Down with pews! Away with them!

I have a recurring dream about having to build a church.  It’s Romanesque and open, uncluttered, especially by pews.

My friend Fr. George Rutler is in Crisis.  He is talking about pews.   He has a few digressions – he wouldn’t be the writer he is without digressions – on the Roman vestment. But his observations about pews are dead on.

Everyone should be aware of this perspective.

We enter in medias res:

[…]

Pews are the climbing ivy of God’s house. My case is that they should be removed. I immediately alienate from this argument anyone whose limited aesthetical perception sees nothing wrong with electric votive lights and bishops wearing miters in colors matching their vestments. [blech] But the problem with pews is worse, for it is not simply a matter of taste. Pews contradict worship. They suburbanize the City of God and put comfort before praise.

[…]

In 1843, John Coke Fowler, an Anglican barrister, wrote a neglected history of the pew, arguing for its elimination. His reference was not liturgical but social, for his purpose was to abolish the system of rentals that relegated the poor to inferior seats. The “high church” Oxford Movement at that time was a theological development little involved with ceremonial. None of the early Tractarians wore “Romish” vesture. But the consequent Cambridge Camden Society advanced ritualism and in 1854, desiring to be more “Catholic,” it published “Twenty-four Reasons for Getting Rid of Church Pews.” These reasons included sound theological points. Paradoxically, James Renwick who designed St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, was an Episcopalian, but he tried to explain to Cardinal McCloskey that pews were Protestant and inappropriate for a Catholic cathedral. He was overruled by the cardinal who installed the pews and rented some of the best ones for up to $2,000. This amount would be about $60,000 today. An engraving of the interior before it was consecrated, when a bazaar was held to raise money, shows how magnificent the space is, and how that perspective is lost in a forest of wooden seats. I confess that a few years ago I restored worn pews in my former church, knowing that there was little time to form minds on the subject. In the few months that the church was empty of the pews, people came to admire the uncluttered proportions.

Ascetically, pews stratify the people as passive participants. There actually are churches where ushers, like maître d’s in a cabaret, move down the aisle pew by pew, indicating when the people can go to Communion. [I have railed against this for eons!] Ensconced and regimented in serried ranks, the people are denied the mobility of the sacred assembly and even the sacred dance, which is what the Solemn Mass is—a thing far different from the embarrassing geriatric ballets called “liturgical dancing.”  Especially in a busy city parish, people wandering about and lighting candles and casting a curious eye at images, can be distracting, but it is also a healthy sign that people are freed by grace to be at home in the House of God, unlike the passive creature known as a couch potato or, in this instance, a pew potato.

Worse than plain wooden pews are those that are upholstered. Goodbye acoustics.   And anyone who gives priority to the softness of his seat rather than the sound of song, should humbly ask forgiveness of St. Cecilia who died suffering from more than the lack of a cushion, but was comforted—and eternally so—by good music.  Sensibly, seating should be provided for the elderly and physically limited.   Other seating should be moveable to permit different kinds of liturgical use, with space for kneeling. Spare us from those pews whose “kneelers” crash to the floor like thunder. If concessions are to be made, pews should be in the form of benches with railed backs, so as not to “arrest” the proportions of the church.

In 1982, the Kawaski Heavy Industries Company of Japan designed subway cars for the New York City subway system and had to go back to the drawing board at great expense, because the seats were not wide enough for the average American posterior. There still are a few cars with the original seats in use on the No. 3 line, presumably for commuters with narrower sedentary profiles. I submit this as a reminder that when an indulged culture makes comfort its god, it is worshipping a very fickle idol. And I pass along my unsolicited views to polish my credentials as an earnest curmudgeon, lest they rust. It will disappoint me if my opinions do not irritate people who could not fit into a seat on the No. 3 subway, or who like to lounge in pews in ivy-covered churches.

[…]

You will want to read it all, over there.

Fr. Z kudos, except for the part about the Roman pianeta.

Down with pews!  ¡Hagan lío!

Do I hear an “Amen!”?

 

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, "How To..." - Practical Notes, Fr. Z KUDOS, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests |
105 Comments

ASK FATHER: Does a declaration of nullity mean a marriage never existed?

From a reader…

My diocese’s website says, “A declaration of nullity does not say that the marriage never existed,” yet the site also says that a declaration of nullity means “that the marriage was invalid from the moment of the wedding.” These statements seem contradictory. Can it be the case that the marriage both existed and was always invalid, or is one of these statements in error?

The Church refers to a marriage which has been declared null as a “putative marriage”. There was something that resembled a matrimonial covenant, but, in fact, there was really no marriage. Sometimes even well-meaning people speak of the work of an ecclesiastical tribunal as dealing with the sacramentality of marriage, and determining whether or not a specific marriage was sacramental. This is incorrect. Tribunals examine sacramental marriages (marriages between two baptized persons) and natural marriages (those marriages wherein at least one of the parties is non-baptized).

The question before a tribunal is: “Has this marriage been proven to be invalid because of [ENTER SPECIFIC ALLEGATION(S)].”

Let’s not say that the diocesan website is in error, but it is certainly unclear.

A declaration of nullity does say that what appeared to be a marriage for however many years, really wasn’t a marriage. In declaring it to be invalid, the Church does not erase history. There was something there that had the appearance of a marriage. People of good faith were right to treat it as such. If both parties, during the course of the common life, truly thought themselves to be married, then, all things being equal, [read carefully] they were not guilty of the sin of fornication when they engaged in sexual relations with each other. Children born to such a putative marriage are legitimate. This status is not affected by a subsequent dclaration of nullity (can. 1137). Any contracts entered into by the spouses of a putative marriage as spouses remain in effect (subject to the arrangements of the civil law, can. 22).

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , ,
14 Comments

ASK FATHER: Can we ask God to strike down enemies?

michael_fighting_the_dragon1From a reader:

Is it a sin to ask God to strike down an enemy of the Church?

Christ the Lord has commanded us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44).

Love for “enemy” comes in different forms.  It can be expressed different ways.  That said, we must be vigilant that hatred toward our enemies is vigorously resisted.  We obey Our Lord.

Love for our enemies does not mean that we wish them to prosper.  It means that we will their good. We will their salvation.

If they are our enemies because they are opposed to the Church, opposed to goodness, then our love for them means that we desire they be converted.

Can we – ought we – pray that God strike down the enemies of the Church?

Holy Scripture is full of prayers offered for the defeat of the enemies of God.

The unfashionable “maledictory – cursing – psalms” (5, 6, 11, 12, 35, 37, 40 52, 54, 56, 58, 69, 79, 83, 137, 139, and 143) call for judgment and disaster to fall upon the enemies of God and God’s people.  Many of these psalms were “edited” or even wholly excluded from the revised psalter used in the Liturgy of the Hours, but that’s a different crock of bagna cauda.

We certainly are within our rights to use the psalms in our prayers.

There are many traditional prayers that ask God to visit calamity upon our enemies. The underlying implication of course is a desire for the protection of the Church and the conversion of those who oppose her. Let us not become like the Prophet Jonah, who was so desirous of seeing the destruction of evil Nineveh that he was disappointed that Nineveh repented, converted, and did penance.

We pray for the protection of Our Holy Mother the Church against all enemies.  We pray that those who oppose Her be stopped.

Perhaps the firearms training many of us have undertaken is helpful as an analogy.  First, you seek to avoid conflicts or deescalate them.  When you can’t avoid violence you try to discern the level actually needed.  Of course, this sometimes must happens in seconds.  In the case that you are forced to act in defense of your life or the lives of others, you use deadly force to stop the threat.  That means you shoot effectively to stop the threat.  You don’t try to shoot the gun out of the enemy’s hand (this isn’t TV).  You don’t shoot to hit the leg (because, again, this isn’t TV).  You shoot center mass, to do maximum damage so the threat will stop, because … that’s the point you are at.  You don’t shoot “to kill”.  Shoot (or whatever) so that the clear, present danger to life and limb is no longer a threat.  If a punch in the face or a kick in the ‘nads is enough, and the threat stops, then stop there. Stop punching and kicking.

That’s an analogy from a few horrifying seconds of immediately conflict or threat.  In prolonged situations, we have time to analyze our motives and consciences.

If the actions of enemies reveal that you (Church, country, families) won’t be safe without them losing the ability to breathe… then we purify our motive, ask God for help (for us to be effective and to not sin, and against or upon them to give them graces and/or sufferings adequete to change their minds and hearts.

It is one thing to turn one’s own cheek.  It is another to turn the cheeks of your wife and child and all your neighbors.

In our prayer we desire the conversion of hearts.  When our enemies do convert, rather than continuing to seek bloody revenge, we rejoice in the magnificent grace of Almighty God who desires not the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and live. (Ezechiel 33:11)

We must examine our consciences and purify them.

Meanwhile:

Aedificantium enim unusquisque gladio erat accinctus.

And now, a prayer. It’s from a movie, but it has some great elements.

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

Moderation is ON.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ACTION ITEM!, Hard-Identity Catholicism, New Evangelization, Semper Paratus, Si vis pacem para bellum!, TEOTWAWKI, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , ,
29 Comments

ASK FATHER: How to talk to other mothers about male only altar service?

From a reader…

Our parish priest does not care for girl servers but allows it. Today we went to daily Mass and a new girl was serving (which was arranged by one of the moms, I don’t believe Father knew about it), while 8 boys sat in the pew, 3 of them mine, who all love to serve. I would like to say something to Father and the mom who arranged it. She has 6 boys who all serve. What is the best way to go about this? I read your article and thought it was very good!

The best way to say something to Father would be to go to him, or call him up, and ask to speak to him.

As for speaking to the other mother, I’m not quite sure how to go about that. Perhaps some mothers out there will have some advice on how to speak to a mother.  I’m at a loss about how to speak as a mother to another mother.  I would simply move slowly toward the door without making any sudden movements.

Seriously, a conversation should be undertaken.

If we approach each other with respect, with calm, measured voices, to express our opinions not in an apodictic way, you might get your point through.  Say a prayer to the Holy Spirit beforehand, and your respective Guardian Angels, asking for guidance and direction to say what needs to be said without vitriol or screed in our voice.

Keep in mind that Father, despite his preferences, might be fighting other serious battles with the “powers that be”.  He may have to compromise on the issue of altar girls because of serious pressure even from the bishop. He may have a long-term plan for all male servers and he craftily must implement it over time. In the end, the law gives him the authority to decide the matter.

But you can, and should, make your view known respectfully.

The moderation queue is ON.  I may let some comments pile up so that people can speak their piece without being jumped on by others.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ACTION ITEM!, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , ,
35 Comments

CQ CQ CQ #HamRadio – CONTACT SCHEDULING POST

ham radio badassA couple participants here used the combox to coordinate a contact.  HERE

There wasn’t much success because of lousy propagation, but it was instructive.  We moved from frequency to frequency on the fly using the combox. (Which means you need to refresh! And you need to check back!)

Use this post to organize your contacts!  

If you can, post with some times in UTC.  Post frequencies and when you will be listening.

Work it out!  We will learn as we go.

I will be on the road and away from my station.  I might try Echolink.

Posted in Ham Radio, Semper Paratus, The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged
15 Comments

Fr. Blake on “Manliness”. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

traditional-latin-massMy friend Fr. Ray Blake, PP in Brighton, made excellent comments about “manliness” on his blog.  HERE

I have been at a major church three times recently for some pretty important occasions, and each time only women read, and every time the female ‘music minister’ sat enthroned above [Ain’t it da truth? Sickening.] con-celebrating clergy as some sort of demi-bishop signalling to the people to turn their attention from the altar to her and join in the music, even when the celebrant sang things that would of themselves demand people participation, like “The Lord be with you”. No, I didn’t check, there might have been very good reasons for the exclusion of men from lay-ministerial positions but the fact it happened on three successive occasions just seemed to be making a point. Just so no-one can question my feminist credentials I only tend to use the Roman Canon and I always include those women at the end of the last list, chauvinists often just use EPII/III/IV, which only mention Our Lady. I don’t know if this is what people mean when they speak of feminisation of the Church, actually I think it might go deeper.

Looking around my own parish I see a lot of men who want to be manly but don’t actually know how to carry it off, the problem is mainly one of society, and the Church reflects society. However the Church does have the answers, as I said to one young man, after he had attended a friends raucous ‘Gay Pride’ party a few years ago and fled, ‘If you want to know want to know what manly love is like look at the crucifix’. Jesus is always the answer, though we might not be yet be able to form the question.

[…]

Certainly there seems to be a need to form men in the Gospel, and men today need Christ’s healing, and men feel alienated from the Church. At the back of my mind is an old adage: evangelise a mother, and she will bring with her her young children, evangelise a father and he will bring his wife and his sons and daughters and they will remain faithful.

[…]

There is a lot of risible B as in B, S as in S out there about a supposed “war on women”.  Feminists fling that manipulative rubbish out there constantly.  The real task we face is to fight the war on men and boys that is going on, in conjunction with the rise of unnatural (propagandized and manufactured) sexual “identity”.

Even if we stipulate that there is a war on women (in sense that girls and women are barraged with images that degrade them constantly and force them to conform, to become slutty or angry or coarser than faux-male), we have a war to fight on two fronts.

Men and women need to help each other be who they are meant to be!  This is especially important, I think, in the role that women have in civilizing men and helping them, inspiring them, even provoking them to be who they are hard wired to be.  If and when that breaks down, as it has nearly done now, the results will be even more horrific than we are seeing now.

The demonic division and confusion of the sexes will lead countless souls to Hell.

We must reclaim the image of God.

Our action as Catholics has to be both ad intra and ad extra.  For the ad extra dimension, what we do in our homes (the domestic church) and in the public square, we must – among other things – resist every attempt to blur improperly or unnaturally God-created gender roles (e.g., same-sex “marriage”).  We must defend the family.   For the ad intra, we must also defend marriage and family – how weird is it to have to write that – even from the church’s shepherds along with certain (especially German – it’s almost always German) theologians.

Furthermore, let me put this bluntly, we should promptly and firmly invite and guide girls and women out of our sanctuaries.

We need a return to male-only service at the altar together with ad orientem worship which underscores the transcendent aspect of our divine liturgy.

Our worship has been deeply and diabolically compromised in way that should keep all of us awake at night, apologizing to the Lord with a shiver of dread.

We are our rites.  No undertaking of renewal within the Church – at any level, including the parish – can succeed unless and until we revitalize our liturgical worship of God.  That is where we must begin.  That is what we must constantly foster and defend.

Posted in Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Pò sì jiù, Sin That Cries To Heaven, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , , ,
32 Comments

REGINA

I recommend to the readership a veritable eye-candy feast, which you can access online.

The current issue of REGINA.

Just go check it out!

Posted in The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged
3 Comments

ASK FATHER: Is it a mortal sin to criticize the Pope?

peter-with-keysFrom a reader…

Can a Catholic criticize the Pope? Or is it a mortal sin to do so?

Yes.

No. Not necessarily.

Catholics are obliged to have filial love for and obedience to our Holy Father. Neither that love nor that obedience are required to be blind or stupid.

Criticism of the Pope can become a mortal sin if one’s criticism is filled with a hatred and vitriol that shows a lack of respect or filial love for Our Sovereign Pontiff.  One must also consider to whom you show that lack of respect.  If by your words and actions you harm his reputation with others unjustly, you do him and them a grave wrong.  You also may be committing the sin of sacrilege.

The Pope is Christ’s Vicar, and deserves all the respect of that office.

The Pope is, however, not Christ. Nor does his charism of infallibility render him perfect in all his words and actions.

He may do things that are objectionable.  When he does, he can be criticized – respectfully.

But be careful in aiming criticism at the Pope.  Be careful to whom you open your mind or reveal your attitude.  Examine your conscience with brutal honesty, remembering that His Holiness has a perspective on the Church that we do not.

Catholics loves their Popes.  That doesn’t mean that we always like them or everything they do.

We should, however, avoid giving scandal.  Maintain respect for the Holy Father when speaking about him to others, heed his words on faith and morals, and give him obedience when it is called for.

You can bet that for this one the moderation queue is ON.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , , , , ,
24 Comments

Pope Francis attended Mass in St. Peter’s on Feast of St. Pius X

This is rather interesting.

According to ZENIT in Italian, the Holy Father showed up in St. Peter’s Basilica the other morning to pray at the altar and tomb of St. Pius X for his saintly predecessor’s feast. He sat down in a pew and stayed for Mass celebrated by a Monsignor in the Secretariat of State.

I used to say Mass there pretty often, in my day… with the 1962 Missal, too boot. One can dream.

Anyway, it seems he may even have received Communion at that Mass, as well. He had already said Mass that day. He told the priest after that he is devoted to St. Pius X.

Would that the Holy Father and the SSPX would, through the intercession of St. Pius and through the help of their Guardian Angels, come to a reconciliation.

Here is the Italian:

Messa in Vaticano per San Pio X. Mescolato tra i fedeli c’è anche il Papa
Francesco già dal mattino all’altare dedicato al Papa trevigiano per pregare. È quindi rimasto per la funzione celebrata da mons. Lucio Bonora, della Segreteria di Stato, tra lo stupore di fedeli e celebranti
Di Redazione
Città del Vaticano, 22 Agosto 2015 (ZENIT.org)
Hanno ricevuto una sorpresa speciale i fedeli che ieri mattina hanno preso parte alla celebrazione eucaristica all’altare di San Pio X, nella Basilica di San Pietro, in occasione della festa del Pontefice trevigiano. Seduto tra i banchi, alla Messa presieduta da mons. Lucio Bonora, impiegato in Segreteria di Stato, c’era infatti Papa Francesco, già lì dalle prime ore del mattino all’altare per una preghiera privata.
Quando è iniziata la funzione il Santo Padre si è quindi fermato per prendervi parte, ricevendo l’abbraccio di pace e la comunione da mons. Bonora, dopo essersi messo in fila tra i fedeli che si accostavano all’Eucaristia. Ai fedeli che intanto erano accorsi in gran numero alla Cappella, il celebrante ha chiesto di affidare a San Pio X tutte le necessità delle proprie famiglie e della Chiesa, non dimenticando di pregare per l’attuale Pontefice.
Bergoglio stesso, al termine della celebrazione ha confidato a Bonora di aver pregato in modo particolare per i catechisti, visto che, in Argentina, San Pio X, è conosciuto come il “Papa del catechismo”, il patrono di tutti i catechisti. Quando Bergoglio era arcivescovo di Buenos Aires, infatti, ci teneva ad incontrare i catechisti della diocesi nella festa di Pio X. Al termine della celebrazione mons. Bonora ha ringraziato di cuore Papa Francesco, il quale gli ha detto: “Ero venuto per una preghiera mia, perché avevo già celebrato la Messa presto, ma poi ti ho visto che venivi all’altare a celebrare, e allora mi sono fermato… Te l’avevo detto che sono devoto di San Pio X”.

L’Osservatore Romano has it also HERE

15_08_22_Francis_PiusX

Posted in Francis, Just Too Cool | Tagged , ,
8 Comments

WDTPRS: 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time – When “virtues” are replaced by “values”.

Let’s look at the Collect for the 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time:

Deus, qui fidelium mentes unius efficis voluntatis, da populis tuis id amare quod praecipis, id desiderare quod promittis, ut, inter mundanas varietates, ibi nostra fixa sint corda, ubi vera sunt gaudia.

A master crafted this prayer.  In the 1962 Missale Romanum we use it on the 4th Sunday after Easter. It is also in the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary.  Listen to those “eee”s produced by the Latin “i”. Savor those parallels.

Varietas means “difference, diversity, variety.”  It is commonly used to indicate “changeableness, fickleness, inconstancy.”  I like “vicissitude”.  The adjective mundanus is “of or belonging to the world”.

LITERAL RENDERING:

O God, who make the minds of the faithful to be of one will, grant unto Your people to love that thing which You command, to desire that which You promise, so that, amidst the vicissitudes of this world, our hearts may there be fixed where true joys are.

CURRENT ICEL (2011):

O God, who cause the minds of the faithful to unite in a single purpose, grant your people to love what you command and to desire what you promise, that, amid the uncertainties of this world, our hearts may be fixed on that place where true gladness is found.

Let us revisit that id…quod. We can accurately say “love that which you command,” or “love what you command”, but that strikes me as vague.  Can we be more concrete and say “love the thing you command… desire the thing you promise”?

We are called to love and desire God’s will in concrete situations, in the details of life, especially when those details are little to our liking.  We must love God in this beggar, this annoying creep, not in beggars and creeps in general.  We must love Him in this act of fasting, this basket of laundry, this ICEL translation. I said it was a challenge!  We must not reduce God’s will to an abstraction or an ideal. “Thy will (voluntas) be done on earth as it is in heaven”… or so it has been said.

Lest we forget why we needed new translation….

OBSOLETE ICEL (1973):

Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world. In our desire for what you promise make us one in mind and heart.

Good riddance!  “Values”.  Very slippery.  Typical of the obsolete translation.

To my ear, “values” has a shifting, subjective starting point. In 1995 Gertude Himmelfarb wrote in The De-Moralization of Society: From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values that “it was not until the present century that morality became so thoroughly relativized that virtues ceased to be ‘virtues’ and became ‘values.’”

In this post-Christian, post-modern world, “values” seems to indicate little more than our own self-projection.

John Paul II taught about “values”, but in contradiction to the way “values” are commonly understood today.  For example, we read in Evangelium vitae 71 (emphasis added):

“It is urgently necessary, for the future of society and the development of a sound democracy, to rediscover those essential human and moral values which flow from the very truth of the human being and express and safeguard the dignity of the person: values which no individual, no majority, and no state can ever create, modify, or destroy, but must only acknowledge, respect, and promote.”

In his 1985 letter to young people Dilecti amici 4, John Paul II taught:

“Only God is the ultimate basis of all values…. in Him and Him alone all values have their first source and final completion… Without Him – without the reference to God – the whole world of created values remains as it were suspended in an absolute vacuum.”

Benedict XVI taught about the threats we face from the “dictatorship of relativism”, from the reduction of the supernatural to the natural, from caving in to “the world”.

Christ warned His Apostles about “the world”, saying said: “The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil” (John 7:7).  He spoke about this world’s “prince” (John 12:31; 14:30 16:11).  St Paul wrote: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2).

If what “the world” offers gets priority over what God offers the world through His Holy Church, we produce the situation Paul VI described on 29 June 1972, the 9th anniversary of his coronation:

“Through some crack the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God.”

Our Collect today asks God to grant that His will be the basis of our “values” in concrete terms, not in mere good intentions or this world’s snares.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, WDTPRS | Tagged ,
9 Comments