My Love of the Novus Ordo Mass

I cannot get enough of the old Novus Ordo Mass (English Mass). By and large I think the recent changes in the Mass are not positive. In the old Novus Ordo Mass they used to say "[Christ] will come again in glory." In the new Novus Ordo it says the flat "Christ will come again." Really, how will he come, my heart cries. Is he taking a Greyhound or will he come with the angels?

Peace Be With You....And With Your Spirit
This also leaves me flat. So you do not care about my body? Only my spirit matters to you? Well that is contrary to the Catholic Faith about the image of God being secondarily in the body? We do not need to relegate that truth.

Singing the Lamb of God in Latin
I do not think about myself in this, because I understand the Latin. However, many people do not. The Mass is a tool of evangelism, not just for Catholics. Again, you are cutting people off from the meaning, because the Mass is a public event, not a private one. It is for all those who wish to attend. There have been several converts who just sat at the mass and learned about the faith that way. Many of them later converted, but it took time.

In Praise of the (Old) Novus Ordo
With the subtlety and mystical orientation of the old Novus Ordo, it is more conducive to me to contemplation than the new Norvus Ordo. What a beautiful time we had with the old Novus Ordo. I miss it dearly.

Are Those Who Deny Lesbians Communion Now Wrong?

In case you did not know, Father Marcel Garnizo, of the Archdiocese of Washington, denied holy communion to a woman who was cohabitating with another woman. Since lesbianism is grave sin, she was to be denied communion according to Canon Law:

Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

A complaint was lodged against Father Garnizo, which was addressed by Most Rev. Barry Knestout, who threw Father Garnizo under the bus. A complaint that it was at a funeral, which does not change the standard, was lodged by the prospective communicant. The bishop, Most Rev. Barry Knestout, seems to have erred in this matter, embarrassing Father Garnizo. I think Father Garnizo should appeal this decision to the Congregation for the Clergy, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Holy Father himself if need be.

A Disturbing Trend
The bishops seemed to have a habit of throwing priests overboard.  With the new norms for clergy abuse, priests have found themselves being left by their bishops to the sharks. Several innocent priests have died due to the stress of trial after trial, even though some have been found innocent. The pendulum has swung too far.

Father Garnizo acted appropriately given a lesbian was presenting herself to communion. Perhaps the bishops should think about their faithful, instead of abandoning them to pander to a manifest grave sinner.

A Proper Balance
Much of this article was written to swing the pendulum back. Throwing priests under the bus is not the standard, neither is siding with them at all times and in all matters. Rather, a due consideration of both the rights of priests and of the faithful. It is a not an either/or situation, but rather a both/and. Both the needs of the accused and of the accuser need to be considered, not an all or nothing approach which fears the possible fall-out of civil authorities:

"There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love" (1 John 4:18).

Journalistic Responsibility

For those of you who do not know, John King confronted Newt Gingrich during the January 19th debate in South Carolina about what his former wife said about an "open marriage." John is a divorced man, according to reports, with a hostile relationship with his ex-wife. Perhaps we should trot out his ex-wife and see what she has to say?

I do not point this out the eviscerate John King, but to point out Journalistic responsibility according to John Paul II:

"In the communications media the Church finds a precious aid for spreading the Gospel and religious values, for promoting dialogue, ecumenical and inter-religious cooperation, and also for defending those solid principles which are indispensable for building a society which respects the dignity of the human person and is attentive to the common good" (John Paul II, The Rapid Development of Those Responsible for Social Communications).

I am a Certified Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) and have done job interviews regularly. One thing we do not ask is someone's marital status. In fact, this is illegal discrimination according to law. I do not care about what a candidates ex-wives say. Many divorcees are bitter about the divorce. We accept that.

Apart from an employment contract, all a human resources professional is supposed to care about is: "Are you qualified for the position to which you are applying?" Nothing else. Not your religion, race, marital status, hateful comments by your ex-wife or anything else. The Presidential Race is a big job interview.

Maybe our criteria, being a people of repentance, should be the Sacrament of Reconciliation and attempts to live a holy life. Too often, our Jerry Springer culture takes over and we forget the image of God in our fellow human beings.  Let us pray for everyone, and give them the respect they are due, even to Barrack Obama, or a repentant candidate who is doing the best he can:

Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1869).

However, there is hope:

The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved his own to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from their fathers" (1 Pt 1:18). (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 622)

Let us choose the best candidate for the job, not give credence to salacious comments by a possibly embittered ex-wife. May Christ Reign!

Persecution By Homosexuals

If you did not know Cardinal Francis George apologized for saying that homosexuals might act like KKK members if the Catholic Church had too public an image during a Gay Parade.

This is an example of abandoning your flock. Catholics need to be told the truth about the homosexual agenda, so they can fight back against it. Homosexuals have attacked a church in San Francisco, banging on the doors. This was popularized by many Christian commentators including Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

Abandoning the Flock
This seems to be a case of an archbishop abandoning the flock. Catholics need to hear the unvarnished truth about what homosexuals are doing in Society. They are a very aggressive force that does not mind violating Church property rights and throwing glitter all over people. Keep in mind, Gingrich has no idea what is in that glitter. Letters have contained Anthrax and Gingrich has no idea what is being thrown over him.

Gay Adoptions
Obama has been so aggressive with his gay adoption policy, that he has forced Catholic Adoption agencies to shut their doors due their funds being cut off. The homosexual marriages in New York State and New Hampshire have caused backlashes which has created movements to overturn those laws.

Stand Firm
Catholic's need firm leaders. Who in every thought, word and deed, stand for the truth, like Cardinal Timothy Dolan, a leader who unabashedly stands for the truth, if with a bit of grace.

Please leaders, do not abandon the truth and in doing so abandon your flock. Stand firm and resolute. If the Homosexual Movement has acted like terrorists, let it be so. If they have attacked Catholics, say it is so. Do not let the flock suffer for the wolves.

Latin Mass Onliers

A schismatic tendency in Latin Mass Onliers has been a denigration of the Vernacular Mass. They present this argument as if it is objectively true that the Latin Mass is superior to the Novus Ordo. They get snarky, as one canon lawyer contemplated about himself, about the Latin Mass, as if it is obviously better.

This is fundamental disobedience. As the canon lawyer in this link, stated, as quoted by Fr. Z., the bishop can issue a decree forbidding the Latin Mass. However, even though he has recourse to the Congregation for Divine Worship, he has to stop the Mass (my comment). If he wins his recourse, he can continue it. This shows the Latin Mass is not objectively superior, since they Church would never stop such a good.

Moral Law
Unlike Canon Law, which in most part can be changed, Moral Law cannot. We are always obligated to follow the Moral Law (including the Ten Commandments) even should our death be the result. If this were true about the Latin Mass, we would be obliged to always attend it regardless of the circumstances or a bishops' decree.

As attributed, this Canonist says:

Perhaps at 3:00 p.m. [sic] in the afternoon, in a sidel chapel, after the heat in the church ahs been turned off, and while a janitor is cleaning the rest of the church with a loud buffer. (a bit too snarky?) [sic]

Yes, very snarky. Yet, a Bishop's Conference is obliged to consider:

The pastoral care of the faithful requires from every bishops' conference that their physical health is also taken into account (Pontifical Council for Pastoral Care Migrants and Intinerant Peoples).

The canonist above would not care for their physical health. What about the elderly? So Fr. Z. and the canonist would have the elderly suffering during Mass, possibly get pneumonia, since they want to attend the  Mass in English. This, of course would be a violation of papal teaching against the fourth commandment (i.e. doing harm).

Extremism
Of course, these are extreme examples of disobedience of Vatican Norms. However, they are very present, and people are being unduly influenced by them.

If this is the disobedience that the Latin Mass brings about in people, perhaps we should be done with it [ficetiously said]. We should abandon the Latin Mass because it causes disobedience [more facetiousness].

Or perhaps, we should respect the laity's desire to hear the Mass in their own language. Jesus did with his first Mass.

The Beauty of the Norvus Ordo

Much ado has been made by Traditionalists about the words of the Mass; "...and be with your Spirit," "It will be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins…”


These are more accurate and precise meanings, the traditionalists say. Some infer, that the changes in the Mass led to the corruption of souls.


Much Ado About Nothing?
While it is true that a more precise translation it useful, there is another problem. The Traditionalists argue a more exact translation will make Catholics more Orthodox in their belief. Some even argue they will be more faithful Catholics. However, the statistics do not really bear this out. Mass attendance was at about 45%, in the United States, before Vatican II. Currently it is about 45% (after going above 60% after Vatican II).


In other Countries, Mass attendance has risen, including in Brazil. These Countries have the Novus Ordo (Mass in their native languages).


And Be With Your Spirit
While the new changes say "be with your spirit" the priest himself says "the Lord by with you."  What is the point of "be with your spirit?" Is it to emphasize the primacy of the soul in Salvation?  If this is the case, fine.


Are we also saying to the minister that we do not care about the welfare of his body? This is not fine. I will not belabor this point, however.


For Many
The phrase "will be shed for many, in the Greek ("sozo") can also mean "some" or "all." So the Greek language does not make a big deal about the translation.


It is a more faithful translation to the Latin, but the Greek, in which language we have the New Testament written, makes no such distinction. This seems a bit of a moot point to me.


Sure, be faithful to the Latin. However, know the Greek does not support scrupulosity.


The Beauty of the Novus Ordo
Several major apologists and theologians have been converted by the Novus Ordo Mass, including Scott Hahn. Scott attended a Novus Ordo Mass and saw (through the use of the English language) how the Mass is Scripture from beginning to end. If the Mass was in Latin, this would not have been possible unless Scott was fluent in Latin.


The First Mass
The first mass was in a common language of the Jewish people - Hebrew. First Century Jews in Palestine, celebrated Jewish ceremonies in Hebrew. Thus it is most likely that the first Mass was spoken in Hebrew.  Hebrew was the English of its day in Israel, it was a common tongue.


Now, some traditionalists think that there is a magical power to Latin. I do not say this facetiously, however. They have attributed to Latin almost god-like powers. They say things such as: Ending the latin Mass caused the corruption of the Church, The Church was not ready for the changes, the changes were not natural, etc.


So the changes are now natural?  After 40 years of the Novus Ordo we are to revert back to Latin?


I am sure this is what the traditionalists want.


Disobedience, Disobedience, Disobedience
I have talked to many people, including relatives, who would not attend Mass in the 90s because it was not in latin. Many people have been away from the Catholic Church for decades because of this.  Mel Gibson is a person who is a Latin Mass onlier. As if the words in Latin alone, will save anyone.


This is, in large part, why we have the indult Latin Mass. Because Catholics have their affectations they may put before Christ. It seems sometimes Latin is their God, not the Hebrew-ceremony-performing Christ.


Obedience, Obedience, Obedience
Regardless of the translation, obedience to the current form of the Mass is paramount. Your heart is tested by your obedience. You desire what is good, when you have holiness within you. You desire what is bad, when you have sin dwelling within. Are you obedient, regardless?


Questions for Consideration:

1. Do I put the Latin or English Mass before obedience to the Church and Christ?
2. Do I insist on attending only a Latin Mass and will not attend an English Mass and vice-versa?
3. Do I speak my mind about such things are Canon Law commands? 
4. Can I name five good things about the Novus Ordo (English Mass)?
5. Can I name five good things about the Latin Mass?
6. Can I resign myself to the will of God as manifested in the good of all peoples, before my preferences?
7. Is Christ and his Church first, before all things in my life?

+Blessed by the Lord, in his angels, Novus Ordo Mass, Latin Mass and his Saints.

Catholic Fantasy Fiction

I have heard many criticisms of Fantasy Fiction in Catholic circles. There have been many blogs about Harry Potter and other fiction being immoral because of the magic involved. Even the pope, prior to his papacy, has spoken on Harry Potter, concerned about young readers and that:

It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly. 

Cardinal Ratzinger's concerns were correct. Having every wish fulfilled by the wave of a wand, is problematic for Christianity. There is no submission to the will of God in these acts. However, the courage and determination of Harry Potter to protect others shows the virtue of fortitude. So Harry Potter can be a mixed bag.

An important point to make, is that Pope Benedict has not spoken on the matter. Only Cardinal Ratzinger did. Thus the statements have no binding authority. They consist of a theological opinion, unless it can be shown that Pope John Paul II had approved the letters.

Full Disclosure
I am a Fantasy Fiction author. For those of you who do not know, I am the author of The Hammer of Justice, a fantasy novel with Catholic underpinnings (read deeply to see them, although some are more obvious). I have considered whether fantasy fiction is moral or not. It is very clear to me that it is, since it is fiction. If I were to portray it realistically, endorsing its practice, I would have failed. In fact, in my novel, I portray sorcerers as practicing evil and juxtapose good clerics against them.

Where I Draw the Line
I have a big problem with realistic magic, that was practiced by witches and sorcerers in that past, favorably portrayed. The Church has been clear about its condemnation of sorcery, and to even suggest that such practice is even morally neutral, is immoral in my book.

Thus Ex 22:18 condemned the sorceress to death without explanation. Lv 19:26 and 31 prohibited magic, astrology, necromancy and divination; Lv 20:27 added the calling up of spirits. Dt 18:10-11 summed this up by proscribing soothsayers, astrologers, magicians, sorcerers, charmers, those who summoned up ghosts or spirits and those who consulted the dead (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Christian Faith and Demonology).

Even J.R.R. Tolkien portrayed sorcerers as evil. The stronghold of Sauron, Dol Goldur (Hill of Sorcery), is described as a dark, evil stronghold. Sauron is, of course, the dark lord and archenemy of Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien, of course, is talked about on the Vatican website in a positive light. The challenge with sorcery is to make the word sorcery properly characterized as evil. What do you think?

Sheep-Stealing?

There is a common saying amongst priests and religious today, that I first encountered in the 1990s. I was visiting the Paulist Community in Washington, D.C. when a priest there said that evangelization of Protestants was "sheep stealing."

I was taken aback by this saying and I did not know what to make of it.  Later in the car I thought something like "So Protestants are just another [valid] Christian Community who preach the truth?  All the talk of Protestants being in heresy is just overblown?"

I did not know what to think. Not having much theological education at the time, I did not have the arguments to refute it, except several so-called Catholic theologians opinions. Some were orthodox (correct) and some where heterodox (incorrect). This left me confused for a couple years, until I formally studied theology and understood the error. This confusion is the reason we must be careful what are the implications of our belief.  To say that we are "sheep stealing" is to imply that Protestant Communities are valid Christian Communities, with correct doctrine. This is not true.

There is No Such Thing as Sheep Stealing (Catholic vs. Protestant & Orthodox)
While there have been agreements between the Catholic Church and various Orthodox Communities not to proselytize, this does not infer that the Orthodox have 100% valid doctrine. These agreements are simply pastorally prudential decisions to allow dialogue between the two communities to take place in relative peace.

The Catholic Church is not validating all Orthodox Doctrine, including Papal Primacy and The Filioque (The Generation of The Holy Spirit within God) or Sola Scriptura. They are simply trying to keep the waters of discussion from the storms of upset that occur when an Orthodox or Catholic are converting to the converse faith.

This being said, evangelization is supposed to continue:

"For that reason, Saint Paul's words are now more relevant than ever: 'Preaching the Gospel is not a reason for me to boast; it is a necessity laid on me: woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!' (1 Cor 9:16). This explains the Magisterium's particular attention to giving reasons for and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all in connection with the religious traditions of the world" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, 2).

While we are to respect other faiths, not forcing our views of people of faith (Dominus Iesus) we must present the truth, even to Christians:

"Today the Church must face other challenges and push forward to new frontiers, both in the initial mission ad gentes and in the new evangelization of those peoples who have already heard Christ proclaimed" (John Paul II, Redemptoris Mission, 30).

Are Non-Catholics in Heaven?
It runs counter to reason that anyone in Heaven is a non-Catholic.  The Church has been clear, dogmatically, that our Blessed Mother was assumed body and soul into Heaven (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2853). It has also been clear that Jesus Christ is God.  When we enter Heaven, we no longer believe. Belief, in a sense, is transformed into knowledge when we will see God "face to face" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #163).

So a muslim in Heaven continues to be muslim?  The Koran is clear that it teaches that Jesus is not God: "it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son" (Koran, Surah 5:92). So, we only have former muslims in Heaven, not a current muslims. Why?  Because they behold the face of the Son, who is God. This is antithetical to Islamic doctrine.

While the Church is clear that persons of goodwill can enter Heaven. That is, persons who pursue the Truth to the best of their ability, and are in invincibly ignorance (have no chance to know better).  It is also clear that:

“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (Vatican II, Paragraph #14, Lumen Gentium).

and...

 “...it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions...” (Dominus Iesus, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church).

Is it not time that certain individuals killed relativism in their own hearts? Maybe what they might find is a flourishing desire for the conversion of others, not a condemnation of others as some might fear.

The danger for not embracing the truth of the Church, is committing the mortal sin of faith by belief in Relativism. Rather the way of righteousness requires a far holier path.