Abbey-Roads2

The smoke of Satan “prophesy“.

So anyway, Pewsitter picked it up, as did Catholic World News:  Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s piece on the interview with Cardinal Noe - the guy who ripped out the Altar of the Chair in St. Peter’s- commenting on Paul VI’s famous words many consider a prophesy…

Pope Paul  accepted the liturgical reforms after Vatican II “with pleasure,” Cardinal Noe said. He added that Paul VI was not be nature a sad man, but “he was saddened by the fact of having been left alone by the Roman Curia.” Regarding the late Pope’s famous remark about the “smoke of Satan,” Cardinal Noe said that he knew what Paul VI intended by that statement. In that denunciation, he said, the Pope “meant to include all those priests or bishops and cardinals who didn’t render worship to the Lord by celebrating badly Holy Mass because of an errant interpretation of the implementation of the Second Vatican Council. He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dross in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. So, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony.”  - CWN

Maybe that is the only meaning behind what the Holy Father said in the moment - but many, many more errors infiltrated the Church than what infected the liturgy, while many vocations wafted out the windows with the smoke.  (Don’t read too much into this, but as for unintended prophesy,  remember it was the high priest Caiaphas who inadvertently prophesied when he proposed to the Jews it was advantageous to have one man die for the people.  [Jn: 11:51, 18:14]  - Just my personal opinion and speculation here.) 

And of course, the Cardinal’s biggest omission - the role of the Masons in all of this.  Not one mention!  ROFLOL!     

I still can’t get my mind around this.

Feminist priests - not women priests - but the PC boyz - baptising kids using gender-neutral language; the baptisms were not only illicit, but invalid. 

Just think, Fr. John Doe’s parents were members of a dissident/progressive parish.  Little Johnny was baptised using the following formula:

 ”I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier.” - Words Matter

What’s the big deal? 

He’s not even a Christian!  None of the other sacraments he received were valid.  His ordination was not valid, so every Mass he celebrated was invalid - no Eucharist, no absolution, no last sacraments were ever administered by him, no marriages… nothing.  Now.  Do you see why it matters for liberal, dissident/protestant Catholic faith communities to follow the rubrics and ritual of the Roman Catholic Church?  And called to task when they fail to do so?

Wasn’t someone supposed to be in charge when all of this crap was going on?

Art: “End of his rope: the suicide of Fr. Ryan Erickson.” Ex-voto. - T.N.

The Bugnini guy wears Prada.

I’m just having fun with a few titles here - some people have real jobs in publishing, wherein that is all they do - they just dream up titles and headlines.  Anyway, Archbishop Marini, the former Vatican fashion director for liturgical costumes and Master of Ceremonies for papal liturgies has come out with a new book.  Catholic News Service is one of many to have the story:

The book, “A Challenging Reform,” was written by Archbishop Piero Marini, who recently ended a 20-year tenure as papal liturgist. His Vatican career began in 1965 in the office charged with implementing liturgical renewal.Archbishop Marini recounted the rise of a decentralized and dynamic reform movement in the 1960s and its “curialization” in the 1970s by Vatican officials afraid of losing control.

Many of the hard-won liturgical changes were accompanied by tensions and disagreements inside the Vatican’s central bureaucracy, he said.

The archbishop’s book, published by Liturgical Press, was scheduled for presentation Dec. 14 in London, where the author was being honored at a reception hosted by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor.

The book focuses in large part on Italian Father Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the consilium and its driving force. As a young priest, Archbishop Marini worked closely with Father Bugnini and at one point was his personal secretary. - CNS 

So anyway…

The Archbishop’s book should be an interesting read - and it just may support some of the criticisms of the post-Conciliar liturgical mess and reforms documented in another book, The Great Facade,  by Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods Jr.  The Ferrara/Woods book is a mean one, yet really tells it like it is when it comes to what happened in the Church since Vatican II.  If you are comfortable with the Church as it is, I suggest you never read it.

However, I’m sure Archbishop Marini’s book is more self-congratulatory and affirming of the liturgical changes that were slipped in and imposed upon the Church since the Council.  In fact, Alcuin Reid suggests the new book is hostile to the reforms of Pope Benedict XVI.  If Marini’s book is hostile to the Benedictine reforms, it may well substantiate some of the harsher criticisms of the V-II liturgical reforms posed by the authors of The Great Facade.  The following is an excerpt from a review of Marini’s book from the  British Catholic Herald:

The book is also an act of filial homage by Marini to his mentor, Bugnini. Marini was at Bugnini’s side in the work of reform from the outset while still a young deacon and priest. It is a pity that their close personal association is not clearly acknowledged or discussed here.

Nevertheless, the book is significant because for the first time the political manoeuvring and motivations of Bugnini and Lercaro et al as they sought rapidly to bring about a “a liturgy that would be more pastoral and open to the needs of the contemporary world” are openly discussed.

What is clear is that the implementation of the liturgical reform was politicised from the beginning. The “enemy”, the Congregation for Rites, which was responsible for the liturgy after the Council of Trent, “was still firmly anchored to a limited tradition since the Council of Trent and not in favour of the broad innovations desired by the Council.” - Catholic Herald

It sounds as if Piero Marini’s words may someday be held against him.

[To read reviews for The Great Facade go to: Seattle Catholic; and  Christian Order]

Vatican II and the New Springtime.

I think one focus of study for anyone who entered religious life since the 1970’s has been the Documents of Vatican II - at least that was the case for me.  Over the years I return to ’spot check’ certain points in the Conciliar Documents, while recently, I’ve been reading them more closely.  After all, Pope Benedict XVI stands by the Second Vatican Council and recommends we reread the documents from our vantage point of 40 years after…

“And thus it seems to me that we must rediscover the great heritage of the Council, which is not a “spirit” reconstructed behind the texts, but the great conciliar texts themselves, reread today with the experiences that we have had and that have born fruit in so many movements, in so many new religious communities.” - Benedict XVI informal Q and A with priests of Auronzo di Cadore, 2007 

In retrospect, I’ve often been surprised by the positive outlook the Conciliar Popes have taken regarding the Council, beginning with Blessed John XXIII when he convened the assembly in 1962.  Addressing the Council Fathers, John XXIII spoke of the “happy circumstances under which the Ecumenical Council commences.”  (No disrespect intended, but what spiritual realm was he living in?  It was the height of the Cold War, among other things.)  The Pope continued:

In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure.  In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin… We feel we must disagree with these prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster…”  John XXIII, Opening Speech, October 11, 1962

Who were the prophets of gloom and what were they saying to the Holy Father, and why was the Pope so convinced to the contrary?  Especially when his predecessor, Pius XII had not been all that optimistic for the future?

Affirming the Council.

While on vacation this past summer, Pope Benedict admitted the difficulties which followed in the wake of the Council, even hinting at a personal disillusionment, yet true to form, he proposes a rather positive outlook for the true teaching  of Vatican II.

“I, too, lived through Vatican Council II, coming to Saint Peter’s Basilica with great enthusiasm and seeing how new doors were opening. It really seemed to be the new Pentecost, in which the Church would once again be able to convince humanity. After the Church’s withdrawal from the world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it seemed that the Church and the world were coming together again, and that there was a rebirth of a Christian world and of a Church of the world and truly open to the world.

We had such great hopes, but in reality things proved to be more difficult. Nonetheless, it is still true that the great legacy of the Council, which opened a new road, is a “magna carta” of the Church’s path, very essential and fundamental.”- Q and A at Auronzo di Cadore.

In between the extremes - there is the fruit.

Pope Benedict, just as his predecessor, speaks positively of the Second Vatican Council, despite the confusion which the Council appears to have generated over the years.  Benedict XVI compares it to the turmoil which followed other Councils, especially the Council of Nicaea.

“In his book on the Holy Spirit, saint Basil compares the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicaea to a nighttime naval battle, in which no one recognizes another, but everyone is pitted against everyone else. It really was a situation of total chaos: this is how saint Basil paints in vivid colors the drama of the period following the Council of Nicaea. 

So it is not now, in retrospect, such a great surprise how difficult it was at first for all of us to digest the Council, this great message. To imbue this into the life of the Church, to receive it, such that it becomes the Church’s life, to assimilate it into the various realities of the Church is a form of suffering, and it is only in suffering that growth is realized. To grow is always to suffer as well, because it means leaving one condition and passing to another.”- Q and A at Auronzo di Cadore.

Spiritual rain…

The Holy Father went on to point to two great upheavals in the last century which seemed to have complicated the growth expected from the Council.  These disorientations took place with the “cultural revolution”  of the late 1960’s, followed by “the fall into nihilism after 1989″ -both of which led to even greater confusion after the Council.  However, Pope Benedict see’s a silver lining beneath the apparent confusion. 

“It seems very important to me that we can now see with open eyes how much that was positive also grew following the Council: in the renewal of the liturgy, in the synods – Roman synods, universal synods, diocesan synods – in the parish structures, in collaboration, in the new responsibility of laypeople, in intercultural and intercontinental shared responsibility, in a new experience of the Church’s catholicity, of the unanimity that grows in humility, and nonetheless is the true hope of the world.”- Q and A at Auronzo di Cadore.

Really?  I guess we ought to have the same hope the post-Conciliar Popes have had.  Although the seemingly apparent disconnect with reality reminds me of  Evelyn Waugh’s illustration of a popular Protestant misunderstanding concerning papal infallibility:

“Suppose the Pope looked up, saw a cloud and said, “It’s going to rain”, would that be bound to happen?
“Oh yes, Father.”
“But suppose it didn’t?”
“I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.”  - Brideshead Revisited.

I’m certain I am too sinful to see all the fruits of Vatican II.  Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

Of a Catholic Cardinal - or what I told the Pope.

Reading in the Biffi…

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi’s new book seems to be a must read for anyone concerned about the inner workings of the Magisterium, or at least the observations and opinions of one more or less traditional cardinal.  Sandro Magister  has a good overview of the book, with lengthy excerpts, which are somewhat provocative.  I think traditional Catholics will see they have had a friend in Cardinal Biffi, especially since some of his criticisms clearly echo their own.   (Remember, I’m not a Vatican watcher, nor a cleric groupie, so I know little to nothing about Biffi - which is also why I find his book interesting.)

Who’s sorry now?

Not every Catholic unhappy with JPII’s apology to the world for the sins of Catholics throughout the centuries were traditionalists or sedes - normal, middle of the road Catholics had a few problems with the concept as well.  Cardinal Biffi did too.  Here is what he had to write about it:

At table, the Holy Father said to me at one point: “Did you see that we have changed that statement in ‘Tertio millennio adveniente’?” The draft, which had been sent to the cardinals before publication, contained this expression: “The Church acknowledges as her own the sins of her children”; an expression that - as I had stated with respectful frankness - could not be set forward. In the definitive text, the idea had been changed as follows: “The Church always acknowledges as her own her sinful children.” At that moment, the pope took care to remind me of this, knowing that it must have pleased me.

 I replied by expressing my gratitude and manifesting my complete satisfaction with the theological formulation. But I also felt prompted to add a reservation of a pastoral nature: the unheard-of initiative of asking pardon for the errors and inconsistencies of past centuries wouldto,  in my view, scandalize the “little ones,” those most favored by Jesus (cf. Matthew 11:25): because the faithful, who do not know how to make many theological distinctions, would see these self-accusations as a threat against their serene adhesion to the ecclesial mystery, which (as all the professions of faith tell us) is essentially a mystery of sanctity.

And these were the very words of the pope’s reply: “Yes, that is true. That will require some thought.” Unfortunately, he did not reflect on it sufficiently. - www.Chiesa

That evil Council and “aggiornamento”.

I think many trads believe the Council has been the source of pretty much all of our troubles in the Church, often accusing key players of deception and dirty tricks.  Cardinal Biffi  just may agree:

“Pope Roncalli had assigned to the Council, as its task and objective, the “internal renewal of the Church,” an expression more pertinent than the word “aggiornamento” (”updating,” also one of John XXIII’s words), which, however, met with undeserved success.  

This was certainly not the intention of the supreme pontiff, but “aggiornamento” included the idea that the “holy nation” should seek to conform itself more closely, not to the eternal plan of the Father and his desire for salvation (as it had always believed it should do in its attempts at genuine “reform”), but to the “giornata” (”day”; to temporal, worldly history); and it thus gave the impression of indulging in “chronolatry,” to use the expression of disdain coined later by Maritain.

This was certainly not the intention of the supreme pontiff, but “aggiornamento” included the idea that the “holy nation” should seek to conform itself more closely, not to the eternal plan of the Father and his desire for salvation (as it had always believed it should do in its attempts at genuine “reform”), but to the “giornata” (”day”; to temporal, worldly history); and it thus gave the impression of indulging in “chronolatry,” to use the expression of disdain coined later by Maritain.

Was there not pastoral relevance in the clear statement that Jesus of Nazareth was God and consubstantial with the Father, as had been defined at Nicea? Was there not pastoral relevance in clarifying the realism of the Eucharistic presence and the sacrificial nature of the Mass, as happened at Trent? Was there not pastoral relevance in presenting the primacy of Peter in all its value and all its implications, as Vatican Council I had taught? - www.Chiesa 

“He’s no Pope, he should be selling bananas.”

Supposedly those are Cardinal Spellman’s words about Pope John XXIII upon returning to NYC after the conclave which elected Roncalli.  Cardinal Biffi is not as critical, indeed, he respected John XXIII, stating he was a good Pope, but a bad teacher.  Which is kind of a contradiction in terms, since I thought the Pope’s role is to teach.  Again, here’s the Biffi:

There were just a few statements of his that I found puzzling. And these were precisely the ones that won over hearts and minds more than any others, because they seemed consistent with people’s instinctive aspirations.

There was, for example, his judgment of reproof on the “prophets of doom.”

The expression became, and remained, extremely popular, and naturally so: the people do not like party poopers; they prefer those who promise good times over those who advance fears and reservations. And I, too, admired the courage and drive, during the last years of his life, of this “young” successor of Peter.

But I recall that a sense of perplexity seized me almost immediately. In the history of Revelation, the true prophets were the ones who usually announced chastisements and calamities, as in Isaiah (chapter 24), Jeremiah (chapter 4), and Ezekiel (chapters 4-11). - www.Chiesa

The sounds of silence… on Communism.

Cardinal Biffi delicately phrases his words on the seemingly glaring oversight of the Second Vatican Council to condemn communism, which may lend support to factions of conspiracy theorists regarding the infiltration of the Council by communist sympathizers.  The Cardinal does not go so far as to say this, but he does note the omissions of any mention of communism in the Council documents.  More from the cardinal:

“Communism: the Council does not address this. If one attentively scans the comprehensive index [of the Council documents], it is stunning to confront this categorical silence. 

Communism (for the first time in the history of human folly) had practically imposed atheism upon the populations subjected to it, as a sort of official philosophy and a paradoxical “religion of the state”; and the Council, although it addresses the case of atheists, does not speak of it. 

During the same years when the ecumenical council sessions were being held, the communist prisons were still places of unspeakable sufferings and humiliations inflicted upon numerous “witnesses of the faith” (bishops, priests, devoted lay believers in Christ); and the Council does not speak of it. - www.Chiesa 

I can’t wait to read the entire book. 

Go to www.Chiesa to read the excerpt from the book on what the Cardinal told the Pope after Ratzinger had been elected to the Chair of Peter. 

Though Blessed John XXIII died on June 3, 1962, his liturgical feast is October 11, the same date as the opening of the first session of the Second Vatican Council, which began in 1962.  Pope John had been elected to the Throne of St. Peter on October 28, 1958, just nineteen days after the death of Pius XII. 

A pro-choice faith. 

I first heard the term Cafeteria Catholicism in the 1970’s, shortly after Paul VI released Humane Vitae.  It has been the perfect cliche to describe modern Catholics, who pick and choose what they will or will not accept as regards Catholic doctrine and discipline.

The other day, as Iwas getting a haircut, the woman I have gone to for years brought up the fact that she is sending her daughter to Catholic school this year.  In all the time I have known her we have never discussed religion.  I was surprised that she attends Mass regularly, goes to confession, and raises her kids strictly.  She told me her husband, who is Lutheran, is now going to come into the Church.  She explained that he always had gone to Mass with the family, but refrained from receiving Communion, now he believes and  wants to receive, so he is coming into the Church.

I feel like a stranger in a strange land.

I don’t want to make this too long, but let me explain that I’m something of a hermit.  I do not have that much exposure to average married couples and families who do the cafeteria thing.  Of course I read on blogs about non-Catholics going to Communion, and I know people pick and choose what they believe in, but I don’t really engage in conversations with anyone about it.  But it’s not like I’m unaware of people doing their own religious thing either - I know it exists.

To make a long story short, Linda (that’s her name) mentioned that their friends from Church were telling her that her husband could go to Communion, Catholic or not.  Her friend revealed that her husband, who is a member of the music ministry for the Church, is not Catholic, but he goes to Communion all of the time.  Linda said she doesn’t accept that, but did not want to get into a discussion with her friends about it.

Amazingly, Linda is rather orthodox in her faith, and does just about everything ‘by the book’.  For instance, she will not go to Communion if she missed Mass the previous Sunday.  She will go to confession first, and she doesn’t think Communal Penance without individual confession is valid.  I told her she was correct.

I accept everything but this and that.

I was impressed that Linda is so traditional in her practice of the faith.  Then she told me the one thing she doesn’t accept, which is the ban on contraception.  She used the pill until she had a tubal, despite the fact the Church teaches this is wrong.  So there she was after all, standing in the cafeteria line, even though her tray was full, she left out a very important piece of the pie.  My heart sank.

As we discussed other issues, I realized she didn’t accept a few other things.  I hid my disappointment and resolved to pray for her, recognizing she was convinced that she was right.  She was raised in the late 1970’s, attended Catholic school, and learned that it is nearly impossible for a person to commit a mortal sin and that conscience reigned supreme.  Linda is pretty much living what she was taught, although she obviously rejects some of the errors.

“Whoever has ears to hear ought to hear.” - Luke 8

I know many of my readers and other Catholics would have tried to point out to Linda the error of her thinking, but I recognized she knew what the correct teaching is and decided to reject it.  There is little to be gained by arguing with a person. I explained that I agreed with what the Church taught, and she tried to justify why she rejected it.  Although she was a bit more traditional than her church friends, she nevertheless did not believe everything the Church teaches.  She simply refuses to accept it - I can’t make her believe.

Today’s Gospel reading about the seed and the sower helped me understand the situation in a new light.  Cafeteria Catholics “may look but not see, and hear but not understand.”  Indeed, the word of God is given to all, but not all accept it.  In the beginning, some accept it with joy and enthusiasm, “but the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts that they may not believe and be saved.”  Those on “rocky ground” may receive the word with great devotion, and accept many of the externals of religion, yet their enthusiasm is superficial and they abandon the faith as soon as temptation, challenges or difficulties come along.  

However, the real cafeteria Catholic is the one whose faith disintegrates, little by little, because of the anxieties of life.  (Anxieties over having too many children, or having found the person you love but are not able to marry because one of you is divorced, or you are same-sex, and so on.)  Oftentimes the cafeteria Catholic is rich in his own intellectual prowess, and knows more than the outdated ’medieval’ Church.  In other cases, his material wealth and luxurious lifestyle inform him  there is no need for religion - except that which suits him.  For one reason or another, the faith becomes just another aspect of one’s life, packaged and compartmentalized, placed on the shelf, and if it is convenient, to be taken out on Sundays.

“Are they few in number who will be saved?”

I’ll conclude with this story Linda told me.  She said that last spring, when her parish had Communal Penance, the new pastor  informed everyone that there would be no general absolution, that priests would be available for individual confessions at the conclusion of the service.  Linda said that in the past, the church was filled to capacity for Communal Penance, whereas this year, hardly anyone showed up - because they were expected to make individual confessions.  I said “That is good!  You see, the priests must correct the abuses with authentic catechesis and providing the sacraments as they are meant to be administered.  This will eventually get everyone on the same page.”

Linda protested, “But nobody showed up for the penance service.  That is what will happen if they try to enforce all of these rules on people.”  I think Linda is a very typical, average Catholic in the pews on Sundays.

Obviously, the cafeteria is not  closed.

You say you want a revolution…

Everyone likes to blame the baby-boomers for all the liberalism we have become accustomed to in the Church today.  Few realize it all started long before the boomers were even capable of expressing a revolutionary thought.  How many young people today understand that the push for liturgical reform, modernizing the liturgy, and using the vernacular was a desire experimented with before the Council?  How many people realize that it was Pius XII who called for women religious to modify their habits to adapt to the demands of modern life, such as the nuns who drove cars or worked in medicine?  (Although later, many modified themselves out of the habit entirely.)

When I was in grade school, the nuns taught us - way back then - songs such as ”Kumbaya” - and we listened to the Congolese Missa Lubaand had to sing Negro spirituals.  (Although black kids in the class were disciplined until they spoke without an “accent”.)  I think it was probably the missionary sisters who came back to the motherhouse with stories of how fervent the African Catholics were, and how much the native people enlivened the liturgy with their exuberant participation and singing, which motivated the sisters to jump on board as regards the reform of the liturgy.  When Vatican II came along, it was a dream come true for a good share of them.

I di’n't know nothin’ ’bout Civil Rights.

Then in the very late 1950’s, early 1960’s the nuns began to get deeply involved in politics - in and through the Civil Rights movement.  (Of course, we had a Catholic President then as well.)  The nuns marched alongside priests and ministers, protesting segregation and demanding the right to vote for black people.  Without doubt it was a good thing, except, in the mid-’60’s the revolutionary spirit suddenly crept into the convent, along with a strong feminist understanding of power, individualism, and independence.  Which happens to be another reason why we have the American Catholic Church we have today.

“Yes Sister, whatever you say Sister!”

So don’t put all the blame on boomers - blame the Sisters of St. Joseph of Margaret Sanger, and the other storm trooperorders who taught us.  (After all, many of them were from the same generation as my parents and your grandparents.)  Funny, what they subsequently failed to realize, their habits spoke louder than words.

(Disclaimer:  The religious women who taught us are to be highly praised for their sacrifice and dedication, no doubt about it.  Just as they ought to be commended and honored for their heroic work in the Civil Rights struggle.  This has been my personal reflection on what, in part,  may have contributed to the decline of religious life in the U.S., as well as an offering towards understanding why the American Catholic Church got to be so liberal.) 

[Update: 7/31/07 - I just found a post at Cafeteria is Closed on this subject; an article by Benedict Groeschl in First Things, discussing the theological and psychological dynamics at work in the decline of established religious communities in the U.S..] 

“The times, they are a’changin’!” - Bob Dylan

I wondered what everyone would blog about after the Motu Proprio, (Summorum Pontificum) had been released.  Just as I thought, the blogs are reporting upon the “dissidents” who disagree with it or seem to be protesting it…in great - and at times - tiresome detail.

Not everyone who disagrees is a dissident mind you, and disagreement doesn’t necessarily mean disobedience or prohibition.  There has to be a period of adjustment, especially for older priests, religious and some of their bishops who have been trained for the past 40 years to look with suspicion upon traditional minded Roman Catholics and those who favored the TLM.  They were trained and educated to believe anything pre-Vatican II was evil, suppressed, out of date, reactionary - all of that nonsense.  And it must be remembered, they passed this instruction along to countless school children, college students, their parents - in short, the average person in the pew.

“A long time comin’…” - Crosby, Stlls, and Nash

Not a few of these people would never even categorize themselves as dissident, much less liberal Catholics.  Many, in good faith sincerely accepted the newer theologies, exclusive (inclusive?) peace and justice theories, freedom of conscience misconceptions, and experiments in liturgy, as the force and focus of Catholic teaching.  For instance, many honestly and sincerely believe clerical clothing and religious habits are no longer relevant to contemporary culture.  They believe Kumbaya liturgies with dancers and sway-to-the-beat inspirational music is good liturgy.   Many really do see the presence of Christ in the poor and the marginalized more realistically than in the Eucharistic species.  Remember, this has been the evolution of training many received for over 40 years now.

“A long time gone…” - Crosby, Stills, and Nash

Not a few have been so spiritually hijacked, they have become scandalized by the beautiful patrimony and mysticism of Catholic tradition, which is entering into a renaissance, or ‘new springtime’ as JPII called it.  They need time to adjust, and see, unlike the reforms of Vatican II, the “reform of the reform” is not an imposition, rather an invitation to a greater and more active participation in the fullness of the Mystical Body of Christ and centuries of genuine piety and holiness.  Many have lost the concept, the experience of the sacred…hence, it is foreign and perhaps even fearsome for many of them.  It is going to take some adjustment, and we shouldn’t mock or deride them for it, constantly goading them in their bewilderment.

All of us must have patience and great charity.  I think we ought to carefully ponder the Lord’s words today in the Gospel.  When asked if the weeds that infected the field of grain ought to be pulled up, Our Lord says, “No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the grain along with them.” (Matt. 13)

After 40 years of bad habits, it will take time and patience, humility and charity, to repair what was lost.