What is Schism?

I was initially going to do this post on the question of whether the SSPX were truly in a state of schism or not. However, upon reading a lot of the commentary on this question from individuals on both sides of the question, I realized that there is a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes a schism. Those defending the SSPX and those who say the SSPX are in schism both have different definitions of what constitutes a schism. Therefore, this post will serve as preliminary to a future post about the SSPX schism question; today we will simply look at formulating an adequate definition of schism.

One point of contention is that too often schism is defined as simple disobedience. Defining schism as simple disobedience is simply not sufficient, as we will see. This definition is what brings up the oft-repeated SSPX objection that if disobedience constitutes schism then 90% of the Church is in schism because of the disobedience of liberal priests, bishops, etc. The SSPX defenders are correct here; simple disobedience cannot equate to schism.

For example, let's say a priest is instructing his congregation in the Church's precept on attending Mass every Sunday, which is a discipline of the universal Church. Now suppose Joe Smith in the pews hears the legitimate instruction of the Church but chooses to disobey it. He scoffs at the precept and misses Mass regularly, knowing that the Church teaches otherwise.

No one would deny that Joe Smith is being disobedient to the Church's authority - but does this simple disobedience put him in a state of schism? I do not know of anyone who would use the phrase "schism" when applied to this simple disobedience. We could think of many other scenarios: a couple contracepting, people refusing ever to give money to the Church, neglecting the religious formation of children, eating meat on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. All of these things constitute disobedience, but none of them are considered schism. Even in the rather severe case of the women religious in the United States, with all their disobedience, nobody has (yet) started throwing around the word schism. Therefore, I think we can say with certainty that simple disobedience does not constitute schism. Every schismatic is out of union with the Church, but not everyone who is out of union with the Church is schismatic; and not every act of disobedience breaks ecclesial unity.

But these example are all involving lay persons. Does the scenario change if the offender is a clergyman and not a lay person? Perhaps schism is brought about by disobedience on the part of the clergy.

This definition falls short also. Some examples: Suppose the bishop orders a pastor to form a parish council, but the pastor does not obey the bishop and refuses to form a parish council. Clearly, the bishop has been disobeyed, but I don't know if anybody would suggest the pastor is in schism.

Further examples: priests introducing liturgical innovations that are explicitly prohibited by their bishop and by the Holy See, pastors hosting events for dissenting organizations like Call to Action against the bishop's express command, Franciscan priests organizing pilgrimages to Medjugorje despite the prohibitions of the local ordinary. In each of these situations we have a cleric engaging in disobedience, although again none of these situations is considered a schism in the formal, canonical sense.

For an act to truly be schismatic, it need not only be a denial of obedience, but a denial of obedience to an authority coupled with a denial that the authority has the right to command obedience in a certain issue. This denial is almost always found alongside the act of the creation of a rival hierarchy, usually validly but illicitly consecrated. Let's look at the circumstances around some of the Church's principle schisms throughout history:

• The first large schism was that of Novatian, who was elected antipope in the time of Pope Cornelius (251). The sect believed Cornelius' treatment of those Christians who had lapsed in the Decian persecution was too lenient.
  
  
• The schism of Antioch (330-415) erupted when two lines of bishops, one Arian and one orthodox, disputed about who were the legitimate pastors of the Antiochan Church. The orthodox bishop, Eustathius, was deposed by the Arian party who consecrated their own bishop illicitly.
  
  
• The schism during the time of Pope Liberius was caused when the Arian party consecrated as antipope one Felix who claimed the See of Rome while Liberius was in exile. The Romans eventually got Liberius recalled and Felix was deposed.
  
  
• The Donatist schism, one of the largest of the ancient Church, began when many African Christians objected to the legitimacy of Caecilian of Carthage, since he was consecrated by a traditor. These declared his election invalid and elected their own bishop, Majorinus. The dispute spread, and soon most large cities had two hierarchies, one loyal to Caecilian, one to Majorinus. Those loyal to Majorinus were the rigorists that eventually were called Donatists (the Donatus take their name from a Bishop Donatus who succeeded Majorinus).
  
  
• The Acacian schism, the first real major east-west schism, occurred when Acacius of Constantinople continued to exercise his episcopal office despite being excommunicated by Pope Felix II over the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno.
  
  
• The Aquilean schism during the time of Pope Vigilius broke out when the bishops of Milan and Aquilea refused obedience to Pope Vigilius over the latter's condemnation of the Three Chapters. For a time they functioned as their own hierarchy independent of the pope.
  
  
• The schism of 1054, when the Greeks effectively denied that the Pope had any jurisdiction in the east.
  
  
• The schism of Anacletus (1150), which had to do with the election of an antipope.
  
  
• The Great Western Schism, of course, which was brought upon by the dispute between a pope and antipope following the return of the Church from Avignon in 1378.
  
  
• The Anglican schism, when, for a time, the Catholic Church existed side-by-side with a schismatic Church in England. This is no longer a schism, however, since the Holy Orders of the Anglican bishops went extinct after the first generation.
  
  
• The schism of the "Constitutional Church" in France following the promulgation of the Civil Constitution on the Clergy in 1790. This in effect set up two hierarchies, one loyal to the Pope and one on the state dole and under obedience to state appointed bishops who were invalidly consecrated.
  
  
• The schism of the Old Catholics, which began in 1871 after Vatican I, when the protesters against papal infallibility voted at the Council of Munich to constitute themselves a separate Church.

Note that in each and every case, the schism involves either a establishment of a valid but illicit rival hierarchy or else the formal withdrawal of an existing hierarchy from obedience to the Holy See. Schism, then, consists in an act of disobedience that results in either the withdrawal of an existing bishop or member of the hierarchy from obedience or else the establishment of a illicit rival hierarchy; this is true at least of the Church's historical schisms.

This is why the pope stated that the consecration of four bishops illicitly is a schismatic act - following the trends we saw in the historic schisms, it was an act of disobedience that took the form of establishing a hierarchy outside the pale of the pope's authority. Setting up rival, illicit hierarchy is always a schismatic act. Whether or not the SSPX did this, and to what degree a schismatic act confers ipso facto the status of schismatic, remains to be seen.

One thing that is plainly clear from looking at the history is that schism does not necessarily entail denial that an authority exists. The SSPX argument that they are not in schism because they have not denied the existence of legitimate authority within the Church is a weak argument that creates a definition of schism so narrow that virtually no one other than Sedevacantists would fit it. It is not necessary that the SSPX (or any group) deny the existence of a legitimate authority to be in schism - it is enough to disobey that authority whilst setting up a rival outside authority, even if one continues to admit the existence of the legitimate authority.

Interestingly enough, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that one does not need to formally join schismatic group or form a distinct sect to be guilty of the sin of schism: "On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group." This means that schism seems to be on a continuum. There are certainly some schismatics at the far end, like the Old Catholics - but it also implies that one can be guilty of schism even without adhering to a formally schismatic group or founding one. I think the Encyclopedia is trying to distinguish between the sin of schism (incurred whenever there is a partisan spirit of haughty disobedience) and the canonical status of schism (established by the setting up of a rival hierarchy). Though they usually go together, they are two different concepts.

Next time we will take these principles and apply them to the situation with the SSPX, taking into account current and previous Magisterial statements on the question.

Blessed Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul!

Blessed Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul to you all! This Feast day, besides celebrating the glorious martyrdoms of the two most eminent apostles during the reign of Nero, also is the anniversary of this blog, which was first launched by Anselm and myself on June 29th, 2007 while we were both employed as DRE and Youth Director at our local parish. That was five long years and over 800 posts ago.

Thank you for your continued patronage of this blog. May you be richly blessed. Pray for me, a sinner.

The Head of St. John the Baptist

In honor of the Feast of St. John the Baptist (June 24th), I thought it would be fun to tackle a question that bothered me for sometime: If the head of John the Baptist was presented to Herodias by Salome after the infamous dancing incident at King Herod's birthday party, how did the Christian community ever get possession of John's head?

There are various places that claim to possess the head of St. John the Baptist. In the west, the two most notable locations are Amiens Cathedral and the Church of San Silverstro de Capite in Rome. The skull on display in Amien is clearly traceable to the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade (1204); the origin of the claim of the church in Rome is less certain. There are also several other churches that claim to have the Baptist's head, whole or in part, and some places that claim other related relics (Aachen Cathedral claims the cloth that his decapitated head was wrapped in, for example).

There is no way to verify any of these claims. But one question that I have wondered about is how the Church came into possession of his head at all. Let's look at the narrative of John's execution from the Gospel of Matthew:

"...on Herod's birthday, the daughter of Herodias danced before them: and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath, to give her whatsoever she would ask of him. But she being instructed before by her mother, said: Give me here in a dish the head of John the Baptist. And the king was struck sad: yet because of his oath, and for them that sat with him at table, he commanded it to be given. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. And his head was brought in a dish: and it was given to the damsel, and she brought it to her mother. And his disciples came and took the body, and buried it, and came and told Jesus" (Matt 14:6-12, Douay-Rheims).

It states very plainly that John's disciples came and took the body. This presents no problem, for presumably the body was cast out after John's execution and his disciples were easily able to retrieve it. But how would they have retrieved his head? Scripture says plainly that the head of John was given to Herodias by Salome. Beyond this, Scripture says nothing. Yet within a few generations, we see the Head of John the Baptist being venerated at Sebaste in Samaria. So how did the Church get his head back?

I can think of four explanations:

1. Herodias gave the head back to John's disciples

I can't see that this as a tenable theory. Herodias must have known that possession of the head by John's followers would create a focal point for veneration of John's memory, and serve to instigate further disillusionment with the Herodian Dynasty. I cannot see any situation in which she would have willingly returned the head to John's followers?

2. Herodias buried the head and later Christians found it


This is a traditional theory that has some merit to it. Nicephorus and Symeon Metaphrastes, two obscure Greek historians writing centuries after the fact (14th century and 10th century) state that the head was buried by Herodias in the fortress of Machaerus and later found miraculously by the local Christians. Another tradition has it being discovered in the Herodian palace in Jerusalem during the time of Constantine, then transfered to Emesa where it was later discovered by revelation in a dream. These theories are plausible, but they all depend upon invoking a direct revelation from God which, while certainly not improbable (e.g. the discovery of the relics of Gervasius and Protasius by St. Ambrose through a dream), it depends upon the validity of some very, very late testimonies.

3. Someone in Herod's household took the head and gave it to John's disciples

This is the explanation I prefer. While it is unlikely that Herodias returned the head to John's followers, I do not think she personally would have kept the head in close proximity to her either. I guess we could posit a situation where the vengeful woman kept the skull on her bedside table to perpetually gloat over her victory over John, but I think it more probable that after the head was presented to her by Salome, she probably either discarded it or had it casually tossed away. Pagans and those of the Greco-Roman culture (like Herodias) had a very superstitious fear of dead bodies and I don't think she would have wanted to hang on to the severed head. Therefore, I think that after seeing the head brought to her by Salome, she probably gave it to a servant or slave and instructed them to dispose of it discreetly - get it out of the household, but not let it fall into the hands of the followers of John or Jesus.

This theory makes more sense when we realize that Herodias and King Herod had some believers in his household. The Scriptures tell us that the wife of Herod's chief steward, Chuza, was a follower of Jesus:

"And it came to pass afterwards, that he travelled through the cities and towns, preaching and evangelizing the kingdom of God; and the twelve with him: And certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities; Mary who is called Magdalen, out of whom seven devils were gone forth. And Joanna the wife of Chusa, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others who ministered unto him of their substance" (Luke 8:1-3)

This Joanna was a very devoted follower of Christ; in fact, she was one of the first witnessed to the Resurrection:

"When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles" (Luke 24:9-10).

As Herod's chief steward, it is probable that Chuza was given the head by Herodias with instructions to discreetly dispose of it. Chuza probably then entrusted the head to Joanna, a disciple of Jesus, who in turn brought it into the Christian community. To me this explanation makes sense, is plausible and is supported by what the Scriptures tell us.

4. The head has never been found and all the claimants are fakes

This is certainly possible, though I don't believe the head of the man who even in his own day was known as the forerunner of the Messiah and the one whom Jesus acclaimed as the greatest of those born among women (Luke 7:28) would be simply lost to history.


St. John the Baptist, pray for us!

Are the Bayside Apparitions False? Yes.

I have been having a lot of discussions with a friend of mine lately about the alleged "Bayside Apparitions" of Veronica Lueken (for the background of the Bayside apparitions, see here). I have not done nearly as much research on Bayside as I have on Medjugorje, but from what I have been reading it has some of the same problems - disobedience to the local bishop when he does not condone the visions of the seer, bizarre "warnings" foretold, miracles the whole world will see, and thousands upon thousands of banal messages - in fact, the Bayside messages are even more awkward and banal than those at Medjugorje, if that were possible.

Bayside also has some unique elements to it, such as the insistence that Pope Paul VI was murdered or kidnapped in 1972 and replaced by an actor who had plastic surgery and a coming "Ball of Redemption", a comet that will strike New York City, and belief in the Rapture.

After spending several days mired in these messages, I cannot but conclude that they are complete hogwash. The Bayside Apparitions are a hoax. Here are some reasons why I have come to this conclusion:

All religions have a place in heaven?

"For My Father's House, My Son has repeated over and over: remember always that My Father's House-there are many rooms in the Mansion, signifying faiths and creeds. However, the Eternal Father, the Beatific Vision, is reserved for the Roman Catholic following. This it has been deemed by the Eternal Father since the beginning of time." - (Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), the “messages” of Bayside, published by Apostles of Our Lady, Inc. Lansing, MI, 1993, p. 81.)

Here the visions clearly state that, although Catholics have a special place in heaven, other "faiths and creeds" also go to heaven. This is clearly heretical.

False prophecy about the Ball of Redemption

“Our Lady” of Bayside, June 18, 1988: “Do not be affrighted, My child; you must see this, for it is important. Within this century this Ball will be sent upon mankind… It is almost too late… a Ball that is fast hurtling towards earth! It will be here within this century, if not sooner.” (Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), p. 108.)

Note the Ball is said to be sent "within this century." This prophecy was given in 1988. Therefore, the fact that by 2000 this had not yet happened proves conclusively that this is false. We should always remember Deuteronomy 18: "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing follows not, nor comes to pass, that is, the thing which the LORD has not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptuously: you shall not be afraid of him...a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death" (Deut. 18:22, 20).

Televisions are sinful?

“Our Lady” of Bayside, Sept. 27, 1975: “I have, many times, cautioned you, and all My children, against the use of the diabolical machine, your television. There will be no excuses for having these in your presence.” (Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), the “messages” of Bayside, published by Apostles of Our Lady, Inc. Lansing, MI, 1993, p. 86.)

This is absurd. Obviously televisions can be used in sinful ways - but are they really diabolical? According to Bayside, we can have absolutely no televisions. There is "no excuse", not even watching pious or faith building movies or programs? Clearly the Bayside people themselves don't believe it since the Our Lady or the Roses website sells Bayside DVDs. This teaching directly contradicts the teaching of the Second Vatican Council document Inter Mirifica on social communication, which states:

"Among the wonderful technological discoveries which men of talent, especially in the present era, have made with God's help, the Church welcomes and promotes with special interest those which have a most direct relation to men's minds and which have uncovered new avenues of communicating most readily news, views and teachings of every sort. The most important of these inventions are those media which, such as the press, movies, radio, television and the like, can, of their very nature, reach and influence, not only individuals, but the very masses and the whole of human society, and thus can rightly be called the media of social communication. The Church recognizes that these media, if properly utilized, can be of great service to mankind, since they greatly contribute to men's entertainment and instruction as well as to the spread and support of the Kingdom of God... support should be given to good radio and television programs, above all those that are suitable for families. Catholic programs should be promoted" (Inter Mirifica, 1-2, 14).

Maybe our Lady did not mean to condemn television absolutely; if not, the words are sloppy and imprecise, as it says there is "no excuse" for ever having a television. Mary here says the television is of diabolical origin; the Church says they were made "with God's help." The messages conflict at worst and are ambiguous at best.

Falsehoods about Paul VI

"Your Father, in the eternal city of Rome, Pope Paul VI, your Holy Father, is a blessed man, for he carries his cross. Your Holy Father is a blessed man, for he shall be martyred." - Our Lady, June 18, 1977

Paul VI was not martyred; he died naturally in 1978. Another false prophecy. This seems to contradict a prophecy made two years earlier which stated that Paul VI had already been replaced by an "impostor" look alike, one of Bayside's most notable and bizarre aspects:

"He is not able to do his mission. They have laid him low, My child. He is ill, he is very ill. Now there is one who is ruling in his place, an impostor, created from the minds of the agents of satan. Plastic surgery, My child--the best of surgeons were used to create this impostor." - Our Lady, September 27, 1975

"The appearance in public is not Paul VI; it is the impostor pope. Medication of evil has dulled the brain of the true pope, Pope Paul VI. They send into his veins poison to dull his reasoning and paralyze his legs. What evil creature have you opened the doors to the Eternal City and admitted?"- Our Lady, September 27, 1975

"In the city of Rome there will be great confusion and trial. Satan, Lucifer in human form, entered into Rome in the year 1972. He cut off the rule, the role of the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI."- Our Lady, September 7, 1978

So was or was not Paul VI replaced by an impostor in 1975? The 1975 apparitions say so, but the 1977 apparition speaks of him as still in power and warns of his impending martyrdom, which did not happen. They could perhaps say that he was secretly murdered or poisoned to get him out of the way, but that would not be a martyrdom. Regardless, this stuff about Paul VI being replaced with an impostor is, in my opinion, nonsense.

Falsehoods about John Paul II

“Our Lady” of Bayside, June 18, 1988: “Please, My children, pray for your Holy Father, the Pope. You must not lose him, for the one who comes after him will destroy if he can – he will attempt to destroy Pope John Paul II.” (Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), p. 108.)

Pope Benedict XVI has come after John Paul II. Benedict has not tried to destroy John Paul; on the contrary, he has beatified him and is pressing for his canonization. This prophecy was clearly false.

"Pray for your Vicar (Pope John Paul II). There will be another attempt upon his life. Pray for your Vicar. Do not judge him by the medias, for he is a good man, with a heart that is soft, and often he can be misled. However, he is a good man, and he is one who I keep now under My mantle for his protection. But We need your prayers, My children, your Masses and your sacrifices, if you want him to remain among you." - Our Lady of the Roses, June,30, 1984

In 1984 it was predicted that there would be another assassination attempt on John Paul II. But there wasn't. Nobody every tried to kill John Paul II again after the first 1981 attempt. This is another false, unfulfilled prophecy. Granted, there were other alleged conspiracies to kill John Paul II, but nothing like a real attempt. One could always say that the attempt was thwarted by the prayers of the faithful - but then again, one can always allege that a purported judgment or calamity did not happen because the prayers of the people forestalled it. It is a perpetual out for these people whenever a prophesyed judgment does not materialize.

"When Pope John Paul II is removed, the Church shall be divided among itself. United it will stand, divided it will fall." - Our Lady, March 18, 1983

This simply has not happened. The Church is more united now under Benedict XVI than it was in the 80's under John Paul II. The 80's were the nadir of the Church's unity - things have gotten much better, not worse, since the death of John Paul II.

False rapture doctrine

Most troubling is that the Bayside apparitions promote the false Protestant "rapture" doctrine, which is clearly a heretical teaching that no Catholic ought to hold.

"Remember, without prayers and atonement, the world will become devastated. The Third World War will leave no earth upon the land. There will be no earth, there will be no human beings; but a grouping would have been taken up into Heaven, My child and My children, to await the terrible devastation that falls upon mankind." - Jesus, May 28, 1983

""I give you great grace of heart, My children, to know that many shall be taken from your earth before the great Chastisement.... Many of your news medias shall state that they have been carried off by flying saucers. Oh no, My children! They were carried off into a supernatural realm of the Eternal Father to await the return of My Son upon earth." - Our Lady of the Roses, December 7, 1976

This is the Protestant rapture theory plain and simple - a group of elect taken away from the earth prior to the second coming. And by the way, someone should tell the Virgin Mary that the plural of media is media, not "medias."

Communion in the hand errors

I have to be clear here: I totally am against communion in the hand and have written about this many times. It is a practice that dissolves the boundary between the laity and the clergy and opens th door to too many potential abuses. But it is not an absolute evil. The apparitions say some things about this that cannot be true:

"Pastors, no hands other than those consecrated by a legally-ordained priest shall give the Host to others." Our Lady, August 21, 1975

Okay, first, it is bishops, not priests, who ordain other priests, so Mary really needs to get her ecclesiology straight, but anyhow-

"Communion in the hand has not been, and will not be accepted by Heaven. This is a sacrilege in the eyes of the Eternal Father, and must not be continued, for you only add to your punishment when you continue on in the ways that have been found to be unpleasing to the Eternal Father." - Our Lady, June 30, 1984

Communion in the hand has not been accepted by heaven? That is funny, since it was practiced for centuries in the Early Church. While communion in the hand might not be prudent, it is too much to say it is not accepted by heaven. In the Early Church and for the firsts several centuries of Christianity communion was given in the hand. This was the practice of all the great saints of the Early Church, including the apostles. Over time, the church in the Middle Ages changed the discipline to prevent certain abuses and safeguard the dignity of the sacrament, as it was their right to do. This was the discipline until the modern Church restored the practice.

Now, we might rightfully debate whether or not this was a good idea, but how can our Lady say communion in the hand cannot be accepted by heaven when it was the practice in the universal Church for the first six or seven centuries? We even have a saint, St. Tarcisius, who was layman that was martyred while trying to take communion to someone else - i.e., while holding Holy Communion in his hand.

Also, although restoring communion in the hand in the modern age may not be prudent, none of the accepted rites or disciplines or the Church can be positively harmful or diabolical in and of themselves. They might be bad ideas; they might lend themselves to abuses, but in themselves they cannot be harmful if they are authorized by the Church. Otherwise, the Church would be promoting something that was sinful through its rites, which can never be the case. Otherwise, the role of the Church as the dispenser of God's graces is nullified.

"Loss" of baptismal identity?

Bayside seems to teach that one can lose one's baptismal character and identity as a Roman Catholic:

"I ask you all not to abandon My Church. Do not judge My Church by the priest, for in his human nature he can err. But I assure you I am using him, as a legally ordained priest, to bring you My Body and Blood. Do not go seeking elsewhere, for you will lose your baptismal right, and you will no longer be accepted as a Roman Catholic, and you will not enter into the highest place of Heaven, the Kingdom of Paradise." - Jesus, October 6, 1980

Now, this is kind of ambiguous, I grant. Perhaps it means that by leaving the Church you lose sanctifying grace, and that would be acceptable. But it does not say that. It says leaving the Church causes one to lose their "baptismal right" and no longer be viewed as a Roman Catholic. If taken literally, this would be problematic.

The teaching of the Church is that baptism confers and indelible mark or character that can never be effaced, no matter what sin or apostasy the person commits. Grace may be lost, but the character of baptism may never be lost. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic - perhaps a bad Catholic, perhaps a fallen away Catholic, but always a Catholic. This is another example of the imprecise language rampant in the Bayside apparitions that detracts from their credibility.

Antichrist Pope

In many places, the apparitions suggest that the antichrist will be a pope:

"The Rock has always withstood the test of time. But one will be entered into the House of God, and woe to man when he places him upon the Seat of Peter, for then the Great Day of the Lord shall be at hand." - Our Lady, March 18, 1974

Now I know this is contested and I am not 100% certain on this, but it seems to me that most reputable theologians do not believe the antichrist will be a Pope. It would mean that the promise given to Peter that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church would be compromised; how could it not be if the source of the Church's unity was the antichrist? The antichrist as Christ's vicar? The Fathers of the Church do not ever suggest that this is possible; the antichrist is seen as a false prophet, as a political leader, but never as the pope himself. I would say this teaching is very troubling and will cause the faithful the mistrust and suspect the papacy rather than listen and be taught by it.

Bayside also teaches that the antichrist is currently living and walking around. One of Veronica's messages delivered by our Lady:

“There is not much time left, My child, to gather the sheep. Know that the Antichrist, the Antichrist, My child, is walking upon your earth. He goes and follows wherever there is darkness." -Our Lady to Veronica, Dec. 28th, 1974

He must be getting old - this prophesy was delivered in 1974, thirty-four years ago. So according to Bayside, the antichrist will take the Seat of Peter and was alive and walking around in 1974.

Names of Guardian Angels

In Catholic spirituality, it has traditionally been seen as dangerous to call on the names of angels other than those specifically mentioned in the Bible; simply because our private revelations are not infallible, and you never know who or what you are calling on. Yet Bayside seems to direct Christians to call on mysterious angels that we know nothing about:

"You must ask your guardian angel to ever guide you upon your way. You will also inform Tomdarius that he must keep pure and holy thoughts in his mind. Yes, call upon Tomdarius, My child. You must keep pure and holy thoughts in your mind. My child, this will be a secret for you, Tomdarius, and the soul he guards." - Our Lady, May 15, 1976

This is not heretical as much as reckless and dangerous. No spiritual director would tell you to call out an unknown angel by name like that. Only Michael, Raphael and Gabriel should be addressed by name since they are the only names we know. Who is Tomdarius? Is he an angel? A demon? Should we call out to something when we don't know what it is? There is a good reason that the Church's cultus of saints and angels consists of those who have some sort of formal recognition of being part of the City of God.

"Back in 1970, when Our Lady started Her work here, She assigned special archangels to us.... Every one of the close workers has been given the name of his archangel. And I was assigned one of the highest archangels with Michael--Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel, and his name is Tusazeri. And we've had other archangels that were given to workers.... But we had Sactorius, and of course there's Tomdarius.... It sounds very, very strange: Sactorius, Tomdarius, Razene, Rientre, and I can't remember them all now." - Veronica's commentary, 1974

"There is no reason to fear, My child, for you have Creazuus now with you and Tuzaseri." Veronica - Oh! Creazuus? Creazuus. Oh, Creazuus is the angel guardian given to my son Raymond while he was here on earth. "Our Lady, thank you. Thank you, Blessed Mother." - Our Lady, March 18, 1974

This is all very questionable. Creazuus? Tuzaseri? Who knows what these things are. And if they were revealed to Veronica by heaven, why can't she remember their names, as she says above? I have never heard of legitimate seer or visionary forgetting part of a message from God.

Sometimes, the angels in apparitions behave frivolously:

"Yes. There's Tomdarius, Tusazeri--he is my guardian angel, but he's quite a clown. He likes to circle around. And right now he's turning and spinning again. He always does that when he sees me; he turns and spins. And now also, there's Razene, and Nadina, and many others." - Veronica, October 1, 1988

One of the judgements on whether or not an apparition is true, according to spiritual masters, is "Do we find that the dignity and seriousness which become the Divine Majesty?" What is the purpose of this frivolous description of an angel acting like a clown? When an apparition behaves like this, it suggests it is not legitimate (see here for an earlier post on criteria for judging private apparitions).

Obedience

Another question in evaluating an apparition is: "Have the sovereign pontiffs and the bishops believed this to be so, and have they assisted the progress of the work?" In other words, whether or not a bishop/bishops accept the apparitions is not just a reflection of their personal sentiment, but is actually a judgment of whether the visions are valid at all. In this both Bayside and Medjugorje share something in common, as in both cases the adherents of the vision blatantly disobey their local bishop's requests that the alleged apparitions not be promoted. Bayside's followers profess obedience, but in practice they are being disobedient:

"For to whom much is given, much is expected; and discipline and obedience means suffering and sacrifice. Unquestioning love, unquestioning obedience, that is the only way to Heaven." - Jesus, May 30, 1981

Unquestioning obedience. Yet the local bishop has directed people to stay away from Bayside prayer vigils and events and has asked the faithful not to disseminate the writings or messages of Veronica. From the bishop's directive:

"No credibility can be given to the so-called "apparitions" reported by Veronica Lueken and her followers...Because of my concern for their spiritual welfare, members of Christ's faithful are hereby directed to refrain from participating in the "vigils" and from disseminating any propaganda related to the "Bayside apparitions." They are also discouraged from reading any such literature. Anyone promoting this devotion in any way, be it by participating in the "vigils," organizing pilgrimages, publishing or disseminating the literature related to it, is contributing to the confusion which is being created in the faith of God's people, as well as encouraging them to act against the determinations made by the legitimate pastor of this particular Church (c.212, para. 1)."

Bayside proponents have countered that the process the bishop has used was improper and therefore his decision is invalid. Whether or not this is the case, it does not justify disobedience. If they really have a case that their bishop acted against canon law, the Bayside proponents should appeal to Rome and in the meantime be obedient until directed otherwise. To just state, on one's own authority, that the process the bishop used was flawed and then continue in disobedience is a big warning sign.

When Our Lord said "he who hears you hears Me", He was not instructing his followers to "hear" that which "pleased them" - but to be obedient to lawful authority (even if those in lawful authority were sinners - even mighty sinners) in matters of Faith and Morals, such as alleged apparitions. Bayside is bunk. Medjugorje is bunk. Garabandal is bunk.

SSPX and Vatican Reconciliation Imminent?

It is official. The Vatican has offered the SSPX a personal prelature as the mechanism by which the Society of St. Pius X and Rome can be officially reconciled. The SSPX can avail itself of Rome's offer only by submitting to the much discussed "Doctrinal Preamble" that was proposed in Fall of 2011 and presumably will mean a consensus on some of key points of doctrine surrounding Vatican II.

The Doctrinal Preamble has not been made public and we have no idea what it contains, but I think we can infer that it must be very generous to the Society. If this were not the case, negotiations would have never gotten this far.  Had the Vatican's demands been too exacting, or the doctrinal conditions too stringent, or the Preamble set up in such a way as to deprive the SSPX of its fundamental charism, there is no way Bishop Fellay would have continued the talks and allowed them to go this far. An SSPX reconciliation would an impossibility were the Preamble too demanding. Thus, I think we can presume that the Preamble proposes only the most basic requirements on the Society, those minimally necessary to put them in good standing with the Church - probably an acceptance of the legitimacy and authority of Vatican II and of the Novu Ordo Missae.

If this is the case, there will still be room for discussion and interpretation of Vatican II within the Church. If the SSPX accepts the personal prelature, this certainly does not mean they are going to adopt the same outlook on everything as the mainline Church; Pope Benedict does not intend the reunion to necessitate this, nor would the SSPX agree to it if it did. As long as some basic points are agreed to by the Society, the agreement leaves in place a future discussion on the issues dear to the Society and Traditionalists.

This fact is of fundamental importance, because in essence, it means that the Pope is affirming that a valid debate about Tradition and Vatican II can take place among Catholics all in good standing with the Church. The discussion on the role and importance of Tradition will now take place within the context of the Universal Church. In allowing leeway for the SSPX to retain its charism and still be part of the dialogue on Tradition within the Church, the Pope affirms that the SSPX charism and some of their critiques of the modern Church are indeed legitimate, so long as they occur within the guidelines laid down in the Doctrinal Preamble.

Or, to put it more plainly: While we must affirm the authority and complete legitimacy of Vatican II, the agreement will signal that there is no official historiography of Vatican II.

Other opinions on the role and influence of the Council are valid. Questioning the fruitfulness of the Council will no longer equate with dissent.

But will the rest of the Society follow Fellay into union, should the personal prelature be accepted? John Allen at the National Catholic Reporter, like many mainstream commentators, treated the news and possibility of reunion with skepticism. It is amusing to me how reunion with Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are often spoken of as if they are immediate possible realities while reunion with the SSPX is usually seen as an impossibility. Even so, Allen's piece in the NCR is spot on when it says,

"The most likely scenario, therefore, is that when the dust settles, there will still be a traditionalist body on the outside looking in, presumably still led by validly ordained rebel bishops, but reduced in size and significance because some of its former members and leadership will be back in Rome's good graces."

Should the SSPX accept the personal prelature, the Traditionalist schism will still not be entirely healed. Many SSPX will refuse to reunite with Rome; my guess is that these remnants will ultimately become Sedevacantists or adopt some other bizarre heresy and drift off into oblivion, much like the Old Catholic Church.

For my part, I am of course presuming that the Doctrinal Preamble requires nothing of the SSPX beyond what is reasonable to ensure their loyalty to the Universal Church. I am presuming that the Doctrinal Preamble is going to be perceived as very generous, and by the liberals, much too generous. Assuming this is the case, if the SSPX does not agree to this arrangement - if they continue to nit-pick on minutae, or insist that Rome "convert" before they can even begin discussions, or if they continue to attack the person of the Holy Father, I will lose all respect for their organization. The fact that these negotiations are even happening was inconceivable prior to 2005. Things have come so tremendously far in seven brief years. The Holy See is sincerely reaching out and trying to bring them in, knowing that the reunion of the SSPX with the Church would mean tremendous blessing to all - the Church will have an infusion of some of the best educated and best formed clerics in the world, while the Society will obtain canonical legitimacy and all the graces that come from being in full union with the Successor of Peter.

I hope the SSPX realizes that this is a question of their very existence. If they reject this offer (or if a portion of them do), whomever remains outside the Church will dwindle in numbers, in support, and finally will spin off into formal heresy. That's what always happens. Those of the SSPX who do not take up this offer and return to Rome will cease to have any significance in the coming years.

I hope Bishop Fellay will do the right thing here and end this tragic schism. Pray for the reunion of the SSPX and the Holy See.

St. Cyprian on the Eucharist

For the past year, I have been working through all the writings of St. Cyprian of Carthage in the process of putting together a book on the great Father. [Now completed; click here to purchase] In honor of the Feast of Corpus Christi, celebrated earlier this week, I present to you some of greatest quotes from St. Cyprian on the Eucharist.

These two stories from On the Lapsed relate accounts of those who had lapsed during the Decian persecution attempting to receive Holy Communion before being properly reconciled to the Church:

"[A] woman who in advanced life and of more mature age secretly crept in among us when we were sacrificing, received not food, but a sword for herself; and as if taking some deadly poison into her jaws and body, began presently to be tortured, and to become stiffened with frenzy; and suffering the misery no longer of persecution, but of her crime, shivering and trembling, she fell down. The crime of her dissimulated conscience was not long unpunished or concealed. She who had deceived man felt that God was taking vengeance" (On the Lapsed, 26).

"[W]hen one, who himself was defiled, dared with the rest to receive secretly a part of the sacrifice celebrated by the priest; he could not eat nor handle the holy of the Lord, but found in his hands when opened that he had a cinder" (ibid.)

Here Cyprian reflects on the connection between being in union with Christ through the sacrament of His Body and being in union with the Church, which is His mystical body:

"Christ is the bread of those who are in union with His body. And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not, by the interposition of some heinous sin, by being prevented, as withheld and not communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread, be separated from Christ's body, as He Himself predicts, and warns, "I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." When, therefore, He says, that whoever shall eat of His bread shall live for ever; as it is manifest that those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so, on the other hand, we must fear and pray lest any one who, being withheld from communion, is separate from Christ's body should remain at a distance from salvation; as He Himself threatens, and says, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you." And therefore we ask that our bread— that is, Christ— may be given to us daily, that we who abide and live in Christ may not depart from His sanctification and body" (On the Lord's Prayer, 18).

Here are some more quotes by the good Bishop of Carthage on the Eucharist; note the connection between the the blood of Christ being consumed as preparation for the martyr shedding his own blood for Christ:

"But now indeed peace is necessary, not for the sick, but for the strong; nor is communion to he granted by us to the dying, but to the living, that we may not leave those whom we stir up and exhort to the battle unarmed and naked, but may fortify them with the protection of Christ's body and blood. And, as the Eucharist is appointed for this very purpose that it may be a safeguard to the receivers, it is needful that we may arm those whom we wish to be safe against the adversary with the protection of the Lord's abundance. For how do we teach or provoke them to shed their blood in confession of His name if we deny to those who are about to enter on the warfare the blood of Christ? Or how do we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them to drink, in the Church, the cup of the Lord by the right of communion?" (Letter 53:2)

"[T]he soldiers of Christ ought to prepare themselves with uncorrupted faith and robust courage, considering that they drink the cup of Christ's blood daily, for the reason that they themselves also may be able to shed their blood for Christ" (Letter 55:1).

"Let us also arm the right hand with the sword of the Spirit, that it may bravely reject the deadly sacrifices; that, mindful of the Eucharist, the hand which has received the Lord's body may embrace the Lord Himself, hereafter to receive from the Lord the reward of heavenly crowns" (Letter 55:9).

Though a more precise sacramental theology would not arise until the later Middle Ages, Cyprian makes some early contributions to the ideas of matter and form when he addresses the problem of certain Churches attempting to consecrate the Eucharist with water instead of wine. Note his statement that the blood cannot "appear" to be in the cup unless the proper form (wine) is present: 

"For when Christ says, "I am the true vine", the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures" (Letter 62:2).

St. Cyprian frequently refers to the offering of the Eucharist as a sacrifice and calls the Mass "the sacrifices of God." For example:

"Yea, it is the great honor and glory of our episcopate to have granted peace to martyrs, so that we, as priests, who daily celebrate the sacrifices of God, may prepare offerings and victims for God" (Letter 52:3).

"[W]e ought in the ordinations of priests to choose none but unstained and upright ministers, who, holily and worthily offering sacrifices to God, may be heard in the prayers which they make for the safety of the Lord's people" (Letter 67:2).

Finally, on the wonderful effects of receiving the sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood:

"When the blood of the Lord and the cup of salvation have been drunk, the memory of the old man is laid aside, and there arises an oblivion of the former worldly conversation, and the sorrowful and sad breast which before was oppressed by tormenting sins is eased by the joy of the divine mercy; because that only is able to rejoice him who drinks in the Church which, when it is drunk, retains the Lord's truth" (Letter 62:11).

St. Cyprian, ora pro nobis!

Intellectualizing Marriage?

The prevalence of divorce within Christian groups as opposed to the divorce rate in the world at large has long been an occasion of discussion. Divorce statistics are tracked by age group, but if you average the divorce rates across different ages groups, we get an average divorce rate of 18.5% for couples under 39 in the United States (source). Unfortunately, it has long been documented that divorce rates among Christians are little better than divorce rates in the world. This is true of all Christian groups; with some, it is higher - non-denominational Christians and baptists have divorce rates that are higher, on average, then their secular counterparts. Catholics are lower on the list, but unfortunately, still not too much different from the world.

A Barna study on this subject found the following rates:

Denominations and Percent Divorced

Non-denominations            34%
Baptists                                  29%
Mainline Protestants           25%

Mormons                                24%
Catholics                                21%
Lutherans                               21%

This poll elicited a lot of anger in the evangelical Protestant world particularly, where it was typically accepted a priori that Christian families were stronger than secular families. Barna had to defend his results in a New York Times article where he reaffirmed that when it came to divorce rates, pollsters "rarely find substantial differences" in the divorce rates of Christians and non-Christians. 

In the Protestant world, I am willing to bet that the ultimate acceptance of divorce and remarriage as permissible has something to do with it. When I was a teenager, my wife and I attended a small non-denominational church where I was stunned to find that almost every single adult couple there had been divorced and remarried.

To be sure, there has been a general trend towards divorce in the modern world that is affecting the Catholic Church as well. But why does the Church's traditional teaching on the indissolubility of marriage not have the force it once did? There are many factors - worldliness of many Catholics would be a big factor - but without denying the influence of these other factors, I'd like specifically to look at the issue of Catholic marriage preparation and the tools that Catholic couples are given going in to marriage.

Since there has been such a creeping of worldliness into the Church in the past several decades, could it be that we are perhaps taking a worldly approach to our marriage preparation as well? Why not? We have adopted secular theories about architecture, secular ideas about the role of the priest, about how Church government should work, about the nature of different sacraments, about music and even secular concepts creeping into our approach to certain dogma. Should we presume that our approach to marriage or marriage preparation is any different?

I must say that I did not have Catholic marriage prep. I was married in a schismatic group that was not bound by any diocesan regulations about marriage preparation. All I know about marriage prep comes from anecdotal stories, and everything I am reporting is anecdotal. But from what I have heard, it seems that, even in our best dioceses, there is a creeping worldliness that has bled into our marriage preparation.

In the first place, I would highlight an over dependence on modern psychological theories about how men and women interact. Some dioceses require compatibility tests that are based on personality analyses; many of these tests are secular and have an unnecessary emphasis on sexuality and ask a lot of sexual questions. In some cases, the results of these personality-compatibility tests are made the central focus of the entire marriage prep process. Advice on how to handle conflict is based on the latest theories of psychologists and secular concepts of how men and women do, or should, interact. Standard secular ideas about "conflict resolution" may be utilized.

Whether you find this problematic depends entirely on how much value you place on modern psychology. Some, like Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, has written a massive three volume series on the science of psychology and how it interacts with the Catholic Faith. His treatment is based on a Thomistic approach and seriously questions the philosophical underpinnings of modern psychology. Others, notably Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR, have enthusiastically adopted the whole edifice of modern psychology without reserve. To what degree is modern psychology a valid means of understanding our Christian faith and preparing one for the sacraments?

To be sure, some aspects of psychology have valid scientific principles behind them, but others are based on a determinist anthropology that sees human behavior as determined by non-rational factors (chemical makeup of the brain, heredity, instinct, subconscious, etc). This, in my opinion, is problematic.

But whether or not any given marriage prep program adopts the modern psychological theories, it seems that too much emphasis on strategies of conflict resolution, personality compatibility and all these other concepts tends to dumb down the role of God's grace in the marriage. If a marriage is successful, it will be because of God's grace, not because we have integrated the latest psychological research into our marriage preparation courses. The marriage does not stand or fall based on knowledge of how men and women's emotional needs are different. It stands or falls based on how effectively a man and a woman can imitate Jesus and Mary and respond positively to God's grace made available through the sacrament.

Can it be that we over intellectualize our approach to marriage, deeming that a marriage can be made successful by knowledge and application of a bunch of secular psychological principles? Do we place too much faith in the studies and theories of psychologists and not enough in the working of God's grace? If the divorce rates within the Catholic Church look a lot like those in the world, might at least part of the problem be that we are using worldly ideas to prepare people for marriage?

Marriage prep programs vary tremendously from parish to parish and diocese to diocese, so I am making no hard statements here, only proposing something that I think merits further discussion. What do you think?

Confession Lines

Hey Catholics! I just wanted to remind you about the proper way to go through a confession line. A confession line ought to be set up like this:

NOT like this:

And NOT like this:

And certainly NOT like this:

Really. It is not that hard.

Cardinal Pell, Richard Dawkins, Adam & Eve

I have been reflecting on the now infamous debate between Cardinal Pell and Richard Dawkins that took place on April 9th, trying to find some positive spin to put on it, thinking that perhaps the reports were skewering the truth or that there was some fundamental misunderstanding of the Cardinal's words. But there wasn't, and there isn't any positive spin. It was a debacle. To put it frankly, Cardinal Pell has made Catholics look like idiots.

In case you may not know what I am referring to, Cardinal George Pell of Australia recently agreed to an online debate with famous atheist Richard Dawkins. Basically, Dawkins dominated the terms of the debate and kept Pell on the defensive. Pell, perhaps trying to sound sophisticated or philosophical, hemmed and hawed on several important points of Catholic doctrine; he stated that atheists could go to heaven (not atheists who convert, mind you, but atheists qua atheists), stated his adherence to Balthasar's doctrine that hell exists but is "probably" empty, and then, in the most discussed aspect of the evening's discussion, went on to explain that Adam and Eve were entirely mythological and affirmed his belief that mankind was the product of evolution.

Pell admitted that human beings "probably" evolved, which earned him a round of applause from the audience. At this point, Tony Jones, the moderator, asked a very reasonable question: "But you accept that humans evolved from non-humans, so at what point did the soul come about?”

Cardinal Pell responded: “The Soul is the principle of life. Whenever the soul was able to communicate then we had the first human. But if there are humans, there must be a first one.” By the way, this is essentially the position that Benedict XVI took when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he wrote that "matter signifies a moment in the history of spirit...spirit is created and is not the mere product of development, even though it comes to light by way of development" in a 1973 essay on Creation (see here).

Jones: “Are you suggesting a sort of Garden of Eden scenario with an actual Adam and Eve?”

“Well Adam and Eve are terms that mean ‘life’ and ‘earth’. Like an Everyman. It’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science. But it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and universe. Secondly that the key to the whole universe is humans. And thirdly it’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world….It’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”

Now Richard Dawkins, who proved himself more astute than Pell in seeing the implications of Pell's denial of a historic Adam and Eve, retorted with this question: “Ah, well, I’m curious to know, if Adam and Eve never existed where did Original Sin come from?” It's painful to watch the Cardinal's sullen, silent expression after this question. He is unable to come up with any answer.

Dawkins is spot on here: No original parents, no original sin. No original sin, no explanation for sin in the world. No explanation for sin, no need for a savior. Christianity, apart from the reality of original sin, does not make any sense. It's a shame that Dawkins understands this better than the Cardinal. That is very troubling.

What is equally troubling is that the Cardinal does not seem aware of Pius XII's teaching in Humani Generis. In that encyclical, Pius XII specifically condemns the opinion known as polygenism, which is the belief that Adam "represents a number of first parents." The pope states:

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own" (HG, 37).

Notice that the very reason why Pius XII condemns this opinion is because of the objection that Dawkins brings up - original sin. Belief in original sin necessitates belief in first parents, and "a sin actually committed by an individual Adam," as Pius XII teaches. As much appalling as it is that an atheist understands the coherence of Catholic truths better than a Cardinal, I think it is even more appalling that the Cardinal either deviates from the clear teaching of Pius XII or else appears ignorant of it. I do not presume to judge the reason for the Cardinal's statements other than to say that they were unacceptable.

Some have come forward and tried to save original sin in spite of a denial of a historic Adam. For example, Michael Potemra of the National Review made the following argument:

"The fact of the existence of Original Sin does not depend on the historical existence of Adam and Eve. To say that it does seems to me the equivalent of declaring that if Mrs. O’Leary’s cow was not, in fact, responsible for the Great Chicago Fire, then the Great Chicago Fire must not have happened at all. Original Sin is a fundamental choice in which man declares his prideful rebellion against God, and we see that choice in our own hearts" (source).

The problem with this thinking is that Potemra is stating that original sin is basically the existence of sinful tendencies within every man in the present without any account for its origin. Let's follow Mr. Potemra's line of thinking here - so, we need not have an historic Adam because the sinful desires we have in our own hearts prove original sin. Okay, so, where do these sinful desires come from then? Potemra has already ruled out a historic Adam who introduced sin into humanity. What is the genesis of sin, then?

Presumably, the only answer is that Original Sin is "part of human nature", something inherent in every human being and that we all experience intimately in our own hearts. I think this is what Potemra is getting at. Unfortunately, it is not theologically viable explanation. Despite the common parlance that sin and evil are "part of human nature", Christianity tells us that, no, they are not part of our nature. Our nature was created in a state of harmony with God, in a state of natural perfection. Sin was not part of man's nature. To say otherwise is to say that God created sin, and to say that man's current state is the one God envisions for him. This is untenable for a Christian.

One could say that the Chicago Fire can be accounted for without Mrs. O'Leary's cow, but one must admit that the Chicago Fire had some cause. To apply Potemra's logic to the Chicago Fire, we would have to say that we don't need to hypothesize a historical cause for the fire in the past because it is in the nature of cities to burn, and just because the present city is on fire does not mean that that fire had a historical origin. Utter nonsense. The presence of an effect in the present implies a cause in the past, and that cause if either God or man. And to say it is God would be the heresy of stating that God created evil and sin. We are left, therefore, with a first sin committed by man.

If our leaders are going to take the approach of trying to look sophisticated to impress atheists and secularists, they'd better just knock it off. The true tragedy of this was summed up in a great article in the Remnant:

"A few million viewers of the Pell-Dawkins debate walked away wondering since when have Catholics become so eager to debunk their own Scriptures and discard their own theology. Outright enemies of the Catholic Faith couldn’t invent more expedient ways to baffle (and thus alienate) non-believers than those the Modernist leaders of the Catholic Church have come up with all on their own."

This dialogue probably should not have happened; Cardinal Pell could have done more for the world and the Church had he spent that hour in Adoration praying for the conversion of poor sinners. It reminds me of a story I have referenced elsewhere in the life St. Louis IX. Apparently, a discussion panel had been set up by a local abbot between some rabbis and some monks to debate the Christian faith. After the rabbis said something amiss against Christ and the Virgin Mary, an knight watching the debate struck the rabbi. The abbot rebuked the knight, but the knight had an interesting retort:

"The abbot went up to the knight and told him he had acted most unwisely. The knight retorted that the abbot had been guilty of even greater folly in calling people together for such a conference, because there were many good Christians there who, before the discussion ended, would have gone away with doubts about their own religion through not fully understanding the Jews."

It is good to have dialogue for the purpose of defending our faith and giving an answer to the heathen. But if the result of the debate is going to be that Christians go away more confused than before, then it becomes folly. Trying to present sophisticated, modern interpretations of the Faith that explain away or mythologize the Scriptures do not help Catholics strengthen their faith; it simply confuses them and makes us look like idiots.

Knock it off, Cardinal Pell!

JustFaith and Fr. Richard Rohr

We have written elsewhere on this blog about the dangers of the JustFaith program, how its theology is fundamentally anti-Catholic and actually is a front for Marxist liberation theology. This time we will look at the teachings of the dissenting priest Fr. Richard Rohr and how they are incorporated into the JustFaith program.

The first half of week nine of the JustFaith program spends 50 minutes listening to Father Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest who has built a small New Age empire around books and talks on subjects ranging from the Enneagram, the Cosmic Jesus, Liberation Theology, and the Men’s Movement. Titled “Portrait of a Radical,” this talk seems to be a surprising detour. There is nothing in it about social justice other than a passing comment that even peace and justice activists can be happy because it’s not their job to save the world – it’s God’s.

That’s a true enough point, but it’s unlikely that’s all the JustFaith participants are meant to take from the talk. The facilitator materials, describing “Portrait of a Radical” as an attempt “to draw the viewer into a space where Jesus can be seen from the perspective of his radical, compassionate, and inclusive teachings,” clarifies the intention of the JustFaith program to leave the participant with additional messages, which are confirmed in follow-up questions: “How did this representation of Jesus’ ministry add to…understanding of Jesus as a person? As the Son of God?” (pg. 4, JustFaith facilitator’s materials, week 9: 2011-12)

Rohr’s talk is largely a challenge to the institutional church, what he dubs “managed” religion. Jesus, he says, has been largely misunderstood by European Christendom. “In so many ways, it didn’t matter what He [Jesus] said; it’s what we wanted Him to say and many people really thought He said these things that they presumed they wanted Him to say.” Rohr wants to get us back to the honest, Jewish Jesus so we can get away from dealing with Jesus as “the divine savior of our denomination.”

The Bible, according to Rohr, moves us from a violent, angry, “toxic” God demanding to be placated with human – and later with animal substitutions – blood to a God who has taken away human shame about being naked and unworthy. Far from demanding our blood, Rohr says, we are confronted with “the most  extraordinary turn-around in the history of religion – God spilling [His own] blood to get to us.”

“But how do you give away God?” Rohr asks. Nobody wants Him; He’s too frightening. Yet, God could not be content to be a theology, which we’d like because we can argue about it and “keep God as a private possession in our pocket.” So, He became a person, and “we see in the Risen Christ a God Who blames nobody…The Good News is that the end of the Bible is a totally non-threatening, non-blaming, non-violent  God” – not that God was ever violent, Rohr adds, but that we had created Him in our own image.

This “non-blaming” Jesus says nothing about the things the Church is obsessed about, such as premarital sex – He is only concerned with violence and greed….and in overcoming those diabolical possessions with possessing us Himself. “We’ve been so comfortable with violence – we’ve been comfortable with greed – since the 3rd century, since Constantine made us the established religion. It almost seems like some kind of smoke and mirrors game is going on here – some kind of shadow game, diversionary tactic: ‘Look over here, so you won’t see what He’s really talking about…”

Of course, Rohr is quick to say that he’s not condoning pre-marital sex but “the Christianity is much more about mystical issues than about moral issues.” Get the mystical issues right and “the moral issues will take care of themselves.”

That mystical relationship is about intimacy, the “emptying of self so there’s room for another person inside of me.” “It’s almost sexual, cannibalistic language, this Eucharistic language. Jesus saying, basically, “Eat Me.

Drink Me. Get Me inside of you.”

Rohr insists that faith isn’t a head thing, as opposed to doubt, but is a trust thing, as opposed to anxiety. Jesus doesn’t worry about the hot sins – like premarital sex – but worries about power, prestige, illusion, and the other things that blind us. Jesus came to say it’s radically OK, that life is great simplicity and comfort. We don’t have to control it all.

If Jesus takes away the sin of the world – and Rohr stresses the Biblical use of the singular “sin” (John 1:29) – what is “the sin”? Rohr answers that Jesus didn’t go to a brothel or to a bar but to a place of execution, a place where people try to “destroy evil” and then feel good that they’ve done away with the impure and are themselves superior. That behavior, says Rohr, is the sin of the world Jesus will take away.

There is much more in this vein. Managed religion – or institutional religion, Rohr explains – makes the law complex to keep us safe (e.g. no premarital sex). Jesus, on the other hand, wastes no time on the shadow but focuses on the ego, respecting the infinite complexity of people – honoring that people break the rules in very unique ways – but keeps his law very simple: Love one another.

One is at a loss to see how this brings JustFaith participants into any deeper understanding of the Church’s social teachings. Rather, it seems designed to reinforce within them a qualified relationship with the Church – the liberationists’ view of “church” – that either bends to the will of the social activist or is dismissed as merely “institutional” and “immature.”

Hopefully this is enough to persuade anyone who was uncertain about this program. The program's books are written by New Age and dissenting priests who preach a Christianity unlike that which the Church has taught for 2,000 years.

Obscure Saints: St. Lambert of Maestricht

St. Lambert of Maestricht (633-700) may not be a familiar name, but the details of his life and martyrdom are extremely relevant to the current condition of the world. St. Lambert was of the local nobility and had a very pious upbringing. His devout parents entrusted his education into the care of two other saints, St. Landoaldus and St. Theodardus, Bishop of Maestricht in modern day Switzerland.

In 670, Lambert became Bishop of Maestricht. During this time, the Mayors of the Palace were beginning to eclipse the power of the Merovingian kings and a struggle for supremacy was raging throughout the Merovingian court. St. Lambert sided with the weak King Childeric and was forced to flee Maestricht when the cause of Childeric went awry. Lambert spent the next seven years in exile (674-671), living as a simple monk in the Abbey of Stavenlot. When Pepin of Heristal became the new Mayor of the Palace in 681, St. Lambert was invited back to his see. For the next few years he assisted in various missionary journeys of other saints, at one time working with St. Willibrord, the mentor of the famous St. Boniface.Later in life, he was also the spiritual director of St. Hubert, the worldly young nobleman who dedicated his life to God after seeing a stag in the woods with a cross between its antlers and hearing the voice of Christ warning him to repent.

According to immemorial tradition, St. Lambert died as a martyr in the defense of the sanctity of marriage, though this claim is disputed by some. Pepin of Heristal, the power behind the Merovingian throne, had lived for many years in faithful wedlock to his wife, Plectrude. Later, however, he had a very open affair with a woman named Alpais, to the scandal of the Merovingian court. When Lambert saw that no one else was willing to rebuke the Mayor for his behavior, he himself went to Pepin's court and openly admonished the Mayor to put away his mistress. Alpais, fearing a loss of influence, convinced her brother (humorously named Dodo), to murder the saintly bishop. Shortly thereafter, while St. Lambert was praying the the chapel, assassins entered and plunged a javelin through his heart while he was kneeling. He died at the altar, a martyr to marital fidelity.

Interestingly enough, Pepin ended up having a son by Alpais his mistress who was none other than the famous Charles Martel, savior of Europe and patriarch of the Carolingians.

The Feast of St. Lambert is celebrated on September 17th. His remains, originally interred in the cemetery of St. Peter in Maestricht, were removed to the cathedral of Liege by St. Hubert in 723.

Transplanting Tradition

So where did this liturgical custom come from? Does it mean anything to Catholics?

I have been reflecting lately on why certain customs flourish in one religious setting but those same customs utterly fail to produce fruit when transplanted to another. By custom I mean those outward expressions of religious faith common to humankind - certain types of song and musical instruments, manner of prayer, bodily gestures, architectural and artistic creations, and every other expression of culture that usually accompanies religious belief. Religious setting in the broadest sense could mean different religions, but in the context of this discussion, I mean it more with reference to different ecclesial traditions within Christianity itself (Lutheranism, Baptist, Calvinist, and of course, Catholic).

A very large assumption we find in the mindset of the post-Conciliar Church is that a custom one one religious setting can be transplanted into the Catholic Church. It was assumed that because a style of music, or vestment or dance had proved vibrant in one religious setting that it would be equally vibrant and "fruit-bearing" within the Catholic Church. An easy example is the style of hymn known as the "Negro Spiritual," a sort of song composed by enslaved African Americans in the South and associated with varieties of the Baptist tradition. Modern Catholic hymnals typically feature many of these Negro Spirituals; the Spiritual has been "transplanted" from the Baptist to the Catholic tradition.

There are several aspects of this idea of "transplanting" of custom that need to be examined:

(A) The true vitality of these customs within their original religious setting

(B) The assumption of "transplanting" the custom into another tradition

(C) Explanation for the failure of such efforts

First, it is necessary to assert the vitality of a custom within the context of its own tradition. A Negro Spiritual is extremely edifying to African Americans or anyone else raised in that tradition. The dull, austere architecture of a Mennonite gathering hall is pleasing to the sensibilities of Mennonites. Certain types of high-tempo Christian rock music are edifying to Pentecostal Christians, for whom that sort of music is an integral part of their tradition. These customs are all truly vital within their own religious setting.

Now, please note than when I speak of the vitality of these customs, I am not speaking of any supernatural ordering or any merit before God, and this is a rather important point in this discussion. I say not that bare Mennonite gathering halls are pleasing to God, only that they are pleasing to Mennonites. We could have a great discussion about whether God likes Pentecostal rock music; it is undeniable that Pentecostals like Pentecostal rock music. Every individual is edified on a natural level by those elements native to their own tradition. People like that which comes naturally.

But beyond "liking" these customs, we could go further to say that, because these customs have sprung up organically out of these religious communities, there is a certain naturalness to them from a cultural standpoint. It is natural for a black Protestant congregation in rural Mississippi to sing Negro Spirituals just as it is natural for Muslims to pray in Arabic or Catholics to genuflect. Because these customs are natural to these traditions, they form a positive link between the believer and those who have come before him; they serve to build a bond rooting that person to his tradition, edifying him within the context of that tradition. They keep the tradition alive. Thus, on a strictly natural level, we can rightly say that a custom has a true vitality within its own religious setting.

The next part of this discussion is looking at the assumption that these customs can be transplanted into another religious setting other than that of their origin. In the Catholic Church, this is where Negro Spirituals are put into liturgical hymnals, or Protestant praise and worship music is performed at Mass, or Protestant architectural principles are incorporated into parish design, or Eastern meditation is incorporated into Catholic spirituality. The assumption is that these customs will bear fruit in a Catholic setting because they have borne fruit in their natural setting; that the Catholic's experience of the Faith will be enriched by these customs that have enriched other cultures. This implies several problematic things.

For one, it implies that the Faith is somehow lacking and must be enriched by elements brought into it from the outside; I have already written about this elsewhere in the context of the Charismatic Renewal.

But more relevant to this discussion is that it is often forgotten that these customs possess vitality not by virtue of the customs themselves, but because of the context in which they occur, and that this vitality is of a natural, not supernatural, character. There is nothing meritorious before God about clapping hands during a song; it is a purely natural act that the worshiper finds edifying because it is organically part of the tradition to which he belongs. To the degree that, say, Protestant worshipers obtain some grace through their worship, it is because their hearts are more properly disposed towards God, not because there is anything better about clapping hands or singing a Negro Spiritual. If the worshiper does experience more grace through these acts, it is because participating in worship according to their own tradition is what puts them in that disposition.

This is not like the liturgy of the Mass, where the ritual comes from the Apostles and is intrinsically pleasing to God because in the Mass the Son of God is offered to the Father (this is why the Mass is still objectively pleasing to God even if the priest is sinful or the Mass is said privately without a congregation). The problem is that we assume that these other customs (Negro Spirituals) that have vitality within their own religious setting will produce the same results when transferred to Catholic worship. This ignores the fact that the inner vitality of these customs within their own tradition is due to their cultural context, not the merit of the act itself. It also presumes that the Mass, which has a supernatural origin and is ordered towards God, needs the inclusion of these foreign customs that have only a natural goodness, even within their own tradition. These are the problems with transplanting customs from one religious setting to another.

Are these transplants successful? I think anyone who objectively evaluates this question will unequivocally say that these cultural transplants have been a miserable failure. Our worst parishes are the ones where this cross-cultural pollination happens most. By the way, since these cultural transplants are such failures, those who support them can only claim they are successful by changing the definition of success. Instead of success as measured by holiness, increased participation in the sacraments, growth in knowledge, private devotions, etc., the proponent of this ideal has to make the transplant itself a kind of measure of success. Thus, the success of incorporating Negro Spirituals is the simple fact that Catholics are now singing Negro Spirituals. The cultural cross-pollination goes from being a means to an end in and of itself; a "mutual enrichment" as Cardinal Dulles used to call it.

But to anybody who cares about sanctity, love of the truth, or knowledge of the faith, these attempts to inject foreign customs into Catholicism are utter failures. Why is this? Because of the basic premise enunciated above - a custom has vitality within its tradition only because of its cultural context. Remember, the custom builds a bond between a worshiper and his own tradition. But what sort of bond can be established by Catholics singing a Negro Spiritual? How does a lay person taking classes in yoga thereby become more firmly rooted in Catholic spirituality? What does a person clapping hands to Pentecostal rock music at Mass learn about the Catholic liturgy?

A custom is vital when it builds bonds between a believer and his tradition. We could summarize the whole essence of this post in one statement: A custom that does not reflect the tradition of the believer is of no value to the believer. It's "bond building" function is effectively cancelled out. At best it can function only as a sort of novelty that holds the believer's interest briefly before becoming meaningless. The spirituality becomes crassly individualistic - if a custom cannot "plug" us into a greater tradition, its only value is in whatever "interest" it can arouse in the individual, and it cannot hold that interest for long. At that point we can only continue to maintain that such experiments have meaning by asserting that the inclusion of foreign elements in our tradition is itself a positive good.

We would not expect a Negro Spiritual to mean anything in a Catholic liturgy any more than we would expect the Salve Regina to mean anything in a black church is rural Mississippi. We understand this when we talk about other traditions or religions; anyone would acknowledge that Gregorian chant would be out of place in a Mennonite gathering hall or that a genuflection inside a Mosque would be highly improper; why are Catholics alone not able to exercise this same sort of reasoning when it comes to foreign customs transplanted into our own tradition?

Traditions cannot be transplanted. Just because a Protestant church finds great vibrancy and edification in Pentecostal rock music does not mean that a Catholic parish will likewise be edified. A salt water fish can't live in fresh water. The crops that thrive in Cuba wither in Norway because the environment is different. The only difference between these examples and what we have today in the Catholic Church is that it only takes the green-thumb farmer one trial and one error to realize that tropical crops cannot flourish in cold climates; how many decades will it take for our liturgists to learn the same simple lesson?