True Love is Not Rigid?

So says Pope Francis, according to an interview posted on the Rorate-Caeli Blog:

[Interviewer:] The simplicity of children makes me also think of adults, with a rite that is direct, participated intensely [translator's note: reference to notion of 'actuosa participatio'], of parish masses experienced with so much piety. What comes to mind are proposals that encourage priests to turn their backs to the faithful, to rethink Vatican II, to use Latin. I ask the Pope what he thinks of this. The Pope answers:

[Pope:] "Pope Benedict accomplished a just and magnanimous gesture [translator's note: the motu proprio 'Summorum Pontificum'] to reach out to a certain mindset of some groups and persons who felt nostalgia and were distancing themselves. But it is an exception. That is why one speaks of an 'extraordinary' rite. The ordinary in the Church is not this. It is necessary to approach with magnanimity those attached to a certain form of prayer. But the ordinary is not this. Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium must go on as they are. To speak of a 'reform of the reform' is an error."

[Scott:] While I understand why the term "extraordinary" is used, I actually like it! The fact is, the Mass celebrated in the traditional form, in Latin and ad orientum (facing liturgical east) is, historically speaking, the ordinary way of celebrating the Mass. The Novus Ordo Missae, (New Order of the Mass) has been with us for less than 50 years in our nearly 2000 year history! Still, I appreciate the label of "extraordinary" - for there is nothing "ordinary" in ANY validly celebrated Mass! In the Mass our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ manifests Himself, physically, in the form of bread and wine. THIS is "the mystery of faith" (mysterium fidei) of which we speak of in the Mass. 

Traditionally the mysterium fidei is part of the consecration of the wine into Christ's blood; in the New Order this was moved to just after the consecration leading most modern Catholics to mistakenly believe "the Mystery of Faith" is "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again" (or some variation of those words). My friends, "the Mystery of Faith" in this context is the Consecration! The bread and wine BECOME Jesus Christ, in His body, blood, soul and divinity while still having the appearance of bread and wine through this divine mystery! Let us remain "rigid" in that belief!

When the priest faces "ad orientum" (liturgical east) he is not "turning his back on the people!" Quite the contrary! Rather, he is facing the SAME WAY as the people, putting all the focus upon the Sacrament of the Altar. The people should never be focused upon the priest, but upon what is going on at the Mass - and again, the primary focus of the Mass is the Eucharist. What's more, "Vatican II" never stated the priest should face the people - this is something which came out AFTER the council.

As for the use of Latin, this too is strongly supported by Vatican II! In the documents of Vatican II, regarding the celebration of the Mass it CLEARLY states:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

[Scott:] So, the use of the Latin language is not only recommended, it is DEMANDED by Vatican II. The complete obliteration of Latin, as was "ordinary" after 1969, is CONTRARY to "the spirit of Vatican II." Thankfully, many parishes are putting Latin BACK into the Mass. It should also be noted at this time that nowhere does Vatican II abrogate the use of the Traditional Latin Mass, nor has the Church since then officially abrogated the Traditional Latin Mass, and this fact recent popes have acknowledged and are allowing for and even encouraging freer exercise of the "Extraordinary Rite." 

[Interviewer:] "Other than those who are sincere and ask for this possibility out of habit or devotion, can this desire express something else? Are there dangers?"

[Pope:] "I ask myself about this. For example, I always try to understand what is behind those individuals who are too young to have lived the pre-Conciliar liturgy, and who want it nonetheless. I have at times found myself in front of people who are too rigid, an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: how come so much rigidity? You dig, you dig, this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, at times perhaps something else... [sic] The rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid."

[Scott:] Rigidity, with all due respect, does not "always hide something!" I would also state that true love IS rigid! It is contrary to true love to allow too much free-play with our traditions. As a parent of six (now grown) children, and the eldest of six siblings as well, the more "rigid" the upbringing, the closer to God these children are. The freer you are with them, the less likely they are to follow our Christian roots and practices. Rigid doesn't equate to being mean or overbearing, it means "holding fast to the traditions we were taught." (2 Thes. 2:15).

Consider the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, what if "true love" were not "rigid" there? "Honey, I love you, but do not feel like you're rigidly bound to me." Does that make any sense? How long do you think such a "free" marriage would last? But wait! There's that "rigid" thing called The Sixth Commandment and "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14). Should we be less "rigid" there - or in relation to ANY of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments)? 

I conclude this article in saying, I do not wholly oppose the Novus Ordo Missae, in fact, I participate in it frequently. My primary participation is in the "Extraordinary Rite," as I believe this is the highest form of worship we can offer the Lord. While there are some Novus Ordo parishes I would never go back to due to the "abuses" I've witnessed - there are several which I can, have and do go back to. I also would not put a whole lot of weight upon this "interview" with Pope Francis. The interview is not official Church teaching nor is he officially stating faithful Catholics cannot or should not participate in the Extraordinary Rite.

(Yes, I took a little break from my studies to write this).

SSPX and the Modern Church

As those who know me well already know - for many years I took my family to the Traditional Latin Mass under the auspices of the SSPX (Society of St. Pius the Tenth).  It was only after much contemplation and even writing to Rome that I allowed myself and my family to go there (some of my letters still circulate the Internet, without my permission).

I have never been one who out-right rejects the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass) as invalid, though I was heavily influenced at one time by those who do hold that view, still I never rejected the Mass of Pope Paul VI.  I did have, and still have, some problems with the form of the New Order, but it was and remains a "valid" Mass, and when I cannot celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, I go to the local Novus Ordo parish.

One of the biggest problems I have with SSPX today is that they did not come into full communion a couple years ago when they had the chance.  This is still troublesome to me, in fact - I've rarely been back to the SSPX chapel in our area in the last couple years.  They still have a valid Mass and it still satisfies our Sunday obligation - really, nothing has changed there, but I was very hopeful for the talks where were underway with Pope Benedict XVI, and was a bit disappointed, if not crushed, by the way they turned out.

And this brings me to this...  recently SSPX was permitted to celebrate Mass in St. Peters!

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html  

So, even though there has been a lack of talks (that WE might know about) it appears progress is still being made!  Let us continue to hope and pray for complete restoration of communion between SSPX and the Roman See.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Pope Francis and Traditionalism

In the Catholic Debate Forum we've recently been discussing Pope Francis and Traditional Catholics vs. Rad-Trads (Radical Traditionalists) and one of the non-Catholic participants asked a question to which I responded and wish to share here as well...

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Peter S. wrote:

 

ps: Is blasting the pope even up for debate within Catholic circles?!

sw:  In THIS forum, the Catholic Debate Forum, it is permissible for proclaimed Catholics to be challengers - though I will admit, I do watch such challengers a bit more carefully as there can be a fine line between healthy debate and scandal.  Is it appropriate to challenge even a pope?  Certainly!  There have been many examples in our past of popes who not only should have been challenged, but actually were challenged.  I do host two other forums of debate, "ACTS and BattleACTS" which do not allow for Catholics to be the challengers.  

ps: As far as I can tell, Pope Francis seems to follow the "What would Jesus do?" brand of theology, which I support.

sw: Well, I have read through John Vennari's article as I promised I would and am reporting back now.  Vennari is a staunch supporter of SSPX (the Society of St. Pius X) which maintains, in Pope Francis' words, "the Vetus Ordo" (Old Order) and upholds all pre-Vatican II teachings and only supports anything post-Vatican II which are in line with pre-Vatican II.  SSPX, understandably, clings to their namesake, Pope St. Pius X, who was staunchly against Modernism - which was attempting to get into the Church with a vengeance even in his day.  Mr. Vennari, along with Bishop Fellay (Superior General of SSPX) see Pope Francis as "a genuine Modernist."   

 

sw: As for ME (speaking only for myself now) I believe that the original Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass, hereafter "NOM") was severely lacking in several points.  The manner in which Pope Paul VI promulgated the NOM initially was fine - "I hope you'll use it" but in reality it became the unofficial replacement of the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass).  I will also say that the NOM was not "in the spirit of Vatican II," since in Vatican II it is clearly stated "36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." and parts 2,3 and 4 of that same section explain how certain PARTS of the liturgy MAY be translated from the Latin into the vernacular, "as they pertain to the people," NOWHERE in Vatican II does it promote the ENTIRE liturgy should be in the vernacular!  Thus, a completely vernacular liturgy is CONTRARY to "the spirit of Vatican II!"  Under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI we have seen a return of some Latin in some places in the Mass to be encouraged, but the official promulgation of even the latest rendition of the NOM does not dictate Latin must be used anywhere in the liturgy, and thus we still have some/many if not most parishes using wholly vernacular renditions.  I would venture to guess that many, again, if not most Catholics (not, for the most part those here, who tend to be better educated in the Faith) do not realize that the TLM also includes a hold-over from the Greek liturgy, which is all but lost in a vernacular only Mass.  I speak of the Kyrie, which even when recited or sang within the NOM in Greek does not adhere to the form of the Greek liturgy, as the TLM maintains.

 

sw: Continuing to speak for MYSELF here... The loss of the universal missal within the Universal Church was tragic.  Prior to 1971 (or 1969 when Pope Paul VI first introduced the NOM, but it was 1971 when it was first officially promulgated) one could go to Mass literally ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD and so long as they had their English/Latin missal (or French/Latin, etc.) you could follow the Mass just like you did in your mother country/home language!  The exception being that often (not always) the Epistle and Gospel are repeated in the vernacular and the sermon would be in the vernacular - but the Canon of the Mass would ALWAYS be in Latin and thus THE REASON we go to Mass could ALWAYS be followed by EVERYONE regardless of their language.  It is not simply a matter of clinging to the past - but clinging to our HERITAGE that the true Traditionalist (not the "Rad-Trad" - a term I helped to coin - see research here) embraces.  

 

sw:  Where do I stand on the matter of the NOM v. the TLM?  Well, since the TLM was NEVER abrogated, it remains a TRUE and VALID order of the Mass where ever it is celebrated.  The NOM is a VALID and LICIT form of the Mass where ever it is celebrated under the auspices of a TRUE and VALID bishop.  To fulfill one's "Sunday Obligation" one may attend Mass at ANY VALID celebration of the Mass.  That being said, there are some limitations of those not in full communion with their local ordinary (local bishop).  Since the rites of Holy Matrimony and Reconciliation (Confession) are wholly under the auspices of the local ordinary, if the local priest does not have explicit permission from the local ordinary/bishop then these sacraments are not VALID under these circumstances.  An exception being that ANY valid priest may validly hear the confession of anyone in the state of emergency which would be death or dying.  Some, like SSPX, would argue that the Church is in a state of emergency and thus these sacraments are indeed valid through their priests.  As for me, I would say this is a matter of conscience (as Pope Francis would say) and if in good conscience you agree with SSPX then sobeit, but if in your conscience you believe SSPX priests should not be regularly hearing confessions and/or celebrating marriages - then you should not go to them for these things.  So, while I can go to virtually any TLM in good conscience - there are limits to what I can do with such independent chapels and with SSPX.  Keep in mind, it is permissible for faithful Catholics to go to the Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy to satisfy their "Sunday obligation" - but likewise, we cannot go to them for confession or marriage.

 

sw:  Now, as I originally stated, I believe the jury is still out on just how supportive Pope Francis will be of Traditional Catholics.  It is my humble opinion that those who have been responding to the recent "interviews" of Pope Francis and using these interviews as evidence he's "changing Catholic teaching" or is somehow an Anti-Trad - are not only premature, but mistaken.  I've already blogged on the topic of Pope Francis on the CathApol Blog, if you're interested in following that.

 

AMDG,

Scott<<<

--
Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeternae caritatis. Amen.

Does It Matter What You Wear?

Let me begin by saying that I more frequently attend the "Extraordinary Rite of the Mass" (Traditional Latin Rite and hereafter "ER"), but do visit the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), or "Ordinary Rite" (hereafter "OR") from time to time as well.  One of the first things one may notice in comparing the two is the manner of dress of the people between the two rites.  In the ER we see nearly every one wearing their "Sunday best."  On the contrary at the OR we see SOME in their "Sunday best" - but most seem to be wearing casual/relaxed clothes, as if they just realized, "it's time for Mass" and dropped whatever they were doing and showed up with the "come as you are" look.

Now consider this...  if one is going out to dinner at a fancy restaurant they would "dress up" for it, would they not?  The same can be said of say, a wedding or even a nice company dinner party.  Why?  Because it shows respect to the host AND to those around that you actually care.  So when one goes before THE Wedding Feast (which EVERY valid Mass IS a prefiguring for) then why does not God deserve AT LEAST as much respect as a dinner party or friend/relative's wedding?

I can understand differing cultural views - but living in the USA, which is the perspective I speak from, the cultural view of "dressed up" for men would include nice slacks, dress shirt, dress shoes and perhaps a tie or even a suit.  For women, a long dress or skirt (or at least below the knees), nice blouse and for church - head covering (per 1 Cor. 11:6 - see below).  Does not God Himself deserve the respect to show you care enough to "dress up" a bit for Holy Mass?

So, what are your clothes saying about you when YOU go to Mass?  Did you care enough to "dress up" a bit for God?  Some may argue, "God doesn't care what I wear to Mass."  Well, then why is the one who showed up to the Wedding Feast and refused to wear a wedding garment tied, hands and feet, and thrown out of the Feast into the darkness - where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matt. 22:1-14).  Keep in mind, this guest accepted the invitation to attend - but did not dress appropriately.  Now certainly this was a parable relating to the Kingdom of Heaven - but we must consider that the Mass is a prefiguring of the Kingdom of Heaven! 

Back to head coverings for women, let us look to what St. Paul taught us in his letter to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11:2,5-6:

² I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.  ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. ⁶ For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

So, how can a woman justify NOT covering her head in church?  I have heard some women claim that St. Paul is saying that a woman's hair is her covering, but that really makes no sense - for if we look at verses 3 and 4 from the same context and if hair is the "covering" that is spoken of in verses 5 and 6, then every man should be shaved bald before going to church!  Look at verses 3 and 4 now:

³ But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.

So again, IF the acceptable "covering" for a woman is hair, then every man who has NOT shaved his head for church is disgracing God.  In short, women should still cover their heads since, as St. Paul opens this chapter with the statement that what he's saying is a tradition he passed down to them and it should be held on to, period.  All the rationalizations aside - THIS is what Scripture tells us to do!  Ironically, most Protestant religions, which claim to be "Bible believing" either ignore this verse or rationalize their way around it to minimize Scripture.

Here is a link to a very Traditionalist view: 

http://olrl.org/virtues/modesty.shtml

*****

Scott,
I hope I might tack on a little more from a woman's perspective here without abusing my privilege as a contributor.

    I agree that modesty is missing from our culture today.  I can't tell you how many times I have sighed, and grieved for the immodesty and disrespect shown by both sexes to the Body of Christ.  I know a family whose father and two sons appear in "dress" shorts, t-shirts, and sandals during the summer months.  The mother still wears a modest dress or skirt--thank God.  I have seen belly buttons, cleavage, underwear peeking out of the top of pants, flip-flops, beach cover-ups, etc.  I don't understand why one would come to the banquet of the king, or the preview of the wedding feast, as you pointed out, in such immodest dress.


The Visitation

   I took the leap to wearing a veil several Advent seasons past.  I just picked the first Sunday of Advent as an excuse--hoping that it would not seem so strange to those around me.  I had felt the conviction to wear a veil for some time before I finally had the courage not to be one of the crowd.  I did not grow up in the Church so it was not a conviction from my past--although other rules of modesty did come from my former Protestant background.  I felt the Holy Spirit was asking me to do so.  It was a tradition of the church that was not stopped by the Church; women just stopped doing it.

I see the veil not so much as a submissive act--though it absolutely is a sign of submission to God--but as an act of holiness.  Our Lady's body carried the most precious of all life, Our Savior Jesus Christ; she wore a veil.  The Ark of the Covenant, a foreshadow of Mary's Body carrying Christ, was veiled in the Temple.  The Tabernacle which holds the Body of Christ in the Sanctuary of our parishes used to be veiled.  The chalice is veiled when it is brought to the altar.  A woman's body is a special place which holds the potential for life in cooperation and submission to God's will.  A woman's body like all other holy places should be veiled.

As one of about 3 or 4 women that wear a veil at the NO Mass that I attend, I wanted to share my perspective.  I believe it is a powerful message of modesty, submission, and holiness.  I have had women tell me how beautiful I look and they wish they had the courage to wear one.  I pray that my continued practice will give them the courage to do so also.

Here is another good article on the veiling of women in Church.  The author is a woman.  http://www.fisheaters.com/theveil.html

I hope that is alright, Scott. 
AMDG

Rad Trads?

I was recently castigated for using the term "Rad Trad" on Patrick Madrid's blog but I assume it was due more to a lack of understanding of my intention than anything else.  I was accused of "sweeping generalization" and "put(ting) down those who love Tradition."  Perhaps we should all try to be clearer in the terms we use.  I suppose I could have included a bit of an explanation when I posted that - and in hindsight, I believe I would have had I known the way some would respond.  Here's my initial comment from Patrick Madrid's blog:

Catholics of all flavors need to be conscious of the potential scandal in attacking fellow professing Catholics in public. I believe some of the "Rad Trads" don't really care - thinking they are the only "true Catholics" - but those of us who ARE true Catholics must be careful not to cause even more scandal by making public accusations against other professing Catholics. "Rad Trads" may be "true Catholics themselves, just misguided by a zeal for tradition which overlooks the "novo cedat ritui" (they may recall singing this in Benediction). In their zeal - they may be causing even more harm to the Church, but we should not increase that harm in attacking them. Let us present the fullness of the truth as God continues to reveal through His Church.

So what IS a "Rad Trad?"  Well, as the "label" implies - it is someone who is not merely a Traditionalist, but is a "Radical Traditionalist."  An old Latin phrase goes:  "in medio virtus stat" - (in the middle, virtue stands).  One has to be careful when embracing the extremist in any movement.  Traditionalism is a GOOD thing in the Catholic Faith!  However, extremists or "radicals" who go around blasting anything new and/or anything post Vatican II are doing more harm than good in the Church.

I threw in that piece from the Tantum Ergo, for those who have the English translation in their missals and/or hymnals - if you don't, here's that whole verse:

Latin:
Tantum ergo Sacramentum Venere mue cernui
Et anti quum documentum Novo cedat ritui
Praestet fides supplementum Sensuum defectui

English:
Down in adoration falling, Lo! the Sacred Host we hail,
Lo! o'er ancient forms departing, Newer rites of grace prevail:
Faith for all defects supplying, Where the feeble senses fail. 

Truly "traditionally minded" Catholics should not oppose "newer rites of grace!"  The traditional Tantum Ergo (traditionally sung during Benediction) declares that the "ancient forms departing" and "new rites of grace prevail" and goes on to say that for any defects - faith provides, where our feeble senses fail.  

My statement holds true for those who hold to the "rigorist" or "extremist" view of EENS too (see the other entries and ongoing comments on this here in CathApol). 

I have offered a similar explanation on Patrick's blog as well.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<