Homily for the 3rd Sunday of Easter

Acts 5:27-32;1:40-41

Revelation 5:11-14

John 21:1-19

Our readings today speak to us of the authority of Jesus Christ as Son of God and Risen Lord, and the authority he gave his apostles and His Church to teach in his name and pass down what He taught them. This authority, of course, is still with us in the Church today. While the Successor of Peter and the other Successors of the Apostles still have the authority given to them by Jesus Christ and they are the most obvious outward human expression of the Church's spiritual and temporal authority, these Scriptures have a message for every one of us about our duty to spread the Gospel. It isn't the duty of the clergy to spread the Gospel (the Good News of Jesus Christ), it is the duty of every believer.

In our first reading from the Acts of the Apostles, Peter and some of the other disciples were placed before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish temple Council that administered not only the Temple, but the Jewish law during that time period. Peter would have been well aware of the reality that sitting on that very Council would have been some of the men who took the decision to put Jesus himself to death. They didn't want to hear anything else about the Nazarene, and they certainly didn't want to hear that they were responsible for his death, let alone that he had risen from the dead. They tried telling the apostles not to teach in the name of Jesus, Acts tells us that they didn't arrest the apostles at first because they were afraid of the reaction of the people. The followers of Jesus were already growing in number, so it begs the question: Why were they growing in number when the persecution of believers was real? Because those early followers of Jesus were not afraid to spread the message, and it wasn't just Peter and the 12, it was the whole Christian community. Very early in the life of the Church, who's first believers understood exactly what the words of Jesus meant when he said go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, and they set about doing exactly that, and they weren't afraid to tell the world exactly who Jesus was. The world didn't always want to follow in return, in fact most of the time they didn't want to do that at all, just as they don't today. The world has other priorities that usually have little to do with the things of God, but in the early Church those first Christians made God the priority and they wanted to spread the Gospel everywhere, and they understood the risks they were taking to do it.

It wasn't just the Apostles or the notables among the early followers of The Way (that's what the very first Christians called themselves, followers of The Way) who concerned themselves with the responsibility of bringing the message of the good news of Jesus to the world, every believer concerned themselves with spreading the Good News, and indeed that is what the Church teaches us, spreading the Gospel doesn't just happen here in church, it happens every day when we are going about our lives, and it's our responsibility to spread the message, firstly and most importantly by the lives we lead.

Today's Gospel gives us one of the most important post Resurrection appearances of Jesus. Peter and some of the other disciples went fishing and Jesus was waiting for them on the shore, John tells Peter that it's the Lord after the man on the shore tells them to throw the net on the right side of the boat and they would find fish. Not only did they catch fish but Scripture gives us a number, it says that they caught 153 large fish. One commentary I've read about this passage said that during this time period, the known number of kinds or breeds of fish was 153. I've never been able to verify that, but if there is any truth to that, it tells us something remarkable about what Jesus is trying to illustrate in this whole incident. He's trying to show his fishers of men that the whole world is welcome to be a part of his body if they choose. The Gospel also tells us that this is the third time Jesus showed himself to the disciples after he had risen from the dead.

St. Peter, we know from the accounts of the Passion, three times denied Jesus on the night before He was crucified. Here, Jesus asked him three times "do you love me" and when Peter responds in the affirmative the first two times he says "feed my lambs,"and "tend my sheep," but the last time the response of the Lord was "feed my sheep." We often think of this passage as representative of the Lord's charge to Peter after he had risen from the dead, and that interpretation isn't wrong, but there's more to it than that. The question that Jesus asks Peter is one that he is asking all of us today. When Jesus asked Peter the question first, he asked him "Do you love me more than these?" What this means in the most literal and obvious sense is "do you love me more than you love the things of this world, or the esteem of others?" After Jesus died and rose, we can see in today's Gospel that initially Peter went back to his family business of running a fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, of course, followers of Christ have to find a way to support themselves like everyone else, indeed St. Paul chided some of the early believers for using their faith and their love of the spiritual life in Christ as an excuse not to work or go about the business of their daily living when he told the Thessalonians "if any will not work, neither let him eat," but Jesus was calling Peter to something more, to abandon attachment to the things of the world for the sake of spreading the Gospel. In the same Gospel passage Jesus is calling all of us, as disciples and followers of His, to abandon an unhealthy attachment to worldly things, because we are all supposed to be witnesses to the Gospel and spread the message, something that it's very hard to do if we're worried about the way the world looks at us. 

Jesus' request to Peter is "feed my sheep," and there is a very real way in which this request applies to us. One cannot help but be drawn to our First Communicants last week. They are early in their journey of Faith, but we hope that we will be able to be an encouragement to them, whether we are a deacon or priest, or a catechist or helper, or just a parishioner that encourages the children to pray. Jesus told us that if we harm the faith of his little ones, it would be better for us if a millstone were tied around our neck and we were thrown into the sea. Whether it's the children just beginning their journey of Faith, supporting a new Catholic or someone showing an interest in the faith, or simply encouraging a fellow parishioner or visiting or calling a fellow parishioner who perhaps we haven't heard from in a while… We are all called to play a role in feeding the Lord's sheep and keeping the pasture well kept. 

Jesus is asking us "do you love me more than these?" He is asking all of us if we love him unto death, just as he loved us so much that he gave his life for us. We are all faced with having to answer the Lord's question. What answer shall we give him?

Homily for the First Sunday of Advent, 2021

Jeremiah 33:14-16

1 Thessalonians 3:12-13, 4:1-2

Luke 21:25-28, 34-36

If you are one of those who take the time to follow the daily readings of the Church each day (and I sincerely hope that you do) or you attend or watch daily Mass each day, you know that the readings this past week have taken on what can best be described as a kind of apocalyptic theme. We've been hearing the discourse of Jesus as described in the 21st chapter of St Luke's Gospel, which is Luke's account of Jesus' discourse to the disciples on the times of trouble that they would experience in their journey to spread the good news of Jesus Christ to the ends of the Earth, and that the whole world would experience before the Lord's final return at the end of time as we know it. It's easy to see why the Church would direct us to those kinds of readings at the end of the liturgical year, because it's the end of the cycle that we use to mark sacred time, so at the close of the year the Church wants to draw our attention to the reality that the day will come when Jesus returns in glory and this world as we know it will also come to a close. 

When we hear the more apocalyptic passages in the Gospels at the end of the liturgical year, they also serve as a personal reminder to each of us that even if we don't live to see the end of days and the final return of Christ in our lifetime, it is a sure and certain reality that we will personally meet the Lord and stand before him, and we should always be ready for that moment, it could come any day, we do not know when, where, or how.

We've come now to the first Sunday of Advent, it's an entirely new Liturgical Year, and yet here we are on the first Sunday of Advent and the Church has us in Luke 21 again, with Jesus speaking near the end of that discourse reminding his hearers to pray for the perseverance to see their way through the various tribulations that they will have to undergo as his followers, and prepare to meet Him at any time.

We've just celebrated Thanksgiving (I'm still full!), and the secular world is already ramping up for Christmas. We can find twenty-four hours a day and 7 days a week Christmas music on our radios or our favorite music streaming app. We are currently living through one of the worst inflationary cycles I can remember in my lifetime, but that doesn't seem to stop the pursuit of holiday profit, or the obsession with many to make sure they have the right number of gifts or that everything is perfect for Christmas, and yet the Church is reminding us in our readings today that these worldly things with which we are concerned - things which are not sinful in and of themselves - can be made sinful when we make those things the purpose of this season or the purpose of our lives. Jesus is reminding us that as surely as we celebrate the first Advent and we begin to focus our minds on the reality of the Incarnation of the Son of God, that there is and will be a Second Advent, and that Advent will be the one when the Son of God returns in glory. The reason that Advent is a wonderful time to reflect on that reality is precisely because we need the reminder every year (and certainly this year) that the things of this world are passing things, we cannot take them with us at the end of this Life or at the end of all things.

It is easy for us to forget in our everyday world the reality of the end of life and of the end of things. We don't often tend to dwell on this because Jesus himself told us we did not know the day or the hour that he would return, and we are repeatedly warned in the New Testament for us to carry on our lives. Before the Ascension, when the Apostles asked the Lord if he was going to restore the Kingdom, the Lord's response was that it was not for us to "know the times and the seasons which the Father has under his own power." (cf. Acts 1:7)

It bears remembering, however, that at every Mass we proclaim the mystery of faith, and we say just as St. Paul did that when we partake of the Eucharist, we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes again. You might even recall that some years back before our current Roman Missal came into use, we often proclaimed at the Mystery of faith the words "Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again."

We don't know when that will be, but that is really the point. Whether it is our own death or the Final Consummation of things at the end of the age, all of us will someday meet the Lord face to face. In the end, at the Last Judgement, He will either tell us "well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Master's house," (cf. Matthew 25:21) or he will say "depart from me you worker of iniquity, I never knew you." (cf. Matthew 7:21-23) 

Advent provides for us a very wonderful and special opportunity to truly deepen our relationship with Jesus who is God become Man. This truly wonderful season allows us to enter more deeply into the mystery not only of the Incarnation and the First Advent of Our Lord, but also the reality that he will return in glory, there will be a Second Advent of Christ, and even now the holy spirit is trying to prepare our hearts for that reality.

We can be open to that preparation, both to celebrate the Incarnation at Christmas and anticipate the Lord's return by looking for Christ amongst our neighbors. We know that this time of year there is need and want all around us, but especially this year when so many people are experiencing the effects of some very hard times in our country. Jesus asked his disciples "when the son of man comes, will he find faith on Earth?" We might also ask ourselves that if he came today, would Jesus find that we are spending our time going about the Lord's work, of spreading the Gospel, and loving and caring for our neighbor?

It's a wonderful time of year to renew our commitment to doing exactly that.

Homily for the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time - The Sacrament of Matrimony

Genesis 2:18-24

Hebrews 2:9-11

Mark 10:2-16

Those of you who have listened to my preaching for quite some time now know that it tends to providentially happen that I very often find myself preaching on some of the things in scripture which are known as the "hard sayings of Jesus," things which are very important parts of the Christian Life and which have always been very difficult to live out, but especially so in the world in which we find ourselves living in this hour of history.

Today's Old Testament reading and today's Gospel are meant as an illustration for us of God's plan for humanity and the human family. God made humanity male and female, and he did so for a reason. It has been the plan of God from the beginning of all time that the human race should be perpetuated in the family, and that families are themselves perpetuated when men and women come together as husband and wife and become one flesh. That plan is so important to humanity that Jesus reminds us that it has always been the intent of God that the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is indissoluble, and that has always been and remains today the teaching of the Church.

The plan of God for the human race from the very beginning, as Jesus reminds us in the Gospel today, is that God made humanity male and female, and that God intended a man to leave his Father and Mother and cleave to his wife and with her to become one flesh. It was thus from the very beginning, and that is made clear to us both in Genesis and in more than one place in the Gospels. This was a difficult thing when Jesus said it over 2,000 years ago, it was difficult for the Pharisees that heard it, because they were used to the religious laws of that time which said that they could simply declare that they "put their wife away," that's what they called it "putting her away." I could only imagine how dehumanizing such a pseudo ritual must have been for the women who were on the other side of it in those days.

Yet in this day and age in which we live, not only has divorce become commonplace in society at large, but we see it and its effects in the very heart of the Church today. We understand that part of this is because of human sin and brokenness, that is true, but a huge part of the reason that we see the effects of divorce in the Church today is because so many people have forgotten what matrimony is and it is supposed to be. Pope Francis himself has warned that a big part of the reason why the number of declarations of nullity are so high is because so many young people enter into marriage with a false idea of what this institution is, and what it is about.

Jesus gives us a real lesson on what marriage is about because immediately after he tells his disciples not once, but twice about the permanence of Holy Matrimony, we then see in the same Gospel text that people brought children to Jesus for him to touch them and the disciples tried to rebuke the people who brought the children. Jesus rebuked the disciples instead, he reminded them and all of his listeners that we all have to receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, that is to have the faith of a child- or we can't enter into it. We are told that Jesus blessed the children who were brought to him. In doing this, and in placing the blessing of children in this context in the Word of God, Jesus is showing us one of the critical reasons why the institution of marriage was created and the Sacrament of Matrimony instituted, and that is for the well-being, and the safety, and the good upbringing of children, right along with the good and well-being of both spouses.

Holy Mother Church teaches us and has always taught us that a family with a mother and a father and siblings (if God gives children) is the normative means by which God gives humanity to bring up children and to advance society and human flourishing. In saying this and in being reminded of this today, we are not saying that good and holy young people cannot come from a single parent home, or from an alternative situation over which they had little control. No, what we are saying is what Jesus says, and that is that the plan of God is, and has always been, for children to be brought up in families made up of mothers and fathers, and both mothers and fathers are of equal importance, even though they have different and distinct roles. Even the raw statistics tell us that God set down his plan and his way for a reason, some of the best social scientists saw that many decades ago.

However, rather than acknowledge in humility that God's plan is really for the best and that humanity in our brokenness and sinfulness are the ones who screw that up, and seek repentance and healing and reconciliation, in our culture today we think we know better than Jesus Christ, and the culture seeks to redefine what marriage is, what family is, and even today what constitutes male and female, which is now a matter of choice rather than divine appointment according to some.

Holy Mother Church teaches us clearly that the Sacraments are the ordinary means by which our Lord confers Grace on humanity and that there are seven of these Sacraments. Three of the sacraments are Sacraments of Initiation or acceptance into God's family, the Church. (Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist), that two of the Sacraments are Sacraments that Jesus gives us for healing our bodies and our souls, (the Anointing of the Sick and the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession), but then we are given two Sacraments that are Sacraments of Service. The Sacraments of Service are Holy Orders, or ordination, and the Sacrament of Matrimony. Holy Matrimony is so important in the plan of God that the relationship between Christ and his Church in Sacred Scripture is described as the relationship between a Bride and a Bridegroom. In the parable of the ten virgins, Jesus reminds us to be watchful like a bride for the bridegroom because the bridegroom could return at any time.

St. Paul in Ephesians Chapter 5:22-32 lays out the way in which Christian married couples should behave, he reminds couples that Matrimony is a great Sacrament, and that it is a reflection in this world of the mystical bond between Christ and his Church. St John Paul II repeated the Church's traditional teaching that the family is a domestic Church.

Rather than accept God's definition of a family as a model for what his eternal family is like, the world redefines family to fit the definition that is convenient for the priorities of the world. The married relationship is often defined in today's culture by Hollywood. People's idea of married love comes from the movies, or television, or popular books, or the internet, rather than the timeless and correct definitions given to us by the Church from God's own Word. 

Those of us who have been married for any length of time know that real marriage and love within marriage is not Hollywood (where's my late Grandfather used to call it, Hollywierd!). We need to love and cherish our spouse, and doing that right means doing it when it is easy, and when it is hard. Loving our wife or our husband when it's hard, and loving our children when it's hard is what God asks from us, because loving us in that way is exactly what Jesus did for us. If you want to know how much Jesus loves us, all you need to do is look at the Cross behind me. That is how we are called to love our wives and our husbands, our families, our children. Permanent and lasting Love is how he loves us, and it is the way in which he expects us to love one another.

Homily for the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time

 

1 Kings 19:4-8

Ephesians 4:30-5:2

John 6:41-51

For the third consecutive week, Holy Mother Church places us in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St John, in what many Catholic scholars consider John's Eucharistic passage.  John's Eucharistic detail comes in the 6th Chapter of his Gospel, because it is here that Jesus recounts what the Eucharist really is and what it really means.

The Gospel of John, like the other three Gospels, contains an account of what happened at the Last Supper. In the other three Gospels, however, there is an account of the institution of the Eucharist, and Saint Paul reaffirms that account in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. Interestingly, John's account of the Last Supper doesn't contain an account of the institution of the Eucharist itself on the first Holy Thursday, but instead it contains this lengthy exposition from Jesus in what we know today as the Sixth chapter of John. It's known as the Bread of Life discourse, and we've just heard in this passage why it's called that. Many Catholic biblical scholars believe that this is John's Eucharistic account, his passing along to us one of the most doctrinally important passages in the entire New Testament.

Jesus makes very clear what he means, and his listeners understood it also, which is why we will hear in a couple of weeks time in the Gospel at Sunday Mass the end of this chapter when so many of the people who are listening to Jesus here say "Lord, this saying is hard and who can hear it." (cf. John 6:60-71) Jesus said it very clearly in the Gospel today in our own hearing. "I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, and if any one eats of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Many of our separated brothers and sisters will take this entire passage of Scripture, indeed the entire 6th chapter of John to mean something purely symbolic. I won't spend time today giving the cliche arguments against that position, I'm going to presume you're familiar with them. If you are not, I will say that even though those arguments are very true, I don't think they're the most effective to prove the point that Jesus wasn't speaking symbolically. The reason that we can tell that Jesus was speaking literally was the reaction of the crowd, many of whom, the larger chapter tells us, had been disciples of Jesus before that day, they understood exactly what he meant, and many of them walked away. 

The reality of the Eucharist is so central to our faith that when he was teaching about it, Jesus was more than willing to lose followers over it, people who probably otherwise would have been fine disciples of the Lord. But the teaching of the Eucharist was too much for them, it was that serious for Jesus. At the end of the chapter we even get a hint that maybe the remaining 12 didn't entirely understand what Jesus meant, because he asked them if they would also go away, and you have to love Peter's response when he said "Lord, where shall we go, you have the words of eternal life." Considering the situation in the Church today, there have been many many times in recent years when I have had to remind myself of Peter's words, I would say that many of us probably have.

Our Lord took the teaching of the Eucharist so seriously that when we look at it in the Sacred Scripture today it takes up an entire chapter of the Bible with him explaining it and explaining it again. If it was serious enough to Jesus to spend that much time on one particular teaching of our faith, if we are going to live the way we are called to live and be like Christ then we need to take the Eucharist as seriously as Jesus did and does.

Some three weeks ago on July 16th, there were two Church documents released on the same day. One of those documents received a whole lot of attention in the Catholic media and it's continuing to receive attention. The other one should have gotten much more attention, because the contents of the second document are far more immediately important for the welfare of our immortal souls. The document that should have gotten far more attention and didn't was a pastoral letter by our own Bishop Richard Stika on the matter of sin and the worthy reception of Holy Communion. The Bishop released it to everyone, and you can find it on our diocesan website, but it didn't get a whole lot of coverage in the media. Because of that, you can be forgiven for not knowing about it, but if you want to see everything the bishop had to say, you can look on the website or you can email me. 

The topic of worthiness to receive Holy Communion is sometimes called Eucharistic cohesion. Those words have been in the Catholic news in recent months because the US Bishops are working on a document about it, but our own Bishop's pastoral letter highlights a number of things about worthiness to receive the Eucharist that Catholics ought to know and about which there should be no argument. The Bishop reminds us that of course no one is truly worthy, but that when we approach the altar of God to receive Holy Communion we should be in a state of grace. Unless we are exceptionally saintly, that means availing ourselves of sacramental confession as often as possible. I often remind myself that among humanity, only the Blessed Mother was immaculately conceived. (In his letter, the bishop recommended confession at least once a month or more).

His Excellency also spoke to the controversial issue of public figures who give grave scandal by making a very public profession of their Catholic faith before the world while supporting, promoting, and even publicly funding the terrible Holocaust of abortion. Bishop Stika very rightly says that those who use their public position to promote abortion "cannot be admitted to Holy Communion." (Pastoral 17)

The Church does not tell us these things in order to be unwelcoming or uncaring. It is for the good and the salvation of our own souls that the Church reminds us of the conditions whereby we can and should receive Holy Communion. St. Paul put it perhaps most bluntly of all when he said that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily "will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord." (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27).

Jesus tells us that He is the living bread who comes down from Heaven, and that if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever, and the bread that Jesus will give is his flesh. Many of us might have heard of the consistent surveys which tell us that only about 30% of Catholics claim to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I have always prayed that those numbers are untrue. It is not unreasonable, however, to say that many more people would believe in the truth of Christ's real presence in the Eucharist if more of the world could see us treating the Eucharist as if the Eucharist is the Second Person of the Trinity, God who is Holy. The Blood shed for us and the Body given up for us. For if we behave in such a way that shows the world that the Eucharist is Christ, we will understand what it means to receive Jesus worthily, and we will all want to do so.

Traditiones Custodes is less about Liturgy and more about Legacy

Yesterday I happened upon a social media post from the great lay theologian, Catholic thinker, and Catholic Work Farm manager Dr. Larry Chapp. Dr. Chapp-who, like many of us, has lamented the promulgation of Traditiones Custodes-linked to an article in which I found the larger conclusions somewhat troubling, but nevertheless true. The article is by Shaun Blanchard in Church Life Journal, which is the premiere ecclesiastical publication of the University of Notre Dame. 

I'm not going to rehash Blanchard's article, but in order to understand the context of this post, readers really do need to click on the article as linked in the text and read it. Blanchard is correct that there is a group within the Church that is reacting to Traditiones Custodes with very uncharitable glee, even celebration. However, the rest of the people who really care about this issue are reacting in three other ways. Some very good liturgists and theologians see the Motu proprio as a matter of unfortunate necessity. A great many practicing Catholics find themselves in the place where I am, which is the posture of "mourn and move on" as Blanchard puts it, especially those of us who are priests and deacons. We don't have to like this Motu proprio and we can believe that it is a very big mistake (I believe it is a historical example of a Papal heavy hand being used to deal with a relatively small problem where the universal Church is concerned, which has happened before), but we are duty bound to obey. This is especially true since we understand that the Pope has ultimate authority over the Church's liturgy. For many observant and practicing Catholics, finding a way to deal with the new situation in light of Traditiones Custodes is something that they understand that they have very little choice but to do, especially when we consider that many Bishops are making (often generous) provisions for those in their dioceses attached to the Tridentine Mass. The fourth posture Blanchard says that we often see now in response to Traditiones Custodes is "refuse and resist." This is most often the posture that we find in many places on Catholic Social Media today, and those who take this posture don't do anything but confirm those who support Traditiones Custodes in the idea that the Holy Father was correct to issue it.

Traditiones Custodes is only about liturgy on the surface, as Blanchard points out in his article, and it's certainly not about Latin. What Traditiones Custodes is really about is the power of the Pope to control the narrative and the legacy of the Second Vatican Council, and every post-conciliar Pope since St. Paul VI has been preoccupied with affirming the Second Vatican Council and controlling the narrative surrounding it. That is not unusual historically, it tends to happen for decades and even centuries after all ecumenical councils, and controlling the narrative and legacy is exactly what Pope Francis is attempting to do.

I also think that it's unfortunate that the analysis of where the camps are is largely correct (and mind you, I think the world of Raymond Cardinal Burke, and he's one of the best canon lawyers if not the best canon lawyer in the Church today. I cannot help but note, however, that in his argument that the Holy Father doesn't have the authority to issue Traditiones Custodes, which I have read, I do not recall one single instance where he actually quotes previous canon law or liturgical law to prove his argument. I can only conclude that this is because canon law does not support his argument and he believes that this is deeper than a canonical argument, he thinks that it is a moral one.)
⁠
I would like to believe Cardinal Burke's argument myself, but I understand that the Pope is the chief liturgist in the Church, especially in the Latin Rite. There is no question that he had the authority to do what he did (CIC 331-333), even if I believe that it was a very dangerous act where unity is concerned.
⁠
There is also the reality that this is largely a First World Problem, with the majority of parishes offering the Tridentine Mass existing in five countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, France, and Germany). When one adds in the parishes that offer the Usus Antiquior in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, one sees that the matter of the Usus Antiquior, while not exclusively confined to the First World, is dominated by it, and within the First World is largely dominated by the Anglosphere. As Blanchard cites, 40% of all parishes which offer the Usus Antiquior are located in one country, the United States, which only has about 4% of the world's Catholics. The Usus Antiquior is going to become even more of a First World issue as we see Traditiones Custodes implemented. There are large swathes of the world where the Tridentine Mass is largely unknown, as Shaun Blanchard hints at. I don't think that reality has ever helped advocates of the Old Rite, especially as practical power in the Church is increasingly moving away from the First World. The reality is that the Catholic faith on a worldwide level is the faith of the Third World, and in many of those places the allowances of Summorum Pontificum have never been at the top of the Church's priority list.
⁠
I will say that I don't think that the Usus Antiquior is going away, and I believe that it will continue to grow in the Developed World. I do not think that Traditiones Custodes is going to kill it, despite the intentions to do so, and it will likely continue to grow in the places where it is already more available. I don't think the Tridentine Mass is going away... But I also don't think that it's going to expand far beyond the parts of the world where it already is more widely available.
⁠
I suspect that a future Pope will loosen many of the restrictions in Traditiones Custodes, but we will likely never return to the days of Summorum Pontificum.

An excellent sermon delivered during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Usus Antiquior by Father David Carter, Pastor of the Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This was delivered the Sunday following the release of Traditiones Custodes.

The thing that the Holy Father gets very right.

Nearly all of the talk in the world of Catholic social media and Catholic discussion over the last week has centered around the latest Apostolic Letter issued Motu proprio by Pope Francis. That letter, Traditiones Custodes, effectively reverses the provisions of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum issued by his predecessor Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Francis places restrictions on the celebration of the Tridentine Mass which many people believe border on the draconian, and which some commentators believe are designed to eventually eradicate the old Latin Mass from the face of the Earth. Reading the Motu proprio, it is very easy to see why some people would get that impression.

Lots of people have engaged in personal commentary on this document, but I have refrained from posting about it until now, partly so that I could read some educated commentary about it, rather than merely the impassioned views of a few from Facebook and Twitter. I also refrained because I have no desire to appear in any way to disparage or disrespect the Holy Father, I wanted to reserve what comment I do have on this until my own passions could subside enough that I could speak with both clarity and charity. The reality is that some people who fancy themselves to be traditional Catholics have spent an awful lot of time since 2013 saying many bad things about our current Pope in public forums, and in this day and age when even the Vatican monitors social media, that reality is likely one of the things that has brought us to this present situation.

It doesn't matter whether you disagree with the Holy Father on this thing or that. It's not going to change the fact that he is the Pope and he has the authority of the Pope. I have increasingly learned that when it comes to the Church it does me little good to worry about the things that are out of my control, but does much spiritual good to concern myself with the things which are in my control.

As for my personal opinion of Traditiones Custodes, I dearly wish that the Holy Father had not issued it, and I pray that he would reconsider some of its harsher provisions. I share the concern of good men of God like Monsignor Charles Pope that this document is taking into consideration the words and views of extremists (many to be found on social media), but that the overwhelming majority of people who attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form are there for the right reasons and they need spiritual care. Perhaps the most harsh provision of Traditiones Custodes is that when the Mass of Trent is celebrated, the Holy Father does not want it to take place in ordinary parish churches. It can take place in chapels and oratories and parishes specifically designated for that purpose, such as parishes staffed by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) or The Institute of Christ The King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP). 

However, those places make up a very small percentage of places where the old Latin Mass is celebrated. Most places where it is celebrated are ordinary diocesan parishes, and it is offered by everyday diocesan priests. That is why in the Diocese of Knoxville, Bishop Richard Stika has invoked Canon 87 Sec. 1 of the Code of Canon Law in our diocese and dispensed from this requirement, at least temporarily, the priests and the faithful of this diocese. What this means is that the schedule of Latin Masses will continue as normal in East Tennessee for the time being. It is almost certain that there will be some changes to that at some point in the future, but I am equally as certain that the celebration of the Extraordinary Form will not go away in the Diocese of Knoxville.

It would be easy for us to spend time lamenting that the Holy Father has issued Traditiones Custodes, but he has done so and he is the Vicar of Christ. Hence, we are obligated as best we can to give heed to what he has told us, and the clergy are obligated to act in obedience as best we possibly can. In such a time as this, we can also be reminded that "all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to his purpose..." (cf. Romans 8:28). One way that we can see that all things work together for good is that the Holy Father at least seems to see one of the major reasons why people are initially drawn to the Tridentine Mass, liturgical innovation which can lead to banality in our worship, and even liturgical abuse. In the introductory letter which accompanies Traditiones Custodes, the Holy Father writes:

"At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that 'in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions.'"

This passage means that, at the very least, Pope Francis understands one of the most critical realities that has driven many people- especially younger people - into the embrace of local Latin Mass communities is the reality that in many parishes today, there is a whole lot of liturgical innovation going on, much of it in the name of trying to make the Mass somehow more appealing or participatory than the rubrics, the texts, or the Church documents themselves do. When this is done, what ends up happening instead is that the Liturgy can become a kind of personal entertainment, whether that is the intent or not. What's more, in some cases if people actually bring up this problem they are told that the Second Vatican Council authorized a lot of this innovation. The Council authorized texts and liturgical activity in the vernacular, it didn't authorize people to turn the Liturgy into some form of contemporary schtick. 

If the end result of Traditiones Custodes is that the Missal of St. Paul VI as modified by St. John Paul II (and released in the English speaking world at Advent of 2011) becomes in fact as well as in law "the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite," (Traditiones Custodes Art. 1) then we should revisit afresh the ultimate liturgical document which governs this rite, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. SC 36 tells us that:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

In other words, yes the liturgical texts may be translated into the vernacular language and used, but this doesn't do away with the Church's patrimony of Latin. We in the Western Church are part of the Latin Rite. Parts (or even conceivably all) of a Mass in the Rite of St. Paul VI could be said or sung in Latin. Realistically, the parts most likely to be in Latin would likely be major chants such as the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and perhaps even the Gloria, especially for major feast days. Related to this is what Sacrosanctum Concilium said with regard to the use of Gregorian chant:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

Gregorian chant should be given pride of place in our liturgy? In many parishes today, you wouldn't even know that the document said this, you'll be hard-pressed to find chant in many places, even though there are beautiful anglicized versions of Psalmody and musical chants in the Gregorian style for the Mass. Yes, they can be had, some parishes use them. Many do not. 

The section I mentioned above mentions Article 30. That article talks about the full and conscious and active participation of the people, but what exactly does it say?

30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence. [Emphasis mine]

Many of our parishes in the Diocese of Knoxville clearly get this part of the message of Sacrosanctum Concilium. If you come before Mass you can find the naves of many of our parishes observing an appropriate level of silence. However, I have visited many parishes over the years in many places in various States and localities, and there are plenty of parishes where the period immediately before and immediately after the liturgy becomes Social Hour in the presence of the Tabernacle. I have written about this particular problem before. I'm a big believer in parish fellowship and in the communio of brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus. But the nave of a church and the area near the sanctuary is not a place of conversation, God's House is a House of prayer. Most Parish grounds have plenty of places where people can go to carry on fellowship, conversation, and enjoyment of each other in the Lord. We should make better use of those places more often.

Many people have made their way to the Latin Mass because they are desperately looking for the reverence and awe in the worship of a Holy God that they should be able to find at their parish of residence. Sadly, I have known priests over the years who have faced great persecution from parishioners and even people in authority for attempting to do nothing more than the things that Sacrosanctum Concilium encourages us to do in our worship.

The Church has the liturgical and musical heritage to be able to give parishioners who have become attached to the Latin Mass-and to all of God's people-the reverence and awe of worshiping the Thrice Holy God within the Ordinary Form of the Mass itself. Nowhere in the documents of the Second Vatican Council is it even suggested that traditional behavior such as sacred silence in the presence of the Tabernacle, Communion rails, kneeling, chalice palls or chalice veils, fine vessels for the elements of the Eucharist, Sanctus bells, or Gregorian chant should be done away with. Some of the things on that list are more required than others, but all of them bespeak an atmosphere of reverence and holy worship for Our Lord.

In addition, both clergy and the People of God at large should comport themselves appropriately for Divine Worship. The hymns used ought to be more traditional in their composition, not simply because they are old (for we know that things that are old are not always necessarily good), but because more traditional hymnody often reinforces essential Christian doctrine in the lyrics, and we all know that for some people, often through no fault of their own, the Liturgy will be the only Christian education they get this week. Psalmody should be simple, preferably in some mode of chant (remember that bit about pride of place). [For more about the Church's teaching on the use of music in liturgy, it is helpful to read the Church document from the Second Vatican Council Musicam Sacram given to us by Pope Saint Paul VI.]

 The clergy ought to wear beautiful and reverent vestments as their Parish can best afford, because this is for Jesus, and that's Him on the altar. A Byzantine Catholic priest friend of mine wisely says that our vestments should be seen as a form of sacred iconography. They should not look like something out of That 70's Show. Yes, use Latin from time to time at points in the liturgy, and we should teach the people some of the simple Latin chants so that they know and understand what they mean, such as the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and even the Gloria. Sometimes Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are necessary in the Mass, but the number should never be a great many because deacons ought be prepared to make themselves available to distribute Holy Communion if needed, and priests should never be afraid to use their deacons, that is why we are here. If your parish has a Communion rail, use it.

Priests and deacons should be unafraid to preach the Word of God, and even to wax theological or doctrinal in their sermons/homilies. The people of God can take the Truth, and if they can't, they need to examine their consciences, and yes, brother clergy, that includes us as well, sometimes we need to be preaching to ourselves. To that end, increased time should be made for confessions on the part of priests, and priests and deacons should figure out how to schedule more time for Eucharistic adoration and Benediction. 

These are just a few of the things that we can do to make the Ordinary Form of the Liturgy in the Latin Rite something that is filled with reverence, beauty, Truth, and the fear of God. There is much more that can be done, but I am convinced that if some of the things I have mentioned here were actually carried out with care and love of God, we might see some of those young people with families in our diocese who prefer the Extraordinary Form for the reasons of reverence be able to feel more at home in a regular Parish Ordinary Form setting. 

We should be able to go to Mass and truly feel an otherworldly experience, because it is otherworldly, it is meant to be a type of Heaven on Earth.


NOTE: It should be noted, as His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke and others have pointed out, Traditiones Custodes has apparently been prepared in such haste that a Latin typical edition of the document has yet to be prepared, and there are translation differences between the Italian and English documents that may prove significant. I myself note that the document does not even appear to be properly numerically divided, which is why I did not cite its sections in the way that I normally would any other Church document.

In making this weblog post, I feel compelled to point out that I am asserting my canonical rights under Canon 212 §2-3 of the Code of Canon Law.

The Irish Letter

Last week I happened across a column in The Irish News, I was alerted to it by a friend of mine on social media, Father Paddy McCafferty of Corpus Christi Parish in West Belfast. (Those of you who want to hear solidly Catholic homilies rooted in the faith need to check out Father Paddy, who fears nobody but God in his preaching.)

There are a few of you who read this blog who know me well enough to know that I have a political science degree in my secular training. Those very few of you who have known me for years are aware of the fact that I have strong views on a lot of things, both political and religious.  I even have strong views on Irish and British politics. However, aside from discussing the politics of Ireland and Britain with friends who may be aware of them over the years, wading into the discussion in the pages of the print media of Ireland is not something I have ever been keen to do. To wade into the politics of Ireland when one is unfamiliar with the ground or doesn't have to live there and have to deal with political outcomes is a very dangerous game. More than one political commentator has rightly said that Irish politics, especially the politics in the six counties of the North, is like something akin to Animal Farm in terms of the chaos that it can invite.

Opinions are one thing, but until we live it every day it's just that for us on this side of the Atlantic. I am always interested to hear and read what people on the island of Ireland have to say about their situation and current events, but I neither think it right for me to attempt to tell Irish people what they should think of their own situation, or tell my fellow countrymen what they should think about Ireland. It is for me to observe as an interested human being, a Catholic, a Christian... and if I comment on such things, it will be to others who I know who may have an interest.

However, my longstanding policy of reading the Irish papers (especially those in the six counties of Northern Ireland) but never opining in print about things to be found there came to a temporary halt last week when I read the column in question by Irish News columnist Tom Collins alleging (amongst other utter nonsense) that a large number of the U.S. Bishops are "in thrall" to former President Donald Trump. 

Just to place things into context for any readers who may be unaware, The Irish News is the major newspaper in Belfast that represents an Irish nationalist political perspective. (The Belfast Telegraph is its moderate Unionist counterpart.) In times' past, even in relatively recent times, the editorial line of The Irish News as a voice of moderate nationalism would have also meant a line of deference or at least positivity toward the teachings of the Catholic Church, since not so terribly long ago in an Ireland far far away, a lot of professing nationalists were also Catholics who went to Mass on Sunday. That Ireland and that deference are, of course, things of the past today for various reasons I will save for a post on some other day.

After reading Mr. Collins' column, however, what he said about the U.S. Bishops, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, abortion, and the Pope went from ridiculous on the one end, to the simply false on the other. After praying, I felt that I had to respond because Irish readers might read that column and they might actually think that what Collins was saying represented the way things actually are, and I don't believe that it does. So since Tom Collins decided to wade into the world of American politics and the Catholic Church in America, I decided to make an attempt to wade into the pages of The Irish News in response.

As always, my published opinion is just that, my own opinion. However, it is rooted in both Church teaching and reality on the ground here in this country. To my complete surprise, my letter in response to Mr Collins' column was published in The Irish News today, July 12th:

Editor;

I have read with utter astonishment Tom Collins' article in The Irish News (July 1st) insinuating that there is a large “pro-Trump” faction among the U.S. bishops and that the bishops are “in thrall” of Trump. I have not decided whether Mr. Collins is largely unaware of U.S. internal political affairs, or ignorant of American ecclesiastical affairs. I will not speculate about whether he understands Catholic doctrine regarding the worthiness to receive Holy Communion, though if he did, I have my doubts that he would have written his piece. 

Considering some of the things that came from U.S. Bishops during the Trump Administration about Donald Trump and his policies (including the Archbishop of Miami comparing him to the famed American television character Archie Bunker), as well as the near-daily denunciation of the Trump Administration’s immigration policy, the notion that the Bishops are-or ever were-in thrall of Trump is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Compared to the treatment given to professing Catholic Biden, the Bishops rode Trump, who is not Catholic and never pretended to be, harder than a wild bull at a Texas county fair. By comparison, the USCCB has had very little to say about the humanitarian crisis at the U.S. Border with Mexico since Biden took office, and Biden’s policies have grossly exacerbated the problem, which his administration has yet to address.

That is not meant as a criticism of American bishops, either individually or as a corporate body. As Bishops of the Catholic Church, it is their right and duty to address civic issues in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic faith as they best see fit, but they have not been in thrall of anyone, least of all Donald Trump.

The issue of Eucharistic coherence and the worthiness to receive Holy Communion is not a partisan political issue. Someone who professes to be a Catholic but who does not believe in the moral teachings of the Church, or who publicly promotes policy that is not in accord with the moral law or most basic moral teachings of the Catholic Church, such as the killing of the unborn through abortion, should not receive Holy Communion, regardless of their station in life or their political beliefs. In that regard, it doesn't matter if you're Joe Biden or Joe who picks up the neighborhood rubbish. 

Yours Respectfully, &c.

Deacon David Oatney

White Pine, Tennessee USA