited in 1901.

The interesting thing about the Cayuse story and the Whitman Massacre is that it reveals an Indian tribe caught in two culture clashes: that of Indian vs. white, and then that of Protestant versus Catholic. It is interesting how given a choice between which rites to undergo at death, they chose those of the Catholic Church. This underscores the often observed fact that Catholic missionaries usually developed much better rapport with Indians than their Protestant counterparts. This may account for the Cayuse adhering to the true Faith -- or perhaps it was the beauty of their rites, the same thing that convinced Vladimir of Russia to adopt Christianity over Islam and awed the Aztecs when they first saw Cortez and his men chanting at a Solemn High Mass in Tenochtitlan. Too bad the Anglo-American policy of extermination ended up being the road our nation ultimately went down.