A fascinating email landed in my inbox this evening, about an initiative here in the UK to “Stand Up for Vatican II”.  This is the first I have heard of it, but this is clearly something that has been a while in preparation.  As you will see from the details below, this will be launched here by means of a website www.standup4vatican2.org.uk which will be going live from January 1, followed by a public launch on January 26th. This initiative, while specifically located in the English Church, is not alone. Other movements are active in other countries, and internationally.  This is something I will most certainly attend and support, and will keep you informed of progress as I learn more. I hope that my UK readers will similarly support it, and readers elsewhere will help to promote it, even from long distance, in any way they can.

Vatican II in session, St Peter's

In the meantime, this is the information I have:

We are pleased to tell you that Stand up for Vatican II is now almost ready to be launched properly the website www.standup4vatican2.org.uk will be available from 1 January 2010. It contains articles, general information and most important the petition which we plan to send to the Bishops of England and Wales. In the wording of the petition we call upon our Bishops to re-commit to supporting fully the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, visit the website to see for yourself and sign the petition.

You can also sign up to receive the newsletter which will keep you in touch with Stand Up during the year, you can also complete a testimonial telling us why you are standing up for Vatican II.

We also have a meeting to launch the campaign in London on the 26 January, the attached gives full details for the meeting. All are welcome to attend and we ask only that you let us know in advance that you will be coming. Please send an email to standup4vat2@yahoo.co.uk or write to Bernard Wynne at 180 Blackfen Road, Sidcup, DA15 8PT.

If you have already told us that you are coming, you don’t need to reply as we have a note of those who have confirmed.

An important part of making sure that our campaign is a success is to tell as many people as possible about it. If we can get the information out to enough people we are confident that large numbers of people will want to sign the petition, but we need you to play your part by passing on this email to as many people as possible.

Getting the message out

This email is being sent to 180 addresses, we would like all of the people who receive it to send it on to their own contacts this will enable us to build a significant support base very quickly, for example:

If every recipient sent it on to 8 people this would result in 1, 440 seeing it. If in turn they sent it on to 5 contacts each this would take our number up to 7,200 and if this group were to send it on to a further 2 contacts this would take the number to 14,400. This would be an excellent start.

At first reading this may sound fanciful but I can assure you that the power of email makes such figures entirely possible.

Other actions you could take include:

• Putting information about the website and petition in your parish bulletin
• Discuss it at your parish council
• Circulate the information to members of your local school Parents Association
• Many of us belong to other organisations such as, a prayer group, a J&P Group, the CWL, The Knights, The Newman Association, a CAFOD support group and many, many more. Tell your friends in these organisations and others about Stand Up, you might even be able to get a mention in the local/national newsletter, discuss it at a future meeting
• Write to the Catholic press
• Tell people about it on twitter or facebook.

We should be pleased to hear how you circulated the information and invite you to place a comment on the website under the heading testimonials. Sharing information provides ideas and encouragement for others.

If anyone would like a paper copy of the petition send a message giving your address or write to the address above.

If you believe this campaign is important and worthwhile please make sure you play your part by:

• Passing this email on to as many other people as you can
• Visit the website and sign the petition.

Good wishes and thank you for playing your part in standing up for Vatican II

Derek Reeve, Frank Regan, Pamela Wearing, Bernard Wynne

This is the text of the “meeting notice”:

STAND UP FOR VATICAN II

A meeting to launch Stand up for Vatican II will be held on the 26 January 2010, at St Vincent’s Carlisle Place, Westminster SW1P 1NL, (alongside Westminster Cathedral), starting at 7.00 pm.

Stand up for Vatican II is a campaign designed to involve the whole Church, Catholic organisations and individuals, who recognise the benefits the Second Vatican Council brought to the Church to stand together to celebrate the forty fifth anniversary of the closure of the Council.

Our speakers will be:

• Robert Nowell, as assistant editor of The Tablet he reported from the Council, subsequently report widely on Church affairs as well as translating the works of Hans Kung.
• Myra Poole SND de Namur – Educator, Historian, Feminist Theologian and activist for women in all churches but especially in the RC Church. Present main interest – ‘Ecclesiology in a Different Voice’.
• Michael Winter is a theologian, and founder member of the Movement for Married Clergy. He is the author of several books on English Catholicism, including WHATEVER HAPPENED TO VATICAN II?

Who will each describe why they are standing up for Vatican II and why the whole Church should gather together celebrate this important anniversary.

In the chair Frank Regan

We hope that many people will want to join us on this important occasion and ask only that you let us know in advance that you will be coming. Please send an email to standup4vat2@yahoo.co.uk or write to Bernard Wynne at 180 Blackfen Road, Sidcup, DA15 8PT.

]]> http://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus/ Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:46:06 +0000 Will Huysman http://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus/

Originally posted 12/25/2009.

Merry Christmas to you and yours! I hope this post will help you better understand the dogma “there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.”

1. Absolute Necessity of Means
Definition: Absolute (metaphysical) necessity of means signifies that something cannot possibly be supplied by something else.{1} This kind of means necessitates that the means is present in its full reality (in re).{2}
Implications: The Catholic Church herself is necessary for salvation by absolute necessity of means.{3} There is no salvation without the mediation of the Catholic Church; one must somehow belong to or be united to the Catholic Church in order to be saved: “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body” (CCC 846).{4}

2. Relative Necessity of Means
Definition: Relative (normative or physical) necessity of means signifies that something can possibly be supplied by something else.{5} This kind of means can be satisfied by the presence of the desire for it (in voto).{6}
Implications: Formal membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation by relative necessity of means.{7} Under certain conditions, people who are not formal members of the Catholic Church and are otherwise united to the Catholic Church can be saved.{8}

3. Necessity of Precept
Definition: Necessity of precept signifies that something is mandated by the positive will of a lawgiver of superior.{9} Necessity of precept, as part of the moral rather than the metaphysical order, ceases to apply when legitimate authority dispenses someone of it, if it is impossible to abide by the law without grave inconvenience, or if it is not physically possible to fulfill the law.{10}
Implications: The Catholic Church is necessary for salvation by necessity of precept because Christ positively wills this and made it the law of the Church{11} He founded on St. Peter [Mt 16:18; Lk 10:16; Acts 20:28; 1 Thess 5:12-13; Heb 13:7,17].

4. Ways of Belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ in A.D. 33
1. Only Catholics are “actual members“ of the Church founded by Christ, formally incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ.{12} Vatican II decrees (Lumen Gentium 14): “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who — by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion — are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, Who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.”{13}
Example: St. Thomas Aquinas (†1274), the Angelic Doctor of the Schools.

2. “All validly baptized non-Catholics” (e.g., the Eastern Orthodox) are “radically joined“ to the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.{14} The indelible character imprinted by their valid baptism “gives them a proximate intrinsic exigency for incorporation into the Church.” If they are in good faith and a state of sanctifying grace, they unwittingly “really belong“ to the Catholic Church.{15}
Example: St. Sergius the Wonderworker of Radonezh (†1392), a Russian Orthodox peace-making abbot who was one of the 21 Russian saints approved by the Holy See under Ven. Pope Pius XII of Rome (†1958) for veneration by Catholics in 1940.{16} St. Sergius of Radonezh is on the Roman Martyrology for September 25.{17} It was not by, but in spite of his profession of the Eastern Orthodox faith that St. Sergius was saved, as is clear from the words of Pope Gregory XVI of Rome (†1846) in Denzinger 1613.{18}

3. “All non-Christians in the state of grace” belong to the Catholic Church in voto (by desire).{19} Those who, through no “fault of their own, have never heard of Jesus Christ as their only Savior” and who, with the help of grace, follow what their conscience tells them, have the potential to be saved.{20} Their implicit desire needs to “be accompanied by supernatural faith and informed by perfect charity,” as Vatican II teaches in Lumen Gentium 16.{21} If these conditions are satisfied, these people are invisibly joined to the visible Catholic Church (which is coextensive with the Mystical Body of Christ), but cannot be called “invisible members” because the Church nowhere calls them members.{22}

Notes & References
{1} Eminyan, M. “Necessity of Means.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 228. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 3 Dec. 2009.
{2} Ibid.
{3} Ibid.
{4} Ibid.
{5} Eminyan, M. “Necessity of Means.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 228. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 3 Dec. 2009.
{6} Ibid.
{7} Ibid.
{8} Ibid.
{9} Eminyan, M. “Necessity of Precept.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 228. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Dec. 2009.
{10} Ibid.
{11} Ibid.
{12} “Salvation, Necessity of the Church for.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 624-626. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 3 Dec. 2009.
{13} Ibid.
{14} Ibid.
{15} Ibid.
{16} Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Thurston & Attwater Edition, Vol. III (July-Sept), pp. 639-640.
{17} See the Roman Martyrology for September 25.
{18} From the 8/15/1832 Encyclical “Mirari vos arbitramur” of Pope Gregory XVI of Rome:

Now we examine another prolific cause of evils by which, we lament, the Church is at present afflicted, namely indifferentism, or that base opinion which has become prevalent everywhere through the deceit of wicked men, that eternal salvation of the soul can be acquired by any profession of faith whatsoever, if morals are conformed to the standard of the just and the honest. … And so from this most rotten source of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous opinion, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience must be claimed and defended for anyone.

{19} “Salvation, Necessity of the Church for.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 624-626. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 3 Dec. 2009.
{20} Ibid.
{21} Ibid.
{22} Ibid.

Christmas is now a meaningless experience to me. Just another day to pretend “celebration time.” It’s like Veterans Day in May, when everyone celebrates the first day of summer and has a barbecue.

What has shocked my concept of Christmas as a Christian day of rejoicing? My depression began with the Vatican Midnight Mass on TV.
I recall this as if I were an altar boy doing that stuff I did 50-60 years ago. What I saw on TV was royal pageantry in a magnificent ceremonial display. Every since the funeral of Princess Diana, the Queen of England would shy from such public display, but not so for the Roman Catholic Church. Do people really lap up such ceremony?

So when I was a kid I learned the ins and outs of ceremony. I kind of enjoyed it. A few years ago I was in Syracuse, NY and visited an old Basilica. They did the mass in Latin. I understood the dead language but I wanted to throw up. I kind of made me sick. What in the world was their claim to fame? Activating a dead language?

On Christmas morning I attended services on Miami Beach. The Church was constructed in the 1920s, kept in excellent shape but it had an altar behind the present altar. The church had two altars. After having watched midnight mass from Rome on TV, I questioned the fact that the old altar had not been removed. After Vatican II, the changes in the Mass were promulgated. Altars had to be replaced and no longer would the priest say Mass with his back to the people, but they never removed this altar with a 20-foot marble canopy. After service I mentioned to the priest that it would be appropriate if we were to hang a curtain and hide that old fashioned display. Sell it on the roadshow was my comment.

He kind of laughed. I don’t think the people would like it removed.  You would be in the minority of one.

So then what is this Christian Celebration of Christmas all about. Tradition and culture? I say that when tradition trumps out dogma then it is time for those in charge to challenge the prevailing culture.
Have they forgotten that little baby, whom Christian call Lord, was born in a barn. Can’t anyone remember this? So what is with all this royal pageantry that has World Wide TV coverage?

Around the same time on another TV news program, it was reported that the FAA threw a party that cost millions of $$$. This happened when 18 million folks are out of work and not having a very happy Christmas. What is the word I am trying to use? Decadence? Have we lost control?

I don’t believe too many folks are buying my logic. Could it be that I do not have 6-6-6 branded on my forehead and that is why no one is buying and selling my ideas. Indeed, the word is ‘’decadence” that I am looking for. It means a decline of society, collapse, and everything else that goes along with present-future prophesy of 6-6-6.

1) Tom Monahan (a leading U.S. Catholic … of Dominos and Ave Maria fame).

2) A risky strategy of drastically altering a hugely successful offering (Dominos totally new pizza recipe … and the 2nd Vatican Council).

Domino’s Pizza announced today that it is changing its pizza recipe in just about every possible way. “We’re basically relaunching Domino’s Pizza,” said Russell Weiner, the head of marketing for Domino’s. The move by Domino’s comes on the heels of similar announcements made by General Mills and Campbell, saying that they’ll be altering some of their iconic products. Why are these companies tinkering with what’s proven to be successful for them?

Read the article

On a blog thread a few weeks ago, we were discussing Vatican II. Opinions ranged from ‘VII was totally wrong’, through ‘ it was hijacked’, or ‘it was improperly implemented‘, to ‘it was wonderful, but we’re now seeing it destroyed’.

One of the other commentators raised an interesting question. ‘Why,’ she said, ‘doesn’t a good investigative journalist talk to those who were actually there – before, during and after?’ Fair comment. There have been books written by enthusiasts, and books written by detractors. I haven’t found one that is simply a record of what happened behind the scenes – what people thought and did; what they intended and why.

Does anyone know of such a book? If so, please let me know.

Meanwhile, the really interesting question to me is: ‘What happened  to the Church in the West in the second half of the twentieth century?’ What changes led to the drop in vocations, in Mass attendance, in so many indicators? Or, if you’re a VII hater, what changes allowed VII to be ‘wrong’, ‘hijacked’ or ‘improperly implemented’?

I want to explore this question over a number of posts – however many it takes. I’ll write a blog on an aspect of the topic, and invite you to discuss it. Maybe together, if the Holy Spirit blesses the project, we can come up with some insights.

I won’t always post on this topic, so look for the category: State of the Church in the West.  I’ll also use those words in the title of the post.

What follows is a response I wrote to a Catholic priest who presided at a wedding mass I recently attended.  The names have been deleted to protect all parties.  While the mass was a traditional Latin Rite mass, that was not the issue.  The issue was the homily, in which he openly insulted Protestant Eucharistic practices and implied that all weddings outside the Catholic church were, in some sense, illegitimate.  I admit this is more for my own catharsis than anything – I had a great deal of rage initially, for which I have asked forgiveness – but I thought some of you might find it interesting.  My hope is that this embodies ecumenism at its best – dialogue that can bear fruit because it engages with another’s tradition out of deep respect and extensive study.   Enjoy:

Rev. _____,

        A short while ago, I attended the _______ nuptial Mass which you presided over.  I should tell you I am not close to either family; I came with my girlfriend who was a high school friend of the groom.  I am writing you because I must take issue with some things you said in your homily. I apologize for the delay, but I needed some time to get my thoughts in order and ensure I was writing with the correct intentions.  Your comments regarding the non-Catholic celebration of the Eucharist, as well as your more general comments about wedding rituals, both hurt and offended me.

            I doubt there were many people who caught your off-hand remarks about the Eucharist.  With the exception of my girlfriend, I do not believe any of the other Protestants in the audience understood what you were saying.  I, however, did, and found them profoundly inappropriate.  I recognize that Catholics and Protestants have different sacramental theologies (and of course, there is a great divergence within Protestant communities), but I think this is something to lament rather than make light of.  As I recall, you asserted, with a smirk, that Holy Eucharist was not just a “symbol” or a “metaphor,” and I believe you also used the phrase “real presence.”  I actually agree with all of that.  I have no problem with transubstantiation.  I have spent a great deal of time, in my young pastorate, trying to teach my congregation to have more reverence for the sacrament.  This is part of a wider movement within my denomination to work towards a more frequent celebration of Communion, a change for which I am greatly hopeful.

            But, to get back to my point, what purpose does it serve to mock other traditions?  Do you really believe there were Catholics there who thought the presence of Christ in the elements was only symbolic?  To put it succinctly, it struck me as a cheap shot.  I also took it personally, because I hold a great deal of respect for the Catholic tradition, particularly in worship and theology.  I grew up in a Southern Baptist-dominated area of North Carolina, where all kinds of horrific stereotypes about Catholic persist.  I am very grateful that I had teachers and friends that helped me to appreciate the beauty of the Catholic faith, and this is a lesson I try to instill in my parishioners.

            Furthermore, it seems disingenuous to mock Protestant practices when Catholic teaching has at least a modicum of respect for them.  Vatican II’s decree on Ecumenism states,

“Our separated brothers and sisters also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion.  In ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, are capable of giving access to that communion which is salvation.” (503, “Decree on Ecumenism,” in Vatican Council II: The Basic Sixteen Documents.  Northport: Costello Publishing Company 2007.)

I take this to mean that, despite our substantial differences, Roman Catholics believe the sacramental rites of other Christian communities can and may, through the Spirit, convey some measure of grace.  If this is the case, I believe it is not too much to hope that our practices be respected. 

            Thus, I did not anticipate the traditions of my own church to be publicly mocked at a Catholic mass.  It strikes me as particularly egregious to do this at an occasion where there are likely to be non-Catholics.  In a few months I will be marrying two dear friends of mine, one of whom is Catholic and the other of which is Baptist.  I do not believe it will be appropriate to the occasion or to the glory of God to make light of either tradition.  I expect the same courtesy from clergy colleagues, especially in public.

            I was also taken aback by your general comments about marriage.  I confess, I was nodding my head as you went on about people getting married “skydiving, scuba diving,” and the like.  I too believe that a marriage is a holy occasion which is a most appropriate for a church.  For anyone professing the Christian faith, if their marriage is indeed to be a means of grace, a union which is worthy to be compared to Christ and his Church, it should take place in a church proper.  Fine.  Excellent.  But why go on to say that everyone else – the skydivers, scuba divers, beachgoers, and dare I say Protestants?! – are only “pretending” to be married?       

            Again, this serves no purpose.  It comes across as cynical mockery, whatever truth there may be to the statement.  I was particularly grieved for some other young people who were there, several of whom were born into Christian families (two of them were baptized Catholics who had fallen away) but no longer identified themselves as such.  This was the statement that most perked their ears and turned them off in a service where they already felt alienated.  Christianity has, as I’m sure you know, in almost all quarters gained a reputation for being judgmental, narrow-minded, and arrogant.  Such comments only reinforce these unfortunate biases.  What Vatican II said about ecumenical dialogue should ring true for both clergy and laity on all occasions when we gather for worship:

“…catholic theologians, standing fast by the teaching of the church yet searching together with separated brothers and sisters into the divine mysteries, should do so with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility.” (511, “Decree On Ecumenism”)

            The above quote applies equally to the aforementioned comments about Eucharist.  Rev. _____, what deeply hurts me about all of this is that I went to that service excited and interested to experience a Latin Rite mass.  My last year in seminary, I gained a profound appreciation for and interest in the Catholic Church when I took a course on the theology of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI.  The professor, Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright, is a Methodist pastor and theologian who has been involved in many of the dialogues between our churches (such as the discussions leading up to the joint Catholic/Lutheran/Methodist declaration on the Doctrine of Justification).  He became acquainted with the Holy Father when then-Cardinal Ratzinger was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Dr. Wainwright has a deep respect for His Holiness, both as a theologian and as a successor to Peter, a respect that he ingrained in all of us who took the course.

            While searching for your address on the internet, I stumbled across a piece you wrote on the Latin Rite.  Near the end, you recommended reading one of the Holy Father’s earlier works, The Spirit of the Liturgy.  This was one of the monographs we were assigned for the course. Chapter four contains this beautiful reflection on the Eucharist:

“The Lord has definitively drawn this piece of matter to himself.  It does not contain just a matter-of-fact kind of gift.  No, the Lord himself is present, the Indivisible One, the risen Lord, with Flesh and Blood, with Body and Soul, with Divinity and Humanity.  The whole Christ is there.” (88, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.  San Francisco: Ignatius Press 2000)

Rev. _____, I do not presume to lecture you on Catholic faith or practice.  Whatever knowledge I have of your tradition is limited at best.  I do, however, feel confident to share that I believe that in a mass, where the Lord is truly and wholly present, the comments I have mentioned above were inappropriate.  That being said, I’m sure that I have made more offensive comments while presiding at a service.  And, from what I saw, you seem like a skilled leader of worship, celebrant, and preacher.  I only make the above points because your comments were incongruous with what I took to be Catholic positions regarding “separated brothers” such as myself, and because I took exception to them as a pastor.

            Please forgive me if my comments here lack humility or charity; I have asked the Lord for forgiveness already, for my pride, inattention, and malicious thoughts both during the mass and after.  I am not proud of my initial reaction to your comments.  I hope that the issues I am bringing to your attention only amount to a slip of the tongue or momentary forgetfulness.  I further hope that this letter will be received in the spirit that is intended: “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27:17)  As a Christian and a fellow shepherd in the Lord’s fields, I felt duty-bound to make my feelings known to you.  I thank you for your service in the Church, for your faithful following of Christ’s call, and for the time and attention given to my grievances.  May God bless you and your ministry at St. _______.

Grace and Peace,

Rev. Mack
Pastor
West ____ United Methodist Church

As we were discussing yesterday in the Conversation Project I’m running at Fordham (trying to focus on a younger generation’s less polarized attitude), authority in the Catholic Church is a complex thing.  Surely it ultimately stems from Christ who somehow invests it in his Church.  But the Church, we know from Vatican II, is both the people of God and a hierarchy: and the authority the Church must somehow come from both.  But how can we have both?  The ‘liberals’ in the Church prefer to think of the Church as a kind of democracy (people of God) and the ‘conservatives’ prefer to think of it is a kind of monarchy with the bishops acting as dictatorial, appointed viceroys (hierarchy).  These two ways of thinking about authority and from where it comes seem incompatible.

But the Church often takes a ‘both/and’ approach by trying to hold ideas in balanced tension with each other.  The idea that authority in the Church could come from the people of God hasn’t been expressed formally very recently in the Church (though with vanishing numbers of the hierarchy, there has been de facto lay authority in many parish settings…it is looks to become that much more prevalent)–and in some ‘conservative’ circles it is associated with ignoring authority and even heresy. But what about this suggestion from a student and close friend of our current pope as described in a recent story from the Irish Times

Eventually, new bishops must be chosen. Apart from the usual qualifications required by canon law, their suitability for what the Murphy Report calls the secular role of a bishop must be considered. After all, a bishop plays a not-insignificant role in civil society (schools etc). The system to date has failed. I do not deny that Rome may bear some responsibility. But I would place the main responsibility on the fact that the Irish hierarchy has in effect produced a self-perpetuating mediocracy. Incompetence breeds incompetence.

It is the bishops who, traditionally, propose candidates to Rome. Some bishops may have more influence in Rome – and use it to promote favoured candidates, especially if they can be sold to Rome as “sound men” (in other words, “orthodox”) – or to raise some “obstacle” to blacken an undesirable candidate (who might “rock the boat”). Such a sterile orthodoxy is as far from the truth of scripture and Catholic tradition as Marxism is from the true plight of workers. (Recent episcopal appointments might indicate that, at last, Rome seems to be bucking the previous trend.)

Some other way of choosing suitable bishops, which will involve some real participation by priests and laity of the newly constituted dioceses, must be found. From my own experience here and abroad, faithful Irish Catholics and priests could, uniquely, be entrusted with this task, without the danger of causing the kind of divisions in the church that would almost certainly happen in most other European countries.

The Church could certainly make this rather dramatic change while being faithful to the Roman Catholic tradition.  One of the most important bishops of all time, Ambrose of Milan (mentor to the great St. Augustine) was made bishop (against his will, in fact) by the people.  Perhaps, especially in countries where the moral authority the bishops has been dramatically lessened, we should return to the ancient Christian tradition of communities electing their own bishops.  Perhaps this is one way to see authority as residing in both the people of God and in a hierarchy.

Ugh!  Novus Ordo (NO) turned 40 on St Andrew’s Day, November 30, 2009.

Damian Thompson at the Daily Telegraph takes a tongue-in-cheek look at this innovation which has changed the complexion of the Catholic Church so dramatically.  The comments are compelling — traditionalists against one or two who have no problem with NO.  Ironic, isn’t it, that Novus Ordo translates to New Order and that there is so much mystery surrounding the influences on the development of this (ahem) Mass.

Be sure to sit down with a cuppa and read the whole thread.  Here are just a few tasters of what’s in store.

Damian says:

For some worshippers, it is the sheer visual beauty of the New Mass that captures the heart, with its simple yet scrupulously observed rubrics – to say nothing of the elegance of the priest’s vestments, which (though commendably less fussy than pre-conciliar outfits) exhibit a standard of meticulous craftsmanship which truly gives glory to God!

The same refreshing of tradition infuses the wonderful – and toe-tapping! – modern Mass settings and hymns produced for the revised liturgy. This music, written by the most gifted composers of our era, has won over congregations so totally that it is now rare to encounter a parish where everyone is not singing their heads off! Even the secular ‘hit parade’ has borrowed from Catholic worship songs, so deliciously memorable – yet reverent! – is the effect they create. No wonder it is standing room only at most Masses!

Wow.  That brought back childhood memories of Latin Mass days when Catholic churches really were full to the rafters.  Catholics looked forward to attending Mass more than they did a secular activity.  On Sunday mornings (because there was no post-Vatican II Saturday night vigil), everyone was up and at ‘em.  Sunday-best attire was at the ready.  Every household had a strict routine for breakfast and ablutions.  We had to arrive at least 15 minutes before Mass started.  Each aisle had at least one usher. They used to squeeze people in where they could.  Sometimes we were split up as a family.  The larger the family, the earlier you arrived, so that you could all sit together.  Remember those days?  Wow, distant memories — so last century. 

Apologies to Damian for citing a few of the many choice comments accompanying his post — you can’t help but check in for the latest:

Benedict Carter, Nov. 30, 3:35 p.m.: … Going to Mass was the highlight of the week and the whole world of Catholicism was in our home constantly… And for this New Mass, with its centre of gravity NOT Christ above the individual soul (a vertical relationship) but the Collective (a horizontal relationship), there was needed a new physical orientation: priest and people face each other; the Tabernacle to which I knelt and prayed as a small boy thrust out of sight into some alcove chapel. All barriers (altar rails) ‘denying’ the Collective its rightful dignity were removed so that the Sanctuary became the whole Church (no more holy place); new Churches built to more represent an ampitheatre where the Collective can gather round each other rather than the Churches of all our forefathers that were built in one dimension – vertically, a line from the faithful to the priest and deacons to God in His Tabernacle.

And, there’s no shortage of agreement:

Rocky, Nov. 30, 3:53: Yes indeed! Watching someone picking their nose then picking up a wafer and placing it in the ciborium at the back of the church on their way in, and the hand-shaking and the empty, dull words, ghastly guitars and worse certainly was an efflorescence – it also hastened my departure from the Pantomime of the Mass.

Yes, why is it that so many churches ask people to place their host in the ciborium?  Surely, even if one has to take a small portion of a host because so many people are in attendance, the salvific benefit is not lessened.  One still receives 100% of the Holy Eucharist.   

Damian Rhodes, Nov. 30, 5:04 p.m.: It is interesting that Bugnini was eventually told to pack his apron and take up an appointment as Pro-Nuncio to Iran in 1976.

I wonder what the state the Church would be in today if he’d embraced this vital ministry about 30 years earlier?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.  Perhaps it was meant to be — God showing us the error of our ways.  Catholics are crying to leave this Mass behind them, but, like a stain, it lingers. 

Pascal, Nov. 30, 8:55 p.m.: … I agree with all the trad arguments but we don’t have that kind of intellectual body of faithful anymore. Most never experienced the old Mass and it would be very hard for them to switch back to the older form. But with an intensifying of preaching on the fundamentals of the Faith from the pulpit every Sunday. Then we will start to see a new surge in piety and the Mass will then be called the Holy Mass once again whichever form finally emerges. 

Today’s Christianity is a prime example of dumbing down.  It’s not just restricted to Catholicism.  Wherever one goes, one has that idea of ‘we don’t have that kind of intellectual body of faithful anymore’.  That’s not only sad but dangerous.  Yes, Pascal is correct in saying that priests must preach ‘on the fundamentals of the Faith … every Sunday’.  But, how many have the spiritual mettle so to do?  That’s even more dangerous.

On the Side of the Angels, Nov. 30, 10:48 p.m.: … there is simply no training in how to celebrate an ordinary form mass; so clerics invariably do as little as possible , or what they think is right, or what they think might add a little pizzazz to the rituals…

…and it’s not on !!!

Hmmm …

Fr Jonathan, Nov. 30, 10:58 p.m.: I think you are right in saying how little real training there is in celebrating the Mass. Perhaps following an era of excessive adherence to every detail … produced a backlash.
But even if that’s a reason it’s no good at all as an excuse. Since the Mass is the most important thing we can ever do, the right way of doing it surely should be an essential part of the training of priests. For the good of everyone the Mass – in whatever form or rite – should be celebrated with due dignity and decorum.
… And if proper training is not given, what does that suggest except that it’s not really important?

There is much more.  Many comments are essays of their own.  Let us keep the traditionalists and a plea for the restoration of orthodoxy in our prayers.  The Novus Ordo cannot be nourishing any souls in the Catholic world.  It is milk when compared with the meat of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. 

As is mentioned above, there used to be a time when Catholics commonly referred to ‘Holy Mass’.  How many of them would still say that today?

[From the website]: The New Jesuit Review has as its goals the recovery of Jesuit spirituality from its authentic sources and reflection by contemporary Jesuits on its significance for their lives. The writings of St. Ignatius and the First Companions, the lives of Jesuit saints and martyrs, and classics of Jesuit spirituality are examined in the spirit of Perfectae Caritatis, the Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life of the Second Vatican Council:

It redounds to the good of the Church that institutes have their own particular characteristics and work. Therefore let their founders’ spirit and special aims they set before them as well as their sound traditions — all of which make up the patrimony of each institute — be faithfully held in honor. (Perfectae Caritatis, 2)

A promising venture (HT: Fr. John Zuhlsdorf).

Sister Aloysius shows you where her heart would have been if she had one.

(Miramax) Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Viola Davis, Alice Drummond, Audrie J. Neenan, Susan Blommaert, Joseph Foster II. Directed by John Patrick Shanley

If one has faith, one must first understand doubt. Doubt is the antithesis of faith, its polar opposite. You cannot have faith if you have doubt…can you?

It is December of 1963 and America is reeling of the Kennedy assassination. Even in the insular world of the parish of St. Nicholas, in the most American of Catholic enclaves (the Bronx), the outside world has crept in. The ramrod straight-spined principal of St. Nicholas is Sister Aloysius (Streep). For her, the world is unchanging, the same as it has ever been. Children are to be watched at all time for they are surely up to no good. Progress is a word to be spoken with the pursed expression of one sucking a lemon. There is only the sureness of faith, the knowledge that what she knows is right and true and that the discipline of her faith will carry her through.

Into this world comes Father Flynn (Hoffman), a boisterous new priest who not only accepts change, he embraces it. With the reforms of the Vatican II conference sweeping through the Church, he is eager to embrace the new progressive Church which seems to be on the verge of making itself more accessible to its flock.

Where Aloysius is stern and disciplined, Flynn is easygoing and charming. The nuns eat in rigid silence, speaking only when spoken to and fearful of the vitriolic wrath of Aloysius. The priests’ meals are boisterous, raucous with laughter and a spot of the hair of the dog. It seems inevitable that Aloysius would take a dim view of Flynn and vice versa. A collision between the two is unavoidable.

When Flynn takes an interest in Donald Miller (Foster), the only African-American child in the school, at first it seems innocent. Aloysius however seizes the opportunity to declare war on her enemy. She commands her nuns to keep an eye on Flynn for untoward behavior and Sister James (Adams), Miller’s teacher and a sweet innocent young thing who is constantly upbraided by Sister Aloysius for being inexperienced and soft on her students, becomes her unexpected accomplice. She notes that Father Flynn calls Miller to the rectory alone one day, and that when the boy returned he seemed upset; further, she detected the smell of alcohol on the boy’s breath.

That is all the ammunition that Sister Aloysius needs. Although even Sister James comes to believe in Father Flynn’s innocence, Aloysius plows on like a bulldozer, sweeping every unwanted explanation from her wake. Father Flynn’s protestations fall on deaf ears. Aloysius contacts the boy’s mother (Davis) to tell her of her suspicions but receives a surprising reaction in one of the film’s best scenes. Sister James has doubt; Sister Aloysius has faith. Which is the stronger?

This is the kind of movie that invites discussion and provokes thought. Non-Catholics will relate to this in a different way than Catholics (like me) will. Faith is a different thing for the Catholics of the early ‘60s. It is, as portrayed by Streep here, an Absolute, a capital letter that brooks no argument.

Shanley wrote this as a play and it won four Tony awards for it’s year-long Broadway run. The problem with converting plays into movies is that they can seem stage-y at times but that isn’t the case here. Shanley, who wrote Moonstruck and directed Joe vs. the Volcano a couple of decades back, creates an environment that is three-dimensional (and I’m not talking about the 3D film process) that is full and real. You can feel the chill of winter and the warmth that comes from the pulpit.

A script this strong deserves a strong cast and it gets it. The four main actors would all get Oscar and Golden Globe nominations for their performances here, and quite frankly they all deserved the statuettes that they didn’t win. Streep delivers one of the most unforgettable performances of her distinguished career as the rigid, inflexible Sister Aloysius; she literally wills her way into being and one can see the iron in her soul throughout. Hoffman is also at his best, creating a priest who is flawed as a man and completely unprepared for the onslaught of Sister Aloysius. Davis, a relative unknown, has but one scene with dialogue in the movie but she holds her own against one of the greatest actors of her generation and delivers a career-making performance. Adams has the kind of role that you would think simply would be overwhelmed by the others in the film, but she delivers the kind of performance that is at the top of her game, making a mousy role stand out in a crowd of lions.

This isn’t always an easy movie to watch but keep in mind that this isn’t about whether Father Flynn behaved improperly with young Donald Miller. It is, when all is said and done, about the title – doubt and its lack thereof. Doubt is a necessity; without it we cannot question. If we cannot question, we cannot grow and if we cannot grow, we die. It’s that simple. This is one of the most powerful films of 2008 and is a must-see for everyone who loves films that make you think.

WHY RENT THIS: The contest of wills between Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn at the heart of the movie is brilliantly acted by Streep and Hoffman; their confrontations are worth seeing by themselves.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: The subject matter can be very wrenching and the resolution of the movie might leave some with a bad taste in their mouths.

FAMILY VALUES: The situations are very adult and will likely go over the heads of the more innocent sorts. Proceed with caution; the movie raises questions that you may not be prepared to answer right away.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: This film, which is Shanley’s first directorial effort in 18 years, is dedicated to Shanley’s first grade teacher who was the inspiration for Sister James.

NOTABLE DVD EXTRAS: There is a roundtable discussion with the cast on the differences in performing styles and preparation between theater and film, as well as a feature on the Sisters of Charity, the order depicted here and a discussion with several nuns of that order on the changes that swept through it at about the time the movie is set.

FINAL RATING: 8/10

TOMORROW: Hollywoodland

With the recent scandals rocking the Catholic Church here in America as in President Obama receiving an honorary degree at the University of Notre Shame to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claiming that abortion is an open-ended issue in the Church, we have seen a reemergence of ecclesial leadership on behalf of our shepherds.  Many bishops have awoken to the fact that being “pastoral[1]” has been a remarkable failure in resolving the deviancy emanating from Catholics and Catholic institutions.

The upsurge of young adults rediscovering their faith to the excellent parenting of Catholic families in raising fine orthodox Christian children, we have seen what is only the beginning of a Catholic renaissance here in America.  And let us not forgot the ever faithful cradle Catholics among us that have contributed in keeping the faith in the tumult arising from the Second Vatican Council to today.

Catholics drew from the example of the papacy of John Paul II’s extraordinary holy life which was punctuated by the undermining of Communism and crushing Marxist elements of Liberation Theology[2].  This continued with Pope Benedict XVI’s Reform of the Reform by liberalizing access to the Latin Mass and his ecumenical efforts of reuniting Anglicans to Holy Mother Church.  It was inevitable that the bishops would rise in defense of the faith here in America due to these models of the Church Militant.

A prominent sign post is when disgruntled and bitter ex-priest James Carroll of the Boston Globe viciously attacks the Church for its orthodoxy you know that the Church has righted its course and is in a straight line towards the two columns of Saint John Bosco’s dreams.  Satan will throw his minions at the Barque of Saint Peter to do everything in his power to disrupt it’s course but to no avail because the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.[3]

Which brings me to RealCatholicTV.com’s Michael Voris, S.T.B. of The Vortex.  Mr. Voris has an excellent summation of the resurgence of the Catholic faithful’s orthodoxy and saying goodbye to heretics:

_._

[1] Focus Shifts to Archbishop Wuerl; Washington Prelate on Hotseat on Pro-Abortion Politicians, Hilary White, LifeSiteNews.com.  Archbishop Wuerl responded to criticism on why pro-abortion Senator John Kerry received Holy Communion in his Archdiocese instead of the correct procedure of denying the Eucharist, His Excellency responded, “How to respond to those in public office who support abortion legislation is open to various legitimate pastoral approaches.”(Archbishop Donald Wuerl is just one example, there are many more bishops that like to use the word ‘pastoral’ when approaching difficult situations instead of doing the charitable act of correction)

[2] A warning to proponents of Liberation Theology: Instruction on Certain Aspects of “Theology of Liberation”, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

[3] Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew 16:18

Among my many flaws is a deep appreciation for biting sarcasm.  A recent post by Damian Thompson at his blog at the  Telegraph is a masterpiece of this form of verbal combat:

“It is 40 years ago today since the New Mass of Paul VI was introduced into our parishes, writes Margery Popinstar, editor of The Capsule. We knew at the time that this liturgy was as close to perfection as humanly possible, but little did we guess what an efflorescence of art, architecture, music and worship lay ahead!

There were fears at first that the vernacular service would damage the solemnity of the Mass. How silly! Far from leading to liturgical abuses, the New Mass nurtured a koinonia that revived Catholic culture and packed our reordered churches to the rafters.

So dramatic was the growth in family Mass observance, indeed, that a new school of Catholic architecture arose to provide places of worship for these new congregations. Throughout the Western world, churches sprang up that combined Christian heritage with the thrilling simplicity of the modern school, creating a sense of the numinous that has proved as irresistible to secular visitors as to the faithful.

For some worshippers, it is the sheer visual beauty of the New Mass that captures the heart, with its simple yet scrupulously observed rubrics – to say nothing of the elegance of the priest’s vestments, which (though commendably less fussy than pre-conciliar outfits) exhibit a standard of meticulous craftsmanship which truly gives glory to God!

The same refreshing of tradition infuses the wonderful – and toe-tapping! – modern Mass settings and hymns produced for the revised liturgy. This music, written by the most gifted composers of our era, has won over congregations so totally that it is now rare to encounter a parish where everyone is not singing their heads off! Even the secular “hit parade” has borrowed from Catholic worship songs, so deliciously memorable – yet reverent! – is the effect they create. No wonder it is standing room only at most Masses!”

Did Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who birthed this kairos, have any idea just how radically his innovations would transform the Church? We must, of course, all rejoice in his imminent beatification – but, in the meantime, I am tempted to borrow a phrase from a forgotten language that – can you believe it? – was used by the Church for services before 1969: Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.”

I attend Novus Ordo masses, but I do think a fair argument can be made that there seems to be almost a deliberate effort over the past 45 years to strip from the Church the beautiful, the traditional, the mysterious and the moving for the ugly, the novel, the trite and the banal.  I dimly recall the Latin Mass as I was born in 1957, but I do remember often being overwhelmed with awe.  The Novus Ordo is many things, but awe-inspiring is rarely one of them, at least for me, except of course for the Eucharist.  It is  a legitimate Mass, and I have no time for those who would argue otherwise.  However, I think the Church can do better, and has done much better, than what has often been inflicted on the people in the pews since the Sixties.

The original can be found by clicking here. The parts in bold are my emphasis.

LATIN MASS APPEAL

By KENNETH J. WOLFE

Published: November 28, 2009

WALKING into church 40 years ago on this first Sunday of Advent, many Roman Catholics might have wondered where they were. The priest not only spoke English rather than Latin, but he faced the congregation instead of the tabernacle; laymen took on duties previously reserved for priests; folk music filled the air. The great changes of Vatican II had hit home.

All this was a radical break from the traditional Latin Mass, codified in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. For centuries, that Mass served as a structured sacrifice with directives, called “rubrics,” that were not optional. This is how it is done, said the book. As recently as 1947, Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical on liturgy that scoffed at modernization; he said that the idea of changes to the traditional Latin Mass “pained” him “grievously.”

Paradoxically, however, it was Pius himself who was largely responsible for the momentous changes of 1969. It was he who appointed the chief architect of the new Mass, Annibale Bugnini, to the Vatican’s liturgical commission in 1948.

Bugnini was born in 1912 and ordained a Vincentian priest in 1936. Though Bugnini had barely a decade of parish work, Pius XII made him secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform. In the 1950s, Bugnini led a major revision of the liturgies of Holy Week. As a result, on Good Friday of 1955, congregations for the first time joined the priest in reciting the Pater Noster, and the priest faced the congregation for some of the liturgy.

The next pope, John XXIII, named Bugnini secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy of Vatican II, in which position he worked with Catholic clergymen and, surprisingly, some Protestant ministers on liturgical reforms. In 1962 he wrote what would eventually become the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the document that gave the form of the new Mass.

Many of Bugnini’s reforms were aimed at appeasing non-Catholics, and changes emulating Protestant services were made, including placing altars to face the people instead of a sacrifice toward the liturgical east. As he put it, “We must strip from our … Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (Paradoxically, the Anglicans who will join the Catholic Church as a result of the current pope’s outreach will use a liturgy that often features the priest facing in the same direction as the congregation.)

How was Bugnini able to make such sweeping changes? In part because none of the popes he served were liturgists. Bugnini changed so many things that John’s successor, Paul VI, sometimes did not know the latest directives. The pope once questioned the vestments set out for him by his staff, saying they were the wrong color, only to be told he had eliminated the week-long celebration of Pentecost and could not wear the corresponding red garments for Mass. The pope’s master of ceremonies then witnessed Paul VI break down in tears.

Bugnini fell from grace in the 1970s. Rumors spread in the Italian press that he was a Freemason, which if true would have merited excommunication. The Vatican never denied the claims, and in 1976 Bugnini, by then an archbishop, was exiled to a ceremonial post in Iran. He died, largely forgotten, in 1982.

But his legacy lived on. Pope John Paul II continued the liberalizations of Mass, allowing females to serve in place of altar boys and to permit unordained men and women to distribute communion in the hands of standing recipients. Even conservative organizations like Opus Dei adopted the liberal liturgical reforms.

But Bugnini may have finally met his match in Benedict XVI, a noted liturgist himself who is no fan of the past 40 years of change. Chanting Latin, wearing antique vestments and distributing communion only on the tongues (rather than into the hands) of kneeling Catholics, Benedict has slowly reversed the innovations of his predecessors. And the Latin Mass is back, at least on a limited basis, in places like Arlington, Va., where one in five parishes offer the old liturgy.

Benedict understands that his younger priests and seminarians — most born after Vatican II — are helping lead a counterrevolution. They value the beauty of the solemn high Mass and its accompanying chant, incense and ceremony. Priests in cassocks and sisters in habits are again common; traditionalist societies like the Institute of Christ the King are expanding.

At the beginning of this decade, Benedict (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) wrote: “The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.” He was right: 40 years of the new Mass have brought chaos and banality into the most visible and outward sign of the church. Benedict XVI wants a return to order and meaning. So, it seems, does the next generation of Catholics.

Photo: Pope Benedict pictured during yesterday’s Angelus prayer (AP Photo/Pier Paolo Cito)

In his address before the Angelus yesterday, Pope Benedict reminded pilgrims that the First Sunday of Advent marked the start of the Church’s year.

He said:

We had our first meeting of the ecumenical section tonight, in the famous Centro Pro Unione.

Palazzo Doria Pamphilj at Piazza Navona

At the Angelicum, there are four ‘Faculties’: Theology, Philosophy, Social Sciences, and Canon Law. The Theology Faculty, being by far the largest, is further divided into sections: Biblical Theology, Dogmatic Theology, Thomist Theology, Spiritual Theology, Moral Theology, and Ecumenical Theology. 

By reputation, at least, the two pillars of the Angelicum are its Thomist and Ecumenical sections. Part of the reason I decided to study here, in fact, is that it is the only specifically ecumenical licentiate/doctoral program offered by a Catholic university, and one of only three in the English speaking world (the others being at the Ecumenical Institute of the WCC at Bossey, Switzerland and the Irish School of Ecumenics in Dublin).

James Puglisi, SA, Director of Centro Pro Unione

The ecumenical section is coordinated by James Puglisi, SA, the Minister General of the Franciscian Friars of the Atonement and director of the Centro Pro Unione. The Centro serves as the library for the ecumenical section, being the most complete ecumenical library in the world since its inception in 1962. It is located in the Collegium Innocenzium, part of the Palazzo Doria Pamphilj overlooking Piazza Navona. Originally the guest house for the family, part of it then became a house of hospitality named Foyer Unitas, run by the Ladies of Bethany, and the rest a place for the ecumenical observers at Vatican II to gather, named the Centro Pro Unione.

The main meeting room is therefore steeped in history, both Roman and ecumenical. As the guest house of the noble family, this room is where Vivaldi first performed his “four seasons” after the premier in Florence. Franz List and Caruso played here, and so many others. During Vatican II, this room, with a grand view of the Piazza and its fountain, is where the ecumenical observers would gather with bishops and peritii for their weekly briefing, and where some of the most important texts of the council were born or developed: Gaudium et Spes, Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate, and Dignitatis Humanae.

There were 21 members of the section present or accounted for, and I am not sure how many others there may be. Six are from Africa, four from India, three each from the Philippines, Eastern Europe, and North America, one Italian and one Australian. One-third are lay, and two-thirds are priests; no religious and no deacons. There is currently only one woman (and she is technically in Philosophy, not Theology, but as a Russell Berrie Fellow is included in the section too).

The Catholic Church has always had a bull’s-eye attached to it, and in truth many of us wouldn’t want it any other way, for when we are almost universally loved, as has happened a few times in the last 40 years we have become “of the world,” instead of suffering for the world.”  Lately, during the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI dark forces have gathered at the gates of truth attacking the Church for a variety of long held beliefs.  These beliefs can range from the theological to the social. However, following the US Election of 2008 a tidal wave seems to have inundated the Church from the mainstream media, the political realm and even the entertainment world. The Church’s 2,000 year old teachings and beliefs have been attacked in the United States and Western Europe from elected officials, the mainstream media and well known entertainment celebrities. Some of the faithful have become discouraged and questioned me as to how the thesis of my book, The Tide is Turning Toward Catholicism, could possibly be true in light of this news.

The truth of the matter is that against this troubling backdrop the Church continues to grow around the world, especially in African and Asia but even in North America, where much of the onslaught against the Church has emanated. Seminaries and Mother Houses often have no room for those pursuing a vocation and those young African and Asian men and women are often sent to the US or Europe to explore their vocation. Even in the US and pockets of Europe seminaries are experiencing a mini boom. One seminary rector told me that in the 40+ plus years of being affiliated with the Church, he has never seen a longer sustained period of top notch orthodox minded young men coming in and being ordained as he has seen in the last 10 years. Perhaps this is why the powers that be are so angry.

It seemed the US midterm Election of 2006 emboldened the cause of those militant liberals and secularists who have contempt for much of what orthodox minded Catholicism holds dear. Following the results of the Election of 2008, many pundits proclaimed the results as a sea change for America. Agnostics and atheists gleefully announced that a world where religion and especially conservative or orthodox minded Catholicism held sway was being replaced by a humanist brand of religion where age old teachings were replaced by the ideas of “enlightened” religious leaders, agnostic thinkers, and pop culture celebrities. It seemed this new brand of liberal thinker was less idealistic than their 1960s peers and displayed an anger and hostility that was a far cry from the utopian idealism displayed some 40 years ago. Yet, beneath the surface and below the radar screens of many news organizations, lies the hope of the Catholic faithful who hold on to the ideas  imparted by Christ, His Apostles, Popes, Bishops, Priests, Women Religious, Saints and holy laymen and laywomen throughout the centuries.

Hope doesn’t merely rest on those being ordained or vowed, but also on those young people who attend Mass. Recent data shows that the 18-30 age group, who attend Mass regularly, are the most supportive of the Church’s teachings and the most pro life of any generation, including their grandparents. How can this be one might ask, aren’t these the same young people who have become pampered by a self absorbed reality show culture and who voted en masse for liberal candidates in the 2008 Election? Actually this particular group of young people has seen firsthand what has happened and is happening to their Catholic friends who have been mesmerized by the increasingly militant secular culture. They have seen their friends check out of regular participation in the Faith, to say nothing of their friends and acquaintances who have turned their existence into sad real life television reality show. Because of this troubling reality, many young people are embracing Eucharistic Adoration and the rosary as a peaceful weapon against the forces of hedonism, self absorption, doubt and fear. The Doubting Thomas’s need look no further than the Catholic blogosphere where orthodox minded sites run by young people run in the hundreds, while liberal leaning sites can almost be counted on one hand.

It always seems to start innocently enough with those hoping to change perceived wrongs. In 1517 the Church was full of too many corrupt and sinful leaders. Martin Luther may have had the best of intentions when he began his actions. Indeed, he could have been many of the Church’s greatest reformers. However, instead of trying to reform the institution as did St Bernard of Clairveaux or St Catherine of Sienna, Luther let his personal demons against authority and sin get the better of him, which sadly caused him to abolish the Sacrament of Confession and the hierarchy when he created his own church. He would become the leader (or so he thought) of the Reformation Church and sin would be all but forgotten.  Never mind what the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition said about authority, Martin Luther had been plagued by fear of authority and sin his entire life, and certainly he must have thought he wasn’t alone. As for Confession, even though it was the first thing Jesus instituted when he returned to the assembled Apostles on Easter Sunday night (John 20:19-23,) Martin Luther abolished it. Dutch Philosopher and frequent Church critic Erasmus and a future Catholic saint, Sir Thomas More both reached the same conclusion about Luther. They both voiced the opinion that he must be mad to think that 1,500 after the fact he knew better than the Church.

When some of Luther’s fellow leaders of the Protestant Reformation had a problem with the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist and Blessed Virgin Mary, which Luther largely didn’t have a problem with, Luther became enraged. At the Marburg Colloquy Luther was shown the door when he told his colleagues that he would rather drink blood with the pope then listen to their ramblings. They never met again but the damage had already been done and Pandora’s Box was wide open.   Luther thought everyone who disagreed with the Church would naturally follow him. It did not happen and some five hundred years later and some 40,000 denominations and independent churches later, here we are even though Christ specifically told us to be One with One Shepherd (John 10:16.)

During the French Revolution, some 40,000 Catholic clergy, laity and nobility were starved, beaten to death or beheaded. Some of the very nobility who helped to kick out the Jesuits a few years earlier thought the revolution might not be all bad, perhaps a good way to thumb their nose at the Church. However, some months later, one would think they might have had second thoughts while looking up at the guillotine. Before the Russian Revolution some of the very elites who would suffer the same grisly fate as the Romanovs actually helped fund the Bolsheviks, perhaps thinking they were showing their trendy side by funding the same cause that their western cousins found so exciting.

As you can see a construct began to emerge, talented, intelligent and often financially well to do people with a lot of time on their hands began to somehow believe they knew better than the Church. It is nothing new, as one could say it started in the Garden or even before when the “light bearer” was supposedly repulsed by the idea of the Incarnation and tried to take over heaven. St Michael the Archangel booted the Prince of Lies out and today he tries to assuage others, most often using the formula of the seven deadly sins in order to join him in his kingdom of horrors.  Unchecked egos can lead to our eternal downfall.

The 1960s set the stage for a tumultuous period in the Church. The times, as Bob Dylan reminded us, certainly were a changing. In 1961 some 500,000 people gathered in San Francisco’s City Park for a Rosary Rally, some six years later the same park was filled with what one would assume was a different crowd tripping out on LSD and espousing and practicing free love. Some liberals will tell you San Francisco was always liberal, obviously it wasn’t that liberal in 1961.

Vatican II, the transformational council which was called by Pope John XXIII, but had wanted to be called by Pope Pius XII before he fell ill, was in some ways the Church’s finest hour. However, activists within the Church would later twist the words of the Council and try to change the Church into something unrecognizable for many Catholics. The Council’s documents were as orthodox as anything coming out of Nicaea, Chalcedon, Ephesus etc. However, some twisted the words of the holy assembly and tried to make parish churches into something architecturally resembling a warehouse, not a holy place of worship. It didn’t stop there.

Some seemed to think that if the Byrds, Peter, Paul and Mary and Bob Dylan were popular on the radio, their sound might be popular at Mass. After all it wasn’t like they wanted these new found parish musical groups to do a cover version of Led Zeppelin’s Good Times Bad Times or Jimi Hendrix’s The Wind Cries Mary at Mass.  What would be the harm they thought? However, Francis Beckwith noted after returning to the Church some 25 years after leaving it, why would we want to hear a bad Bob Dylan cover band when we could hear the real thing on the stereo or in concert? Many parish musical groups were talented, reverent and joyous. Sadly, some parish musical groups sounded like an American Idol first round reject that incurred the wrath of Simon Cowell, rather than something holy, solemn or joyful.  Again, it didn’t stop

Some within the Church seemed to think that with the invention of the Birth Control Pill, if some young people were acting like rabbits, better to have them use the pill than to avoid it. Those who often felt this way seemed to think abortions were awash since it had to be a blob of tissue rather than a human being. Time and ultrasounds would prove this horrific conclusion wrong. In addition the birth control pill caused a demographic nightmare in the western world leaving the young to pay for the care of the old, who were much larger in number. Unfortunately, by the time many figured this out, millions had left the Church for something they felt was more tangible. Men in particular were turned off by homilies that had more in common with Alan Alda, David Gates & Bread and Air Supply more than they did an exhortation coming from a priest whose very title meant in the person of Christ.

Church liberals felt happy because in a way they had chased out the very element they had disliked (conservative oriented males) while welcoming in those who had a more liberal view of life. Just when thought they were in the driver’ seat, as evidenced by the censured priest Father Hans Kung’s 1980s assertion that liberals were now in control of most dioceses, seminaries and parishes, they realized their hold on the Church was slipping away. In Germany’s famed seminary of Tubingen, gone were the days when the liberal intelligentsia snickered as their “old school” Professor Father Josef Ratzinger huffed and puffed his way around town on his bicycle, while the rebel cause célèbre Father Kung tooled about in his sporty Porsche. The waves he enlisted from his fellow liberal elites, who had plenty of time on their hands, must now look like some grainy black and white movetone video of days gone by.

Younger liberals might be forgiven if they mistakenly believed the canard told by their elder comrades that 1950s Catholic leaders and especially bishops were all right wing conservatives who had no patience for the ideas of liberals but possessed the patience of Job for fellow conservatives. In his memoirs published shortly after his death, the late Senator Edward Kennedy wrote that his famous father the former Ambassador to England Joseph P Kennedy would often socialize with Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston.  Senator Kennedy wrote that his father always called the famous prelate by his first name.

In a revealing account the late Senator spoke of an incident in which brother Bobby, the future Senator from New York, heard a controversial conservative priest at a Boston lecture whose views about Protestant salvation were deemed very conservative. After Bobby’s father made a phone call to “Richard” the priest was promptly booted from the Archdiocese. Senator Edward Kennedy surmises that because of this incident, his brother Bobby unwittingly played a part in bringing about Vatican II. As one can clearly see from this example, the right wing Catholic hierarchy may not have existed as vividly as it did in some liberal’s imagination.

Because of bold action taken under the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, an extended period of younger more orthodox minded seminarians, priests and women religious have entered the Church. Recent bishop’s appointments have also skewed more orthodox or conservative in their political and social leanings. The orthodox nature of these two pontiffs’ theological views has brought admiration from an unlikely quarter, Evangelicals. Many Evangelicals look with alarm at their own denominations and see an ally in the Catholic Church. Enter Pope Benedict XVI, whose pontificate couldn’t have come at a better time. He truly is “The Pope of Christian Unity,” rallying the Christian faithful to the call of theological and social orthodoxy which is the only hope an increasingly secular world has of saving itself from itself.

From Stalin to Mao to the radicals behind the flaming barricades of 1968 Paris, as well as today’s militant secular activists in Europe and the US, the world has seen the sort of outcome freedom from religion brings; utter chaos, mayhem and worse yet unrelenting violence against those who disapprove of espousing a militant secular agenda. Against this nefarious and sinister backdrop the Holy Spirit saw to it that the “springtime” promised by Pope John Paul II would continue with the blossoming pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. East and west, north and south the octogenarian pontiff travels to meet with other Christian leaders and propose better relations against a backdrop of increasing violence and hedonism which is paralyzing an already troubled world. When theologian Matthew Fox, who had penchant for polytheism, was censured by then Cardinal Ratzinger, the censured theologian took out a full page ad in the New York Times that read, “I Have Been Silenced.” The smoke of Satan that Pope Paul VI had lamented had entered the Vatican was being swept out by the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, but not before many choked on the fumes of self absoprtion emitted by Fox and many others.

Jesus warned us about the hired hands that would leave the flock when the wolves came, which is why he implored us to remain One (John 10:16.) These modern day religious hired hands were influenced by Marx, Engels, Freud and the latest pop culture bards more than they were by Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Whether inside the Church or in other Christian communities, they fled from the truth when it came. The world needed a man who would fight off the wolves and gather together the scattered and injured flock. The day the newly installed Pope Benedict XVI celebrated his Inauguration Mass he told the faithful assembled in St Peter’s Square to pray for him that he would not run when the wolves came. He has not and because of it he was ridiculed by many in the mainstream media, other Christian communities and even the Church itself. However, the discerning Christian faithful now see the picture more clearly.

The  sad reality of division is beginning to see it’s elixir is in the pontificate of the man from Bavaria, who has seen the worst of what life has to offer and thus he is making it his life’ work to make sure that this won’t happen again.  Pope Benedict XVI is reaching out to all Christian communities and asking them to join him in protecting the sacredness of all that binds Christianity as well as the sanctity that hold society together. The tide is turning thanks to Pope Benedict XVI, “The Pope of Christian Unity.”

Matthew Guerrieri of the Boston Globe argues that the truly original thing about the 1979 hit rap single “Rapper’s Delight” is the fact that it doesn’t have a chorus, that staple of the pop-song form since, he says, the 1840’s, when the blackface group Christy’s Minstrels popularized the chorus.

I’m not buying it.

First, what music scholars call “strophic form“–varied verses alternating with the same refrain, or chorus–goes way back, to medieval European folk songs and perhaps even earlier, or in other places (we have no way of knowing precisely because they weren’t usually written down, or written about).  Since then, plenty of musical forms, from hymns to yes, pop songs to jams to lots of kinds of folk music to the twelve-bar blues have relied on this form.

Christy’s Minstrels may have popularized the use of vocal harmony on the chorus alternating with solo verses in the contemporary United States, but that’s nothing new in the grand scheme of things–this practice was commonplace in many musical traditions, from West African music to responsorial chant in the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church.

The really original thing about “Rapper’s Delight” was that Sylvia Robinson and the Sugar Hill Gang found a way to get the new musical style of rap to the mainstream.  While rap had already been around for a while at this point, people were mostly performing for fun and for parties and other events–it wasn’t considered a business opportunity.  Robinson capitalized, not without contention from other folks in the rap scene, on the infectiousness and grassroots popularity of the style and made a hit song, paving the way for people like Russell Simmons, Rick Rubin, Diddy, Jay-Z and many other hip-hop entrepreneurs.

“Rapper’s Delight” is a good song, but it’s not that original per se in terms of its form or other aesthetic parameters.  It was truly groundbreaking because of what it represented and foreshadowed: hip hop’s potential as a very lucrative sector of the music business.

Here’s a short clip of “Rapper’s Delight” (it’s really closer to 15′):

Also, I think with a little stretching of the standard rules of formal structure, you could consider “I said a hip hop the hippie the hippie to the hip hip hop and you don’t stop, the rock it to the bang bang boogie say up jumped the boogie, to the rhythm of the boogie the beat” a chorus of sorts.  Just sayin’.