St. Anselm, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church

Today is the III Class Feast of St. Anselm, and it is also the 99th anniversary of Pope St. Pius X’s Encyclical Letter Communium Rerum (On St. Anselm of Aosta), itself issued on the 8th Centenary of St. Anselm’s death in 1109.

I lieu of writing any meagre words of my own in honor of this great saint, whom I have chosen as a theological patron, I offer to you some selections from the saintly pontiff Pius X (do follow the link and read the whole encyclical though).

The pope highlights two things in particular about St. Anselm: his tireless fight for the liberty of the Church (he lived in the era of the investiture controversy), and against false philosophy. The pope sees in Anselm a man for our own times, in which also the Church is besieged by those within and those without. The enemies of the Church without (especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) set the rights of the Church at naught and the enemies of the Crhuch within spread the pernicious heresy of modernism everywhere they go.

5. ...We have examples of this in the Saints of other centuries, whom God raised up to resist by their virtue and wisdom the fury of persecution against the Church and the diffusion of iniquity in the world. One of these We wish especially in these Letters to commemorate, now that the eighth centenary of his death is being solemnly celebrated. We mean the Doctor Anselm of Aosta, most vigorous exponent of Catholic truth and defender of the rights of the Church, first as Monk and Abbot in France. and later as Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate in England...

12. Recalling all these things, venerable brethren, with special interest during the solemn commemoration of the great Doctor, we shall find in them splendid examples for our admiration and imitation; nay, reflection on them will also furnish Us with strength and consolation amid the pressing cares of the government of the Church and of the salvation of souls, helping Us never to fail in our duty of co-operating with all our strength in order that all things may be restored in Christ, that "Christ may be formed" in all souls (Galat. iv. 19), and especially in those which are the hope of the priesthood, of maintaining unswervingly the doctrine of the Church, of defending strenuously the liberty of the Spouse of Christ, the inviolability of her divine rights, and the plenitude of those safeguards which the protection of the Sacred Pontificate requires.

[regarding the threat to the Church from without]

13. For you are aware, venerable brethren, and you have often lamented it with Us, how evil are the days on which we have fallen, and how iniquitous the conditions which have been forced upon Us... For what more unnatural sight could be witnessed than that of some of those children whom the Church has nourished and cherished as her first-born, her flower and her strength, in their rage turning their weapons against the very bosom of the Mother that has loved them so much! And there are other countries which give us but little cause for consolation, in which the same war, under a different form, has either broken out already or is being prepared by dark machinations. For there is a movement in those nations which have benefited most from Christian civilization to deprive the Church of her rights, to treat her as though she were not by nature and by right the perfect society that she is, instituted by Christ Himself, the Redeemer of our nature, and to destroy her reign, which, although primarily and directly affecting souls, is not less helpful for their eternal salvation than for the welfare of human society; efforts of all kinds are being made to supplant the kingdom of God by a reign of license under the lying name of liberty...

[regarding the threat to the Church from within]

15. But with no less severity and sorrow have We been obliged to denounce and to put down another species of war, intestine and domestic, and all the more disastrous the more hidden it is. Waged by unnatural children, nestling in the very bosom of the Church in order to rend it in silence, this war aims more directly at the very root and the soul of the Church. They are trying to corrupt the springs of Christian life and teaching, to scatter the sacred deposit of the faith, to overthrow the foundations of the divine constitution by their contempt for all authority, pontifical as well as episcopal, to put a new form on the Church, new laws, new principles, according to the tenets of monstrous systems, in short to deface all the beauty of the Spouse of Christ for the empty glamour of a new culture, falsely called science, against which the Apostle frequently puts us on our guard: "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to the traditions of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ (Colos. ii. 8).

16. By this figment of false philosophy and this shallow and fallacious erudition, joined with a most audacious system of criticism, some have been seduced and "become vain in their thoughts" (Rom. i. 1), "having rejected good conscience they have made shipwreck concerning the faith" (I Tim. i. 19), they are being tossed about miserably on the waves of doubt, knowing not themselves at what port they must land; others, wasting both time and study, lose themselves in the investigation of abstruse trifling, and thus grow estranged from the study of divine things and of the real springs of doctrine. This hot-bed of error and perdition (which has come to be known commonly as modernism from its craving for unhealthy novelty) although denounced several times and unmasked by the very excesses of its adepts, continues to be a most grave and deep evil. It lurks like poison in the vitals of modern society, estranged as this is from God and His Church, and it is especially eating its way like a cancer among the young generations which are naturally the most inexperienced and heedless. It is not the result of solid study and true knowledge, for there can be no real conflict between reason and faith (Concil. Vatic., Constit. Dei filius, cap. 4). But it is the result of intellectual pride and of the pestiferous atmosphere that prevails of ignorance or confused knowledge of the things of religion, united with the stupid presumption of speaking about and discussing them. And this deadly infection is further fomented by a spirit of incredulity and of rebellion against God, so that those who are seized by the blind frenzy for novelty consider that they are all sufficient for themselves, and that they are at liberty to throw off either openly or by subterfuge the entire yoke of divine authority, fashioning for themselves according to their own caprice a vague, naturalistic individual religiosity, borrowing the name and some semblance of Christianity but with none of its life and truth.

[regarding Anselm's intellectual contribution to the preservation of Doctrine]

45. Without entering here in detail into the intellectual state of the clergy and people in that distant age, there was a notable danger in a twofold excess to which the intellects of the time were prone.

46. There was at the time a class of lightminded and vain men, fed on a superficial erudition, who became incredibly puffed up with their undigested culture, and allowed themselves to be led away by a simulacrum of philosophy and dialectics. In their inane fallacy, which they called by the name of science, "they despised the sacred authority, dared with impious temerity to dispute one or other of the dogmas professed by Catholic faith . . . and in their foolish pride considered anything they could not understand as impossible, instead of confessing with humble wisdom that there might be many things beyond the reach of their comprehension. . . For there are some who immediately they have begun to grow the horns of an overweening knowledge - not knowing that when a person thinks he knows something, he does not yet know in what manner he should know it - before they have grown spiritual wings through firmness in the faith, are wont to rise presumptuously to the highest questions of the faith. Thus it happens that while against all right rules they endeavor to rise prematurely by their intelligence, their lack of intelligence brings them down to manifold errors" (S. Anselm., De Fide Trinitatis, cap. 2). And of such as these we have many painful examples under our eyes!

47. Others, again, there were of a more timid nature, who in their terror at the many cases of those who had made shipwreck of the faith, and fearing the danger of the science that puffeth up, went so far as to exclude altogether the use of philosophy, if not of all rational discussion of the sacred doctrines.

55. ...Anselm laid the foundations of the true principles of philosophical and theological studies which other most learned men, the princes of scholasticism, and chief among them the Doctor of Aquin, followed, developed, illustrated and perfected to the great honor and protection of the Church. If We have insisted so willingly on this distinction of Anselm, it is in order to have a new and much-desired occasion, venerable brethren, to inculcate upon you to see to it that you bring back youth, especially among the clergy, to the most wholesome springs of Christian wisdom, first opened by the Doctor of Aosta and abundantly enriched by Aquinas.

Dalai Lama in Ann Arbor, MI

While Pope Benedict has been visiting the United States, the Dalai Lama has been visiting Ann Arbor, MI., very close to my home. I have largely ignored his visit, but the local papers have done quite a bit of reporting on it. I wanted to relate a story I heard:

I saw a Catholic woman today who told me she had just come back from seeing the Dalai Lama. I jokingly asked her if she had thrown some water on him when he wasn't looking and said the words of baptism. She laughed, but told me that in his talk today (4/20), he related to the crowd how he had visited to shrine at Fatima to venerate Mary. There, he claims that the statue of the Blessed Virgin turned her head and smiled at him (!). Then, he followed that story up with these astonishing words: "I am a Christian!"

Obviously, he does not understand what being a Christian means if he says that yet simultaneously maintains to be the 14th reincarnation of the enlightened "Tulku" Buddhist Masters. It is not surprising to me, either, that given the modern state of the Church, he felt welcome at Fatima and claimed that the Blessed Virgin smiled at him. I have no corroboration for this story other that the words of this woman who heard them from his mouth today. Any thoughts on it? UPDATE: PLEASE SEE COMMENTS FOR CLARIFICATION AND CORROBORATION OF THIS STORY

Three Stages of Tradition

Tradition is so frequently discussed in the modern Church, both for good and for ill. Customs are said to be traditional or not traditional, along with whatever positive or negative connotations those phrases carry depending on the speaker. Songs, books, prayers, music, devotions, and liturgies can be labelled as traditional or "contemporary" (i.e., not traditional). In these contexts, tradition simply means whether something is in keeping with what the Church has always done and believed. But as I reflected on this word, I beagn to consider it in its larger context—that is, not just Catholic Tradition, tradition as such. What do we mean in general when we use the word tradition to refer to something?

There are many definitions we could give; the 2006 Random House Dictionary says tradition is "the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice." To boil that down to a more fundamental level, I think we could define tradition this way: Tradition is simply what we've always done.

This is what somebody means when they say, "It's tradition!" The thing in question is something that has simply always been done. In my opinion, the word "simply" is integral to the definition, almost as important as "what we've always done," because, as I contemplated this subject, I realized something: tradition is reflexive. That is, it is unthinking, or "simple." It is not just "what we've always done," but "simply what we've always done"—that is, what we've always done reflexively, unthinkingly, because it was less about what we do as much as a part of who we are.

If these observations hold, then when we look at any tradition, we can identify three stages in its development over time.

Stage 1: Reflexive Tradition 

When we carry on a tradition because we have always done it, the tradition does not seem like a tradition to us at the time. Rather, it seems like just what we do; it is part of our daily lives and bound up intimately with who we are, culturally, personally, ethnically, or whatever. For a Catholic living in the Middle Ages, abstaining from meat on Friday was not a "tradition" (though of course it was in the strict theological sense). To the people then living, it was simply a part of life, as normal and predictable as paying taxes or going to the bathroom. This is when tradition is most vibrant, for it is only when traditions are done reflexively, without thinking, can we be certain that the tradition is still in its most virile stage of development. This is because when traditions are lived in this reflexive manner they define who we are and how we think of ourselves, thus becoming part of our very identity.

It is important to point out that in this stage of the devlopment of tradition, nobody rises up to protect the tradition; in fact, nobody even has to consciously hand it on, for it is done automatically. This is because nobody thinks of it as a tradition, either to be attacked or defended or consciously passed on. It's existence is entirely taken for granted because it is part of the social landscape. A example of this kind of tradition today is shaking hands. Everybody shakes hands when meeting; we cannot imagine a world when people do not shake hands. We do not need to defend it nor consciously pass it on, as it's simply part of our social framework. But let's say that in a few decades, hand-shaking starts to become old fashioned and is replaced by some new greeting. Only then will we identify hand shaking as "the traditional way of greeting"; only then will people rise up to defend this venerable tradition of hand-shaking, examine its origins, point out its merits, and attempt to nurture its survival. But by that time it is already on its way out.

So, tradition is originated and passed on reflexively without it being identified as tradition.

Stage 2: "Traditional" Tradition

By and by, as cultures change, there comes a time when traditional practices and beliefs begin to be at variance with the popular culture. Some customs endure, but others have reached the end of their natural lifespan and begin to fade. At this point, the things we have always done change from being "what we do" into the "traditional way of doing things." This leads to a rather striking conclusion: as soon as we realize that something is traditional, that tradition is already on the path to extinction. The identification of something as tradition or traditional suggests it is already moving out of the common experience of life. We may still study it, replicate it, experience it, but its prevalence has shifted outside the mainstream.

Think about all the things we identify as being traditional: a traditional family (working dad, stay at home mom), traditional folk-music, traditional farmstead, traditional Christmas (sleigh rides, singing hymns around the piano by firelight). All we think of as traditional are things that, while they may still exist in little pockets here and there, are for the most part gone, or at least in decline. Sure, we can still get together all our relatives at Christmas, shut the TV off, play piano by firelight and sing hymns while grandma cooks desserts from scratch in the kitchen, but if we wanted to do so, it would have to be quite intentional about it, employing considerable effort and coordination; it certainly would not be reflexive. And thus we have lost our traditional innocence, where we could do these things because "that's just what we do."

It is important to point out that during this stage, traditions, while identified as traditions, are still highly valued and even seen as the ideal. This is the change: the traditions have gone from being the norm to the ideal, from daily experience to a paragon, from reality to exemplar. Consider how many women nowadays often say, "I wish I could stay home with my kids." The tradition is acknowledged, but as something afar off that can at best be grasped after or only replicated with great effort in a minority of circumstances. America from the 1940's to today may serve as an example of a culture in this middle stage of the development of tradition, where a traditional lifestyle is still idealized by increasingly out of reach.

Stage 3: Historical-Tradition

During the third stage, it becomes increasingly obvious that the idealized "traditional way of doing things" is so far removed from the current realities that it ceases even to be an ideal and starts to become a museum piece. As these traditions move back into history, they may even be judged negatively, for the new lifeways that have supplanted them seek validity in denegrating what they are replacing. Culture has shifted so much that there is a radical break with what came before; people look with befuddled confusion and derision upon their own traditions. There may be some who stubbornly cling to the traditions, but the hostility to tradition in the culture forces them to become full-time apologists for their position, knowing it intimately in every detail, masterfully explicating every pro and con and skilled at debating for the tradition out in the public forum. They may win admirers or converts to their position, but even if they do, this is the farthest thing from real tradition that you could imagine: tradition at its most vital is reflexive and unthinking; here in its final stage it is dogmatically defended with great intentionality and mental effort by experts. This is because, as the culture falls farther and farther from its vital origins, the amount of mental effort required to convince people of the validity of their own tradition increases in proportion to the distance between the traditional way of life and the modern status quo.

In the end, the adherents to the traditions become so inconsequential that they begin to look like obscure throwbacks to a bygone era, like the Amish of Ohio.

Catholic Implications

What does this imply for us Traditional Catholics? Well, no matter what we say, there can never be a restoration of tradition, at least not in the sense of a full retrogression to the way it was before. It cannot happen, for a restoration comes only at the expense of great effort, and a tradition imposed with great effort is no real tradition; at best, it is a replica of a tradition, the difference between the true Renaissance and a Renaissance Festival. We can have a Renaissance Festival where all the costumes of the Renaissance are worn, where Renaissance lingo is spoken and Renaissance style is supreme, but we do not have the Renaissance, only a bunch of people happily playing like the Renaissance is still going on. To restore the Renaissance we'd have to...well, actually have another Renaissance.

Similarly, we can't easily get back to where we were—not in our generation at least, and probably not for ten generations, even if we started doing things correctly right now. We can certainly restore discipline, dust off our old books, pick up where we left off, but only with great effort and much resistance from the culture (and dare I say it, Church) at large. And this is a great and necessary start. But to do such will not mean we are simply restoring Tradition. Tradition is a plant, which takes millenia to grow but can be plucked up by the roots by one ungrateful child. It will take a long time for another plant to grow, much less for it to be strong.

So is our case hopeless? No, but it is a far bigger task than we understand. We are struggling and praying and fighting just to do things right. But, once we start doing them right, we'll have to do them that way for a long time. How long? So long that they are passed on to our children unthinkingly, and from them to our grandchildren in a similar way; until our Tradition becomes "simply" who we are; until people do not see us as Traditional Catholics anymore but just Catholics; until so much time has elapsed that nobody can imagine a time when we would have done otherwise; when Modernism in the Church and liturgical progressivism seem as far off and as foreign to our ears as the bizarre Greek rites of Bacchus sound to us today. How long will this take? I don't know, but it will take many generations. But we are in no hurry. The best we can do now is get our own minds and hearts in the right place and set future generations off on the right track, then urge them on with our prayers and intercessions from heaven.

Third Anniversary of the Election of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the Chair of St. Peter

Et multos annos!

Two Good Articles

First, my new article is up on The Contrarian's Review, entitled Understanding & Tolerance. Please check it out here, and remember to look at the excellent articles by the other contributors, including my friend Athanasius from Athanasius Contra Mundum.

Second, relating to our discussion on here the other day about whether or not the old Mass was capable of giving more grace than the new, Anselm has obtained permission from Latin Mass Magazine to post an online copy of an article by Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, entitled "The Merit of a Mass." This is an excellent article that goes into exactly what I was talking about the other day. Anselm got special permission to put it up, so click here to read the only available version of it on the web.

Benedict's Address to Catholic Educators

I was originally going to post the Pope's address to Catholic educators, but I saw that Athanasius already posted it, I'll just link it up here. Enjoy.

Pope Benedict's Address to Catholic Educators here!

Benedict's Washington Address

Here is the text of Pope Benedict's speech in Washington DC this morning at the White House:

Mr. President,Thank you for your gracious words of welcome on behalf of the people of theUnited States of America. I deeply appreciate your invitation to visit thisgreat country. My visit coincides with an important moment in the life ofthe Catholic community in America: the celebration of the two-hundredthanniversary of the elevation of the country's first Diocese – Baltimore –to a metropolitan Archdiocese, and the establishment of the Sees of NewYork, Boston, Philadelphia and Louisville. Yet I am happy to be here as aguest of all Americans. I come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel andone with great respect for this vast pluralistic society. America'sCatholics have made, and continue to make, an excellent contribution to thelife of their country. As I begin my visit, I trust that my presence willbe a source of renewal and hope for the Church in the United States, andstrengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly tothe life of this nation, of which they are proud to be citizens.

From the dawn of the Republic, America's quest for freedom has been guidedby the conviction that the principles governing political and social lifeare intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God theCreator. The framers of this nation's founding documents drew upon thisconviction when they proclaimed the "self-evident truth" that all men arecreated equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws ofnature and of nature's God. The course of American history demonstrates thedifficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolvewhich were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied thesenoble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as forexample in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement.In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue tofind their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations.

In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only with America'sCatholic community, but with other Christian communities andrepresentatives of the many religious traditions present in this country.Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here thefreedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience,while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in whicheach individual and group can make its voice heard. As the nation faces theincreasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I amconfident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs aprecious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned,responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humaneand free society.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility.Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country hasits monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense offreedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for thecultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and asense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands thecourage to engage in civic life and to bring one's deepest beliefs andvalues to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is achallenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won overfor the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this asclearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in easternEurope, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that "in a worldwithout truth, freedom loses its foundation", and a democracy withoutvalues can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those propheticwords in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressedin his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent"indispensable supports" of political prosperity.

The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building a world evermore worthy of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God(cf. Gen 1:26-27). She is convinced that faith sheds new light on allthings, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destinyof every man and woman (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). Faith also gives us thestrength to respond to our high calling, and the hope that inspires us towork for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders andthose whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born offirm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.

For well over a century, the United States of America has played animportant role in the international community. On Friday, God willing, Iwill have the honor of addressing the United Nations Organization, where Ihope to encourage the efforts under way to make that institution an evermore effective voice for the legitimate aspirations of all the world'speoples. On this, the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights, the need for global solidarity is as urgent as ever, if allpeople are to live in a way worthy of their dignity – as brothers andsisters dwelling in the same house and around that table which God's bounty has set for all his children. America has traditionally shown herselfgenerous in meeting immediate human needs, fostering development andoffering relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am confident thatthis concern for the greater human family will continue to find expressionin support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolveconflicts and promote progress. In this way, coming generations will beable to live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can flourish – aworld where the God-given dignity and rights of every man, woman and childare cherished, protected and effectively advanced.

Mr. President, dear friends: as I begin my visit to the United States, Iexpress once more my gratitude for your invitation, my joy to be in yourmidst, and my fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nationand its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God blessAmerica!

Are they really the same?

Occasionally, I listen to the Catholic Answers radio program on my local Catholic AM station (which I can only get when I am within ten miles of where it is broadcast, and then only between dawn and dusk). Catholic apologist Jim Blackburn was the host. A woman called in and asked about the merit of the Traditional Latin Mass. She said she had run into a lot of Catholics who seemed of the opinion that the Tridentine Mass was better than the Novus Ordo and that, to quote her, "going to it made you a better Catholic."

Blackburn answered with two standard replies of the conservative crowd, neither of which were well thought out at all. First, he said that neither Mass was more meritorious. They are both exactly equal, and, as he put it, the one who goes to the Tridentine Mass does not receive any more grace than one who goes to the Novus Ordo. Second, he said that it really was not important which form of the Mass one went to because the same Eucharist was received at either Mass, which as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, was just as efficacious in either form of the Mass.

This argument makes two mistakes: first, it assumes that the only grace received through the Mass is the ex opere operato grace associated with the Sacrament; second, that the whole reason we attend Mass is to receive Holy Communion.

As to the first argument: conservatives never tire of pointing out that the sacrament is just as valid in either Mass. Okay, we can concede this point (of course, it is questionable in some cases where there is grave liturgical abuse concerning the form and matter of the sacrament itself). However, we must remember that grace offered objectively through the sacrament does not always benefit us subjectively (ex opere operantis). How much we benefit from the Mass has much to do with our dispositions. Given this point, we ought to ask: which form of the Mass promotes a better disposition to receive the Eucharistic Lord?

The answer to this must clearly be the Traditional Latin Mass, which even conservatives admit is more reverent. The more reverent the music, liturgical actions, prayers and postures, the more recollected we will be on the divine reality of what is going on at the altar. The more recollected we are, the more worshipful we are, and the more worshipful we are, the more open we are to receiving the grace of God, and therefore, we actually do benefit more ex opere operantis from the sacrament in a more reverent rite (incidentally, it is irritating to hear some speak of reverence as if it is incidental to the Mass: "Sure, the old rite is more reverent, but the Eucharist is the same in either form." If you acknowledge that one rite is more reverent, why on earth would you want to frequent one that you admit is less reverent?).

The second point that is often brought up by conservatives, and was hit on by Blackburn on Catholic Answers, is that we ought not to get too worked up about liturgical matters because, after all, we are still receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus into our souls, and that is ultimately more important than whether or not rubrics are followed or what type of music is used.

While the Eucharist is certainly a very important part of the Mass, we must not confuse our recption of the Eucharist with the Mass itself, as they are not the same. The Mass can exist without us there to receive the Eucharist (many people who are ignorant of history, are often surprised when I tell them that thousands of Masses used to be offered in private). The primary act of the Mass is the offering of Christ to the Father, not our reception of Holy Communion.

The Mass, though intimately connected with the sacrament of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparability of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating and sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the sacrifice of the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good. There are other differences between the Mass and the Eucharist as well.

The unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be preserved in monstrance and ciborium. This difference also deserves mention: communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, without the use of the two forms of bread and wine (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place.

Therefore, when we look at the Mass, we do have to distinguish Sacrament from Sacrifice. Because the notion of Sacrifice is so often downplayed nowadays, even in conservative circles, it is no surprise that Blackburn would see our reception of Holy Communion as the most important moment of the Mass. But we know that the Mass is beyond us, even beyond our reception of Christ: it is Christ's eternal offering to God the Father.

The very fact that this reality can be obscured by certain types of liturgy should take us back to our first point: these supposedly "accidental" liturgical aspects of the Mass really do affect how much grace we are open to receiving and even whether or not we understand what is going on.

Sweetest Heart of Mary TLM Pics

Here's some pics from a recent TLM at Sweetest Heart of Mary parish in Detroit, courtesy of my new friend Chris at the Detroit Latin Mass Community:

China on Human Rights

The Olympics have been in the news this week with the dowsing of the Olympic torch in paris followed by the massive demonstrations in San Francisco earlier in the week. All of the protests revolve around the fact that China has a terrible human rights record. Protestors feel that as a result, at the very least certain nations ought not to attend the opening ceremonies, and at the most China ought to lose the Olympics.

It is true that China's human rights history is abysmal. As I listened to the radio this week and caught interviews with various protestors, I came up with this comprehensive list of the top reasons why these people are out there protesting China's human rights problems:

1) Chinese suppression of Tibet and the Tibetans aspirations for autonomy.

2) China's steadfast but unpopular support for the Sudanese government in the Darfur crisis.

3) China's repression of intellectuals within China and its censorship of Internet access.

4) It's persecution of the ethnic Hmong minority.

5) China's support for the repressive military regime in Burma.

Well, if we are talking about human rights abuses, did anybody notice a glaring omission in this list? Out of all the interviews and articles I looked at on this, not a single person mentioned China's horrendous one-child policy and their barbaric practice of forced abortion. China's own government estimates that it has aborted 250 million children since the instituion of the one child policy in 1979 (they use the phrase "prevented births"). It is unknown how many of these abortions are forced, but the stories of women being forcibly dragged to abortion clinics are many. A recent photo smuggled out of China, which showed a still-warm corpse of a dead female infant lying in a gutter in Hunan province, caused outrage around the world. Note on the below map, that in China's most populated areas, almost 50% of all pregnancies end in abortion.

However, none of the protesters have made an issue out of this most obvious and fundamental of all human rights abuses. Why? I'm not sure, but I looking at the other grievances (Darfur and Tibet), I see that they are issues that liberals tend to take up, and liberals certainly are not going to get out in the street about Chinese abortion. It is classic liberal mentality to get outraged about the oppressed Hmong of China but not care about the oppressed Christians of Turkey. They can enthusiastically wave "Free Tibet" signs but would balk and the demand to "Free Constantinople."

Unless people, of any political stripe, are willing to call China on the carpet for its barbaric abortion policies, then any other gripes about human rights abuses are farcical and hypocritical.

Parish charged $72,000 for TLM

Here is a story I picked up on the Catholic Answers forums earlier this week (courtesy of Mr s). I am not sure what to make of it entirely, and many are already accusing the Diocese involved of simony. Here are the details:

This comes to us from the Diocese of Portland, Maine, where a TLM community is being asked to pay for their Mass. They are to be charged $72,000 per year, with an initial $18,000 down payment being due on or before July 1st, only a little over 2 1/2 months from the time this is being written. The 72-grand will go toward the priest's salary and benefits, office supplies and, astoundingly, rental of the church. Should anyone think this a joke or simply too outrageous to be believed, the following is presented:

3 April 2008

Dear Members of the Latin Mass Community: Christ is Risen & Lives Forever!

As Msgr. Marc Caron, the chancellor of the Diocese, announced to you some weeks past, Bishop Richard Malone has honored me with the newly created position of Chaplain to the Latin Mass Community in south-central Maine effective 1 July 2008. I look forward to serving and working with the faithful who are attached to the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy. Initially, I will be celebrating Holy Mass in the extraordinary form every Sunday at 8:00 AM at the Basilica of Ss Peter & Paul in Lewiston and at noon at the Cathedral Chapel in Portland. Once the Chaplaincy is underway, additional Masses will be scheduled at other locations as the need increases and other priests are available. I also will be available to you for the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, including funerals, as needed.

I am happy to announce that the Bishop has accepted a request for a patron for the Latin Mass Chaplaincy. We will now be known as the:

St. Gregory the Great Latin Mass Chaplaincy

As Bishop Malone announced, the Chaplaincy will be funded by those benefiting from this ministry, and the Chaplaincy will continue only if there is sufficient funding to meet its expenses. The initial annual budget has been prepared, which I have approved and accepted. The budget for the first year is $72,000.00 and includes salary, room & board, health insurance and pension, travel expenses, church rental, office expenses, and other ministy (sic) expenses.

Prior to 1 July, and before the Chaplaincy will begin, we are required to raise from contributions one-quarter of our annual budget, or $18,000.00. This initial funding is necessary to ensure that we will be financially independent and able to meet our weekly ongoing expenses as the Chaplaincy begins and grows. We must begin our fundraising efforts immediately to raise this initial amount. We have established an account at TD Banknorth in Lewiston that will be used exclusively for the Chaplaincy. Contributions to the Chaplaincy should be made by check payable to "St Gregory (the Great) Latin Mass Chaplaincy" and sent to the following address: Latin Mass Chaplaincy, Department of Ministerial Services, P.O. Box 11559, Portland, Maine 04104. Please be as generous as your means allow.

After 1 July collections taken up at all the Masses of the Chaplaincy will go totally to the support of the Chaplaincy. Also the faithful will be able to register with the Chaplaincy and will have their own envelopes come the New Year. I will also be making regular financial reports to the community.

I will be able to join you and address you after Mass on Sunday 20 April 2008 at the Cathedral to enlist your support for the many important tasks we must undertake in order to build the Chaplaincy so that it will be a vital, growing, and long-lasting ministry in the Diocese. I also hope to answer any questions you may have. Unfortunately I may arrive during the Mass as I must complete my duties in Sabattus first. I hope you will be able to stay for a short reception after Mass so that we may become personally acquainted.

I thank all the priests who have served and who will continue to serve you. They have been a blessing from God. I look forward to meeting and serving you. May God prosper the work of our hands.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Rev. Robert A. Parent

Now, many are saying that this amounts to simony: buying and selling of spiritual goods. However, since the cost is listed as being for upkeep, rental of the Church, stipends, etc., I'm not so sure that it qualifies as simony canonically. But, a few things come up: first, are Spanish Mass communities or Vietnamese Mass communities being charged similarly? The answer is a resounding "no." In the parish in my home town, there is a weekly Spanish-language Mass for the Hispanic community in my region, many of whom do not belong to the parish where the Mass is held. This is provided for them free of charge because there is a priest on hand fluent in Spanish. Were the Diocese to charge these Hispanics $72,000 per year, there would be all kinds of accusations of racism, insensitivity, etc.

Some may argue that the Spanish Mass communities or the regular NO communities are already paying their way in tithes and offerings, but then again, so are the Traditionalists, most of whom end up frequentling and tithing to NO churches who are traditional enough to be tolerable but not traditional enough to be satisfactory.

What do you think: does this case amount to simony? Either way, it seems to be a definite road block being thrown in the way of the TLM in the Diocese of Portland. How should Catholics best respond to this situation?

Homeschooling & Dating

In recent weeks, I have had the opportunity to get to spend a lot of time talking with various Catholic homeschool families in my community about things such as when a teen should be allowed to start dating, whether they should "date" at all (some preferring to substitute dating for a similar but different idea of "courtship") and how much exposure a teen ought to have to members of the opposite sex. As a homeschooling parent and father of girls, these issues affect me in a very personal level.

I generally support homeschoolers in all that they do. God knows I would never entrust my kids' upbringing to the choas in the public schools, where they will be taught to denigrate Christianity, admire Mohammed and learn vice from an early age. For many homeschooling parents, the decision to keep kids home reflects a disillusionment with the system of public education, not only with regards to curriculum, but especially in the area of morality and ethics. Homeschoolers are just as concerned that their children will be exposed to bad kids as they are that they will be exposed to bad teaching. In the public schools, lack of adequate supervision and discipline, coupled with a secular mindset, peer pressure and an infatuation with pop culture tends to sexualize our children and introduce them to sexuality and sexual activity well before and outside of marriage.

I sympathize with these concerns greatly, but I have noticed in homeschooling families the tendency to react to these conditions by taking the approach that their kids will not be allowed to investigate the opposite sex at all until they are at adult age. So, for example, if in public school kids are starting to date and have sex at age 15 or 16, then the homeschool solution is to just keep their kids away from dating or from the opposite sex in general until they are at least 18 or 19. The rationale for this is that kids of this age are far too young to be thinking about relationships and that it is best to keep them away from any type of dating or courtship until they are legal adults. The core idea is a reaction against making kids grow up too fast. Furthermore, this idea is put forth as if it were "traditional" morality.

I think it is admirable to want to protect kids from impurity, but I disgaree with the premise that we don't want to make kids grow up too fast. As a matter of fact, I think in our culture kids are forced to grow up too slow. Kids are subject to something called "infantilization," which means an artificial extension of childhood. This means that they are treated as children while they are biologically adults, which leads to role confusion and teen angst as teens question their place. Consider this: traditionally, a child was said to reach adulthood when he passed puberty, and in traditional cultures, this was celebrated with various coming of age rites. You went right from childhood into adulthood. You could pinpoint the day you became a man.

Contrast this with our culture, where kids come of age through a long, drawn out and indeterminate period of time known as "adolescence" which can begin as early as 12 and go on into the 20's. Over 60% of traditional (that is, not industrialized) cultures have no word for adolescence. A child is regarded as an adult as soon as he passes puberty, and usually the new adults rise to the challenge and take on adult responsibilities with vigor and success (online source). It is only in modern culture that adulthood is postponed until 18 or 21, that childhood is drawn out, and that teen angst develops.

Given this fact, the reality is that traditionally, kids are introduced to courtship and sexuality earlier than in modern America, the only difference being that it is done within the context of courtship, betrothal and marriage. A girl is marriable at 14, a boy at 16. In many cultures, a girl not married by 21 was considered an old maid.

How does this relate back to the homeschooling issue? Well, it means this: while I appreciate the approach taken by homeschoolers of wanting to put off dating until 18 or 20, the fact of the matter is that this is just another symptom of our modern culture. If we really wanted to adopt "traditional" morals, we would be encouraging our kids to think about marriage at age 12 or 13, to get betrothed at 14 and married at 16. But many parents recoil with horror at the idea that their kids be involved with the opposite sex at so young an age.

What is my point in all this? I'm not sure. I am certainly not suggesting that we start marrying our kids at age 14, nor I am suggesting we adopt the public school "kids will be kids" permissiveness. I am simply pointing out that when we decide to keep our kids away from dating until they are 19, let's not pretend that we are being traditional. We are not. We are doing something completely novel that has no precedent in traditional morality.

Wife symbolizes God??

While preparing an RCIA lecture on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, I was a little bit stunned and confused to come across the following paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Notice the last sentence:

Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good for man to be along." The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate; she thus represents God from whom comes our help (CCC 1605).

I have read this section in the CCC before, but I never really noticed this passage before. Is it asserting that in marriage, the woman represents God? If this is the case, I think this would be a very novel application of symbolism to the Sacrament of Marriage. Of course, in Scripture one thing can represent various other things, as a serpent can represent the devil or also Christ (as in the case of the bronze serpent of Moses). But what is the traditional symbolism attached to the marital union and is it consonant with the CCC's assertion that the wife represents God?

If we look first to St. Paul's famous passage from Ephesians 5, we read the following:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything (v. 22-24).

From this passage, St. Paul makes two points: first, that the husband represents Christ and the wife the Church. Second, that the wife is to be in submission to the husband as Christ is to the Church. He goes on to reaffirm the husband's symbolic representation as Christ:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church (v. 25-32).

I think it is painfully obvious that the man represents Christ. As such, the woman is said to be in submission to the man. Now, here is the question: if it is clear that the man represents Christ, if the woman represents God, as CCC 1605 says, then what type of symbolic imagery are we creating? If we take the CCC's passage on the wife and St. Paul's passage on the husband representing Christ, then we are left with the absurd symbolism of God being in submission to Christ, as it clearly says that the wife (who "represents God") is to be in submission to the man (who represents Christ).

When, in Scripture or Tradition, is God ever said to be in submission to Christ? Though Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity and co-equal with God the Father, as pertains to His mission He is always said to be in submission to God, both on earth, in heaven now and in the Kingdom to Come, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians:

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all (v. 24-28).

In looking at these passages, in which Christ's submission to the Father is emphasized, one can see the absurdity of equating the woman with God in the marriage. Tradition has constantly asserted (following Paul's plain words in Ephesians 5) that the wife represents the Church, not God, and that the husband represents Christ. Otherwise, the wife's submission to the husband would not make any sense; why would "God" submit to "Christ"?

I don't know what the writers of the CCC were thinking when they said that the woman represents God. I don't think it is heresy to make such an assertion, for when we talk about biblical symbolism we are not talking about dogmatic statements. But I do think it is a reckless and stupid conclusion to draw and not consonant with the clear words of Scripture and the way the Fathers and the Church has always interpreted the relationship of man and woman in Matrimony.

A little April Fool's Fun...

I know April Fool's Day is not until tomorrow, but I thought I'd start livening things up a bit early...

A Modern Seminarian’s Dictionary
Published in "Fidelity", September 1987, pp. 23-25.

Brother seminarians! Are you troubled by the nonjudgmental expectations of the seminary? Are you confused by their concerns? Fear not. Before your eyes you have the key to ordination in this person’s seminary. Add these terms to your theological lexicon and believe me, you could well be ordained one or two years early!

AUTHORITY: Cannot exist or be invoked unless vested in a sensitive, flexible, nonjudgmental and compassionate person.

CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALIST: A simplistic person who tries to live the Faith in a docile and pious way; also a Catholic who frequently prays the Rosary.

CELIBACY: Refraining from heterosexual genital activity.

CHALLENGE: To recognize that my views are better than your views.

CHURCH: Me.

CLOWN MASS: Liturgical innovation comparable to the innovation of Gregorian chant.

COLLEGIALITY: The doctrine defined by the Spirit of Vatican II stating that bishops have exactly the same authority as the Bishop of Rome.

COMPLEX TECHNOLOGICAL WORLD: The reason for resisting one’s conscience when opposing the teaching of the Catholic Church; also, the standard response a flexible person uses when a rigid person seems to be winning an argument.

CONCERN: The response that sensitive, flexible, non-judgmental and compassionate people in authority have when someone doesn't agree with them.

CONSCIENCE: The final arbiter of the correctness of one’s action always tobe guided by the latest in Church dissent.

CONSCIOUSNESS RAISING: The method of argumentation used by radical feminists moving adult males to action: "Better to live in a corner of the housetop than have a nagging wife and a brawling household" (Prov.21:9).

ECUMENISM: The process of transforming the liturgical rites of the mainline Christian denominations into a single rite of coffee, donuts and dialogue.

EXPECTATIONS: Flexible guidelines which change as frequently as the feelings of the Rector; not to be confused with RULES or LEGALISM.

FEELING: The highest faculty of the human person left fully untouched by original sin.

FEMININITY: A word created by a sexist, maledominated society to subjugate women in the maternal role; the presence of femininity in women religious is a cause to recommend psychological counseling.

FLEXIBLE: You agree with me; a flexible person is open and dialogues on any issue, smiles knowingly and does precisely what he started out to do.

FORMATION: Kindergarten.

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH ONE’S FEMININE SIDE: An essential requirement for ordination to the priesthood.

GROWTH: For you to assimilate my way of thinking into your life.

HOMOPHOBIC: The psychological condition of those who witness and report acts of homosexuality to seminary authorities.

HUMANAE VITAE: The biggest mistake the Church has made since the Council of Trent.

IN TOUCH WITH FEELINGS: Using the intellect to explicitly identify what one is feeling so that speech patterns can be altered to communicate one’s sensitivity and compassion; not to be confused with "intellectualizing your feelings".

LAITY: The future of the Church; cannot be ignored unless associated with ultra-conservative groups.

LEGALISM: Accepting at face value and obediently implementing what a document, law, or guideline mandates.

LIBERATION: The replacement of existing structures of constraint with new and improved structures of constraint.

LITURGICAL DANCE: Liturgical innovation comparable to the innovation of Gregorian
chant.

LITURGISTS: “A society of men among us, bred from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid” (Swift, Gulliver's Travels).

MACROCHURCH: The male-dominated, sexist, oppressive, authoritarian hierarchical Church.

MALE DOMINATION: The irritating interest men have in sports, cigars, and male- bonding, especially in the hierarchy of the Church; the only mortal personal sin.

MICROCHURCH: The pastoral, flexible, open and honest, compassionate, open-to-change, local Christian community (Columbian Father Camilo Torres Restrepo was a member of the National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrilla group and a fine example of the microchurch).

MISSION STATEMENT: A written objective or goal of a pastoral program upon which the success of the Gospel of Jesus Christ depends.

OBEDIENCE: No longer in usage. Obsolete.

OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHING: “I don't expect it to change anybody's mind one way or another. Catholics today have learned what it means to be selectively obedient to the Church’s teaching” (Father Richard McBrien, Washington Post, December16,1981).

OPEN AND HONEST: Telling religious superiors what they want to hear.

ORIGINAL SIN: See SEXISM.

PASTORAL: Effeminate; an attribute lacking in a man who demonstrates overt masculine
attributes of clarity, decisiveness, and orthodoxy: G.K. Chesterton was not pastoral.

PLURALISM: The acceptance of all points of view except those with a point of view which doesn't accept all points of view.

PREFERENTIAL OPTION FOR THE POOR: Socialism.

PRE-VATICAN II: A person who accepts at face value the teaching of the Church and who reads the documents of the Second Vatican Council without reference to a commentary.

PROCESS: The spontaneous movement in the dialogue of group therapy sessions never to be disrupted by thinking.

PROGRESSIVE: Pouring the wine of old heresies into new wineskins.

PSYCHOLOGIST: Infallible teaching authority in the Church.

RELEVANT: Anything to do with dissent from Church teaching.

RIGID: a simplistic view of Catholic doctrine

SAFE SEX: Taking appropriate precautions during high risk sexual activity

SENSITIVITY: The ability to identify and agree with the conventional wisdom of left-wing political issues such as feminism, gay rights, dissent, etc.

SEXISM: The sin associated with being male.

SEXUAL PREFERENCE: Feeling good about some or all objects of desire whether animal, vegetable or mineral.

SHARE: The practice of discussing the deepest intimacies of one’s life in front of complete strangers.

SPEAK OUT: The activity springing from the virtue of Social Justice whereby sensitive and compassionate persons, with great emotion, promote the platform of the Democratic
Party.

SPIRIT OF VATICAN II: Church activities and programs which have absolutely no relationship to the letter of the documents of Vatican II.

THINKING: The most dangerous activity in a seminary; cause for psychological counseling; those who think “disrupt the process”; see PROCESS.

TOTAL COMMITMENT: The intensity of involvement in charitable works until one finds that one “doesn’t feel good” about oneself; total commitments usually last six months to a year.

VALUING YOUR SEXUALITY: Obsession with the usual adolescent preoccupations.

VOCATIONS CRISIS: Refers to the Church’s failure to relax the rules on celibacy and failure to ordain women.

WORKSHOP: A church-sponsored meeting to ensure that the issues of optional celibacy, women's ordination, the Sandinistas and leisure suits are still being addressed.

YOU’RE NOT LISTENING: The way a flexible, non-judgmental person expresses disappointment that a rigid, dogmatic person doesn’t agree with him; example: the Pope is “not listening” to the American Church.

Understanding & Tolerance?

I am going to shock some of you: I think we need to study and understand other religions much more than we do now. Let me explain.

There seems to be an unspoken assumption behind the modernist interreligious dialogue movements, both within the Catholic Church and among adherents of other religions. This assumption underlies the whole supposed reason why we ought to have "dialogue" in the first place. What assumption do I speak of? I speak of the idea that if we just "understand" each other's religions better, then we will see how great there are and come to respect each other. The assumption is that the problem is that we do not adequately "understand" Islam, Hinduism or the other religions of the world. If we just had a better understanding of them, we would de facto like them and their adherents better and everybody would get along. Is there any merit to this point at all?

How about the reality that sometimes really understanding an ideology can make you dislike it even further? One could make the claim that we went to war against Hitler in World War II precisely because we understood exactly what kind of ideology Naziism was. It was the appeasement crowd, like Chamberlain, who failed to understand what kind of a man Hitler was.

In the same way, I have been reading the agnostic Will Durant's classic history text on Asia "Our Oriental Heritage," in which he gushes with 400 pages of praise about India, Hindu religion and classic Indian "philosophy." I have been immersed in the writings and historical developments, cultural institutions and religious traditions of India for two weeks now. I have learned a whole lot more about Hinudism and the Indian subcontinent than I ever knew before and I must say, never have I been so disgusted with it all. I knew Hinduism was a false religion, but it was not until I really studied it and learned what it was all about (ie, that I "understood" it) that I really saw what a despicable, horrid, hopeless and terrible religion it is.

Maybe the interreligious dialogue crowd is right: maybe we do need to study other religions more. Sometimes, to see the warts on somebody, you have to look at them really close.