Liturgical Prefigurement of the Cross

One thing I always love is when a great mystagogue adds another piece to the puzzle - in this case, that puzzle that we'll keep mystagoging for eternity, the Paschal Mystery of our Blessed Lord. Father Schnippel added another great piece today, my emphasis in bold:

"As Israel became established as a nation, this sacrifice was moved from the home to the Temple, for in the Temple, the Sacrifice became more liturgical, with associated prayers and rituals. In fact, one such ritual is vitally important for our study of Jesus as the New Passover: after the lamb for each family was killed, two wooden rods were inserted to assist in the roasting: one along the spine, the other through the ribs, from shoulder to shoulder. Each of these lambs, by the thousands, would be carried out of the Temple and to the homes of the people in and around Jerusalem. ‘Crucified lambs’ were being offered for the people."

Whoa! There's a new one for me. Please read his entire post, Jesus, the New Passover.

"And I saw that the Lamb had opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures, as it were the voice of thunder, saying: Come, and see." (Rev 6:1)

Idle Hands

And the book of Isaias the prophet was delivered unto him. And as he unfolded the book, he found the place where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. Wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, he hath sent me to heal the contrite of heart, to preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of reward. And when he had folded the book, he restored it to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. – Luke 4:17-20

In the above scripture, our Blessed Lord put two scriptures together from Isaiah for his listeners in the Nazarene synagogue.  I’m going to try something remotely similar by putting together two recent blog posts.  WARNING – Do not try this at home.  Only a true mytagogue is qualified for such advanced techniques.

Recently, Adoro provided a witness to the problem with the accepted view of evangelizing the new generation of young adults. 

…  [T]hey (we!)  are seeking God. And if they enter a parish and find the theology of the parish to be wishy-washy, they leave. If they find disunity, they leave. If they find outreach without sincerity and REAL understanding...they walk.  They realize their lives are worth far more than a ten-cent smile and a frivolous handshake.  They don't want their singlehood to become one of slave labor to the Church, their singlehood a memory of years spent in weird pigeonholed isolation at a parish that doesn't know what to do with them other than to plug them into various volunteer holes that need warm bodies to fill them.   

Young adults want to get involved, yes. Absolutely. But not without a deeper meaning. Not without God. For their primary search, even if they can't explain it, is God. They are seeking happiness. They are seeking Our Lord, and they don't know where YOU have placed Him.

How true!  All too often, as we look to build our parish communities, we end up chasing a somewhat secular (faithless) model for building an organization.  We can’t reach them unless we get them through the door.  We can’t keep them unless they return.  They won’t return unless our community appeals to them.  They won’t be committed unless we give them something to do.  If we push through all of that, the sacraments will do their thing and our community will become the workers’ paradise that we keep singing about.

While I am knocking this approach, it would be wrong not to admit that there is some secular logic to it, which makes it thoroughly tempting.  The flaws, though, are fatal.  I’m sure its practitioners who pervade today’s Catholic parishes are absolutely sincere in their intention of doing the Lord’s work.  But, to put it bluntly, they are following the ideology of Nimrod, that infamous architect of the Tower of Babel .  They left the Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ, behind.  They deliberately ignore Rome, believing that the Holy Spirit can guide us to come up with something better than what God gave us through the Catholic Church.

There are legends that this self-made community works.  There may even be some real-world examples of it.  Yet everywhere I’ve seen it tried, the results are the same.  Efforts to get people more involved inevitably lead to burdening the people who are already too involved.  The stagnant population of the community tend to remain that way.

The bottom line – parishes are putting STEWARDSHIP ahead of CONVERSION.  In fact, there exists a general assumption that stewardship leads to conversion.  It is self-evident that this is entirely backwards.  Did Mother Teresa become a saint because she fed the hungry and cared for the dying?  Or did she feed the hungry and care for the dying because she became a saint?  According to her, and human reason, it’s the latter.

What keeps us Catholics from getting this right?  It’s pretty simple.  If a parish is addressing the needs of souls, it’s doing what it’s supposed to do.  A people that is deeply in love with our Lord Jesus will build the Kingdom the way He wants it built, and that’s all that matters.  Sorry, Nimrod.

And what can a parish do to accomplish this?  For starters, let everyone drop his or her pride, pastors and lay leaders alike.  Read the exhortations of the pope, the dogmatic documents of the ecumenical councils, and the instructions from the curia.  Then watch our Holy Father in action.  How does he say mass?  What is he focusing on in his addresses?  Then look at your community.  Where is your parish lagging?  What is your parish disregarding?  (hint: if the Bishop allows it, it doesn’t mean it’s good.  If he demands it, well, that’s another matter.)  Then get to work on preparing the parish to receive the sacraments in the manor set forth by our High Priest, through his Bride.  The deviation from the treasures God has given us through the Church is an exercise in pride.  Souls will suffer, despite the pleasant veneer some will claim.  

As our Holy Father wrote in a previous job (my emphasis):

[The obligatory character of the liturgy] is a guarantee, testifying to the fact that something greater is taking place here than can be brought about by any individual community or group of people. It expresses the gift of joy, the gift of participation in the cosmic drama of Christ's Resurrection, by which liturgy stands or falls. Moreover the obligatory character of the essential parts of the liturgy also guarantees the true freedom of the faithful: it makes sure that they are not victims of something fabricated by an individual or a group, that they are sharing in the same liturgy that binds the priest, the bishop and the pope. In the liturgy, we are all given the freedom to appropriate, in our own personal way, the mystery which addresses us. – Feast of Faith, p 67

Fidelity to the liturgy, along with the needed catechesis (see the blog’s masthead for details), will properly dispose the faithful to the sacraments they receive.  This will light the fire that most seem to think will come about through happy songs and passing out sacred vessels.

And, speaking of happy songs, let me get back to the promise of joining together two blog posts.  Music is a major problem with liturgy today.  Parishes actively seek what they consider attractive music to please the people in the worship space nave.  This form of superficial evangelization plays right in to the misguided attempt to lure young people that Adoro blogged about.  True to form, this attempt to occupy minds and hearts during “silent” periods not only misses the point, but counters the point in so many ways.  Jeffry Tucker wrote a manifesto of sorts on the sociology of Church music, and in doing so covers why this attempt to entertain the people fails miserably:

In light of this, special demands are placed on Catholic musicians to use music that embraces what unites us and allows Catholic communities to thrive, understanding that anyone who is choosing their religion by social considerations alone is not likely to be interested in the Catholic faith to begin with. If we attempt to jump into the existing rivalrous market of demographic stop-'n'-shop, we are surely going to lose. There is always a body of believers out there who can do this better than we can.

And there is another factor here to consider. To seek to appeal to a certain group, we necessarily alienate other groups. We've all had the experience of car pooling or riding in the car with someone who has the radio tuned to a station we find egregious. So it is when we choose this over that form of secular music for our worship. We cannot and will not agree so long as we are choosing on subjective grounds alone.

This is the great error made variously in the history of the faith, mostly recently in the 1960s and 1970s in the U.S. when Catholics attempted to tailor-make their liturgy to blend in with a slice of time in order to win the hearts of a certain age demographic that temporarily believed its wishes were more important than anything else. To do this ended up creating massive division, and we still face the consequences today.

What do Catholics have as a primary concern that others put lower down the list? It is that most unfashionable idea of universal truth, a body of belief and practice, that transcends politics, community, nation, and even time. That is something so precious and wonderful, so appealing in the long run, that we should never turn away from it but rather embrace it completely. In that same way, sacred music challenges us to leave aside our tastes, to bury our egos, to turn off our iPods and digital subscriptions, to look outside our own group identity, and sing a new sing unto the Lord (the text to the Introit in the 5th Sunday of Easter).

I have found myself more and more attracted to a mass that appreciates sacred music.  What a difference from the busyness of the typical performance-style music provided today at most parishes!  I’ve spent many hours in front of the Blessed Sacrament simply making up for the prayer I missed at mass because the entertainment was so distracting.  As efficacious as it is to be in eucharistic adoration, it is no substitute for the mass, where offerings are always accepted and multiplied.  There’s a noise compulsion that is clearly at odds with the mass, as if active participation means we need to keep people’s attention occupied for fear they might have a prayer encounter of their own.

Recently, while commuting home, I heard a Protestant service on the radio.  It was very evangelical, with a charismatic preacher imploring his flock to spread the gospel.   That was followed by a cover of a praise and worship song (guitar, bass, drums, a lot of “I will do this” and “I will do that”) I’d heard before at mass.  But there was a huge difference when I heard it this time.  The music was a perfect fit!  It belonged in this direct style of worship.  There was no mystery to contemplate.  There was no awe in the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord.  It was simple, it was emotional, and it was motivating.  And with the adrenaline rising through the body, the music was seamless.  Thus, praise and worship music has a place.  That was an epiphany for me.

And what purpose does it serve at the mass?  For that matter, what do the emasculated show tunes, jingles, and hippy songs in our modern “song” books accomplish?  At best, they relieve us as we endure the boredom of our weekly liturgy.  At worst, they dull the encounter with our Lord.  They rob us of the, “… freedom to appropriate, in our own personal way, the mystery which addresses us.”  They create noise which deflects our minds and hearts from the fullness of meeting the one whose death makes eternal happiness possible.

It basically changes the mass into a sing-a-long communion service.  As one wise blogger put it, it’s like preparing a prime rib eye steak with a blender.

The result?  Deep conversion is much more difficult as people miss the opportunity to have the fullness of grace which was offered to them.  This is no small matter.  This is a self-inflicted cap on spiritual growth, not to mention a source of theological confusion.

To sum up this entire post, busyness is not the answer to call of the New Evangelization.  Jesus is the answer.  That hasn’t changed in 2000 years.  If someone thinks he has a better idea than the Catholic Church, you know, the one guided by the Holy Spirit, then that someone has his own need of a deeper conversion.  We can’t offer anyone, young or old, something that we don’t have.  Yes, we do have sacraments.  But our vanity can, and does, diminish the work of those sacraments on our lives.  When we truly make the effort to surrender ourselves to His authority and assist at mass to our fullest capacity, no ministry scheme and no liturgical customizations would compare to the attraction we would possess. 

Just to be clear, I am all in favor of innovation and ideas.  But they must first be checked against the directions and advice of Church authority.  All Catholics of good faith want the same thing.  We just need to remember, Nimrod isn’t going to get us there.

Heretic Central

That's what I'm considering calling our blog now that I've read one of the great lay mystagogues out there, Adoro, point out the sacramental disparity between her and those consecrated to teach.  "I have no authority," she claims.

When I stand in front of a classroom, the reality is this:  I'm on the same par with everyone out there. I am a laywoman. I am not an expert in anything, and even if I had a Doctorate in Sacramental Theology, it would not change my state in life.  Knowledge is important, fidelity to Church teachings is imperative, but the reality is that those people are looking up at me at the podium and thinking, "Who the hell are YOU to tell me I have to go to Confession?   Who the hell are YOU to tell us that we should not go to Communion if we've committed a sin on this list?  What kind of authority do YOU have to tell me what I should and should not believe?"

My thought - if she is questioning what she is doing, what the heck are we doing?  Well, she is an actual, honest to goodness catechist, so maybe she's got a higher burden.  People read theological goofballs like Andy and me at their own risk.  Still, that millstone will sink both the catechist and the goofball. 

Okay, kidding aside, I see the difference.  Imagine what would happen if we in the Church restricted the teaching of faith and morals to the ordained?  I would say that 98% of the parishes out there would have to fold their formation programs.  For some communities, that actually might be a good thing.   But for most communities, especially the one where Adoro teaches, the message needs to be delivered inside and out by people with the mind and heart of the Church.

A cynic could also ask, as is often done, what right a priest would have to advise a person on matters of marriage.  This would, of course, be an individual who doesn't believe in the charism of the priest to teach in such matters.  That's the point of view most cynics take.  So the priest is just as lost with them as would be any Catholic of good will.

All things equal, there is no question that the message is best delivered by the guy with the charisms.  And we should push our priests and bishops to do more teaching.  The role the laity plays is to echo that message far and near.  There is great power in that unity.  While unity is no substitute for authority, it does confirm authority to those looking for that confirmation (John 17).

So Adoro, my fellow lay mystagogue, exercise your sacramental confirmation and teach on without fear.  If they find someone with actual sacramental teaching authority, are they going to hear the same thing from them that they just heard from you?  Chances are that they will.  And chances are, they won't know about that "teaching charism" unless YOU tell them.  Save that one for the last lesson of the year.

UPDATE: Uh oh.  Well, at least she hasn't read my post.  I don't think so at least.

Good Weekend Reading

If you've got time this weekend, here are a few links I recommend.

Jeffrey Tucker points to a PBS streaming video documentary on Eastern liturgical chant.  Mrs. Andy will really enjoy it.

Carl Olson points to a great reflection on the first four years of the pontificate of Benedict XVI from Fr. Kenneth Bakker, S.J.  Carl also points to a "frittering" paragraph from the Daily Astorian.  Maybe it's of more interest to me since I used to send high school sports reports to that small-town newspaper.

The Recovering Choir Director offers a commentary from Fr. Leo Chamberlain on the moto proprio Summorum Pontificum, adding more than a few of his own comments.  I real good read for those who idealize either form of the mass over the other.

Finally, for those of you out there rooting for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, Steve Ray found some good news for you in a London newspaper.

And finally, don't forget this is Divine Mercy Sunday weekend.  Want to get rid of all of your time in Purgatory?  It's easier now than at any other time of the year.  And it's not a plenary  indulgence.  Confused?  Just listen to this sermon at Audio Sancto to get priestly confirmation.  But here is your checklist:

• 1. Assist at the Mass
  
• 2. Repent of all sins
  
• 3. Go to Confession within a week
  
• 4. Place your complete trust in the Lord's mercy
  
• 5. Receive Holy Communion.
  
• 6. Venerate the image of Divine Mercy
  
• 7. Make a special effort to be merciful to others
  

Granted, that's not a slam-dunk list (particularly 4 and 7), but it's easier than the "usual conditions" for a plenary indulgence.  So don't miss this opportunity. 

The Lesson of Abortion to Understand the Sacraments

I caught the end of a radio presentation by Dr. R.C. Sproul this morning on my way to work concerning the horrors of abortion. I'm not going to get into the abortion issue too much in this post, although it is a worthy topic. Rather I'm going to extend Dr. Sproul's analogy to something that he probably wouldn't like: the Sacraments.

You see, in my country and in other countries around the world, abortion is legal. In fact, as Dr. Sproul noted, the most dangerous place to be in the world today is inside a woman's womb. Why is abortion so acceptable? As Dr. Sproul noted, you can't see it happen, you can't feel it happen, you can't hear it happen, so to the uninformed bystander, which would be most of the general public, its as if it didn't happen.

Now, to make my point, I wanted to iterate a bit of truth about what our seperated Protestant brethren believe that we do not: that what we call sacraments, in particular (to them) Baptism and Eucharist (they often call it "The Lord's Supper") are nothing more than a symbol. That is, they have no effect whatsoever on the person receiving them. They are simply an ordinance that they are to do just because Christ said to. In fact that is not true at all.

When we are baptized, what we see is a person having water poured over them, or a person immersed in water. The water is poured three times, or they are dunked three times. They get a little wet (or very wet), they feel cold, and they hear the words invoking baptism. However, the sacrament of baptism is more than this.

Likewise, when the priest performs the consecration of the bread and wine, we hear the words, we taste bread and wine. It tastes like regular bread and regular wine. However, the Most Holy Sacrament is much more than this.

Sacraments are physical representations of spiritual realities. You may have heard the word "mystical" used before. Even this blog is entitled "Lay Mystagogues" where the word 'Mystagogue' is someone who ponders the 'mystical'. Something that is mystical is not 'magical' as I believe some incorrectly interpret the word. Magic is just slight of hand, illusion, or worse. In fact something that is 'mystical' refers to that which is most real. The most real thing in the world is the spiritual realm, something that we cannot perceive with our senses.

The Sacraments are mystical realities. In baptism, we mystically experience the spiritual reality of being washed clean from original and all actual sin through the physical washing in water. In the Eucharist, we receive (physically) the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, a spiritual reality that, when we are properly disposed, infuses us with supernatural grace, wipes clean our venial sins, and draws us in to the body and life of Christ. Likewise, all sacraments are physical representations of the spiritual.

Jesus gave us the Catholic Church and the Seven Sacraments so that we could perceive the spiritual world through our senses. If we were to abandon the Church, we would be turning a blind eye to that which is most real, and the result would be an utter disaster. As our country has gone blind to the tragic, horrific realities of abortion, let us not also grow blind to the realities experienced in and through the Sacraments in the Church that Jesus founded. In particular this day, let us ponder Christ's love for us shown through the Eucharist, and duly prepare ourselves to meet him in a real way in the Catholic Mass.

The Catholic Mass: The Love of Jesus for You

In the body of Christ today, especially in those who are separated from the Church (Protestants), I hear a lot of negativity surrounding the use of the word "religion". They like to emphasize "relationship" in contrast with "religion". They say things like, "Jesus did not come to give us religion; He came to give us a relationship."

But this is a fallacy. Jesus came to give us both a religion and a relationship.  Part of it stems from the fact that the Protestant faith isn't a religion at all - they are separated from the true religion. Protestant denominations seem to implement a set of rules because a set of rules is what they believe religion is supposed to be: thou shalt not drink wine, thou shalt not dance, thou shalt not do this, that or the other thing that their denomination 'says' is wrong.

In truth, many Catholics see our faith in much the same way: a bunch of rules and restrictions. Why does the Catholic Church force me to go to church on Sunday? Why do they force me to go to confession when I am in mortal sin before I receive the Eucharist? Why does the Catholic Church force me to confess my sins to a priest "rather than" just confessing them to God himself?  The "questions" are actually statements; the asker doesn't really want to know the answer to them. Rather they are a means for them to vent discontent toward a religion that they feel "bound" to practice.

I understand this sentiment. If we look at religion as a set of restrictions, then religion appears to "put a damper on our life". We play-act faith by going to mass, going through the ritual, but not letting anything really penetrate our lives.

But that is not what Jesus intended when he founded the Catholic Church. What Jesus intended for us was to experience the mystical reality of him through the physical world that we can experience - through the seven sacraments and the body of Christ, which is the Church, starting at the visible head on Earth (the Pope) and within all consecrated and lay people.

Each of the sacraments that Jesus gave to us are an expression of his love for us. We experience his love when we are renewed and justified at baptism, as we feel the water poured over us. We experience him physically in the Eucharist and the liturgy of the mass, when we ponder and remember the redeeming sacrifice he made for us, how he gave himself up for us and our sins - and we taste his very flesh. We experience continuing renewal through the sacrament of penance (or confession) as we experience the forgiving action and hear the words from the priest - they let us know in a very real way that our sins are forgiven. In confirmation we are sealed with the holy spirit with oil, a feel and a smell. Similar with the annointing of the sick, we hear the prayers, are annointed with oil and taste viaticum, food for the journey to heaven. Consecrated persons experience what must be a profound laying on of hands that imputes an indelible mark upon their soul, and their marriage to the Lord starts not when they reach heaven but on that very day of consecration/ordination.

In that same way, the liturgy is full of signs of Jesus' love for us, but yet so few of us know the spiritual realities that are happening in the mass because they take place in the invisible spiritual realm.  So the liturgy is designed to make those realities known to us.  One can really learn to understand God's love for us by becoming knowledgeable about the liturgy and what is behind the rubrics of the mass.  

That is what we hope to give to you in this blog - a respect for the dignity and beauty of the Catholic mass, a realization of just how important it is to have good liturgy, and a deep understanding of the fullness of truth in the Catholic faith.  

The mass is the perfect prayer, an eternal offering of thanks for the love that he has given us.  Let us rejoice to have been given such a gift, and return the love that Jesus has shown with our whole selves, and live the true faith!

"Jesus also suffered outside the gate, to consecrate the people by his own blood.  Let us then go to him outside the camp, bearing the reproach that he bore. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the one that is to come. Through him [then] let us continually offer God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name." - Hebrews 13:12-15