True Ritual vs. Superstition

What happens when you repeat the same action over and over again?  You begin to perform that action without thinking.  Sometimes, that's a good thing.  I'm currently learning to play guitar, and I'm trying to reach that point with my cords.  Other times, it is a definite bad thing.  We don't stop and consider what it is we are really doing.  This happens often with traditions; if you're Italian, like me, then you're accustomed to seeing people wear a horn around their neck.  This can lead to superstition: I don't know what the horn represents, but I know I should wear it to ward off evil.

As Christians, we stand on the two pillars of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  Sacred Tradition relates to how we express our faith, and even the belief in the Magisterium of the Church.  These are articles of faith that are not necessarily found within the pages of the Bible, although we believe that there are Biblical proofs for many of these beliefs, such as the Primacy of Peter, institution of the Sacraments, prayer for the dead, and veneration of Mary as our Mother.  Now, it should be noted that, if Sacred Tradition is valid, then it predates the written scriptures of the New Testament.  How can I say this?  It is widely accepted that the first portion of the New Testament written was St. Paul's epistles.  1 Corinthians 11:23-32 explicitly discusses the Consecration, but does so in a way that implies heavily that it was already a commonly understood and accepted practice.

Sacred Tradition can also easily be abused and mistreated.  Many of the Protestant reformers of the 15th century argued that much of our Tradition is simply composed of superstition and therefore was not representative of true religion.  While Martin Luther claimed not to abolish the Mass, his reforms included removing the Canon from the Mass.  Likewise, he limited the Sacraments to only two, which he claimed were the only two Sacraments supported by the Bible; Baptism and Eucharist.  While these actions affected an alteration to the theology, one of his most striking reforms was the removal of references to Saints and the departed, prayers for the dead, and any Liturgical language that was not explicitly Biblical.  All of this was done in the name of recovering that authentic Tradition passed to us by the Apostles.  Subsequent groups, such as Anabaptists have even gone a step further and claimed that they represent the original community of Christians, with the Church representing a corrupted, worldly power, heavily influenced by the Emperor Constantine.  This type of image of the Church has in recent years been popularized by such novels as the DaVinci Code.

But is all ritual necessarily superstition?  In many ancient religions, sacrifices have been offered to gods that are little understood.  It wasn't readily obvious why these sacrifices had to be made, but that the result would somehow be a benefit to man.  Oftentimes, these gods were rather fallible, acting according to human urges and desires.  Gods would bicker with other gods, involving man in a way that wasn't always to man's benefit.  But as Nostra Aetate acknowledges, while some religions may contain aspects of truth, only Christianity contains the entirety of truth.  When St. Paul entered Athens in Acts 17:16-34, he took note of an altar dedicated to the unknown God, which he indicated was intended for the Lord.

Although Christianity contains a number of mysteries of faith such as the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the nature of the Trinity, God does not conceal Himself from us.  We know what happens in our major ritual, the Eucharist.  Here, the priest offers in sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father for the remission of our sins.  In the Roman Mass, regardless of Use, this concept is consistently presented to the people.  This coming Sunday, take time to consider the prayers that you recite during the Liturgy.  Consider the use of the word Hostia that permeates the Consecration, specifically Eucharistic Prayers I, III, and IV, which specifically means "victim".  Keep in mind the prayer Suscipiat, directly referring to a sacrifice offered for the good of the Holy Church.

Now I return back to my initial point.  Unless we truly take the time to understand what we pray, then the prayers are simply repetitive.  We can easily fall into superstition, which is easily seen when people place too much emphasis on unnecessary things.  We forget what we are doing, why we are doing it, and what the meaning of the action is.

Servant at the Altar: The Deacon

The permanent deaconate was restored within the Roman Church with the Second Vatican Council.  Until this point, the vast majority of deacons were simply seminarians within their last year prior to the priesthood.  These transitional deacons still exist today and are still required to be celibate.  Permanent deacons, on the other hand, are deacons that may be married, provided that the marriage occurs prior to ordination.  But what is the deacon?  Is it a position of power that can be lorded over the congregation?  Or is it simply a calling that a few are chosen for?



St. Stephen, dressed in the dalmatic,
which is the vestment proper to deacons
in the Roman Church.

The first deacons can be found easily enough in Acts 6:5.  There, the Apostles, concerned that their ministry of offering the perfect sacrifice to God may leave them with little time to care for the Christian community, selected seven men to care for the faithful.  Among these men was St. Stephen, who is considered by Christians everywhere to be the first martyr, or protomartyr, as he was stoned to death for preaching the Gospel, with a certain man named Saul looking on. 

Chief among the roles of the deacon are the preaching of the Gospel during the Liturgy, and the care of the Chalice.  During the Roman Mass, the deacon holds up the Chalice at the Consecration and places and removes the pall.  In the Roman Church, the deacon is considered an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, meaning that no extraordinary ministers may be used if there are enough deacons. 

The dress of the deacon, regardless of the Liturgical rite is the stole (or corresponding vestment), either running from left shoulder to right hip for Western deacons, or hanging from the left shoulder from many Eastern deacons.  The history of the stole may in fact be linked to that of the deacon, having later been applied to the priest.  Within the West, the dalmatic has been associated as a vestment proper to both the deacon and the bishop, and some parallels can be seen in the Byzantine sakkos worn by a bishop.  The fact that the bishop wears a dalmatic is indicative of the fact that the bishop and the priest, having been ordained deacons themselves are also deacons.  This fact is most evident in the 1962 Missale Romanum where oftentimes priests would vest as deacon and subdeacon.  In the Roman Rite, the stole is to be placed under the dalmatic; over it in the Ambrosian Rite. 

Why mention the deacon?  Oftentimes, especially in American culture, the deacon is seen as the Roman equivalent of a married priest.  Deacons cannot, however, perform any Sacraments that no other member of the faithful cannot perform in times of need.  For example, in a certain circumstances, anyone can Baptize or witness a marriage.  Deacons are meant to care directly for the people.  They convey directions during the Liturgy and guard against profranation of the Eucharist.  They are not the high and mighty.  They are not the greatest of us.  They are the servants of the altar, and they help to bring those heavenly truths to the masses.

The Science of Faith: An Attempted Mathematical Argument

As I stated, I'm currently collecting a good amount of data for my research, but I seem to have a short amount of time here, and it has lead me to contemplate a few things.

Often times, I will find myself in a situation where I am discussing Liturgy and Church teaching with people.  At some point, I'll be asked what I do as my career, and usually there's a good deal of shock when I explain that I'm a mechanical and aerospace engineer, working on a doctorate in said field.  Now, I have to stop for a second.  I am not trying to brag about my achievements, as there are many of you out there that are infinitely more intelligent than me.  I am merely trying to segue into a point.  

The opinion of many individuals tends to be that science, being the pursuit of knowledge and truth is opposed to religion, which is faith in the revealed truths passed down to us.  Citing examples such as Galileo's trial, there is the general understanding of the two being at odds with each other by their very nature.   In reality, this presents a false concept of the true natures of both science and religion.  True religion understands that the mysteries of the universe, of God's creation, can be systematically studied in order to satisfy our innate and insatiable curiosity, which God created within us.  Science understands that there are still truths that have yet to be discovered, and that there is error in measurement.  For example, mathematically we have to start from a set of axioms that by their very nature cannot be proven, but we have to take as given.  Without this, logical proofs cannot proceed.  Obviously, Christianity also must contain a set of "axioms" from which Christian logic proceeds.  In a nutshell, these axioms are the Nicene Creed, or Symbolum Nicaenum, which sets down what each of us as a Christian individually believes (unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium...one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, all things visible and invisible). 

Now, if we toss out this axiom of belief, then of course everything else we believe disintegrates.  I can't ask you to believe in the Real Presence if you reject this initial assumption of a belief in the existence of a Trinitarian Deity.  You won't accept it!  Likewise, in science, I can't prove to you that my measurement makes sense if my measuring device is called into question.  Someone once said that you can have the most elaborate thermometer that ever existed, but if you're using it to measure pressure, then what good is it?  But, if the existence of God is an axiom, then by definition you cannot even attempt to quantify or prove His existence. 

All of this is the theology of the Eucharistic Liturgy.  In the world of fluid dynamics, no set of equations are more important than the infamous Navier-Stokes and continuity equations, but even these require a series of assumptions to derive (such as assuming a Newtonian fluid).  It is in this connotation that I use the word "assumption".  If we assume that God exists, then as Christians we also assume that the Son of Man exists, along with the Holy Spirit.  If we assume that the Son of Man exists, then we must also assume that His Apostles existed and that He taught them.  If we assume all of this, then as Catholics (or Orthodox) we believe that He taught them a set of truths known as Sacred Tradition.  As part of this Sacred Tradition, the priest offers to the Father the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of His Son, for our salvation.  The Maronites express this concept beautifully by even referring to the Liturgy as the Holy Offering, or Qurbana Qadisha.  This is the faith that many great scientists had, many of which were Catholic: Blaise Pascal, Gregor Mendel, Rene Descartes, Leonardo da Vinci, Nicolaus Copernicus, and many more. 

The Life of a Research Engineer

I apologize for not posting in a while.  As a graduate student in Aeronautical Engineering, I'm currently tied up in data collection, for another week.  I'll be back to posting when that is completed.

The Tragedy of Anglican Liturgy



Thomas Cranmer is usually
attributed with composing the
Book of Common Prayer

We all know in more or less detail how Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, with the end result being Henry declaring himself the head of Ecclesia Anglicana and forcing the clergy to declare fealty to him.  The events that I just described are collectively known as the English Reformation, in that the Church of England, separated from Rome, was subjected to a number of Protestant or Protestant-inspired reforms, such as the suppressing of the monasteries and denouncing the authority of the Papacy.
 
Actually, during Henry's lifetime, very little changed regarding the Liturgy. The Roman Mass (Sarum Use) continued to be used (at this time, most likely by priests who were still validly ordained), along with all its Catholic theology.  When Henry passed away and Edward ascended to the thrown, the Sarum Missal was suppressed and replaced (in 1549) with the Book of Common Prayer.  There were many reasons that were given for this change: simplification of the Liturgy, use of the vernacular (English) instead of Latin, and inclusion of a formal rite for giving Communion to the people (one apparent criticism is that the Roman Mass lacked this).  Over the course of the next century, the Book went through several revisions and settled on the current version in use in the Church of England, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. 

Several features of the prayer book stand out as striking.  The Liturgy of the Hours was reduced from the traditional 7 to simply 2 hours (Morning and Evening Prayer).  Only two Sacraments are officially recognized; Baptism and Eucharist.  These are noticeable as the prayer book condenses many books in the Roman Rite.  Finally, the Liturgy has drastically been altered.

The above link will show the iterations of the Book of Common Prayer, due to concerns from different groups; those that leaned more towards Catholicism, and those that leaned towards Puritanism.  As such, all language in the Mass that referred to a Sacrifice was stripped away.  All references to the Saints or prayers for the dead are gone.  The service was stripped of any prayers that implied that the priest played a roll any different from the laity.  Finally, any non-Biblical language was removed.  The Introit, Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory, and Post-Communion are gone and replaced with hymns or anthems.  The new theology is best reflected in phrases such as the Prayer of Humble Access, and the formula for giving Communion.

But, the tragedy isn't simply all this.  If the service became invalid simply due to heresy, then many Sunday Masses in today's world would be invalid.  The Council of Trent states that the requirement for validity be form and matter, while also stating that the priest must have the intent to do the will of the Church.  The very question of the validity of the Anglican sacraments was taken up in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae, where it was determined that Anglican Orders are null and void, due to the ambiguity of the intention expressed in the ordination rites (female ordination is a definite sign of this).  Prior to this, it was not all too clear how valid Anglican sacraments were. 

So here is the tragedy.  Anglicanism allows its members to hold beliefs that appear rather Catholic.  If an Anglican priest performs his service and meets the requirements of Trent, including intent to accomplish the will of the Church, then he could be validly consecrating.  However, all of this becomes a moot point considering that his orders are not considered valid.  It's almost like a catch 22.  


There are many treasures within the Book of Common Prayer and Anglicanism that, if brought into line with Catholic teaching, would greatly enrich the Church.  We must continue to pray for the Ordinariates and the courage of those individuals and clergy that compose them.

Ottaviani's Intervention?

In the time that followed the promulgation of the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, there were many changes that took place in the everyday life of the Church.  Some may argue that they were more profound than not, but soon after the publication of the Apostolic Constitution, the Missal of Pope Paul VI, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite took effect.  Almost immeditately, Archbishop Lefebvre took action.  Now, there is debate among a number of people as to whether or not the actions that Lefebvre took were justified; some probably were and some probably weren't.  The end result is the existence of the Society of St. Pius X, a group with a highly irregular status (not excommunicated however).

During 1969, a number of theologians wrote what is formally referred to as the "Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass", but what many people know as the "Ottaviani Intervention."  The text details Archbishop Ottaviani's concerns regarding the revised Ordo Missae, and what effect the promulgation of such an Ordo would have upon the faithful.  Now, it should be pointed out that the Intervention was published prior to the release of the definitive text, and refers to an experimental text celebrated in Rome in 1967.  It is also evident that the text to which he refers has a few differences with the promulgated text (for example, he mentions a change to the second Memento of the Roman Canon that is not presently there).  Equally contentious is the existence of a future letter from Ottaviani where he apparently expresses much relief and satisfaction with the Holy Father's eventual response to his initial letter.

I'm not going to argue here the motives of Ottaviani in either letter, but simply want to draw a thread here.  I have generally thoroughly believed that in order to best argue one's point, it is necessary to understand your opponent's point.  The Ottaviani Intervention may form the beginnings of the arguments that the Society of St. Pius X has regarding the current texts.  Obviously, the text is afraid of revision of the Missal being too geared towards the appeasement of Protestants, and therefore softening of core Catholic theology.  I will address this point in a future post.  This is largely within the area of the reform of the Offertory prayers, which I have already discussed.  It is important, therefore to ask whether or not Ottaviani's document does bear any weight.  My personal belief is that it is a little alarmist, but that it served the purpose of calling for Rome to consider that there might be opposing views.  How would the Ordo Missae looked without this Intervention?  I personally do not know.  Perhaps there is a great deal that we owe to Ottaviani.  Perhaps, we owe him little.  Regardless, it is important to know that his letter does exist, and know what his concerns were.

Sacrosanctum Concilium Part III: Revision of the Ambrosian Rite



Mosaic of St. Ambrose from the Duomo
di Milano

As promised, the topic of discussion today is the Ambrosian Rite, the liturgical use particular to the archdiocese of Milan, Italy. 

As specified in Sacrosanctum Concilium:  [I]n faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.  As such, revision has been undertaken of most of the other liturgical rites of the Catholic Church, with a few such as the Dominican, Bragan, Norbertine, and Carmelite at least effectively suppressed.  For non-Western rites, this essentially amounted to the removal of Latin influences and a return to genuine Eastern practices.  In the West, this lead to reforms of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Missals, along with the Roman Missal.  In recent years, with the publication of Summorum Pontificum, there has been much discussion regarding whether or not the Motu Proprio, authorizing the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum, is authoritative for other rites, such as the Ambrosian Rite.  As such, there are currently two forms of the Ambrosian Rite in use; the 1955 and the 1976 Missals.

Most of us who would see an Ambrosian Mass would probably not notice anything particularly different, since both forms, but especially the Ordinary form, quite resemble the Roman Rite (as of this date, I haven't found a text for the Ordinary of the modern Ambrosian Rite in anything other than Italian.  While I can read it, if anyone has seen a Latin version on the internet, I'm definitely interested).  As to its origin, there is a degree of debate as to whether or not the the Ambrosian Rite is a Latinized form of a Gallican Liturgy, or is in fact the Roman Liturgy, as it appeared before many of Pope St. Gregory the Great's reforms.  Now, there is a great deal to discuss on the Ambrosian Rite, particularly its wealth of Prefaces, but that might require a whole other post. 

Now, it would appear that the reformers at the Second Vatican Council subscribed to the theory that the Ambrosian Rite is an older form of the Roman Rite.  Consequently, many of its features were adopted in the Roman Rite; number of readings, Responsorial Psalm, recitation of the Oratio Super Oblata out loud, the formula for distribution of Communion.  When the Ambrosian Rite was revised in 1976, the Ordinary was heavily Romanized; prayers that existed in the Roman Rite (Ecce Agnus Dei, the use of Kyrie Eleison prior to the Gloria in one form of the Penitential Rite) but not in the Ambrosian Rite, were added.  At this time, there is very little to distinguish the two rites.  Certainly there's still the Ambrosian 6-week Advent, the Deacon still wears his stole over the dalmatic, and the elaborate use of the phrase Kyrie Eleison, the location of the Credo and other features, but obviously there was an attempt to take advantage of the reforms introduced into the Roman Rite. 

So, to summarize, I leave you this week simply with this: The Ambrosian Rite may possibly be a form of the Roman Rite that predates reforms made by Pope St. Gregory the Great that resulted in many of the familiar features of the Roman Rite today, in both the Extraordinary and Ordinary forms.  Many revisions to the Roman Rite were possibly based on this assumption.  Likewise, the revision of the Ambrosian Rite itself was heavily influenced by the revision of the Roman Rite. If revised independently of the Roman Rite, would the Ambrosian Rite still have taken its current form?  Would it have looked much different?  Was Sacrosanctum Concilium applied in a way that allowed for the Ambrosian Rite to be revised in a manner that the document intended?