The Vision of Vatican II

By now it must be obvious that I don't have much time to blog. I wish I had more. There's a discipline to blogging regularly and I think that the public aspect of that allows for an interchange of ideas that can be healthy.

It's been almost two months since my last post. At the time I wrote it, I was pretty bent with various elements that I find within the Church that I mistakenly ascribed to Vatican II. I am beginning to discover that Vatican II was largely hijacked in its implementation, especially here in the United States. So what I am fighting is not Vatican II, but the common misunderstandings of it. And worse, the perverse (read that, skewed, or crooked) implementations of it.

I alluded to the Council's document on the Liturgy in my last post: Sacrosanctum Concilium. It really doesn't take very long to read and I encourage anyone reading this to do so. You may be surprised at what it says as opposed to what you may have been told it said.

Vatican II did not change everything. Rather it clarified a number of things in order to allow the Church to face many of the challenges of our modern era. so this raises the question in my mind: how many parishes are truly working to implement the vision of Vatican II according to this document?

As I alluded to in my last post, the document still holds that Latin be the primary language of the Mass. It also states that Gregorian Chant has pride of place as far as music goes, but it allows for other forms, most prominently hymns accompanied by organ.

I have actually been in a number of parishes in my short time in the Catholic Church. The only time I have heard any Latin is in my own home parish. And we only do it rarely. I have seen a lot of use of the organ, but I have never heard Gregorian Chant. Actually, a priest who has been saying Mass at our parish chants the "Lord Have Mercy" with us. But outside of that, I have never experienced chant during Mass.

What I have encountered are a lot of muscial variations. I have especially been exposed to hymns composed over the last 20 or 30 years that downplay the distinctives of our faith and emphasize feeling good about our relationship with God. I have also encountered a fair amount of "creative license" on the part of priests who think that the written texts of the Eucharistic Prayers need improvement to make it more meaningful to the people.

By the way, has anyone noticed that the modern version of the Confiteor (I confess to Almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters...") is a tremendously dumbed-down version of the original? Whereas we used to acknowledge our sins and unworthiness (if that's a word) before God, the angels, and the saints, and we asked for their prayers, now we throw our "brothers and sisters" into that mix as well. It's as if all the people attending Mass with us are just as worthy as the saints and angels to hear our confession and pray for us to be holy.

All of this to say that things are not generally being done according to the vision of Vatican II. But there is hope. Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI is continally working to bring us back to that proper balance that is the vision of Vatican II. There are many parishes that are working to bring us back to the same. It is my hope that the process will continue and that many more will join in.

The Pilgrimage Continues

For those who have managed to stick with my intermittent posts you know that I was raised as a Pentecostal, became a pastor, was briefly a priest in the Charismatic Episcopal Church, and then joined the Catholic Church 2 years ago. What has driven this pilgrimage to this point is the firm conviction that the Church that our Lord Jesus Christ founded is invincible and, therefore, still fully intact 2,000 years later. It is intact in its fullness, and therefore cannot be divided into thousands of denominations.

I firmly believe this Church to be the Catholic Church. However, there is a problem. I am discovering, to my chagrin, that there are a number of Catholics who do not agree with me. Rather, in the bland, vague language of Vatican II, they believe this Church that our Lord founded to "subsist in" the Catholic Church. What that phrase means has been a source of fierce debate since it was coined. In my mind it shows why so much of what happened with Vatican II and since has been more a source of confusion, rather than clarification.

To me, that phrase is an attempt to placate all parties. For traditionalists and conservatives it can mean what the Church has always proclaimed: outside of the (Catholic) Church there is no salvation. For moderates, progressives, and liberals, it can mean that truth is found in some manner in every denomination of Christianity, or even outside of Christianity altogether.

There is a popular notion among modern Catholics that Vatican II changed everything. That's not exactly true. One need only read the documents themselves to see that. The vision of Vatican II was that the Mass would continue to be done primarily in Latin with some opportunity for the vernacular language. Music would still be primarily (and ideally) Gregorian Chant with the possibility of sacred hymns accompanied by organ. This is a far cry from what one will find as the norm for Mass in most Catholic Churches in America today.

But it's not just arguing over the Mass. In fact, today, most Catholics don't even attend Mass on anything close to a regular basis. But beyond the Mass, there also used to be a sense of living a holy life that meant that we were not ashamed to stand out amidst our neighbors. If others looked at us strangely because we didn't eat meat on Friday, we dressed modestly, and we did not indulge in worldly entertainment, that was fine. We were, after all, Catholic- and that meant something.

The Lord's Day is another example of how things have changed. It used to be that even people who never went to church understood that stores would be closed on Sunday. Now, even good Catholics think nothing of doing their shopping, or any other activity, on the Lord's Day.

I didn't give up everything I hold dear, move my family from place to place, and risk the alienation of other family and friends to find, more or less, what I already had- a religion largely of my own making. This is unfortunately the case too often for most Catholics today. Rather, the Catholic Faith is intended to be a seamless garment, like the robe of our Lord. To be Catholic is to receive all that the Church teaches- and has ever taught. It is to live like a Catholic, and not just be known by the name. It is to be different. It is to be holy. It is to be like Jesus. it is to live out the Faith as it has been lived out since its inception.

So my pilgrimage continues- not in the sense that I believe there is some other church or denomination to move to. I don't. As I said, I firmly believe this Church to be the Church that Christ founded. But I do see that I must continue to be on the move in my heart. What is popularly purported to be the Catholic Faith is not always. I want the real thing. And I will stop at nothing less than that.

Alleluia! Christ is Risen!

For most of Lent I have not taken the time to blog. That has more to do with my schedule than anything intentional. Yet it was a good Lent. There were many things that the Lord was showing me. Probably the most crucial was the necessity to live life by embracing the cross.

What I mean by that is this. We typically try to avoid suffering or any unpleasant circumstances. Instead, to embrace the cross means to welcome such trials as an opportunity to be purged of our fleshly tendencies and to be drawn closer to Christ. We learn to embrace even minor irritations (sufferings). We turn them into opportunities of prayer. We learn patience. All of this is what is entailed in embracing the cross.

I have met with a small degree of success in this endeavor. I have had more occasions for failure. But through it all I have had the blessing of experiencing more of the grace of God.

But today is Easter. Today we celebrate the risen Christ. The thing the Lord brings to my mind today is that in the same way that I sought to be conformed to Christ's death during Lent, I must now seek to be so conformed to His resurrection during this holy season of Easter. How can I do that?

First of all, the resurrection life of Christ lives within us. This is a source of great joy. To embrace the resurrection is to live in this joy regardless of any other circumstances I may find myself in. To live in joyful love is to live the life of Christ. It is to bring the light of Christ into the darkness of our world. To do so consistently will result in the light of Christ dispelling the darkness.

Secondly, to embrace the resurrection is to remember that this world is not our final destination. We are destined for heaven. We are called to eternal glory. St. Paul wrote that as we have borne the image of the earthly, so we must bear the image of the heavenly. Christ, the eternal God, truly became man and died. Just as surely, we will be raised, as He was, and become one with Him in heaven.

Embracing the resurrection keeps my focus on heaven. It reminds me to look beyond the petty circumstances of this temporary life. "If, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your mind on things above where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God." (Col. 3:1)

It is my prayer that as the Lord has graciously granted me a taste of what it is to embrace the cross, so He will also grant me such grace to consistently embrace the resurrection. May He do the same for you, my readers.

Alleluia! Christ is risen! The Lord is risen indeed! Alleluia!

St. Patrick

Today is St. Patrick's Day. For many people of Irish heritage this is a day of celebration of all things Irish. It typically involves parades, parties, and green beer (ugh!). Along with all the fun float around images of leprechauns, shamrocks and images of St. Patrick driving the snakes out of Ireland. But who is the real St. Patrick and what did he do?

Patrick was actually a native to Britain. He was captured by Irish slave traders when he was 16 years old. The son of a deacon, he was raised in the Church, but was far from a true, personal faith. He spent 6 years as a slave in Ireland, living out in the fields as a shepherd. During this time he devoted himself to prayer. Finally, one night, God gave him a vision of a ship which would take him away from Ireland. He stole away one night, finding the ship and gaining safe passage to his home.

After some time, Patrick had another dream. This time he saw a man from Ireland calling him to come back to Ireland to preach the gospel to them. With this in mind, Patrick was convinced God was calling him to be a missionary. He sought ordination and was eventually made a bishop. He returned to Ireland. For 30 years he preached the gospel. Virtually all of Ireland was converted during this time. It is for this reason that St. Patrick has come to be known as the patron saint of Ireland.

I am not Irish. Many of the modern traditions are lost on me. But I do greatly admire St. Patrick. He could have grown angry and bitter about his circumstances when he was kidnapped. But instead, he turned to prayer. He forgave those who wronged him, and even allowed such love to grow in his heart as to return to them so that they might be saved. He risked his life continually for these foreigners. But it was his passion.

I want to be like Patrick. I want to live a life of prayer. I want to walk close with God. I want to learn to be a forgiving and loving person. I want to spend my life in preaching the gospel to whoever will listen.

To do these things is not hard- not for God anyway. If I will submit to Him, I too can do these things. We all can.

This year, instead of dwelling on the parties and parades, let us devote some time to prayer so that perhaps we can be like Patrick and preach the gospel, even to those who hate and mistreat us.

Our Mother

The Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother, Galatians 4:26

The passage above occurs in the context of Paul making the case of the Church being superior to Judaism, most specifically in the way of faith's superiority to the Law of Moses. The Jerusalem above is contrasted with "the present Jerusalem" (v. 25). But what do we learn from Paul's use of the term, "mother" in this context?

The early Church appropriated many of the terms used in the writings of the Old Testament. Jerusalem stands in for the Church, as we read in another context, I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband, (Rev. 21:2). By referring to the Church as our mother, Paul is directing our attention to the place of the Church in our lives.

The Church nourishes us and guides us in the teaching of the Word and the giving of the Sacraments. She is truly our Mother in that she cares for us. The Church is fleshed out for us in the bishops. They are the ones entrusted with the teaching office of the Church. All of the bishops together in union with the Pope constitute for us what is known as the Magisterium. They are the ones we look to for definitive statements regarding faith and morals. For any question, we go to our Mother.

Paul states elsewhere that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, (1 Tim. 3:15). This means that the Church is infallible. She is looked to for truth. So she must be visible. People need to know where they can go to find the truth. They find it in the Church. For the Church teaches only what was given to her by Christ, who is Himself, the way, and the truth, and the life, (Jn. 14:6).

Unfortunately, too many people believe otherwise. Instead of listening to the sure guide of the Scriptures, they choose to listen to their favorite Bible teachers interpret the Scriptures. They forsake the Church and then invent something new to take its place. They refer to their own churches, but what authority do they have? What credibility do they have? They all teach different from what was believed from the beginning.

Only the Catholic Church teaches in fullness what was given from the beginning. That is why we can confidently look to her as our Mother. She can be trusted. She can be followed. She will guide us safely home to eternal life.

Clothed With Christ

For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ, Galatians 3:26,27

Could it be any clearer that baptism is necessary to regeneration? Paul links faith and baptism here. It is similar to what our Lord said in the Gospel, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved," (Mk. 16:16). Faith is not merely an intellectual assent to truth. Nor is it a decision made once in the mind, but never, or rarely, acted upon in the life. Faith requires action. Faith apart from works is dead, (Jas. 2:26). That initial action is baptism.

Paul tells us here that when we are baptized, we put on Christ. The picture is of one who removes his former filthy, worn out garment, and dresses himself in a brand new clean one. This is what has happened to us in baptism. The filth and stain of sin was removed. Then we were given the spotless garment of Christ Himself to cover us.

Baptism is not merely a symbol of this action, it is the action. God chooses to work His grace through this sacrament. It is hard for some people to believe this. They think it smacks of magic, or superstition. But that is not true. God can do anything. He has chosen to use blessed water to be the means by which one is born again into His Family, the Church.

So, one may ask, how does this apply to infants who have not yet believed. The children of believing parents are members of the covenant made with God in Christ along with us. Thus we read of entire households that received baptism (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8). On the day of Pentecost, St. Peter made it clear that baptism and all its benefits, including the gift of the Holy Spirit, was to be given, not only to us, but to our children (Acts 2:38, 39). This works much the same way as it did in the Old Covenant when the children of the Israelites received circumcision, the sign of the covenant made with Abraham in faith, at 8 days old. The children were henceforth considered to be part of the covenant people along with their parents.

Faith and baptism are intended to be linked together in such a way as not to be separated. But they have been separated. What is the result? There are many who have not received the grace of baptism that think of themselves as believers. There are also those who minimalize the importance of baptism and either refuse it, or think nothing of it when they do receive it. Baptism appears as an empty ritual to them, void of meaning.

As we see again the words of St. Paul above, we should be convinced that baptism is much more than empty ritual. It is the means by which we are clothed with Christ. It is that moment when we are initiated into the Faith of Christ.

Confronting Peter

But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, Galatians 2:11

Yesterday I wrote about visiting Peter, that is, his successor, the Pope. I wrote of the need for our submission to his authority; that authority which was given to him by our Lord. Yet, today we find Paul opposing Peter. How do these two go together?

The Church believes in papal infallibility. But only under some very restricted circumstances. When the Pope makes a definitive statement regarding faith or morality, we believe the Holy Spirit guards his decisions from error (see Jn. 16:13). But this does not make the Pope himself infallible. He is still a man subject to the same failings as any man. Our text illustrates this frailty in the very first Pope, St. Peter himself.

Over the years there have been good Popes and bad ones. Fortunately, the good ones far outweigh the bad ones. But from time to time it has become necessary to oppose Peter. Like the situation in our text, the Pope's actions can sometimes bring grave scandal. In those times, he must be opposed. This does not strike against our belief in papal infallibility, but rather preserves it. That is to say, that we demand the Pope act like the Pope.

Having said that, I do not believe we are anywhere close to that with the present Pope. His actions back up his words. He demonstrates humility, but it is clear that he is well qualified to teach and to lead the Church. We are blessed to have him at this time in history, and I urge all to pray for him daily.

Paul opposed Peter because it was absolutely necessary. It was not intended to set a precedent or a rule of practice. In fact, it is notable because it was such a rare exception to the rule. As long as Peter is teaching and leading in the same Faith entrusted to him by our Lord, we have an obligation, as I wrote yesterday, to submit to him.

Again, today, I find myself in need of the reminder that I must visit Peter, and visit often. I pray the day does not come when he must be opposed. And for those who have separated themselves because they feel this is still necessary, I urge you to re-examine the situation. The unity of the Church is safeguarded by our submission to Peter. Let the divisions cease, and let us go together in humble submission to visit Peter.