"The Thursday of Mysteries"

Isn't that a beautiful way to describe today?
I've only just learned it.

I appreciate that word "mysteries" used synonymously with "sacraments," very much.
At Eastern Rite liturgies I've always thrilled a bit at the phrase, "I will not reveal Your Mysteries to your enemies," as if we were suddenly plunged by the universality and sacred timeliness/timelessness of the Sacrifice into penal times, or the first century and were willing to die rather than betray the goings-on in the catacombs to the authorities.
One doesn't see it much in the West, although the sheet music from which I first learned the Bruckner Locus Iste translated sacramentum that way, IIRC.
This is, I promise you, not about aesthetic snobbery, but the music that will happen tonight at any of the Roman Catholic churches within reach will be so jarringly bad or inappropriate that I was casting about for an alternative, and my default Byzantine parish seems not to be having any liturgy tonight, can that be possible?
(Here, I can prove, at least to my own satisfaction that it's not snootiness on my part - if it were not a thousand miles away I would attend an Extraordinary Form Mass I used to hear with some regularity, where the propers that are not sung recto tono or to a psalm tone would be unrecognizable they would be rendered so badly, by a choir that included on singer with a voice like an electric cheese grater. The appropriate done badly by worshipers giving their best is more fitting than the inappropriate done well by worshipers giving their favorites.)
Anyway, I found a church, (of a rite that I don't know well at all,) whose bulletin gives a time for Liturgy of  Thursday of Mysteries.
(And between Holy Orders and Eucharist, and washing of the feet - do Easterners do that? dont know -  our evening will be filled with Mystery.)
Was this Father Hardon?

"A mystery is not a truth about which we can know nothing. It is a truth about which we cannot know everything."

The Three Graces

Not, not those!

I think I shall always be bothered by the imprecision of Pope Francis' words, for as long as his pontificate persists. The sound bites often seem Hallmark-ish, ("Hallmawkish"?) and I think it behooves a spiritual leader to take note of common words more specific meaning within his particular "faith tradition."
(It's why I had such a visceral reaction to being asked to sing Ruth Duck's As a Fire Is Meant For Burning.... really??!?#?? NOT to "preach our creeds"?)
Yes, words mean different things in different contexts, but as a Catholic, in the context of catechesis, (which homiletics is,) you wouldn't, for instance, talk about a skanky ballet dancer as being "graceful."
So Francis' talk of the Gospels at the Chrism Mass...

"A single word - Gospel - that, even as it is spoken, becomes truth, brimming with joy and mercy. We should never attempt to separate these three graces of the Gospel: its truth, which is non-negotiable; its mercy, which is unconditional and offered to all sinners; and its joy, which is personal and open to everyone,"

...seems off to me.
Because yes, those three things are sharing in God's love, freely given (the simplest definition of Grace,) but, and pardon me for putting words in the Holy Father's mouth, but I wonder if what he really meant was a reference to the Theological Virtues, which do indeed seem to correlate with what he called "graces."
Because holding on to Truth is the essence of having Faith, our confident Hope cannot but fill us with Joy, and the granting of Mercy to others, (and ourselves!) is the highest good of Love in Action, (the way I describe Love/Charity/Christian Love to my religious education kiddos.)
And, of course, what sets the Theological Virtues apart is that they cannot be obtained by human effort, but are infused by God into a person freely given, (and in need of unwrapping, as I like to tell them.)

(Is it so wrong that on the cusp of Papa Ratz's birthday, at this, as at nearly every instance in which Francis says something that starts to make sense to me and cuae me to think in a new way, my wish is to know how his predecessor would have teased out the theme and crafted it into some all but perfect gem of theology for the blundering but trying, like me? Ah, well, if wishes were horses....)

What Cardinal Kasper Said, If Cardinal Kasper Said What I Believe Cardinal Kasper To Have Said

In this day of Fake News, or rather, constant accusations of fake news, one is reminded more than ever that no one can have empirical knowledge of all matters that interests or concerns him.
I am not there to hear to the actual words spoken by a president, or here to watch the actual expressions and gestures of a pope or that other place to see the actions taken by a terrorist .

When it gets down to it, I don't know that those images of storms flickering on the screen are of an actual event happening now, that the contents of this pill bottle are what the box describes, or even if they are, that they will do what I am told by my doctor who is told by the FDA or a pharmaceutical conglomerate, that they will.
But you have to trust somebody, and I choose to trust the weather man, and I choose to trust my GP. One hopes previous accuracy or good faith is, if not quite a pledge, at least an indication of present accuracy and good faith.
National Review, New York Times, Breitbart, HuffPo... who knows?
An additional problem in this area of finding and trusting sources for information, especially in the ecclesiastical realm is the translation issue.
All that is by way of prelude to saying, Sandro Magister is someone in whom I have a high degree of trust. He has a  piece on the push for inter-communion in recent ecumenical initiatives, including some of an interview Cardinal Kasper gave, to which I can only say, What the Francis? [Emphasis supplied]

Cardinal Kasper: We are friends, we are brothers and sisters. We have begun this ecumenical way and we have taken many steps in the meantime. We have good hope that one day we will even reach full communion. Even now we already have a great deal of communion among us.
       Q: A communion at the Eucharistic table as well?
Cardinal Kasper:Yes, shared communion in certain cases, I think so. If [two spouses, one Catholic and one Protestant] share the same Eucharistic faith - this is the presupposition - and if they are interiorly disposed, they can decide in their conscience to receive communion. And this is also the position, I think, of the current pope, because there is a process of coming together; and a couple, a family, cannot be divided in front of the altar.

Um, no.
The entire premise is flawed because the two descriptors of this hypothetical couple are incongruous, they cannot exist at one and the same time.
If they ACTUALLY "share the same Eucharistic faith" it is either because the one has ceased to be Catholic or the other has ceased to be protestant.
(Yes, I'm shouting.)
And the idea that just because they are a couple they cannot be divided this way is absurd.
He's speaking of mainline protestants with liturgical worship and at least some sacraments, whose Eucharist faith is similar, (NOT "the same,") but what of others?
What if one is Catholic and the other Mormon? or Baptist? or Jewish? of Satanist? or pagan? or Muslim? or Taoist? or atheist?Should they be divided in front of the altar?

The Pope Gives Definitive, Clear Answer to Questions of Divorce, Remarriage and Sacraments

Assuming post-synodal exhortations are magisterial, (I am not convinced they are) and magisterial teachings may lawfully be developed, but not negated, (of this, I am convnced.)

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.
This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."
Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

Well, that answers that.

So, dubia schmubia.

"Purposefully Making Christ Anonymous"

A compelling faux dialogue between an older parish priest and a younger.
A bit of polemic, some improbable as conversation, but it covers some very important matters about liturgy, the "new evangelization", misguided empowerment of the laity, and above all, catechesis - that is, the handing on as if an echo The Truth.

If the standards are set low, it sends the message that what is taking place is not of great importance.  Therefore it makes sense that about 70 % of Catholics do not believe in the true-presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even our social-justice events rarely speak the name of Jesus and give him the glory in such activity.  We have pushed God aside as a politically incorrect name to avoid mentioning.  We are purposefully making Christ anonymous, and someone who loves Him wouldn’t do that…ever.

Nonsense, John Halpin

This strikes me as spin. Trying to spin gold out of not dross, but BS.
Emails out of context, fine.
Larger point, fine.
Rupert Murdoch's a bad guy, fine.
Explain this phrase, fine.

This is so typical of what's put out there by the conglomerate of agenda-driven media and political hack spin-meisters, lots of words explaining away everything EXCEPT  WHAT  PEOPLE  ARE  REALLY  OFFENDED  BY.

“It’s an amazing bastardisation of the faith."

Maybe it is. I don't know Murdoch, I don't know what he believes. He strikes me as an insincere opportunist, but he didn't convert, he merely allowed his children to be perhaps raised in the Faith, so he can't be all THAT attracted to it....

"They must be attracted to the systematic thought"

See above. (Though it must be asked at this point, is there something attractive about unsystematic thought that I'm missing, which makes attraction to the systematic objectionable?)

"and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”

Okay, there we are.
Can a reference to the Church's Severely. Backward. Gender Relations. when expressed by an activist for a political movement that seeks to, (and so far has been pretty damned successful at it,) redefine marriage, masculinity and femininity ever really be "simply a fleeting reaction from within the Catholic tradition to something [he] read"?

How can it be anything OTHER than, I would agree, not "an expression of contempt for people of faith" as he maintains, but an expression of contempt for the Faith itself, (his faith, putatively) which is the source of the outrage.

This is so common from both sides - someone says, or does something awful, someone else expresses outrage, first person refutes accusation no one was making, first person's allies say, "see?"

It doesn't wash, John Halpin.

And One MORE Thing....

.... about the souls's immortality --
An ordained blogger has written:

I was taught... that if God ceased even to think about us we would cease to exist. It is only through the power of God that we are. This seems to imply to me that we can be annihilated in body and soul! 

Yes. And yes. And no, not really.
Because God knows us.
He knows EVERYTHING, and we, collectively, and each of us individually, are something which He knows.
This is reassuring, for it follows that the Almighty Lord of the Universe cannot cease to know that which He knows, He cannot cease to think about us, He cannot cease to know us, He cannot UNknow us.*
Like Prince Hal, He can, He might, say, "I do not know you," idiomatically denying our acquaintance with Him, (and if we fail in the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy He tells us He most certainly will,) but He will yet have knowledge of us.

The Human Soul Is Immortal.

(*This is like the dumb paradox kids like to address to deny the Lord's omnipotence -"Oh yeah? well can He make a stone so large He can't lift it?")

'When the people read it, they were delighted with the exhortation.'

"It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage."

People have been complaining lately about the lectionary, whose fabricators seem, calculatedly, to have omitted "hard sayings."

Well, what about the Canon of the Bible itself having omitted the next couple verses in Acts, huh? What about that?

But that "abstain from unlawful marriage" thingy? Don't worry, Silas and Judas will look to the reality of the family today in all its complexity.
Some of our members, (those judgy ones who went out to you without any mandate,) find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations. We are called to form consciences, not to replace them.
Marital problems often give rise to new relationships, new couples, new civil unions, and new marriages, creating family situations which are complex and problematic for the Christian life Therefore, while clearly stating the Church’s teaching, the prebyters are to avoid judgements that do not take into account the complexity of various situations. Some of the brethern lack the training needed to deal with the complex problems currently facing families, and issues involving  marriages with pagans require particular attention which contain numerous elements that could well be made good use of and developed, both for their intrinsic alue and for the contribution that they can make to the ecumenical movement.
For those in unlawful marraiges, consider - because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – such persons can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. 

Someone leave out those words to the Antiocheans, (Antiochites? Antiochers?) deliberately?
Maybe St Luke decided Olden Days People didn't need them.
Our problems, of course, are very different from Olden Days People.
Because... complexity.

"Personally Opposed, but"... The Rise of Open Source Catholicism

Catching up on a television series in which the villains are the "Neolutionists," those into "creating themselves," promoting "individual evolutionary choice."
And if that sounds familiar to those who follow the culture wars in Catholicism, it should. Yes, wacky ideas pursued by religious sisters end up being the stuff cartoonish sci-fi villains' creeds are made of.
Take warning, nuns on buses. And please, no tails!

But that's not my point. When a police detective complains to a leader of these Neolutionists about creepy/criminal/crazy doings by his followers, he takes no responsibilities for these outliers, but notes that they are welcomed by the movement.
"Neolution is open source."

And all I could think was, isn't that a perfect description of how some people seem to think the Faith works?
After all, it is undeniable that "All are welcome" so it as just a hop skip and a jump to "All are welcome to make up their own beliefs and call it Catholicism."
And the Patron Saint of Open Source Catholicism? At least in America, a good case could be made for Mario Cuomo, a good man who may have been responsible for a great deal more evil than most, (damage done to our immortal souls being exponentially worse than to mortal bodies.)
He has certainly provided cover, a sort of intellectual resepectability, for the pro-choice Catholic in government ever since 1984..

Not that such thinking is limited to this side of the Atlantic (though our Catholish colleges are delighted to offer a platform to those from the other)- there is a little fracas right now because a "prominent" "Catholic" "theologian" is shocked, shocked, I tell you, to discover that there is gambling at Rick's some bloggers consider the rationalization she offers for the pro-abortion stance amounts to supporting abortion.
Why, one might as well have called Thomas Jefferson anti-freedom! I remember a statement he released about it... 

 

I have been called pro-slavery in some recent blogs, and I find that deeply offensive.
I am the father of several persons born slaves, and I am personally pro-freedom. I do not believe that there is any justification for the followers of [some of the things] Christ [might have said, with which I can agree] ever to endorse slave ownership as a good or commendable act.
However, there are serious issues that must be addressed with regard to how far the Church should use the law to defend positions which may not be defensible from the perspective of those who do not share the Christian faith. I have argued robustly against importation of new slaves, and I have written in detail about the serious abuses and violations which currently take place in the south with regard to slaves. Many ‘pro-salvery’ arguments put forward by states'-righters are morally repugnant and alienate those with a genuine concern for the sanctity and dignity of human life. It should be the aim of every Christian to work towards a world in which neither slavery nor abortion is necessary, while avoiding a dangerous utopianism which denies the complex and often tragic realities of human life.

Thank God, the Pope is Changing the Church's Tone Toward the Divorced and Remarried!

"The difficulties and sufferings of those faithful in irregular marriage situations merit special attention. Pastors are called to help them experience the charity of Christ and the maternal closeness of the Church, receiving them with love, exhorting them to trust in God's mercy and suggesting, with prudence and respect, concrete ways of conversion and sharing in the life of the community of the Church."

Oh, wait....... what?
 Who said that?
That can't be right, can it?
Happy Anniversary, Papa! (Hey, did he steal Papa Francesco's schtick?)

 

Strangely Fitting That the Sacrament of Marriage Should Be the Battleground On Which the War of Who Ought Be Admitted to Holy Communion is Fought

And no, I don't mean because wedded bliss sometimes gives way to wedded blitzkrieg...

Look at it this way - receiving the Sacrament of Unity when there is no unity, seeking to hold the Host when you don't hold to the teachings about grace and sin which the Church hands down from Christ, partaking of the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb without submitting to His leadership, enjoying the Bread of Heaven with the Mystical Body of Christ the tenets of which you don't fully espouse?

Why, it's kinda like enjoying the marital bed with a partner you haven't fully espoused.

Isn't it?

The outright lie you tell with your body by presenting form Communion when you are not in union with the Bride of Christ is, perhaps, the same lie you tell with your body when you have conjugal relations with someone who is not your sacramental bride or bridegroom.

Why would anyone want to tell such a lie, or to have such a lie told?

Papal Document: " In addressing this Encyclical to you, my Brother Bishops, it is my intention to state the principles necessary for discerning what is contrary to "sound doctrine", drawing attention to those elements of the Church's moral teaching which today appear particularly exposed to error, ambiguity or neglect."

Oh, sorry, wrong Pope.
But isn't that really at the root of the AL tizzy - one good, holy man's prudential judgement as to which teachings of the Church "today appear particularly exposed to error"?

Pope Francis' experience is different from Pope St. John Paul's, (and needless to say, from mine.)

I can disagree with him, (with either of them - I can even use gentle sarcasm, I think,) without calls for his head.

Frankly, if you think the Holy Father goes too far in decrying a dearth of mercy, and you express that by hurling words like idiot, nincompoop, evil, jackass and clown at him or those who agree with him - you're proving his point.

So if you think the Straighten Up and Fly Right Gang isn't nearly as dangerous to the salvation of humanity as the Wink Wink Nudge Nudge Absolutions For Everybody Absolutions on the House Party, make your case.

Explain why leaving sinners in their sin is the opposite of mercy, and ignoring the plight of the abandoned in favor of ministering to the abandonee is both unjust and unmerciful - but do it with love.

Here's my quibble of the day:

How is it possible that as the world grows ever smaller, information ever more accessible, instantaneous communication ever easier, social safety-nets of an ever finer mesh - how is it possible that people seeking to marry and be given in marriage in today's world are somehow more in need of a mulligan than their great- great- grandparents were?

"A Problem With the Truth"

While futzing around with tea and coffee and the morning news and getting ready for Mass this a.m., Himself asked if I had head the name, X, a "journalist,"  for a "major" "news" organization, (Oh dear! I'm going to run out of scare quotes!) forced to return a Pulitzer because she had fabricated her entire winning story.
He brought it up because he had just come across the Gabriel García Márquez bon mot, "it was unfair that she won the Pulitzer prize, but also unfair that she didn't win the Nobel Prize in Literature."
I refreshed his memory that it was only yesterday that we were discussing a Times piece about the growing problem of the dubious veracity of "documentary" movies which ought better to have been released with the "Inspired by true events" tagline.
There is a whole new style of documentary, challenged, no doubt but how compelling Ken Burns' (honest, excellent,) work is, to sex up their under-researched offerings with "re-enactments" of events that are imagined rather than attested to; completely bogus "facts" are presented, and the film-makers absolve themselves from their lies by saying, "not everyone agrees" and devoting a tenth of the time spent on the fiction to some sober, boring truth. (The Hitler History Channel, NGC, Discovery provide an outlet for much of this stuff.)
Then as we tangentalized the conversation into the recent spate of Advocacy Fiction Masquerading as Journalism, (e.g., Sabrina Eredely's campus rape hoax, the New York Times with the Duke lacrosse story, or its ugly and insensitive "embarrassment to Ireland" exploitation of the death of students at the hands of a criminally crooked construction company); deliberately spun yarns, (Blair, Glass,) reporters and editors too lazy or harried or eager, to fact check when scams are fed to them as news by PR hacks or comedians, (wolves in the Olympic hotel?); outright shills.... he realized that he hadn't noticed the sheer volume, how very ordinary, almost expected dishonesty has become in institutions in which one once had some trust.

Fr Ra Blake has a blog on Amoris Laetitia, but I'm going to leave that for now. I haven't really digested the, (yes, Father, very long,) document, or his opinion on it.
This is what I want to be read, I want people to notice -

I think the crisis in the Church is one of integrity. Benedict interpreted it as a crisis of the disintegration of the liturgy, following the idea that we believe what we say and do in the liturgy, lex credendi lex orandi. It stems of course from the 2nd Commandment,  that if we keep Holy the name of God, nothing we do in the name of God should be trivial or false, that our "yes means yes and no means no". The ending of our  prayers, "Through Our Lord Jesus Christ ..." turns them into a sacred oath. Lies and obfuscation have no place in the Christian life. There must be something very different in way Christians speak, most especially bishops and priests, Christ after all spoke with authority, unlike the religious and political leaders of his day. His words were witnessed to by God himself, the Father and the Spirit witness to Him as the Truth. It is as the Truth that Pilate is incapable of recognising Him, and therefore as the Truth that He is condemned and crucified. Those who are on the side of Truth listen to His voice, because He is the Word of God, the Son of the Father, full of Grace and Truth.
The child abuse crisis and consequent episcopal cover-ups revealed the Church or rather ["SOME of", please, Father!] its leaders as being without integrity, as being far from the truth, in fact many were shown to be downright liars. If we are to witness to the truth of Christ we need to be men and women of total integrity, the knotty wood of the Cross is the great sign of integrity, it is through our trustworthiness as witnesses to the resurrection that others are called to believe, if the Church cannot be trusted we cannot be faithful witnesses.
Perhaps it is not just in the Church but in society in general that there is a problem with the truth, manipulation by politicians, journalists, spin-doctors, political correctness, language manipulation all in one way or another create an environment of mistrust in which communion/communication between human beings breaks down. Its the tower of Babel situation there are so many voices crying out but no-one can hear what is being said. The Church is supposed to be different, making out of many nations one people, with one certain truth, down the centuries the Church has sought truth, the One Truth, now it seems to me that the Church is following the world, that bishops are emulating politicians, that we are not so much concerned with truth as its application or spin, that we no longer see truth as person but a commodity.

So, Benedict's Not the Only One Who May Have Retired a Bit Too Soon?

I kid - obviously the Pope Emeritus like the retired recently deceased Theologian of the Papal Household deserved, and undoubtedly needed some rest.

But look what Cardinal Cottier said of his "job," and think of how useful he could have been in the age of papal improv:

Before his retirement, Cardinal Cottier explained to the Catholic News Service that the most important part of his job was to ensure that the many thousands of words written by Vatican aides did not contain any dubious theology or phrases which could embarrass the Church.
The cardinal explained that he also had to ensure that the Pope did not express too much about some topics. “By this, I mean that when we have a theological issue that is still open to discussion and study, it’s not a good thing that the Pope pronounce on it too early. Because when the Pope speaks with authority, it means the discussion is closed.”

Requiescat in Pace, Cardinal Cottier

The theologian Swiss Cardinal Archbishop Georges Marie Martin Cottier O.P. has died.
May perpetual light shine upon him...
He was an eloquent foe of the "soft heresies" that sidle up next to the Truth such as a false ecumenism.
For instance:

"If the Church has set out guidelines for admission to the Eucharist of non-Catholic Christians and if she rejects inter-communion, it is because Eucharistic communion is not a starting point, [emphasis supplied] but because it expresses and brings to perfection a communion that presupposes in its entirety: communion in the teaching of the apostles, in the sacraments and in communion with the Apostolic College which Peter is the head.
Sometimes that position, not being understood, seems to our Protestant brothers unjustly harsh. It is a fraternal duty, therefore, that the Church says it does not recognize the right to dispose at will of what is a gift received from her Lord. His attitude is adoration, praise, and obedience."

Which promises to be an important truth to hold on to this week.

"Catholicism is a Very Hands-on Religion"

From the Chrism Mass homily of Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, OP, who has undergone quite a personal, physical trial.

Michelangelo's Creation of Adam [has been] recently restored, reproduced endlessly and ...the subject of many cheeky internet memes. Painted in 1511 or 1512 as part of his Genesis cycle for the Sistine Chapel ceiling, it has a bearded God, the Ancient of Days, surrounded by His spiritual creation, and a youthful man, brand new humanity, surrounded by material creation. Adam looks languorous, as if a lover just waking from sleep, as he gazes confidently at his Creator.
Instead of the images of God shaping the man out of clay or giving him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to bring life into him that previous painters had used to represent the moment of humanity's birth, Michelangelo chose to focus on the hands of God and man. As God stretches out his hand the man responds as if in a mirror image, declaring with the Book of Genesis that man and woman are made in God's image. Only a sliver of daylight separates God's hand from Adam's, showing both how close God is to us and yet transcendent.
Hands of course have great significance: friends shake hands, lovers hold hands, parents touch and tickle and wash children with their hands, we write, paint, play sport, make music, do manual labour, operate, nurse, drive, and so much else with our hands.
Catholicism is a very hands-on religion. We express our faith with hands together in prayer and with hands open in service. We put our hands to work in making a more just and compassionate world. And all our sacraments involve hands: pouring water, anointing with oil, absolving and blessing with the sign of the cross, holding hands as we make vows and exchange rings, calling down the Holy Spirit at baptism, confirmation and ordination with hands laid upon head and heart, calling that same Spirit down upon the elements in the epiclesis, holding the Eucharistic species at the consecration and again at their reception. Catholic hands are holy hands because they are for directing all creation to God; priestly hands are anointed with Chrism so they will bless and sacramentalize creation as if the hand of God were once more held out to touch us.

The Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection.... it's all God loving our bodies, not just our souls.
This has never been an "airy fairy" faith, it's never been about ideas absent an equal focus on real, living, breathing, bleeding, dying people.

But Catholicism is also not NOT about ideas.
This doctrinal/pastoral, belief/practice, faith/works, dogma/mercy binary some try to set up? this mistaken dichotomy that keeps bubbling over, every decade, century, millenium; setting one good against the other -- so misguided.

Rules? laws? rubrics? commandments? naming of and calling out of sin?

They're not to keep you in line, or keep you down, or keep you from being happy-- they're to KEEP  YOU  FROM  HURTING  YOURSELF.

We should thank God for them.

Holy Week Film Festival

Himself is an old movie junkie, so I have no doubt that this evening or tomorrow he will begin his annual Viewing of the Passions.
I used to avoid tv this week, but now that I no longer have musical/liturgical duties I do have plenty of time, and I don't think watching certain films is an at all inappropriate way to turn ones thoughts on what our Lord has done for us, so when the DVDs come out, (yes, we're that old,) I'll probably join him for some.

There was an excellent television movie that's always in the rotation.  The crucifixion is harrowing, there are first-rate, A-lister performances, and I require about 3/4 of a large box of Puffs to be able to see anything by the end.

I can only watch parts of the Mel Gibson film, but the very end, where Christ stands, alive and naked and strides forth from the tomb into the world Made New Again? and the sunlight streams through the hole in his hand?

Epic. (And That is what that word means. It doesn't describe a kegger. Or a golf tournament. Or a new nail color.)
(That reminds me, last week EWTN showed a fascinating and very moving film about St Edith Stein, starring the thrilling actress who portrays the Blessed Mother in the PotC. Look for it.)

But a film popped into my head after Mass this morning, which, if you haven't, you should see, and Holy Week is a pretty fine time to do so.
We have a lovely mosaic of the infant Jesus behind the altar, and I suddenly remembered a scene in Robert Duvall's masterful The Apostle.

He plays a pentecostal preacher on the lam, and the story of sin, redemption, and amendment is eloquently told.
What is so good affecting about it is that while it is a satisfying plot, with a premise, action, narrative and conclusion, yes, an actual ending - it also is is about those processes of sin, redemption, and amendment in a post-lapsarian world, and the atonement is on-going.
It doesn't seem to say, once saved, always saved, at least to me.
Salvation, once found, can be lost.
Our conversion, our turning toward the Lord must be continuing - which is a very un-Protestant notion, no?

There is a magnificent scene where Duvall is preaching, and he picks up a baby from the congregation, and marvels with his congregation how beautiful the infant is, how perfect, look at his perfect little hands! How his parents must love him!
Can you imagine hurting such a lovely thing? Who would allow that?

How can we wrap our minds around a father, THE Father, Who loves us so much He would allow a nail to be driven into the palm of his Beloved, His Only-Begotten, His One-In-Being-With-Him Son?

We hardly can.

Have you noticed how seldom new strains of theology, new attempts to "understand God" profess upfront that God is beyond my understanding, therefore the understanding of Him that I here express must perforce be inadequate and incomplete?
And how often breaks with "the old," with traditional lines of thought about God, contradiction of scripture even, basically boil down to, Well, that's not the way I would have done it if I were God, so that can't be right?

4 Big Mistakes in Catechesis?

Interesting, thoughtful piece from the never-less-than-worth-your-time Mons. Charles Pope.

One of the great struggles in the Church today is effectively catechizing God’s people. In a world so full of error, distortion, and half-truths, this has never been more necessary. I was asked recently to present my thoughts on this topic at a conference. I did so from the perspective not only of a pastor but also of one who grew up at the end of the era of the “old Church” and through the cultural revolution of late 1960s. Today’s post is the first part of my presentation at the conference; I’ll be posting the remainder over the next several days.

I'm looking forward to reading the rest.
The four "failed models" he presents are use of a "professional [ha!] class" of catechist, the priority on teaching children, the "perfunctory" nature of much of the catechesis, ("rote" learning comes in for it,) and that "the premise was authority, not truth itself."
As I said, really looking forward to the rest, but I take issue with a bit of it.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record I feel we can get nowhere unless we take a "Both/And" approach to virtually every question facing the Church.
Yes, learning should be a lifelong progress, but children must be the priority.
Look at secular life - it is more important to teach a 6 year old to read than to insure that voters keep abreast of current affairs, if for no other reason than that the second is impossible if the first is not accomplished.
No great building occurs without a foundation.
And is the emphasis on a "professional class" of catechist something of recent development? From households in 1st c. Jerusalem to villages cropping up in the environs of a medieval monastery to Don Bosco  instructing street children, was the actual instruction ever thought of as the task of the Domestic Church, (admittedly, Bosco may not have been the best example, his charges had no families.)

And, just my opinion, the greatest tragedy of religious education, no -- make that simply education, period, in my lifetime, is the neglect of the magnificent tool that is the child's memory. (Not going to whine again, and bore you with the story of why I don't know my times tables.)

And Truth, yes, but Arguments from Authority are not worthless - the problem is a failure to establish that anyone or anything has any authority, apart from Our Fearless Leader, Lord Relativism. (Not a benevolent dictator.)

But very much looking forward to new instalments.

You Go, Monsignor Pope!!!!!

Initiates and the Uninitiated

When I as a young whipper-snapper, the catechesis of callow Catholics was in a dormant stage, at least in my neck of the American woods.
We painted rocks and sang along with a guitar wielding high school girl from red plastic books, (the red plastic books may be a false memory, as Glory and Praise had not yet blighted the landscape - on the other hand, the girl in question, a friend of our family, was a world traveller, very sophisticated, she may have brought it back from somewhere exotic, like France. I'm just remembering, she was also the one who explained the meaning of "to sleep with." At a drive-in, us little ones tumbling in the back of the station wagon like pajamed puppies, adults and semi-adults in the two bench seats, there was a "coming attraction" touted which I now think must have been the Cardinal, while we waited to see something like 3 Lives of Thomasina. In it, a woman in a confessional said, "I slept with a man." I asked her later how sleeping could be a sin, and she explained that not much sleeping often occurred during the act of "sleeping with.")
Until Confirmation class virtually anything I learned about the Faith was from the way people behaved in church, which was very powerful, and from my parents, both by osmosis and deliberately.
As is only right.
But I digress.)
In any case, until I was an adult I never heard the specific phrase "sacraments of initiation." (My own confirmation was a good long ways after what we now know should have been the final of the three, I had skipped a grade and was allowed to make my Communion with my older class-mates, but according to the diocese, IIRC, had to wait for the Seven Gifts until I was the "right age." Although I was lucky, very lucky, suddenly, after years of strum and hum and craft projects, they wheeled an ancient nun with a hair-sprouting mole out of the back, wearing a mask like Hannibal Lecter, who TAUGHT us actual THINGS. You know, facts, and precepts and principles and doctrines. I shall be forever grateful to Sister Clare Cornelius.)
Another digression, sorry.

ANYWAY.

Since I am now in possession of this expression, the sacrament of initiation,  I was struck rather forcefully by a snippet I read.
"Family Day" in Italy was apparently an enormous outpouring of popular support for the Traditional, might I say Normal? notion of "family," despite possible neglect by, or at least ambiguity from the Pope and outright hostility on the part of some Italian bishops.
In following links to see what manner of man was head of the bishops' conference, I came across this from some time ago. It was,

reported that he said the Eucharist “is and must remain a ‘universal assembly’”, and that it must also be an “eloquent sign of the divine and his free gift for the ‘uninitiated’.”

I have nothing to say.
That was kind of a long way to go, I suppose for nothing to say.
Maybe I AM the Dutiful Brother.
But I want my prodigal brother to come home, I want him to!
But not to pop in for dinner, drop off his laundry for Mom or the servants to do and take off again, after pawning the finest robe and ring and sandals so he could squander the proceeds by resuming his life of dissipation.

Is that just me being selfish? Or is it me remembering that the spiritual acts of mercy are "not a devotion," they are required of us who dare to bear the name of Christian?

“When in the evening of life, we are asked if we fed the hungry and gave drink to the thirsty, we will also be asked if we helped persons come out of doubt, if we were committed to receive sinners, admonishing and correcting them, if we were capable of combatting ignorance, especially that concerning the Christian faith and the good life. This attention to the works of mercy is important: they are not a devotion. It is the concreteness of how Christians must carry forward the spirit of mercy.”