Annoyance and the Saints

Hold onto your hats and your pews, friends! This post is going to be half rant half meditation!

Some days I just weep for the state of our parishes and the souls within them - and the very fact that our fallen nature has created our circumstances. Which, ironically, is why we go to Mass.

This morning I attended Mass, arrived early in order to pray. Several others arrived as well, as the church was relatively quiet. Then some families arrived with their fussy children, and more people arrived, and then came a couple who sat behind me, loudly talking to each other.

Recollection gone.  I tried to "offer it up" and be patient. I failed miserably.

They continued with mindless chit-chat, almost in my ear. Or both ears, as it were. I was resigned to the fact this is what Mass was going to be like, until I heard one of them comment, "I really don't like children."

To my surprise, rather than being angry, I was overwhelmed with sadness. Dislike children!? I realized many young ones were crying at that moment, and there was a child in front of me actively playing and talking to his mother. But they didn't bother me nearly so much as the couple behind me talking loudly and stating how much they dislike children.

I'll admit I used to get distracted by children, and quite annoyed by them. Over time, though, I have come to not really notice if they are crying, but rather, if they are silent. A parish devoid of children is a dying parish. I thank God my parish is vibrant and filled with the cries of children! Glory be to God! Alleluia!

And then comes this couple desiring to quash that, while their behavior was far, far worse.

Yes, I was annoyed.

I was annoyed by many things today, and struggled to pray. The music was so theologically bad that I missed the psalm and had to page through and read it for myself.  As the Feast of the Ascension is transferred to the 7th Sunday of Easter in my diocese, today's Gospel, MT 28:16-20 proclaims:  (say it with me!)

 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations,

baptizing them in the name of the Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

So, did you catch that? Jesus told us to GO FORTH AND MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM AND TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THAT JESUS HAS COMMANDED US.

Then our communion hymn sang about bread, and our closing hymn was "As A Fire is Meant for Burning", containing the words:

Not to preach our creeds or customs,

but to build a bridge of care,

UM, WHAT!? How in the world does that line up with the Gospel COMMAND to preach our creeds and customs?

How do we celebrate the Ascension, hear the command of Christ to go forth and evangelize, and then leave church having just sung that we just have to be nice to everybody, but for the love of God, don't, under any circumstances, preach our faith or baptize anyone!??????

Folks, it's no wonder Catholics aren't out there evangelizing and living out today's Gospel command: we undermine ourselves before we even leave the building.

Here's the danger in singing such bad music:  the Arian heresy spread by music. The Arians were great marketers and spread their bad theology through a catchy tune. That overcame the True teachings of the Faith, thus confusing people and leading them into heresy. The brain remembers and repeats music (ever got a bad earworm? Yeah, exactly).  So thousands of people are going to leave today singing all about how we should be nice but never evangelize.

Yes, that annoys me. And it SHOULD. It should annoy YOU, too. It explains a lot about the state of  many Catholics today, doesn't it?

Meditation on what it means to be annoyed

Today, as I fought those annoyances, as always, I tried to think about the Saints. People are people in every age, and Saints were  people, too.

It is a temptation in our age to glorify the Saints so much so that we forget their humanity. We read their writings and we are in awe of their holiness, seeking to learn from them how to follow Christ. If they can do it, WE can do it, right?

Unfortunately, we fall into this weird trap of thinking the Saints were somehow robotic and didn't get annoyed, or angry. We seem to think the Saints were nice to people all the time, and that's why they became Saints: that they learned not to "feel" anything.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Saints were all human beings and you know what? They got ANNOYED with people and situations! And I'm really glad I don't have to hear what St. Padre Pio would be saying about the music we sing at Mass in our age! I'm glad I don't have to watch St. Thomas Aquinas roll in his grave. I'm glad I don't have to withstand the fiery preaching of St. Paul or the ranting of St. Jerome.

Did you know that St. Francis de Sales had such a massive temper that after his death, they found GROOVES under his writing desk, where he took out his frustrations by scratching the underside repeatedly in effort to control his anger?

And yet, we read his writings, all of which are so gentle and wise. We are led to believe that he was always calm, recollected, and no, not ever angry.

No, St. Francis de Sales was a human being like the rest of us, and he got annoyed.  Without looking at who he was as a human being, we divorce his writings from him as though they could stand alone and be enough. The truth is that St. Francis de Sales, as well as other Saints, wrote from experience, they wrote through their temptations, and they wrote in such a way so as to preach holiness to themselves as well as to others. They were not separate from their spiritual direction; they lived it, too.

It was actually a consolation to me today to reflect upon the humanity of the Saints.

Is Being Annoyed a Sin?

Often I read about liturgical abuses or other things that set people off, and there are always a few jokers in the various com-boxes who suggest there is something wrong with the person who is annoyed. Maybe that's true; we are all sinners, and we do often let our annoyances turn into some kind of personal sin.

I think more often, though, the opposite of that criticism is true:  there's something missing in a human who refuses to be annoyed, for they are repressing their own humanity in a false understanding of what it means to be holy.

It is not a sin to be annoyed or irritated. It would qualify as a passion, I think. It's not anger, but can lead to anger, and anger alone is not a sin. The emotion of annoyance or irritation is simply that: something that tells us something is wrong. Compare it to a bug bite: when we are bitten, we are tempted to scratch at it because it itches! It can be really awful, and so we think about that bite and ponder it and feel that itch and then scratch and scratch until it finally bleeds, and maybe we keep scratching even THEN. And then it might get infected.

Or... we could just feel the annoyance, realize it's there and there's nothing we can do about it, or maybe spray a little Benadryl on it to control the histamine reaction. The bug bite is still there, but we've chosen a different way to handle it.

See the difference? Annoyance is nothing more than a spiritual bug bite. We can zap it by embracing it with virtue or we can scratch at it and let it get infected. The latter is a sin. The former turns it into a path to holiness.

At Mass today,  I hold that I was right to be annoyed: by people talking loudly when they should have been observing silence out of respect to others, annoyed by people claiming they hate children (loudly), annoyed by bad theology. If we aren't annoyed by those things, then we are completely unaware of what Mass is about. That's a problem. Annoyance is actually a gift from God. It is what we DO with annoyance that makes a difference.

We will all struggle with that for our entire lives. Mass equips us through the Sacraments and through the experience of other people who are fallen just like us.

How did the Saints react?  

It is important to learn from the Saints: how did THEY handle things that bothered them, rightly or not?

When we take a look at their writings and biographies, we witness that they sought to overcome their annoyances through practicing the Virtues. They practiced patience by not turning around and slapping offenders who mouthed off in church. They practiced fortitude by being patient throughout the Mass. They considered how much God loves even the most annoying among us. They resolved to love children and their haters more in order to overcome hatred in themselves. When confronted with bad theology, they sought to educate others so that they would know the Truth about God.

 The Saints, when annoyed,  looked to God and said, "Dear God I am so annoyed right now I could spit! Most Adorable Jesus, please grant me peace so that I might love others as you love me in spite of my own faults!"   

The Saints struggled just as we do. That doesn't mean they weren't holy: it means they learned how to handle annoyance and not allow it to degenerate into sin.  They didn't entertain it, but tried to let it change their hearts, not to a position of denial, but as a revelation of Truth and Divine Charity.

St. Catherine of Siena wrote in her "Dialogue" that we obtain every virtue through other people. She knew this well: she was annoyed sometimes, too. She was highly annoyed by the Pope during the Avignon captivity and called him to conversion, and back to Rome in no uncertain terms.

Let us all learn to handle annoyance by following the example of the Saints. We should not fear annoyance, but embrace it and allow it to change our hearts so that we might grow in faith, hope, and charity.

May God grant us all the grace to become Saints through the annoyances in our lives.

Divine Justice and the Ransom of Israel

The Mass readings leading up to Advent, and even entering Advent give us pause. They speak of destruction, of our ends, and of final Justice.

They do not help us enter into warm and fuzzy consolations, but rather, force us to face the cold, hard reality of our final ends when we are called to our own particular judgment. They call us not to sleep in comfort even as we continue to embrace our favorite sins (for we ALL have our favorite sins), but to let them go, knowing that sleeping in comfort is a luxury we can't afford when we must contemplate the face of Our God.

I lament the fact that we so rarely hear, in homilies, of the last four things:  Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell.

The fact is:  we will all die, and it's not going to be a predictable moment for the vast majority of us.

Advent calls us to take some time to truly examine ourselves and see if we are prepared, for even as we look forward to the celebration of the birth of the Messiah, we also look towards the Second Coming. While it is a joyous occasion, it is also one of sobriety, for  it is entirely possible that we will NOT measure up. It is entirely possible that we have become well acquainted with mortal sin and habitual venial sin, and give ourselves as slaves to our passions instead of dedicating ourselves to love of Our Lord.

It is a time to remember that at any moment, we may be standing before Jesus Christ as both Judge and Savior, and it depends on US as to what role He will fulfill in that moment.

What have we chosen in life?  EVERY act of sin is a decision AGAINST true charity. EVERY mortal sin is a decision to sever our own lives from Christ.

Every decision to receive Holy Communion while in the state of mortal sin not only compounds our terrible deathly state, but is in itself an act of sacrilege.

The Crucifix is Divine Justice

Every time we look upon the Crucifix, while it is important that we see there the love and mercy of Jesus Christ, we must ALSO recognize and take to heart this very personal act of Divine Justice.

Jesus didn't suffer his Passion and Death in order to lay the foundation for a dramatic screen play.  He didn't give himself over to the extreme torture of scourging and crucifixion in order to satisfy a mere myth and give people something to talk about for awhile.

The Crucifixion was all about Divine Justice, just as it was about Divine Mercy.  The problem is that all we tend to hear about these days is Divine Mercy.

We need a balance, for one part of the message is completely useless without the other.

We have to remember, when we recall the mercy of Jesus Christ, that His bloody visage wasn't just a weird moulage so a few EMT's could practice their trade on a real victim.  He TRULY suffered every penalty assigned to Israel for their sin.

Jesus suffered all the thorns that were prescribed to Adam and his descendants, and in fact, was scourged by things that tore into his flesh even more effectively than even the worst thicket of buck thorn.  The crown of thorns that was woven and placed around and into the tender flesh of his head was a revelation of the prescribed remedy for sin, and in fact, being hung on a cross of wood fulfilled the condemnation in Deuteronomy regarding the Accursed. God Himself directed that any that were hung from the tree were Accursed in His sight, and those who were accursed...were not in line for redemption.

Sacrificial Lamb

Throughout the Old Testament, we read of the sacrifice of atonement, of the lambs led to slaughter, and recall to mind Abraham, who was directed to offer his only son for sacrifice to the Lord. I still remember the first time I heard that story, and my utter horror that God would do such a thing, only to learn it was a test of Abraham's faith, an event proleptic of God's Justice.

God did not exercise His Justice in demanding what He was not willing to offer. In fact, He Himself was made Incarnate so that He could be offered in the place of all His beloved;  He offered HIMSELF as the eternal Sacrifice, the ONLY one who could truly make atonement for our sins.

Justice DEMANDS sacrifice, for Justice is nothing more than rendering to another what is due. As humanity in its fallen nature could not possibly pay the penalty for sin, God Himself became one of us in order to pay that ransom; it is here that we understand His Mercy, for we recognize that without Mercy, there is no Justice, and without Justice, there can be no Mercy.

Advent

Advent is a time of Justice and Mercy both.  It is a time to recall who we are in relation to God, and what we have done to offend Him that makes His Sacrifice necessary.  We cannot look at the Infant Jesus in the manger without recognizing that the same wood upon which He rested is the very same wood of the Cross of Sacrifice.  He was born to feed the world with His own flesh and blood, with His own Divinity, given first to the most lowly, and thirty-three years later, crucified in order to render Justice for sinners, for we cannot save ourselves.

We enter into Advent with an eye towards our final ends, for we cannot welcome God Incarnate without the recognition of the Justice to be rendered on our behalf.  We cannot look upon the Nativity without recognizing the Crucifixion. We cannot look upon the innocence of the Virgin and her Son without being accountable for our own guilt.

If we are honest with ourselves, we have NOTHING to offer the infant, for on our own, we have no merit.

Even if we offer ourselves, everything we have, everything we are, everything we have been and will ever be, we give this child a tainted gift for it is not within us to offer perfection. We NEED this child in order to BECOME perfected.

He, through His Mother, accepts what we offer in our poverty, and makes it, and us, glorious.

If only we are willing. If only we can become humble as He in His infancy. If only we can trust in His Mercy while knowing we deserve Justice, and as long as we understand that Justice would require OUR own lives.

We cannot look upon the Crucifix, then, without seeing Justice rendered, without knowing Mercy is applied, without knowing that Charity is about sacrifice...

Advent calls us to enter into this mystery, become a part of it, turn from sin, and know that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..in order to save us from our sins, rendering Justice on our behalf.

O Come, O Come Emmanuel...and ransom captive Israel....

HABEMOS MISSALE ROMANUM!

Today, we watched history taking place: a singular moment in time, in a convergence of conflict, strife, unity and passion for Truth, in the ongoing struggle between humanity and divinity, of improper formation versus proper understanding of the liturgy. I'll never forget where I was in that moment.

While I watched this conference and the vote from my computer at work, I was brought back in time.....

The Council in Constantinople was overseen by Bishop St. Flavian (Bishop Flavius), back in 448 AD. His role was to defend the Faith against a serious Christological error being advanced by Eutyches, and indeed condemned it as heretical. Eutyches fought back and through the politics of the time, in 449 AD they were brought together again and St. Flavian, this time as a "party" and not presiding, made a profession of Faith and condemned the heretical errors of both Eutyches and Nestorius.

The battle continued, and in a very dramatic council, a false Council in Ephesus in August of 449. The heretics had taken control, and when St. Flavian and his supporters were sentenced to deposition, which was a condemnation of the Truth of the Church, a violation against the Faith. The Papal Legates (people who were acting in the role of the Pontiff and with his authority) protested, and a Deacon objected to the obvious violence of the heretics (for in general the heretics were prone to violence...we see nothing has changed in this age, either.) As the sentence began to be read, several bishops prostrated themselves asking him to go no further, trying to prevent the oncoming violence.

Dioscuros commanded the doors be opened and in streamed soldiers with clubs and other weapons. St. Flavian himself appealed to reason and to appeal from the Holy See in writing through the Papal Legates. Dioscuros was so incensed at this reasonable approach, the refusal of Flavius to kowtow to the violent objectives of the heretics, and his adherence to decency, logic, and diplomatic process that Dioscuros naturally had a violent reaction. He ordered his henchmen to cast St. Flavian to the ground, where he was beaten and trampled so severely that he died three days later. The Papal Legates fared better...one was beaten and unjustly imprisoned to prevent him from delivering St. Flavian's message to the Holy See. The other managed to flee after great difficulty and reveal to the Pontiff all that had occurred.

...Meanwhile, on November 17, 2009...

All of this was going through my head (what I could remember without looking it up) while watching the Bishop's debate today. Most of us who are plugged into the Catholic world via internet are familiar with the Bishops who tend towards dissent, and those who uphold Truth without compromise, and some that are theological squishy and hold the middle ground. We pray for them all, of course, but in all of it, we pray that the Holy Spirit act through them.

Today was no disappointment. It had all the drama of the past, but far less blood and guts. Today, in the course of an hour or so, all of which I was able to witness, I saw Truth, I saw betrayal, I saw political alignments and double-agents! I watched two particular Bishops, whom I expected to throw their lot in with Bishop "Catholics are stupid" Trautman step up to the plate and oppose him on his own ground!

I was so shocked I stopped working for awhile because I couldn't even FATHOM what I was seeing and hearing. There I was, a pen in one hand, a list of kid's names in another, a form in front of me...completely unnoticed.

History was happening. New alliances. Truth restored. A new translation far more faithful to the original Latin...restored. It has only to be moved to the Holy See for "Recognitio", the word for formal approval.

This moment was only slightly less important to me than the election of Pope Benedict XVI, and so I took stock of my surroundings. At that first moment, his election, I was in a pizza restaurant, the ONLY person among my co-workers who actually understood what was going on and REJOICED in it! Even the other proclaimed Catholics in my presence were utterly bored and had never heard of Cardinal Ratzinger or his importance to our Faith and to the world. Today, in this second moment, I was at work in a Catholic parish, realizing Bishop Serratelli might be speaking to ME and my future role in the promulgation of this new translation. I took stock of my surroundings, realized where I was as a parish employee, and was THRILLED at the thought I could help in this endeavor; both professionally and personally.

But!

It saddens me that MOST Catholics probably don't care about the Liturgy or the development of it, and so don't have any idea of the import of what transpired today. It is the recognition that this historical event is going to go unnoticed by so many souls professing this Faith that makes me realize that it IS akin to the trampling of St. Flavian.

Closing Speech - Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli, Chairman of the Bishop's Committee on Divine Worship

God bless dear Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli whose words upon the acceptance of the new faithful translation of the Roman Missal by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) were like perfectly pure, cool water to this dry, dying soul in the desert of the translation of the Mass within which I've been living from birth. It is such a GRACE to be studying Liturgy and Sacraments this semester and be able to see, clearly, how much we suffer with the bad translation dealt to us, which itself denies the very things for which St. Flavian WAS MARTYRED!

That cool water, the words of triumph, LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI washed over me as I realized this had REALLY HAPPENED! Yes! the Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief! Grace builds upon nature! If the Liturgy is unfaithful...then so are we! If the Liturgy is faithful...then so are we, and even more, we are made HOLY!

SALVATION IN THE PASCHAL MYSTERY, MORE FULLY REVEALED!

We all struggle with sin, and we need every mode to holiness we can find. The Liturgy is, in large part, how the canon of scripture was discerned and if we are not faithful to the Liturgy, we are not faithful to Christ, who comes to us, in Word and Sacrament, made present, drawing us ever closer to Him. Not as a symbol...but as a reality.

I can't contain my happiness at this new translation. I await with much prayer the Recognitio from the Holy See, and hope to be of assistance where I am needed in my particular state, to assist the Faithful in understanding these changes, why they were necessary, overdue, and the importance in our salvation.

Thank you, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thank you.

Amen.

*

Bishop St. Flavian, Patron Saint of the Liturgy** Pray for us!

** (By my own personal designation, not that of the Church)

NOTES:

* More information on Bishop St. Flavian, Martyr.

* Post on Church History summarizing heresy in the Early Church

Judith and Esther

Are Judith and Esther not only typologies of Mary, but perhaps of Mary and Martha as well?

As I study for my Mariology class, I am reading again about Judith and Esther and their roles in history, their valor as women of God, and their very differing individual roles.

As we read the Old Testament, we can't read it one-dimensionally but must see how it is revealed in the New Testament. Although the Bible is one story of salvation as a whole, it is one with untold depths. As we read through history and see how the words of the prophets addressed the people of that age, they also pointed to a Messaiah of the future, and a Woman who would bring him and their entire salvation about.

All of Heaven Held its breath.....

It is said that all of Heaven held their breath as they awaited Mary's fiat, and so it was, as we go back into history and consider the roles of Judith and Esther, who stood as full representatives of their people, standing in the place of Israel; of Daughter Zion.

In the book of Judith, she was recognized as a holy woman, a woman of importance, and so they allowed her to approach the enemy as she and they prayed. In her action involving great prayer and sacrifice, she was able to carry out the action that freed the Israelites from oppression and redeemed them from the enemy. It was God who did the real work, but at her very hands at the behest of the prayer of her and her people.

In the book of Esther, we see how Esther was set aside to save her people in her three days of prayer and contemplation, of suffering and sacrifice. There, in her very humility and weakness, her people were saved as she interceeded for them and continued to do so until they were established in their rightful place.

Both women are seen as types of Mary, just as Isaac and Joseph are seen as types of Jesus in the Old Testament. The New Testament doesn't reveal anything so new, but only brings to fulfillment what has always been true and will continue to be true for all the ages.

Mary and Martha?

I have continued pondering these historical women and suddenly I saw the parallel between these pairs of women in both the Old and New Testaments; they really aren't so different.

In our modern age Mary and Martha have been juxtaposed as examples of the active and contemplative lives of women religious; it seems Judith and Esther can be as well.

In the case of Martha, we see Judith, both women focused on the action to be taken, and action accomplished. Mary and Esther, though, are focused on the need for prayer and contemplation, no matter what the task at hand. While the New Testament women weren't dealing with outright violence, it was because the Sacrificial Lamb was in their very presence, taking that need for violence out of their tender hands so that it could rest in His own, leaving the essence of their respective Calls to be discerned and lived out in a way more ordered than that of their predecessors.

My Own Discernment

I don't think it's any mistake that I was drawn to read deeply of Judith and Esther this summer as I approached the lives of Mary and Martha in that common "translation" of their lives in relation to Christ.

I have had to question myself; what draws me to each woman, how do I identify with her, and what puts me off? What does this reveal about God, about Jesus, about Mary...and about me?

What does this have to do with my own Vocation?

Is Jesus calling me to one of these, each a life of prayer and sacrifice, or something else?

Does it say something that I am more drawn to Esther than I am to Judith, in spite of the expectation I had in starting out that Judith seemed more in line with my own thinking and experience?

So Many Questions

There are those who want me to "Make a decision and just DO IT!"

I know that there are a few of you holding such a position and I gather that from comments, emails, personal conversations, and just the general tone of comments people love to make both with regard to what I've written over the last few years and comments made on the blogs or articles of other men and women in discernment.

We live in a culture of immediate gratification, and if someone is not decisive on the spot, we are tempted to want to push them along according to our own whims, all on their behalf of course!

If there is one thing I learned this summer it was to listen to God and trust in HIS timing. Not mine. Not yours. Not anyone's.

God's timing.

Had I "made a decision" before this summer, it wouldn't have been a good experience. That's why it didn't happen. If I was FORCING a decision now, I know it wouldn't end well.

My last retreat, my visit with the Cistercians, brought God's own words home to me very clearly:

"Wait for Me."

This is where I find the common translation of Mary and Martha to be lacking, and where I fail to see a dichotomy between Judith and Esther.

It is not a rebuking of action vs. contemplation, or this woman's style vs. that woman's style.

In true Catholic understanding, I see both/and...and more.

At my retreat, I brought everything to Jesus, pouring myself out to him, without emotion, but in complete purity, bare before him. I had no devotions to hide behind. As I knelt in that sparse chapel, before the altar the tabernacle, and the red-lit candle, it was me alone, naked in my solitude and honesty.

God was as honest with me as I was with Him. I said I wasn't ready.

He agreed.

I was there BECAUSE I wasn't ready. The healthy don't need a physician.

Judith and Esther didn't act on their own accord. Although they reacted to the need of their people and to those who called for help, they did not leap to a conclusion and "make a decision."

They prayed. They waited.

Judith let Holofernes fall into his own sin after her three days of prayer and fasting before she took the action she was there to take.

Esther's uncle Mordacai was clear in why he thought she was there, and AFTER her three days of prayer and fasting, she, too, took action in a totally different form.

God was a part of that. God DROVE that decision. God was WITHIN that decision and it was HE who delivered His people, for He is present in His annointed.

In Genesis, God created the world in six days, but on the seventh, He rested.

We do not know the length of those days, and we know that the length of the days of prayer for Judith and Esther correspond to the days of Christ's Passion and Resurrection.

Yet that time is symbolic for us today, too. We must all pass through a time of purification, a time of death, a time of resurrection, even here on this earth. Perhaps we pass through this kind of conversion many times, maybe in small ways, maybe in large ones. Maybe it takes three days of a TEC retreat, or maybe it's three years or ten years of hard living, serious suffering, and a breakthrough in a 20-year Confession and learning to live again through the Sacramental life of the Church.

The Saints write of two major conversions, yet I write here of something smaller, something unnnoticed to anyone but to God, for we, and all the Saints, know that there are many steps to holiness, both big and small. Dramatic or inane, they are all the same to God.

The small moments pass without notice to anyone but to us and to God; for God sees how we put our greatest effort into the smallest things, and the smallest, most unnoticeable things are those that make the greatest difference later on.

Holding Pattern

Right now, I am Judith, praying and fasting, asking her people in turn to pray and fast before she goes into the camp of the enemy. I am Esther, face-down in my chamber, prostrate before the Lord, begging for help, revealing my solitude and my dependence upon Him, for I have no one else but Him.

And in this prayer, God is asking me to wait. I'm not ready.

It is not I who says so, but God, and I can do nothing but obey.

I struggle between the worlds of active and contemplative, trying to figure out not only what God wants, but what I want, for this IS an important question.

Only in prayer can it be resolved, and only in prayer can action be discerned. Not on my time, but God's.

He has a plan. I await that plan.

It doesn't have to make sense to me, for right now, NONE of this does.

It certainly doesn't make sense to YOU nor should it, for you are not privy to our private conversations, just as you are not privy to how Judith and Esther each made their own decisions; those facts are hidden. What they heard from God; hidden.

So it remains that part of my life is hidden from you, as it should be, for my discernment doesn't belong to you, but rather, to me and to My Lord who calls me to this state of earthly limbo.

I do not mean, through this, to compare myself in any way to these great Holy Women, for I cannot compare, but only use their stories to explain yet another facet of Mary, of the Church, and of all those discerning God's will in their lives, and certainly in mine. They have much to teach ALL of us.

For now I reach out for their hands, ask for their intercession, realizing that our battles are the same, although on a different spiritual plane.

The mystery of any Vocation is that it comes from Christ alone, and only He and the soul being addressed truly understand the depths that must be plumbed, the mountains to be climbed, and the plains to be crossed in order to respond and fulfill that call.

Judith and Esther both knew that clarion sound that echoed in their souls; I await my own action, clothed in sackcloth, armed with a sword, ready to release all and surrender to the golden scepter when I am brought into countenance of the Lion of Judah, the Lamb of God, both in one....my King.

*

O Little Town of Bethlehem

Today, finally, our preparations come to fruition, and we celebrate the birth of Christ; the union of human and Divine in a tiny infant.

For months now, some radio stations have been playing Christmas carols, perhaps we've only had them on in the last week to "help us get into the spirit", or perhaps we finally sing those old hymn at Christmas Eve Mass. The stories these songs tell paint beautiful pictures of serenity, trying to capture the miraculous, to instill a sense of joy, and increase our wonder at God become Man.

On that day, God actually entered our history, and since then, everything has been different. The Messiah has come, just as the prophets told, to save us from our sins.

And now, 2,000 years later, at this time of year we scramble around to buy gifts, make cookies, find just the right dress or shoes or hat and scarf to wear to church or to our various gatherings. We hear all about the "Christmas Spirit" and while trying to find it, we spend a lot of time cursing at other drivers in the overcrowded mall parking lots. Or maybe at our families, who are driving us crazy in their own Christmas frenzy.

Advent is SUPPOSED to remove us from all that silliness to help us focus on what Christmas is REALLY about. But has it worked for you this year?

Finally, Christmas has arrived, and I have to wonder how many people are now pulling their hair out because the day isn't perfect. Maybe the dog got sick on the carpet at 5 am. Maybe the lights on the tree stopped working. Maybe the two-year old got into the gifts and had a heyday.

Maybe the turkey or ham or what-have-you is still frozen and you won't eat exactly on time.

Maybe the cantor at Mass at dawn wasn't very good. Maybe you have a cold.

A thousand things could go "wrong" to disrupt our idea of what Christmas Day should be like. We are told to get caught up in the joy, and yes, we should, but we should NEVER lose sight of the fact that the day of the birth of Christ was not one of luxury, but of hardship none of us can really imagine.

First, although it was a time of political stability, it was also a time of oppression and fear. Joseph and Mary took the 8 or 9-day trek to Bethlehem not to find a good place for a family portrait, but because they HAD to go...and because the reason for that census was to find and kill the King Mary carried in her womb.

When after this terrible journey, which must have been incredibly uncomfortable especially or the very-pregnant Mary, they finally arrive and can't find a place to stay. We know the story; there was no room at the Inn. They could not get out of the cold. Mary, ready to give birth, had nowhere to go.

We commonly see images of a stable, which brings to mind romantic and rustic images of sweet-smelling hay, and a sweet looking ox, maybe a donkey. (From Isaiah: "even the ox and the ass know their master.")

But that's not the real story; Christ wasn't born in a wooden stable. He was born in a cave on the outskirts of Bethlehem. For you see, even before He was born, He was rejected, and had no place to lay His head. The caves of Bethlehem can be observed to this day, and are still used now as they were then; as shelter for the flocks at night. They are filled with animal dung and all sorts of unimaginable filth. They weren't cleaned regularly as would be the stables we know today; thus Our Lord was born into one of the nastiest places on earth.

Consider THAT symbolism and what that means with regard to His Divine mission.

Further, we are told that Christ was placed in a manger; indeed. He was placed where the animals ate. It was filled with camel and sheep spit. But at least it was off the dung-ridden floor.

It seems that although the birth of Jesus is a cause for joy, it is also a cause for reflection, for we must see that the wood of the manger is also the wood of the cross. Christ came into this world to suffer, and did so even from the moment of His birth.

We worry so much about having a perfect Christmas day; but if that is our concern, then we have missed the entire point. Today, as we celebrate with our families, with our parishes, with our friends, we should take some time to reflect upon the historical reality of this day, and be willing to enter into the Mystery of the Incarnation through our own trials and sufferings.

In remembering His great gift, let us also give Him the gift of ourselves, and pray that our own conversions bring us ever closer to to Him, even as we kneel in the dung in a cave of Bethlehem, knowing the sorrow and triumph of the cross still looms.

Let us be joyful in knowing what He endured for our sake, and be willing to carry that Divine Infant in our own purified hearts throughout the Christmas season and beyond.

Glory to God in the highest, and peace to His people on earth!

Lose Your Language, Lose Your Culture

Back in 1994 when I lived in Mexico, we took a "study-trip" to Cuetzalan, which is a little puebla in the Sierra Madres. We walked the few kilometers to the local village belonging to the decendents of the Mexicas (commonly called "Aztecs"), who still speak as a first language that ancient tongue of Nauhatl. San Miguel Tzinacapan (St. Michael at the top of the noble mountain) consisted of homes of varying sorts; most had dirt floors, cooking implements akin to that of colonial America (or before), and in most ways, the people were still living much of the ancient lifestyle. Their religion was Catholic, but with the flavor of their culture; the ancient dances, such as the one that used to honor the god Quetzalcoatl (the feathered serpent) was danced in order to honor the One True God on special feast days. Likewise, the Voladores would dance on the top of a high pole and fly downward, on those same feast days.

Lessons from the Ancients

On the day we arrived, we were treated to these dances, for it was the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel, the patron of their city. The Church, built during the colonization of Mexico, was the center of the town, and Mass, the center of their lives.

It was amazing; they had lost nothing of who they were, but had embraced all they could be. It wasn't about materialism; it was about God. Life was about loving God and loving neighbor, even we, the strangers, as they welcomed us into their town and into their homes.

But we heard one dominating complaint, both there, and in articles written in various publications. It came up in class lectures, and is perhaps one of the biggest lessons I took with me from that experience: the young people were ashamed of their history. They had grown up first with their own culture, and then learned the adaptations to mainstream culture, that of the Spanish language and contemporary Mexican culture. They were being well educated in their towns, sent out to learn even more, and they were learning to be ashamed. They were TRYING to forget their ancient language.

Their elders were concerned; for if they lost their language, they would lose the rest of their culture as well. For their culture wasn't just a bunch of trappings, but was something far greater which was bound to them by their common language. It was the language that could properly define the culture and traditions they carried.

Their language was the key.

American Culture

America, as we've all learned from grade school, is a "melting-pot". It's a bunch of people from a bunch of places that nearly erased the native peoples in favor of what has come to be known as "tolerance" which tolerates only popular opinion.

As Americans, we have no culture. Although English is our common language, we're even losing that. We still see hints of the various people who came to live in this country; the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, and more recently, the Nigerians, the Somalians, the Hmong, the Vietnamese, and all those refugees from Mexico, Central America, and South America.

There are pockets of religiosity which are becoming smaller, but more intense. As we enter into this Holiday (Holy-Day) season, the culture wars become more obvious. The religious versus the secular. The secularist hodgepodge trying to erase any semblance of culture in the name of "tolerance", which tolerates nothing but the gray.


Overall, we have nothing that we share in common. Not even our language, anymore. We are all screamed at to be more "tolerant", and in this tolerance, we find that nothing is tolerable, for everything that defines us in a particular group, especially religious, is not acceptable in this society.

Many years ago my Mom was taking a class in Native American Studies. I went with her to a pow-wow where she spoke with a woman who observed, "America has no culture." I didn't understand then, but I do now. SHE had a culture; it was very easy for her to see how we did not; she was sad for us, my mother and I, who had lost ours. She saw us as orphans.

She was right.


Cultural Catholicism

Catholics were known from the beginning, for we stood out in the pagan culture. Our ways were documented in the Letter to Diognetus, and those same premises stand today...if we let them.

But there was more.

The Catholic Church is commonly identified in the media as ONLY the Roman Catholic Church, but there are many more Rites; the Maronite, the Syriac, the Ruthenian, the Byzantine...there are many. Each in union with Rome. We are united in our beliefs, under the Vicar of Christ, and the Roman Rite (Latin Rite) used to be more recognizable by our liturgy which was held in Latin, our common language. It was the largest Rite of the Church, and remains so...and is also, today, the most FRACTURED of Rites, for we have lost our language....and thus, our culture.

Vatican II was a very good thing and did make many reforms. However, the documents stated clearly that although the vernacular was to be given more freedom, such as in the readings and in the Gospel, the common language of Latin was to remain, as was the musical heritage of Gregorian Chant. The latter, which is purely in Latin, was to "maintain a high place" in the liturgy.

Yet, we've seen the systematic attack against this common language since the late 1960's so much so that Latin, as the main root of the English language, isn't even taught anymore. The prejudice against Latin and the Roman Church is so strong that classical education has been completely lost in this country.

Especially among Latin-Rite Catholics themselves.

This loss is horrific, for with the loss of our common language, we have also lost our common culture. After Vatican II, those who did not actually understand the hermeneutic of continuity interpreted them according to the spirit of the age, and attached the term "Spirit of Vatican II", bullying the American Church into accepting "reforms" that had NEVER been intended. It erased our language, cleansed our churches of art and beauty, and made us utilitarian in our newfound protestantism.

From the new "visionaries" that arose out of the pot-induced smog of the 1960's came the idea that Latin was the root of all that was wrong in the Church, and it MUST be QUASHED at any cost.

So it remains even today, even after we've emerged from the disorienting scent of weed into the growing popularity and clarity of pure incense, people hear the word "Latin" and automatically turn into war machines. It has become such a point of contention that those on both sides of the issue have seemed to become polar opposites, refusing even to see those things that truly divide them.

Latin is the symbol, but it isn't the problem, nor is it the cause. Even as it remains to be the key.

Have you noticed that this dichotomy does not exist in the other Catholic Rites? They have NEVER lost their common languages. ALL of their ancient traditions remain in place.

It is the Latin-Rite Church that is struggling, for our common bond has been lost. We lost the key to our culture, and we haven't been able to access it or understand it ever since.

There is something to be said for a common language. There is something to be said for allowing the vernacular, but with a common thread of a language we ALL understand, no matter where we are in the world. To know that those in Vietnam are hearing the Consecration in Latin, and understanding it...to know that those in Germany are hearing the Sanctus in Latin...and are singing along. To know that those in Mexico are raising their voices in the Gloria...in Latin....warms my heart.

We are not just united through Holy Communion, but through our language and our culture. I have been in contact with Catholics all over the world, and know that, if we all spoke Latin, we would be even more closely bonded.

The American Church, the Roman Church as a whole, lost our language, and that was only the first step. We've lost nearly our entire culture.

Those who claim to be "cultural Catholics" cite things they remember prior to the "reforms" of Vatican II. But they don't even live those things out today, and dissent against all those things CLEARLY taught by the Church, in the common vernacular. The popular media, when portraying ANYTHING Catholic, falls back on Gregorian Chant, upon statues, stained glass, and high altars, for those things are our true culture.


Are you seeing this? Those who dissent...claim as their own things they've never seen, or remember ONLY from their childhood. And those who observe, do not portray the Church in America as she is, but as she used to be, in all her beauty.

Even THEY see Truth and recognize what is right...even as they arm themselves in battle in order to defile her.

Yet we have an entire generation or so trying to lose that culture, and who have done everything they could to erase it even from their own memories. The memories they claim define them as "Cultural Catholics".

We, who survived the self-destructive tendencies of the now-graying and dying Baby Boomers are trying to revive the war-torn parishes, restoring what has been lost. Our dear Pope Benedict XVI has heard our cries and has made a huge move not only to restore the Mass as it was prior to Vatican II, but to reconcile those who reacted too strongly to what was wrong, and went into schizm.

Our culture is coming back; our true culture. It is no mistake that the most identifiable part of this culture is the Latin language.


The world calls Latin a "dead" language, and it also claims triumphantly that the Church is "dying". Yet, in my entire life on this earth, I've never seen more life in the Church than there is today with the ongoing restoration of all that has been lost, from the language, to the art, to the liturgy, to the morality going back to the Didache and beyond.

We will not "go back in time". The Novus Ordo is a valid Mass, and I do love it in its own way, for I grew up with this Mass. I accept the authority of our Popes and our Bishops, but I rejoice in the restoration of a history I have never been given a chance to experience.

I have never attended a "pre-Vatican II Mass" for it was only a memory by the time I was born. I've been to a Latin Novus Ordo, and it changed my life. I hope, this weekend to attend the Extraordinary Rite (ie "pre-Vatican II Mass") this weekend at St. Agnes, and even though I don't expect to understand anything going on...I embrace it as an experience in true culture.

You can destroy a civilization by destroying their language; the Catholic Church is far stronger than that, and refuses to devalue that which the rest of the world has defined as "obsolete".

I understand the concerns of the Elders at San Miguel Tzinacapan, and I thank them for sharing their wisdom. I pray they are well, that their children will grow to embrace their history instead of destroy it, and that God will have mercy on the Church in America and throughout the world.

The Epic Story of the Early Church - The Heretics

INTRO AND DISCLAIMER:

Dear readers, congratulations, you are helping me to study tonight. It's a marathon weekend, It's been a marathon week. I didn't get enough done last week when I was off for the Holy Days, so here I am, cramming for tomorrow's test. My test from last night went decently...I got 4 wrong, so an 84%, which is fine because I got 100% on the assignment...so my standing remains good in that class. (And 3 of those 4 questions were dumb answers, one of which I changed and got wrong. The other of which I changed...and got right.) I don't know how I did on the take-home test I emailed in on Thursday.

But tomorrow's test promises to be brutal because I can't separate the heresies, which are all about seperating the Trinity. So, dear, dear readers, thank you in advance for allowing me to fool myself psychologically by pretending to blog when I'm really studying for tomorrow's test. As a disclaimer, all that is about to be posted is not complete...it's just to help me get this info into my head and sort out the various heresies that are similar.

EPIC STORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH

I have a dream...I want to write a novel on the Early Church, from Acts onward, revealing the truth of Christianity in story form...and then turn it into a screenplay. This movie would be EPIC. And you'll see why in a moment.

I'm starting in here with the Trinitarian Heresies of Sabellius, Arius, Euchtyches, and Nestorius. Our heroes are the Cappodocian Fathers (St. Gregory of Nazienzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Basil), St. Athanasius, St. Flavian (martyred, St. Augustine, St. Cyril and Pope Celestine.

THE HERESIES:

Sabellius inagurated "modalism", which saw God as 3 modes: Creation, Redemption, and Santification. He did not distinguish between the PERSON of Christ from the PERSONS of the Father and the Holy Spirit. This heresy would mean that God the Father suffered and died on the Cross, which caused this sect to be called Patripassians (Passion of the Father). Church Fathers Dionysius the patriarch of Alexandria, and Pope St. Dionysius laid the smackdown on Sabellianism which condemned both it and Arianism.

Arius fell into a common error of trying to rationalize the incomprehendable; the Mystery of the Trinity. Through his fault of pride, he took his rationalization and decided that Jesus had no divinity of his own, he was not equal or consubstantial with the Father, he did not have equal glory, and in fact, placed Jesus as a lesser divinity. That meant that his doctrine was a sort of polytheism. Arius held that Jesus was foreign in substance to the Father, was not co-eternal, God was not a trinity, and the Son was adopted; he in fact, was not impeccable and did not comprehend the Father.

In the early Church, Constantine was an important figure, as he legalized the religion, and even called a council. Unfortunately, although he started out to do some good things, he fell for Arius's little idea we like to call "heresy" and became an Arian. Oh, the betrayal!

It was unfortunate, but this heresy was a terrible one that insipidly crept throughout the Church and corrupted many. Indeed, our Church Fathers were quite alarmed at the souls being lost through this demonic treat, and several of them stepped in to combat the dangerous ideology.


The Council of Nicea formulated the Nicene creed, declaring that Christ was "consubstantial" (homo-ousious) with the Father, and sharing in the same divine nature. At this council, the sympathizers of Arius postured and acquiesced, choosing to define the terms according to their own chosen understanding; giving a pretense at obedience and agreement while working out their treachery in dark corners. Sadly, Arianism continued to deprive many souls of the Grace of God.

St. Athanasius, in his Discourse against the Arians revealed that the Arian doctrine implies that before the "creation" of the Word, God would have been deprived of being Wisdom, Word, and Life, for Christ is the Word and Wisdom of the Father and the Life. "For let him understand well who dares to say, 'Once the Son was not', that he is saying, 'Once Wisdom was not", and 'Word was not,' and 'Life was not.'"

The Council of Constantinople in 381 completed the statement of the Trinitarian doctrine by definining the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and at that point, it was adopted to enlarge the Nicene Creed.

The Council of Rome of 382 confirmed the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is one substance and power with the Father and the Son, and that there is one Divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and three persons. It also rejected in one fell swoop the heresies of Sabellius, Arius, and Eunomius, by names and by descriptions.

St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazienzen, and St. Gregory of Nyssa (The Cappodocian Fathers) worked out the terminology capable of clearly communicating the orthodox doctrine, properly distinugishing between the natureof essence and the person. Through this, they were able to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Arians. They defined God as 1 nature in three persons, with no separation in the Godhead. This was infallibly sanctioned in the Council of Constantinople and confirmed by Rome.

(NOTE: in the early Church, there were often not terms readily available to adequately discuss the theological issues they were facing. The fact that terms came into being doesn't deny the existance of the beliefs and doctrines prior to the formal definition of the terms.)

Then came along Apollinaris of Laodicea, who made a serious Christological error closely related to Arianism. His position was that the Logos (Word) inhabited Christ by taking the place of a rational soul. He suggested that Jesus Christ was comprised of Logos and a body, an idea that arose out of inadequate philosophy and rationalism.

The Cappodocian Fathers refuted this heresy by pointing out that, had Christ not had a rational human soul, then He was not really a man and could not redeem our souls. Jesus redeemed what needed to be redeemed, both soul and body in full integrity. "That which he has not assumed, he has not healed." Jesus united Himself to what is common, that being body and soul. Had Jesus not done this...we would not have been redeemed. (Isn't that a horrifying thought?)

Now comes one of my favorite parts of Church History, and one of my favorite scenes in the movie I haven't written yet:

Nestorius denied the unity of the person in Christ and rationalized it to remove it from the Mystery of the Trinity. On Christmas Day, he declared that Mary was not the Mother of God because God had no origin and the Blessed Mother was not the mother of divine nature. His problem was that he was unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between the Person and the Nature of God.

The people in his cathedral did not handle this well, as you can imagine. It would be the same if a Bishop today stood up and declared the same thing. But this heresy and blasphemy was combated in a dramatic way:

On the Feast of the Annunciation in 429, Bishop Proclus opposed Nestorius in his own Cathedral by preaching eloquently on the Theotokos (God-bearer):

The Self-same was in the Father's bosom and in the womb of his mother. He lay in a mother's arms, while He walked upon the wings of the wind. He was adored by angels while He sat at meat with publicans. The Cherubim durst not behold Him, while Pilate condemned Him. The servant smote Him, and creation shuddered. He hung upon the Cross, but He was not absent from the throne of glory; and, while He lay in the tomb, He was sprading out the heavens like a curtain. Oh! What Mytery! I see miracles, and I prolcaim the Godhead. I behold the sufferings, and I deny not hte manhood. What clearer proof could I want that Mary is the Mother of God?"

St. Cyril of Alexandria reacted immediately to the heresy and wrote a Paschal letter to the monks in Egypt, answering Nestorius by pointing out that although the divine nature of God is not capable of suffering, his human nature did so and was, obtained through Mary in order to suffer for us. Additionally, he informed Pope Celestine, who in turn declared the doctrine to be heretical. Pope Celestine gave St. Cyril the authority to carry out the rest of the matter. At the Council in Ephesus, called by St. Cyril in 431, held in one day, approved the 2nd letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius an the 12 Anathemas of Cyril, declaring that the hypostatic union and reaffirming that Mary is the Mother of God.

This is turning into a serious Action Flick:

The heresy Monophysitism declared that Christ was of or from 2 natures, and after the Incarnation, had only 1 nature. Eutyches, an elderly abbott in a monastery in Constantinople, held that Christ was consubstantial with the Father in divinity, but not with us in humanity, which was a denial of Christ's fully human nature. (He was later willing to agree that Christ did have a human nature.) Further, he claimed, through misunderstanding of terms that this was the doctrine of St. Cyril and St. Athanasius (which was not true), and that Jesus was consubstantial with the Father in divinity but not with man in humanity.

His views were brought before a local Council in Constantinople under the Patriarch St. Flavian , and Eutyches was summarily condemned for holding that Christ had 1 Nature instead of 2.

Eutyches appealed to the Pope and obtained the support of the Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscuros (the successor to St. Cyril). A general council was called in Ephesus in 449, which was described in great detail by Cardinal Newman. He described the zealous monks who supported Monophysitism, those who attended to Dioscros, and armed forces. They broke into the Church upon the call of Dioscorus; Flavian was thrown down and trampled.

St. Flavian died of his injuries three days later. As for the rest, those Bishops that were not trampled (including the Pope's legates) escaped.

Those Bishops who did not escape were forced to sign a blank paper, which afterwards was filled in with condemnations of Flavian. At the end of the proceedings, Dioscorus excommunicated the Pope (yes you read that correctly), and an Emporer issued an edict approving the decision of the Council.

But wait...there's MORE!

Another Council was called in Chalcedon, and 630 Bishops, and the Roman legates (authoritative representatives of the Pope) opened the Council. Dioscorus was charged with having presumed to hold a Council without the authority of the Apostolic See, and for not having the Letter of the Pope read to the Council (which would have been the Tome of St. Leo.) The Tome was read during the Council of Chalcedon and affirmed by the Bishops as being the faith of the Apostles; they declared anyone anathema who did not hold to the faith of the Apostles.

Dioscorus was condemned and dishonorably deprived of his "Episcopal dignity and every sacerdotal ministry." (He was defrocked) Take THAT HERETIC! YEAH!

There was another very similar heresy which continued: Monothelitism. This heresy declared that Christ had one Will and operation after the Incarnation. In reality, we understand that Christ has two wills, human and divine, although his human will was always in harmony with his divine will.


CONCLUSION

So...although that's not the end of the information for my test, nor is it exactly how I will answer the questions that may arise, doesn't it just whet your appetite to learn about the Early Church Fathers? Can't you just see how awful it was? Wouldn't the real drama of our roots make an incredible movie???

The deception of the heretics, the betrayals, the heartbreak, the murderous intentions, the disobeience, the political posturing...