For Piety's Sake!

Virtues and Vices

The first reading for Thursday of the 25^th Week in Ordinary Time from the Prophet Haggai planted a seed for reflection which I want to attempt to pursue in writing. What is at issue in that reading? Could it not be said to center around the need to establish priorities in life and what is meant by true piety? Here again is the core of that passage:

“Is this a time for you to live in your paneled houses, when this House lies in ruins? So now, the Lord of hosts says this: Reflect carefully how things have gone for you. You have sown much and harvested little, you eat but never have enough, drink but never have your fill, put on clothes but do not feel warm. The wage earner gets his wages only to put them in a purse riddled with holes. Reflect carefully how things have gone for you. So go to the hill country, fetch wood, and rebuild the House: I shall then take pleasure in it, and be glorified there, says the Lord.” (Haggai 1:1-8)

It’s all too easy for some to dismiss these words as a relic of times past, before social consciousness sensitized people to the virtue of exercising a preferential option in favor of the poor and disadvantaged. But understanding or explaining away this reading can’t be as simple as saying “Things were different back them, but times now have changed. Rebuilding the Temple would have to take a backseat today to the programs of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked…” Permit me to insist out of my faith in the enduring value and relevance of the Sacred Scriptures that Haggai cannot be so easily dismissed. I see no evidence of Haggai having framed an “either/or” situation; I believe that with Haggai we are in the realm of “both/and”. I also believe that rebuilding the Temple was and is the most important part of giving God his due. If not, why has the Church proposed it for our consideration today? In what sense must I commit myself to “rebuilding the Temple”? So went my thought process and thus was the seed for reflection planted. Meantime a week has passed.

Let me pursue my intuition intimated in the first paragraph and ask what is piety, anyway? Piety is neither a vice nor a character defect. It is a virtue of sorts, maybe not like prudence, justice, fortitude, or temperance, or even like altruism or heroism, but it is indeed a virtue. As such, it must have a timeless content. Piety can be qualified in a limiting fashion as filial, meaning our devotion or respect toward our parents. In other words, even modified by an adjective it is not a horizontal but a vertical virtue; it involves being devoted to someone over me: by limitation, to my parents over me, and without a qualifier, to God over me, Who made me and saved me to be His own.

The dictionary does not help flesh out “piety” beyond pointing to its being a religious sentiment. Piety is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit; the Catechism of the Catholic Church (N. 1831) says: “They (the seven gifts) complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.” Those who were moved to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem did so out of piety; they were gifted by the Holy Spirit and hence docile to the word of God spoken by His prophet Haggai.

Piety is certainly a personal thing, but indeed it must be a shared sentiment or strength as well. Public worship of God ought to be pious thanks not only to the presence of a pious celebrant and an inspiring choir, but really thanks to the presence of a Spirit-filled community of baptized folk, gifted by that same Holy Spirit with piety.

When is divine worship pious? When or why might we say that divine worship is not pious? Is piety a demeanor? Let me answer that question directly and say I think not. Piety is, to continue the thought expressed in the CCC, that which “… complete(s) and perfect(s) the virtues of those who receive (the gift). (Piety, a gift of the Holy Spirit) makes the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.” Piety comes from the heart. Exposure to pious worship ought to render those present open or more open to God. Piety involves attentiveness to God; it completes and perfects my love for God, just as filial piety does for my love of mom and dad.

One of the great worries or urgings felt not only by Catholic people but by all true believers is that of handing on our faith in God to the next generation and sharing more widely the joy of faith which is ours with others. People actually get anxious about this task and seek to render devotion and public worship, in particular, attractive or worthwhile. A movement in the United States in favor of youth called “Life Teen” comes to mind. Among other things “Life Teen” seeks to render faith in God and our Sunday obligation to Mass more appealing to youth by bringing what we do there down or up (you choose!) to what adults believe to be their level. If you sense a note of hesitation or skepticism in my words to describe this movement and other similar attempts by adults to try and make divine worship “appealing” to those who don’t spontaneously embrace the tradition, then you are sensing rightly. We cannot and must not try and compete with the entertainment industry or even with the so-called non-liturgical religious groupings. Very simply stated showmanship or protagonism are no substitute for genuine piety. A rip-roaring, Bible-thumping sermon is not the be-all and end-all of Catholic worship. Jumping and shouting of a Sunday, getting all flushed with emotion, doesn’t necessarily mean that we have been gifted with or by the Holy Spirit and are hence “docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.” The opposite is probably the case as catering to perceived needs might make the object of our concern even more hesitant to join us, whether it be young people straddling the religious fence or fallen-away Catholics we are attempting to call home. Entertainment or mega-church events differ little from the social strictures of two generations ago which buttonholed certain people who though baptized didn’t seem to have appropriated the faith for themselves. Back then many drug themselves to Mass each Sunday bending to social pressure until they could disappear into the anonymity of the big city. Today’s alternative to that kind of social pressure, funneling or containment through entertainment or mastery, doesn’t really have anything to do with freedom or active involvement especially when it comes to choosing the sublime. If I come to be entertained or moved, I’m passive at best, I’m audience and not one of God’s own.

Piety is born of conviction and is a loving and respectful response to love from on high recognized as given and received. I think the protagonism or showmanship which has captured much of the liturgical “high ground” in the Church today is at odds with genuine piety. Being self-serving protagonism does not point to Christ. I’m thinking of the folks who have grabbed “center stage”, if you will: celebrants, certain types of commentators or readers, song leaders and other musicians who have placed themselves up front as an additional pole of attention in competition with what should be the ultimate focus of our worship.

I can remember the bishop of my childhood, who ordained me, sharing with me his honest puzzlement over how the world had changed. He could not figure out where the rage against the clergy in the early 1980’s had all of a sudden come from in the U.S.A., the country which had always been so enthusiastic about supporting its priests and bishops. As a young priest I certainly had no answer for him, but the more I think about it and strive for an answer, it is Shebna from Isaiah (22:15ff) who comes to mind. Shebna, the Lord’s steward, who spends his time building his grandiose “tomb on the heights”. God calls him “the shame of (his) master’s house”. Shebna was among other things prideful and self-serving, no steward at all.

The process of preparing the reception of the new English language Missal/Sacramentary is a unique opportunity for bishops in the name of the Church to call us back from protagonism or showmanship in liturgy to genuine piety, that is, proper focus through a new or renewed awareness of the sacredness of the action performed. Without wanting to sound in the least bit unfair, the exclusive use once again of Latin in divine worship would be the easy way out. It would most likely serve as the straightjacket to rein in our showmen. Perhaps I am still naïve enough to believe that we can talk our priests into faithfully observing the rubrics for Mass. Where the architecture permits, it would be great if they’d prepare the gifts at Mass and pray the Eucharistic Prayer ad Orientem. Maybe the fear of contagion through swine flu will give perspective to the greeting of peace in a world deaf to the voice of reason?

My reflection certainly goes on and I would hope yours will too. May the showmen lay down their hats and canes and true worship through genuine piety reign supreme, drawing youth and aged to the foot of the Cross and to the gates of the Kingdom!

Gravitas

The Crux of the Matter

The whole “liturgical debate” or controversy is really much bigger than the word “liturgical”. It cannot be boiled down to choosing “reform of the reform” vs. “restoration” as the necessary or best way of picking up the thread of the tradition, which may or may not have been broken, frazzled or dropped during the years of renewal after the Second Vatican Council.

Calling it a “liturgical debate” suffices only if we understand “liturgical” in the fullness of the term, so as to encompass art, architecture, music, and an almost endless list of types of artisanry which serve the plastic arts in particular: vestment making, textiles in general, book binding, woodcarving, masonry and so on.

While “continuity” might be a fair litmus test for faithfulness to the tradition, I can understand why people get into debates over what is involved with standing in an unbroken line with the past. Maybe the issue can only be resolved by appealing to authority: Roma locuta causa finita… This is not the worst of all solutions. Nonetheless, recent talk about pending developments in promoting the reform of the reformed liturgy through building consensus and appealing to the leadership of bishops and priests has left me cold or wanting additional directives. Consensus building certainly has its place in politics and is most likely the fairest and best way to hammer out a party platform, but in so far as we owe God “worship in spirit and in truth”, it must be more than my conditioning as a canonist which tells me that either the prophet or the prince has to speak and say “This is the path. Follow it!”

Even so, just in case we are relegated to consensus building on the way to reform, I would like to suggest a “via negativa” to help get a handle on a good deal of what is at issue. Call it an added element for a liturgical examination of conscience if you will. Ask whether something is appropriate for Divine Worship; measure the sufficiency of its “gravitas” or weight, and do it by asking whether or not he, she or it (thing or action) is frivolous.

friv⋅o⋅lous [friv-uh-luh s] –adjective 1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct. 2. self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose. 3. (of a person) given to trifling or undue levity: a frivolous, empty-headed person. 4. of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice: a frivolous suggestion. (Origin: 1425–75; late ME frīvolus worthless, trifling; Related forms: friv⋅o⋅lous⋅ly, adverb; friv⋅o⋅lous⋅ness, noun) Synonyms: 3. idle, silly, foolish, childish, puerile. 4. light, trifling, petty, paltry, trivial, flimsy. Antonyms: 3. serious. 4. weighty.

By way of illustration, one might ask of himself as a celebrant: Is my manner of presiding at liturgy or my preaching style frivolous or thus inclined? Good Church music, which lifts our minds and hearts to God, does so not like a hydrogen balloon or a will-o-the-wisp but by sustaining us with its strength and beauty: are you singing stuff which is “4. light, trifling, petty, paltry, trivial, flimsy”?

Forgive me if I resist the temptation to shoot a whole series of ducks right out of the water! I will not set myself up either as critic or judge in matters where anyone or his friend might question my competency. Let it suffice to say, that with reference to my decision almost two months ago to celebrate ad Orientem always in my chapel, I find myself as a celebrant affirmed and confirmed. Most of the congregation seems to have found the change affirming as well. A certain “gravitas” has won the day; the verdict is indeed positive.

You are excused if you do not buy this business of questioning the frivolity of much of that which is out there as a first step to appreciating where the Holy Father and many others wish to go with a renewed liturgy desperately in need of reform. I personally, however, find the notion helpful in labeling things which have always gone against my grain. Just observing the rubrics presently on the books would in and of itself be a big help toward ordering the house of worship.

To illustrate what I mean by this “via negativa”, I will offer two examples of my “Is it frivolous, yes or no?” test from the realm of art and architecture, dealing with the cathedral where I was baptized, ordained a priest, where in the crypt of the cathedral I celebrated my 25th of priesthood at the same altar of my first Mass, and where I was ordained a bishop.

I clearly remember the first temporary altar set up to accommodate Mass “facing the people” in the cathedral after the Council. It was made of aquamarine or turquoise Formica. Although as an adolescent, I did not have any strong feelings either about Formica or the color turquoise, I can say that as a boy I knew of no self-respecting woman who would have had her kitchen cupboards made out of the same material. Permit me to brand someone’s choice back then as “frivolous”.

These days (the turquoise altar disappeared almost as quickly as it had appeared) I am eagerly watching the diocesan website for progress on the renovation of the cathedral being carried out under the direction of the architect Duncan G. Stroik, LLC, who is attempting to set forth and complete the original architect’s vision for the cathedral, which was never realized because of that man’s death. Basically, Stroik is reversing the modifications made to the building in the 1970’s.

Looking at the photos on the website, I was caught short and really stung to the heart to see the foundations being poured for the new steps up into the “sanctuary”, which are nearly the same as those I remember so well as an altar boy, and which I thought had disappeared forever under the new platform for the new altar and lectern of the 1970’s. It would seem that even modifications in stone might be labeled a hiatus as opposed to a progression. Were those changes, with no provision for a single use cathedra in the bishop’s church, a rupture? I need not say or judge any more. They are gone and continuity with the past in faithfulness to the liturgical norms which have always been in force is in the process of being reestablished. God rest all those behind the stone modifications of the 1970’s, but might they not have been just a bit frivolous in the radical changes they imposed upon that building?

Pope Benedict XVI is preparing for an encounter with artists in just a matter of days within the 10th anniversary year of the letter which the Servant of God Pope John Paul II wrote to artists on the eve of the great jubilee. It is another attempt by the popes to engage human creativity for the Gospel. Although artist saints like Fra Angelico may not have been common over the course of history, the Church has benefited from a marvelous engagement also with very mortal artists who have produced truly sublime works of the spirit over the course of the centuries. Hoping for a wedding between the Church and the world of contemporary art is not a wish for frivolity but might be likened to Hosea's efforts at God’s command to call his bride home.

Ideally, I guess I’d like to propose the frivolity test to bishops and priests concerning their own responsibility for liturgy. Musicians should be able to judge as well if one or another of the pieces in the song book might not better be left aside as frivolous. I cannot see how a call for “gravitas” in worship involves clipping anyone’s wings or hemming anyone in. The instructive parts of the liturgy of ordination call us to just that, to be anything but frivolous in dealing with the things of God.

Washed and Saved!

Triumph of the Cross

“You decreed that man should be saved through the wood of the cross. The tree of man’s defeat became his tree of victory; where life was lost, there life has been restored through Christ our Lord.” (from the Preface for the Feast of the Triumph of the Cross)

The prophetic image from the Book of Numbers of the bronze serpent, lifted up in the desert of the Exodus by Moses as God had commanded, is explained by Jesus in His words to Nicodemus in John’s Gospel (3:13-17) of which vs. 16, “God so loved the world…”:

“No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven; and the Son of Man must be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

The contradictory sign of the bronze serpent became the gateway to survival in the desert and hence life in the Promised Land. The contradictory sign of Our Savior Crucified becomes the way to eternal life, “so that through him the world might be saved.”

As familiar as we might be with the Old Testament prophecy and its fulfillment in Jesus on the Cross, the iconography puts most folks off. I was reminded of that not so long ago when I set up a copy of my coat-of-arms at the entrance of the chapel: “What’s that snake with the cross doing there? Why the snake!” Both the bronze serpent and Our Savior Crucified seem to be able to shock even those saved through water and the Wood.

Although I may not be able to substantiate the claim that this part of John Chapter 3 is the most quoted passage of the New Testament, I’d bet that if it’s beat out for first place by parts of the Nativity and Passion narratives then it comes in a close third for all-time oral Bible quotes. Nonetheless, Catholics make strange when faced with the serpent and my bet would be that the image would appall those fervent sons and daughters of the reformation who are continually “john-3:16-ing” or “god-so-loved-the-world-ing” themselves and anyone they can witness to.

God knew what He was doing and the prophecy points most effectively to the scandal of the Cross for which the Transfiguration had been meant to be the antidote. The Cross without the Corpus, maybe for reasons of our psychology if not by way of our sins, sadly enough seldom points to Jesus lifted up and drawing us all to Himself. This state of affairs reminds us of another prophetic reaction: namely, the shudder passing through the crowd which looked away or covered their eyes, unwilling to lift their eyes to face Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, “bruised, derided, cursed, defiled…” for our sins. Why the serpent on the cross? Perhaps the serpent is there to throw us off balance and open our eyes to the Sign of Contradiction, our Savior Crucified?

Let me simply formulate a tiny aspiration and a fervent hope on the eve, that the Feasts of the Triumph of the Cross and of Our Lady of Sorrows might not escape our gaze this year. May we discover the Cross, soaked and sanctified for us with His Blood (the gateway to heaven), and if we have effectively filtered out of the picture and our consciousness His Body lifted up upon that Cross, may the Sorrowful Mother’s tears catch our attention and cause us to look again and this time see, no more put off by the snake than we are by God’s Servant and His Son!

“You decreed that man should be saved through the wood of the cross. The tree of man’s defeat became his tree of victory; where life was lost, there life has been restored through Christ our Lord.”

Never Too Late

“I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Romans 12:1-2

By accident really, looking for something to read for an upcoming airplane trip, I happened to pick up a book by Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel, CFR, “The Reform of Renewal”, Ignatius Press, 1990. The sense of the title of Father’s book lies in describing the heritage of Vatican II as renewal accomplished, but still very much in need of reform. In the course of the book, Father leaves no doubt of his absolute conviction that reform in the lives of individuals, from greatest to least, is what the Church urgently needs today.

After the fact, I checked the reviews and find myself in agreement and wondering why this little book doesn’t seem to have made it “big” at some point over the last almost 20 years…

"Father Groeschel has written *the* book for the Church in the '90's. He is right on target! He has said clearly and prophetically what must be said before it is too late: namely, that all true Christian renewal must be rooted in personal, on-going conversion. I found reading the book as valuable as making a retreat."
— Father Richard Roach, S.J., Marquette University

"By his frequent use of appealing concrete examples and comparisons, Groeschel shows conclusively that true, lasting renewal in the Church can only happen by continual repentance and reform in our individual lives."
— Father Kenneth Baker, Editor, Homiletic and Pastoral Review

Permit me to quote at length the last paragraph of what certainly is not a “classic” but is definitely more than a “gem” in the genre “spiritual books”, meriting attention even twenty years after the fact in a situation both within the Church and in our world where answers are required or keys are sought for applying or unleashing St. Paul and the force his timeless words to the Romans:

“Every disciple of Christ is obliged to confess Him before all men and to follow His example. This is the real meaning of bringing the Good News to the ends of the earth. The lethargy, depression, conflictful attitudes and lack of commitment and zeal that are evident in the Christian churches at this time strongly suggest that no real sense of repentance and conversion is deeply present. There is no question that Christianity is losing ground because the Good News is not being effectively communicated to the people of our time or to young people who belong to families of faith. All those who consider themselves disciples of Christ must pause at this time to see if conversion is ongoing in their hearts. Every Christian is called to a ministry of reconciliation between man and God through the teaching and grace of Jesus Christ. We can hardly be working on this ministry of reconciliation for others if we are not pursuing it in our own lives. The real answer to the problems of the individual, of society and of the churches is to be found in the simple and direct words of Our Lord Jesus Christ at the beginning of His Gospel: “The time is come and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the Good News.” (pp. 215-216)”

What shines through from beginning to end of this book is that Father knows hearts and understands that regardless of where a person might stand on the ideological spectrum there is room for change of heart: repentance and conversion, the components of reform.

No telling how long my copy of the book had been on the shelf of that Catholic book store, but I’m grateful that it fell within my grasp late rather than never. Father Groeschel’s focus is certainly the Catholic Church in America. One of my concerns has always been somewhat akin, namely that of distinguishing the measure of vitality in the past within the Church in the New World by comparison with the vitality in the past within the Church in the Old World (the other pole of my life experience). Since the Second World War and until maybe twenty or so years ago this New World vitality carried with it a constant turnover, thanks to large families filling the pews on Sundays and any number of converts “joining the Church” as they entered into marriage with a Catholic. The neophytes always more than offset those who quietly drifted away and disappeared from the parish lists. Today’s demographics are different and the institution no longer seems to have the pull to carry people to the altar and through the first years of matrimony. The balance of pressures to conform has tipped from church, family and school to Hollywood, Bollywood and “Reality TV”.

BBC radio has a program running on G. Allegri’s Miserere mei Deus. I started to listen until I discovered that this musical masterpiece can be for some little more than a warm fuzzy just like my rosary or my pectoral cross can be bling for others. Father Groeschel finds in St. Catherine of Genoa and her prayer groups the source of “plutonium” for the engines of both the Reformation and the Catholic Reform. Before I criticize or doubt him for attributing so much influence to the holiness of life of one woman, I guess I’d better give that kind of reform in my own personal life a try and see what might be unleashed. Just maybe a heart contrite and humbled is more than mountains of inspirational music or sacred bling…

Nonetheless I still have this gut feeling that imparting knowledge has something to do with this equation. Whether it’s Miserere or Dies irae, if I get people beyond the symmetry to the content, I have the means to build on and beyond sentiment. Unforgettable for me is the example of our little boy blessed, Francisco, from Fatima, who knew, yes, knew enough to want to do reparation for the sins of others. I am thinking of a whole world of Catholic folk in the sunset years of life that knew its catechism and built upon it. Thanks to home, I still have rhymes and memorized prayers that nourish me and challenge me to that change of heart never too late even six decades into the game. Where would I be without? How many of our younger baptized were treated to catechetical content as opposed to sentiment?

Thank you, Father Groeschel, for laying it out there especially for priests and religious! I’d hate to think we are losing the race against time and that another generation might have to be claimed for Christ from paganism or ignorance by missionary bishops and little monks in their tiny boats from a far away someplace. Christendom is really a great word and something worth ringing church bells about no matter the silly ordinance about decibels. Knowledge and substance imparted, we hope and pray for the grace of repentance and conversion, for the grace of reform.

“I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Romans 12:1-2

To Redeem the Age

The Bread come down from Heaven

The Second Reading for the 20^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Ephesians 5:15-20 as rendered by the Jerusalem Bible and so presented in the Lectionary approved for use in England and Wales, Ireland and Scotland, caught my attention this morning because it represents a bit of a departure from the text in the New American or Catholic Revised Standard translations. For that matter, the Spanish text approved for Mexico doesn’t take that path either.

“This may be a wicked age, but your lives should redeem it.”

The reading in all of its various renditions is an exhortation to live morally, uprightly. None of the other lectionaries seem to put forward such a clear challenge or motivation to live uprightly, however. My life or better our lives should redeem this wicked age, by always and everywhere giving thanks to God who is our Father!

Fairy tales and comic book heroes don’t prepare us for this. The closest they come is to proffer something like the old Greek business about Prometheus (read in IRON MAN or whomever you favor). Even the great arc of the adventure in Tolkien’s trilogy The Lord of the Rings tends to distract from the all important denouement at the end of volume three where the Hobbits take back their home country, casting out evil through concerted action.

“This may be a wicked age, but your lives should redeem it.”

As clearly stated as it is and as worthy of trust or confidence as the words of St. Paul, being God’s Word, should be for us, resignation and less than sober living may be the out we gravitate toward because of either self-doubt or lack of confidence in the Lord’s promised power to save. The costumed super hero is an alternative not without attraction for otherwise sane and serious adults. Empowerment would seem to have to be lacquered and shiny… bulletproof?

In conversation recently with a gentleman who has dedicated his life to sports promotion especially for the sake of character-building among our youth, he factored out as very small (by his calculation not even a tenth of 1%) the minority of corrupt individuals responsible for the woes of our present world financial crisis and more. Though not a Catholic himself, he was evidently ready to attribute to a much larger percentage of any given population (namely those who profess to be Catholic) the potential for healing or redeeming an age. He asked very simply and, I think, rightly what was wrong with the Catholic Church at this point in time that that job wasn’t getting done. In other words, from outside the Church and on the basis of his life experience this good man would certainly subscribe personally to St. Paul’s words and urge us on, the children of the Kingdom, to do the same:

“This may be a wicked age, but your lives should redeem it.”

I keep coming back to the figure of St. Jean Marie Vianney and the earthshaking impact he had on post-revolutionary France, starting from the long hours he spent in the confessional and himself giving catechism classes to the people of his tiny rural parish in Ars. LE MONDE just ran a commentary on trends over the last decades in the Catholic population of France toward non-practice of the faith and concluded that the Church in France again today is in a bad way. This time however the Catholic Church seems to be the only religious group in France losing ground to the “wickedness” of total secularization. France’s serious newspaper has us on the way out.

The lesson of St. Jean Marie Vianney holds hope not only for the Church in France. Join me in begging God for abundant fruits from this Year of the Priest! For changes of heart and lives in those all-important men who are the only ones capable of bringing us Jesus in the Eucharist! Would that our parish priests in particular would take on the age and lovingly call it to repentance through the regular practice of the sacrament of penance! Would that our parish priests would see to it that all the baptized receive the instruction in the faith which would empower us always and everywhere to give thanks to God who is our Father!

The bottom line is vitality or resilience. It’s as close and accessible as the wisdom which comes to us from on high. Feed us, Lord, with that Bread, that we might live forever! To live life to the full in Christ, not just to survive or languish for lack of a better idea, this we seek and for this we pray!

“This may be a wicked age, but your lives should redeem it.”

"Rubricism" is not in my dictionary...

Save the Liturgy, Save the World?

For some reason I have the impression that a number of my blogger friends have been upping the ante so to speak during this vacation period. Somebody’s demographic study in Europe has the Second Vatican Council relegated to the dustbin of history in about fifteen years time. It seems “everybody” in my blogosphere is toasting the victory and rattling sabers in hopes of hastening the “I told you so!” day and hour. What may or may not happen in fifteen years in Europe hardly seems relevant to the analysis of what the Council has left the rest of the Church and the World as a patrimony. Were the Council to fail to save the Old World from destruction it hardly seems appropriate to respond with an “I told you so!” The demographics of the restoration cannot promise a Christian or a Catholic Europe in the next less than a generation.

Personally, the whole business leaves me sad, yes, but more than sad, perplexed. When confronted by all the liturgical abuse of the period, it is easy to understand the title to Martin Mosebach’s book “The Heresy of Formlessness”. Chris Gillibrand, guest authoring in Ruth Gledhill’s TimesOnline column, makes an appeal which is more than understandable: “…it is time to close down every liturgical committee in the land, and produce proper rubrics for the new Mass, so that its dignity of celebration can approach that of the Latin Mass.”

Excuse me the caricature but I feel caught in a shouting match across the picket fence involving folk on both sides with bulging neck veins and eyes bloodshot with rage. For the babe-in-the-woods or the average Catholic in the pew, perhaps, assisting at this scene and trying to comprehend the rage on either side would seem to be an exercise in futility. Who can get beyond the entrenched positions without resorting to caprice or another man’s aesthetic preferences? The whole controversy plays into the hands of the regime of relativism against which the Holy Father has been fighting for all his adult life. Where does the truth lie?

Although Fr. Z of WDTPRS is still plugging his “Say the Black, Do the Red” coffee mugs and bumper stickers, I see he has a new slogan on the market: “Save the Liturgy, Save the World”. I congratulate him on the first campaign and am glad to say that there’s no confusion or ambiguity in his rubrics slogan; its meaning is clear and the advice is sound. I cannot say the same about his new product. Rubrics are indeed the route to go; the books are there in black and red. The nihil obstats and the imprimaturs are in place and I can get a handle on what needs to be done and said. Campaign Two is not so eindeutig, as the Germans would say: “Save the Rainforest” takes me nowhere.

On vacation, I read a very well constructed book with a toned-down version of the more serious debate between the defenders of a restoration of the tradition and those of the so-called reform of the post-conciliar liturgical reform. The author also included a number of valuable monographs in his little volume. A first impression to be gleaned from this book and from the literature in general is that reforming the reform is more work than embracing the tradition. I get the distinct impression that embracing the tradition is considered by many to be the easier fix because they are unaware of the rubrics which are present in the liturgical books presently in force.

Be it noted that for us older folk what is touted as embracing the tradition really resembles novelty in many ways. As we assist at the liturgies celebrated in the usus antiquior on EWTN or on the training DVD’s, we are very much aware that this is something new, something we never experienced in our childhood or youth. Both for the manner of the priest celebrant and for the behavior of the faithful assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass it must be said that here too a rupture has taken place or that there has been an evolution with respect to the past. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I guess I’m not quite willing to give up on the rubrics of the Novus Ordo so easily, when in many cases they just haven’t been tried or applied. The daily Mass on EWTN, were it to be celebrated ad Orientem, could become for the English-speaking world an effective catalyst, like the Masses of the London Oratory, for providing the longed-for encounter with the unbloody renewal of the Lord’s Sacrifice on Calvary for our salvation.

“Save the Liturgy, Save the World”? OK, but let’s start with: “Say the Black, Do the Red”.