You are exactly right in your note on holy days of obligaation. Instead of treating it as something we have to do, we should be thankful that the Mass is there for us to attend. Betty Vassari

"As things now stand, the Church has bent its sense of liturgical time to the imperial demands of that modern cultural artifact, the weekend."

I should point out that the Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S. have not bent to the Zeitgeist, and the Typicon still requires feasts to be celebrated on the day(s) indicated in the Festal Menaion, in all their inconvenient glory. Neither St. Pragmatica nor Out Lady of the Early Start to the Beach is recognized by our Churches.

It should also be noted that feasts in the Eastern Christian Tradition incorporate much more than just the festal day itself. It also includes a pre-festal period of a week or more, a vigil on the eve of the feast, the feast itself, and then a "leave-taking" of the feast a week later.

I personally find it a bit ironic that, in the U.S. the Latin Church no longer marks the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul (29 June), the patronal feast of the Church of Rome, as a major holy day, but we Greek Catholics do (if for no other reason than it marks the end of the Apostles' Fast).

And that brings us to another area where the Latin Church has gotten a bit lax--ascetic discipline. First, the Friday fast went out the door, then the Eucharistic fast was mitigated to the point that one need only spit out one's gum before entering the church. Lent has been reduced to a matter of "giving up" something for six weeks (at the individual's discretion), and who fasts for Advent these days?

In contrast, after a long period of laxity and latinization, the Eastern Catholics are working hard to restore their traditional ascetic discipline as a core element of our spirituality and piety. This includes abstinence throughout the year on Wednesdays and Friday, fasting from midnight the day before receiving Communion, and observance of the four great fasts throughout the year: the Nativity Fast or Filipovka (because it begins at sundown on the Feast of St. Philip) 14 November to 24 December; Lent (from sundown on the sixth Sunday before Pascha to the end of Resurrection Matins); the Apostles' Fast (second Sunday after Pentecost to 28 June); and the Dormition Fast, 1-14 August.

Through fasting, prayer and almsgiving, we prepare ourselves for these feasts, as well as gain mastery over our passions, which is a prerequisite for achieving theosis, that share in the divine nature which is the objective of Eastern Christian spirituality.

"You are exactly right in your note on holy days of obligation."

The concept of "obligation" in the binding legal sense is alien to the Eastern Christian approach. We tend not to speak of "holy days of obligation", or even of the obligation to attend the Divine Liturgy. True belief cannot be coerced, and threats or sanctions tend to be counterproductive.

As Betty Vassari notes, we should be thankful that the Church has provided us with the means of achieving salvation, and should avail ourselves of them of our own free will. We should follow the Tradition not out of fear or compulsion, but out of love. What soldier would not wish the man in the foxhole next to him to be a willing volunteer as opposed to a reluctant conscript? We know that when we do not observe the feasts and the fasts, when we do not attend Liturgy, or avail ourselves of the Holy Mysteries, we are hurting only ourselves. At the same time, we recognize that the Lord is merciful, and will forgive those who, out of necessity or weakness or other good cause, cannot participate in the life of the Church as fully as they would want.

Put another way, it is not a sin to break the fast, or to miss Liturgy on a holy day, but it is a sin to say or think that fasting or attending Liturgy is NOT necessary at all.

We Roman Catholics could begin with observance of Advent, this Advent, to be more precise. Christmas has been made (not accidentally, in my opinion) banal, the culmination of a month of excessive consumption. (See Joseph Bottum, "The End of Advent"). I once attended a Shabbat service during which the student rabbi commented on the Jewish custom of anticipating a holy day in ways that allowed the day to be more than a day of relief from too much "celebration" undertaken apparently as a relief from boredom.

There are other ways, as Stuart Koehl explains, especially in his lovely last paragraph. "... fasting, prayer and almsgiving" will prepare us to truly celebrate Christmas - on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day and until Ephiphany; in other words, according to the Liturgical Calendar.

(As a post script: On another posting Mr. Koehl referred to Mary as Theotokos,as a belief needing no proclamation which is and always was part of the fundamental faith of Christians. I would very much appreciate having this post repeated, if possible.)

On the other hand:

1) Jesus said that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man, for the Sabbath."

2) Jesus and his disciples, worked and picked food on the Sabbath; even though Old Testament Law forbade that, under pain of death. Because it was convenient/necessary for human daily activity.

So you and Card. George are saying that Jesus was giving in to the dictatorship of humanist relativism.

That is progress? That is conserving Christian values?

Good luck, conservatives!

That would be relevant is Sunday were indeed the Sabbath, but it is not. Saturday remains the Sabbath, something remembered a bit more in the Eastern Christian Tradition (e.g., the readings for Saturday and Sunday form diptyches). Sunday is the Lord's Day, the First Day of the new creation, and the "Eighth Day" that stands outside of time. But, in the East, at least, this conception of Sunday as the Eighth Day did not supersede that of the Seventh Day as marking the completion of God's first creation. Thus (I believe it was) Clement of Alexandria who wrote that one cannot celebrate the Lord's Day who does not also observe the Sabbath.

My own personal thoughts on what should be done to the calendar, in descending order of priority:

1) Restore Ascension to its proper celebration on, well, Ascension Thursday and make is a Day of Obligation.

2) Restore Epiphany to January 6 and make it a Day of Obligation (though for practical concerns I'd give on the obligation point - most people take time off around the Christmas Holidays and thus its common to need to work extra hard in early January to "catch up").

3) Make Annunciation a Day of Obligation (really I've always though this is a more meaningful Feast than the Assumption).

4) Restore the Day of Obligation to All Saints, Assumption, etc. when they fall on a Saturday/Monday.



The practical concerns on Days of Obligation are real (I'm a working professional myself - I know). But the Church always excuses someone from the obligation to attend mass if it is prohibitively difficult. If you absolutely can;t attend Mass during the week because of the need to maintain your livelihood then it seems that you have a very good reason to be excused.

I am reminded of a priest who told me that the Church should reduce the number of holy days of obligation because the people weren't attending Mass on those days anyway - imagine! This same priest used to hold a dozen or so Communion hosts in his hand, and peel them off to communicants between his thumb and index finger, as though he were counting out change. I stopped attending Mass at that church a decade ago.

Regarding the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, Mr. Weigel appears insufficiently rigorous in his opposition to chronological relativism. Until 1970, separate feasts existed for the Body of Christ and for the Most Precious Blood. Corpus Christi was observed on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, while the Solemnity of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, was observed on July 1. Further, if October 19 is to be elevated "as a reminder of just how challenging the proclamation and defense of the faith can be," perhaps June 26 could also be included in the list of obligatory holy days as a reminder of the potential financial benefits associated with "the proclamation and defense of the faith" with the right set of benefactors.

So you and Card. George are saying that Jesus was giving in to the dictatorship of humanist relativism.

Where does Jesus say that one should not worship God as often as possible and opportune? Where does the advice to visit Mass more frequently suggest that one not take care of basic needs like eating? The analogy suggests ignorance of Catholic teaching and practice.

My only qualm with Weigel's suggestion is that in many areas one is likely to face a revolt from clergy who already consider daily mass to be an inconvenience.

I was not at all aware that the Greek Orthodox observe the Sabbath (Saturday) and the Eighth Day (Sunday). It would be good to know how the "Sabbath" is observed. Do most of the faithful attend Mass? Do they refrain from work on both days? Do written stipulations/invitations for the faithful exist?

Jesus worked on the day that was the Sabbath for him, in his time. The day that was set by God himself, in the Old Testament, furthermore; and never changed in the Bible itself.

What day was that? For Jews - and the Old and New Testament both - Sabbath begins at sunset Friday evening; and extends to sunset, Saturday. This was the holy day of his own time. And Jesus, against the Old Testament, worked on that day. Jesus worked on the real Sabbath; the one of this time, set by God. Even though God in the OT, had firmly stipulated the death penalty for those whole violated that day.

Jesus furthermore, did not contest at all, that the time when he worked, was the Sabbath. A day which was changed only later, after his death. And indeed, he defended himself, on those grounds; he clearly assumed that the day he worked, was the genuine Sabbath ... as we when on to suggest howver that working on that day was OK; suggesting that surely preachers worked that day. Or that any shepherd would work that day, to save a lost sheep.

If the Sabbath was changed later? To our Sunday? That was to accomodate existing pagan/secular Saturnalia-type celebrations.

It is a shame that conservative Christians today, have forgotten the true, holy Saturday; thus disobeying the Old Testament, by forgetting the Sabbath.

In any case, what we see in Jesus himself, and then the whole of Christianity, was accomodation to other, predominently, practical, "secular" exigencies. As it changed even the day of the "Sabbath"; from essentially Saturday, to Sunday.

Jesus began this himself; but therefore, Jesus was thereby, a secular relativist; not a conservative.

Or to put it in another, more dramatic way: Catholic conservatives, who oppose accomodating secular traditions, are really against Jesus.

It's a mistake to draw a contrast between obligation and love. The fact is we do have obligations to God. We ought to meet them out of love.

Well-said, Professor Weigel. One of your best columns in recent times!

With my 8th Grade confirmation class, I always refer to these days as "Holy Days of Invitation." This inevitably brings up the question, "Does that mean I don't have to go?" "Let me ask you," I respond, "If your mother or father were having a big, BIG party to celebrate their birthday and they invited you, would you decide not to go?" "No, I'd go," the students usually say. "Why?" "Because they're my parents, I love them." "Would you hurt them deeply if you didn't go?" "Yes."

"So, what's different about these days the church puts on the calendar? Nothing."

"If the Sabbath was changed later? To our Sunday? That was to accomodate existing pagan/secular Saturnalia-type celebrations."

It was not so much "changed" as "merged". The Liturgy of the Word was merged with the celebration of the Lord's Supper, which always took place on the day that Christ rose from the dead. This was not an accommodation to "secular" exigencies, and early Christian history, replete with martyrs, can in no way be shown to be making such concessions as you imply.

And let’s reintroduce the season of Kingdomtide. In 1925, Pope Pius XI established the Feast of Christ the King in order to recall Christians from rising secularism. And in 1937, in the midst of the Great Depression, the Federal Council of Churches in Christ (now the National Council of Churches in Christ) established a new liturgical season called Kingdomtide, which would begin on Pentecost and end on the feast of Christ the King. The idea was to bring “the message and influence of Christ to bear upon the contemporary life of the world. This approach makes it possible to incorporate the more important modern ‘days’—such as Labor Day and World Peace Day—effectively into the calendar.”

As Kingdomtide nears its end this year, we can celebrate today’s gathering of 1200 Jesuits in Washington, DC, at the annual Ignatian Family Teach-In for Justice.

Joe,

I find it refreshing that you have finally fessed up and dropped the pretense of caring for the holy. In your stupendous and heroically perverse mutilation of the gospels you have labored mightily to turn the God man Jesus into a Frankenstein of your imagining, the antiChrist. To paraphrase Roosevelt on Batista, he may be the AntiChrist, but he's your antiChrist. As far as I can tell, the only thing you really worship is Joe. That kind of tom-foolery (excuse me, Joe-foolery) got Adam and Eve into a world of trouble but to this you seem oblivious. Or, more likely, you just don't give a damn.

Yes, we are conservatives, that is, we are trying to preserve the vision of the Jesus of Hebrews who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And yes, you are a liberal, a man struggling to free yourself from anything bigger than yourself and your own sweet will (This a Joe engineered definition that may do serious injustice to liberals of a more intellectually substantial and more morally, or even spiritually, authentic genus--but I think this particular shoe fits this particular foot).

None of this is original or particularly interesting. But unless I miss my guess badly, you have made yourself into a soul that would shrivel up in God's holy fire like a spider in a bessemer furnace. As Paul reminds us, "It is appointed to a man once to die and after that the judgement."

It's never too late to change. Until it's too late to change.

I certainly hope I'm wrong. I certainly fear I'm not.

Best,

Richard

It’s good to see your post, Richard. I’ve been in and out of town, but I did respond belatedly to your kind post, which was on Scalia’s November 2nd article.

As for Joe, I rarely agree with him but value his opinion. He raises some good points sometimes. I wish his style of argument didn’t leave his point in the murk so often. His argument in this thread, however, just seems willfully bizarre, as if he were merely seeking to create a stir, which doesn’t get anyone anywhere really.

Dear Mr. Weigel:

Your proposal to establish entirely new holy days of obligation is just as jarring to me as the gratuitous holy day observance changes that have been made since Vatican II. I believe it would be much better for the Church to simply reverse those changes and then leave things that way for at least several generations. Frequent tinkering with the liturgy is a sure-fire way to weaken one of the most important bonds that ties Catholics together.

John D. Hartigan
Chevy Chase, MD

Michael,

Thanks for your kind reply. As for feeling sheepish in heaven, I think that we all will (Lord, this is more a prayer than a presumption), perhaps some in part should they discover that Father Neuhaus resembles the Lamb of God with loving fidelity.

Best,

Richard

"Holy Days of INVITATION"! I love it, thanks Alberto.

What seems to be, if not lost, then certainly overlooked here is what is perhaps the chief reason for any and all liturgical gatherings: participation in the divine life. (I'm Orthodox so my thinking here might be more analogous to the Eastern Catholics). Why wouldn't it be viewed a privilege to be in the presence of the holy?

Joe, you're less than human if the prayer of the Church is so off-putting that the reasons to not go trump the reasons to go. Don't go! No one is holding a gun to your head telling you absolutely MUST go pray. And notice the paradox: if Weigel is correct, then the once-counter-cultural "liberals" like Joe have become the entrenched and inflexible "establishment." Joe, you're "yeah-buts" are identical to those of an old-line Protestant, nervously insisting that "you can't impose anything on me."

When I talk to Catholics about the Orthodox Divine Liturgy and suggest that when the Church assembles to pray a mystical journey into heaven takes place, there is often a flickering of recognition in their eyes. But only a flicker. Catholics routinely agree, as an afterthought, that, well, yes, they recall hearing something like that in either school or RCIA, but that is clearly not what informs their thinking about Church attendance and personal piety. "Mystery" is the point here, not "legality."

Reducing attendance to what is "obligation" invites folks like Joe to insist on having an ever lowering bar in terms of what keeps them "legal." Indeed, Vatican II's caving here has encouraged the likes of Joe, and there's no "rescuing the council from the liberals" on this sort of issue and it has enabled the thinking of the Joes of the world, even to the point of worn-out Protestant mutterings when the Church asks here children to pray a little oftener.

>As for Joe, I rarely agree with him but value his opinion. He raises some good points sometimes. I wish his style of argument didn’t leave his point in the murk so often. His argument in this thread, however, just seems willfully bizarre, as if he were merely seeking to create a stir, which doesn’t get anyone anywhere really.

He's been happy enough using various forms of deception to try and make his point. He has a theological and philosophical understanding appropriate to a first year student but puts on a pretense of being an expert in these matters.

By these things he clearly doesn't respect those to whom he is talking.

If you do a search on Brettongarcia across the internet you'll find a long string of people saying, "What did you say? I don't think you know what the heck are you talking about."

Frankly, his mentality marks him as either a fanatic or a troll.

You are correct on the larger issue but misunderstand the smaller practical issue of Holy Days. A Holy Day of Obligation should be just that for Catholics - a holy "day" and not a holy 45 minutes to an hour before or after work. If it is a holy day of obligation, then Catholics should be obligated to make it holy by avoiding servile labor, shopping and other required activities like we should every Sunday. I would argue for keeping the Holy Days on the calendar as they stand but drop the obligation to attend Mass. Instead, offer Mass and then add a Solemn Vespers service on those days.

In the last days they tell us, we are supposed to discover that many things are turned around from what we thought: things thought "first" with God, are found last; people we thought "noble" are found to be "fools." Even many priests and holy men are to be found to be "false prophets."

In this case? Condemning liberal 'cultural relativists," Card. George and Mr. George Weigel, have just condemned themselves. Their complaint - voiced by Weigel in a Nov. 17 2010 First Things online article - was that the Catholic Church in effect has been too liberal, when it changed a few holy days. Changing days that had originally occurred on weekdays, to Sunday; for the sake of convenient, and to match the secular work schedule. But as usual, Card. George & Weigel, fail to note some relevant historical facts.

The fact is that today, all Christians are in effect cultural relativists, relative to Old Testament culture; especially with regard to holy days. For example especially, few Christians know that when the Ten Commandments told us to "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy," the Sabbath was at the time not Sunday. Rather it was, according to the Jewish/Old Testament calendar, the period from Friday sunset, to sunset Saturday; roughly, Saturday. Ironically therefore, no Christians today, "conservative" or otherwise, "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy." In that they have 1) forgotten when the Sabbath really was (roughly, Saturday); and 2) do not honor it as holy. Indeed, they 3) changed the holy day, from the Sabbath to a "Day of the Lord," Sunday. Disobeying the God of the Old Testament.

Therefore when George Weigel and Cardinal George condemn "cultural relativist" liberals, for wanting to change holy days? They in effect, are also condemning themselves. Then too for that matter, they also condemn Jesus himself. Since, note, Jesus himself modified the Sabbath of his own times, the real Sabbath, to suit practical convenience (as per the above; since he needed to heal and save and prepare food/eat on Sabbath days).

The story is well known: Jesus had been 1) healing the sick, on a sabbath; and he had also 2) allowed his disciples to pick corn to eat on such days too. But the problem was, the laws of the Jews - and of God, in the Old Testament - strictly forbade that; forbade any work at all on a Sabbath day, even collecting wood for cooking purposes and so forth. And indeed, God was very, very strict on this prohibition: a man who gathered wood on a Sabbath to cook with, was condemned to death by God . But then Jesus himself had violated religious law by working on the holy day,healing others, allowing his disciples to collect food. And so he explicitly argued for changing the behavior allowed on holy days; arguing for a liberal, cultural relativism, that would change the rules for holy days. Jesus himself arguing on the grounds of practical convenience, in part: who among you, he asked, would not, as a practical matter, work to save an animal, a sheep, that had been lost, even on a Sabbath?

Thus Jesus himself, was a liberal cultural relativist. And here specifically, with regard to changing holy days, in this way or that, to fit practical concerns.

In condemning cultural relativism and liberals, and specifically those who change holy dates to suit convenience, George Weigel and Cardinal George therefore, condemn ... themselves; condemn Jesus; and condemn all of Christianity. All of whom changed the Sabbath in one way or another, for example.

"Judge not lest you be judged," Jesus taught us. While Paul added more specifically (with us thinking of the Psychological phenomenon of "projection" here), that those who condemn others or a scapegoat, for this or that alleged sin, will often be found to have been guilty of that very same sin, themselves.

Condemning liberals, cultural relativists - and specifically, those who change holy days in one way or another; especially as Weigel says, to suit the secular calender, or the conventional Day of the Lord, Sunday - Conservatives like Cardinal George and George Weigel effectively condemn 1) Jesus; 2) Christianity; and 3) the Church; all of whom changed holy days. And in doing this, 4) George Weigel and Cardinal George of course, condemn themselves.

It seems to me that much of the matter of our debate has already been put much more simply by Christ himself. Are we following the letter of the Law? The Spirit of the Law? Have we managed to rationalize a disconnect between the two?

The Spirit of the Law is all that which is most beneficial to humankind. God tells it is most beneficial to humankind to have a Sabbath--a day of rest in community, when we recognize and worship God. Jesus did not, as some may suggest, "change" the Sabbath or abolish it by "working", for even when his disciples picked grain with him, they were following the Spirit of the Sabbath (worship and community in God/Christ's presence).

This fact of still following the Spirit, though not the Hebrew letter, also proves that Jesus was NOT, as Joe suggests, a "secular relativist" (an incoherent and non-sensical turn of phrase, that Aquinas might point out would necessarily require Jesus to wink out of existence, since the secular is that which has nought to do with God, and God cannot have nought to do with Himself, nor can He be "relative" to Himself).

We fallen humans tend to twist the Letter of the Law until we lose the Spirit. All the same, Christ insisted in Matthew 5:18, ""For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

We tend to want to say "What's the bare minimum I can do?"
Christ said, "I've come to set the world on fire (with love for God), and how I wish it were burning already."

Love doesn't do the "bare minimum". Sadly, those who are looking for the easy way are already on the pathway to Gehenna. As He said, "the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many..."

Well, Mr Weigel might be interested to know that the trend to reduce days of precept goes back to the late medieval and early modern period. And you know what the cause was? Emergent capitalism. Yep. All those days of precept got in the way of, uh, "productivity". So the western Church has accommodated economic liberalism for several centuries by a very steady reduction in days of precept.

Btw, in the USA, Corpus Christi was celebrated on Sunday decades *before* Vatican II to allow for processions that would not be able to happen on a work-day, since the USA is not a Catholic country and does not have the cultural custom of that day being a civil holiday.

And Annunciation hasn't been a universal day of precept for many decades, IIRC, again long before Vatican II.

I am all on board with restoring Epiphany to January 6th. Let's just ditch the January 1st day of precept in exchange.

I am happy I live in a province where Ascension is not transferred.

"And Annunciation hasn't been a universal day of precept for many decades, IIRC, again long before Vatican II."

Goodness me! For we Eastern Catholics, it is a major feast, one of such great importance that, even if it falls on Great (Good) Friday (as it did a few years back), Annunciation takes precedence (the resulting combination of propers is positively bi-polar). I don't know many Greek Catholics or Orthodox who would ever consider skipping liturgy for the Annunciation, regardless of the day of the week on which it fell.

Actually, the Annunciation hasn't been a day of precept in the USA since 1884. Those secularizing bishops at the council of Baltimore are, of course, to blame!

In addition to the accommodation of the needs of capitalist perspectives on production, there is the other problem, which is the brittleness that comes with reliance on precept instead of culture. It's a problem in the western Church for the past millennium. Simply making something a precept again won't bring back the culture. You need to start with the culture, not restoring the precept.

"Actually, the Annunciation hasn't been a day of precept in the USA since 1884."

If we Greek Catholics had "days of precept", Annunciation would certainly be one of them. But then, again, we have an entirely different approach to ecclesiastical discipline. We uphold the fullness of the Tradition as an ideal towards which one ought to aspire, since perfection in Christ is our ultimate goal. But we also understand that not everyone is at the same place in his spiritual journey, and accept that some--many, even most--will fall short of the mark in one way or another. Just take a quick look at the complete regulations for fasting, and you will see what I mean. We take a therapeutic, not legalistic approach.

I suggest that the Latin Church, in contrast, has a tradition of legalism in which failure to comply with the fullness of the rules (absent a formal dispensation) is (or at least was) considered sinful ("Eat a hamburger on Friday and burn in hell"). Working within the assumptions of this approach, the Latin Church has chosen to "dumb down" the discipline to something they believe everyone can meet.

But the funny thing is, when you set the bar low, people tend to live down to your expectations. The bishops apparently had very low expectations for the people, and the people, not wishing to disappoint the bishops, did all in their power to meet those expectations.

"I am happy I live in a province where Ascension is not transferred."

Yeah, that always teed me off. I mean, it's called Ascension Thursday, not "Ascension Sunday Nearest to the Fortieth Day After Easter". And we would never move it, because it's the last day we sing Christ is Risen.

By the way, just why does the Latin Church celebrate the Immaculate Conception on 8 December, instead of 9 December (which we mark as the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne)? The feast was originally on the 9th because that is one day short of nine months from the Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos, whereas in contrast the Feast of the Annunciation is nine months to the day before Christmas. Didn't you guys get the symbolism, or what?

We may well succeed in bringing back traditional observances, fasting, holydays and other observances but restoring the days and practices will just fall into the cracks if the
"faithful" continue to cut away from these solemn observances in favor of their
lifestyles and new priorities. These traditional observances have one specific thing in
common and that is self-denial. In these days where self-indulgence is paramount
even easily displacing observances, the battle is acutely uphill. After all, today in
many, many cases, a Big Mac satisfies a church goer better than the eucharist...

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2177

2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."110

"Also to be observed are the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension of Christ, the feast of the Body and Blood of Christi, the feast of Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, the feast of Saint Joseph, the feast of the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, and the feast of All Saints."111

110 CIC, can. 1246 § 1.

111 CIC, can. 1246 § 2: "The conference of bishops can abolish certain holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday with prior approval of the Apostolic See."

Artaban:


The point is, that many things thought "secular," "world"ly, are actually good, and of the spirit. Like practical but good "works." SO that God allows us to modify even allegedly holy things, for practical reasons; reasons that might just as holy - or in the spirit as you say - in their own way.

Joe the Human Person should note that those Christian communities that have followed his advice and adapted themselves and their practices to the demands of the world have all withered on the vine, whereas those which make the greatest demands of commitment upon their adherents are those that are rapidly gaining strength. People do not want a faith that is easygoing and comfortable. They want one that challenges them. Men in particular look for a faith that is heroic in nature.

Alexander Schmemann, in his great book, "For the Life of the World" writes that secularism is the great danger facing the Church, but carefully notes that secularism is not inherently hostile to the Church: it sees that the Church can be useful, in precisely the "practical' sense of which Joe approves. The Church, for its part, loses its way whenever it decides to conform to the norms of "this world which passeth away".

The Church is most fully the Church when it manifests itself as the Kingdom of God in this world through the celebration of its Liturgy in accordance with the fullness of the Tradition. The people sense this, and are drawn to the Church whenever and wherever this occurs. On the other hand, when worship takes second place to practical matters, the people logically conclude that worldly matters have priority in their lives.

The Cherubic Hymn that opens the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Byzantine rite puts it bluntly:

Let us who mystically represent the Cherubim
And sing the Thrice-Holy Hymn to the life-creating Trinity
Now set aside all earthly cares,
That we may welcome the King of all,
Invisibly escorted by angelic hosts.
Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia!

"These traditional observances have one specific thing in
common and that is self-denial. In these days where self-indulgence is paramount
even easily displacing observances, the battle is acutely uphill. "

I disagree with Edmund. The people hunger for holiness. They hunger for a Church that challenges them and takes them beyond this world. The problem is the bishops and presbyters who think so little of the people that they constantly find excuses to dilute the content of faith and the demands of its worship. Or, perhaps, what we see is a reflection of the clergy itself, for whom liturgy has too often been seen as an afterthought, an onerous duty to be discharged as quickly as possible so that they can deal with more "important" matters.

One need only look at Sacrosanctum concilium, which spells out in painful detail the liturgical duties of the bishop and the presbyter to realize these were either being ignored or performed in a cursory and slipshod manner. One does not legislate against what is not happening. Unfortunately, while Sacrosanctum concilium changed the form of the Roman Mass, it did not really change the attitude of the clergy towards its celebration. And we have merely exchanged one set of abuses for another.

I would add to Stuart's recommendation to Brettongarcia that Bretton should also avail himself of Ft. Schmemann's Introduction to Liturgical Theology for a discussion of the the Church's calendar.

Stuart:

The Church is more effective - as you rightly note for a moment - when it manests itself as the agency of God "IN THIS WORLD." Which is to say, that 1) it is most effective, when it agrees to address itself to this physical, material existence. By works of charity, and so forth. And if 2) it in PART is about manifesting a spiritual aspect, note that even our spiritual "hope" is hope in part, for 3) a second coming of God to this material, physical earth; in order to realize a full, material "kingdom." One that at last fully realizes all the promises of the kingdom (Rev. 20 ff).

So that physical, material aims, are a major element of its existence.

Indeed, the greatness of Jesus, was that he was a spiritual god, nevertheless "made flesh."

A great concern for and involvement in the material life therefore, is a major element of the Church. Enough in fact, that the Church notes (in say the NAB glossary) than any condemnations of the "world," should be taken not to condemn, in hierarchical dualism, this material existence; but should be taken to condemn only the "world" of excessively bad people; as it seems clear.

Thus, the aims of the Church and the aims of secularists are not that far apart. While for that matter, while spirituality might be increasing within the religious world properly speaking, the spiritual/ascetic Church is overall, declining massively in numbers. Relative to a religiousity that takes seriously the "social gospel," and helping people, in the flesh, here on this material earth. The ultimate "kingdom" after all.

Fantastic article! Now just forward this on to the new head of the USCCB....

"The point is, that many things thought "secular," "world"ly, are actually good, and of the spirit."

No disagreement that many things of this world are good. God made them, after all, but He also made them to be used in certain ways and at certain times. But we fallen human beings have this tendency to value some goods more highly than we should, and this is precisely when, where, and how we sin. We need discipline and guidance to avoid such sin.

You are still, however, misusing the word "secular". If you want to say that almost anything of this world can have a spiritual dimension or be offered up in sacrifice to God then you're correct. On the other hand, the very word "secular" was created as a way of saying "not religious" (look it up on dictionary.com).

Which is why your statement that, "the aims of the Church and the aims of secularists are not that far apart" is completely erroneous. The Church has one foot in the present & one in eternity. One foot in this world and another in the next. The whole task of the church is the fusion and reconciliation of this world and its transformation into the next by (and this is the key difference) conforming us to Christ.

Have you ever heard a secularist talk about conforming him or herself to God? I never have. They want to conform the world to THEIR image of heaven, not to conform themselves to HIS image of heaven.

You could rightly say both seek "heaven". The secularist, however, is doomed to failure, as he uses the wrong tools and chases after the mirage rather than the real thing. Not so with the Church. Maybe that's why I know so many happy religious, and so many miserable secularists. Truth makes a difference.

"The Church is more effective - as you rightly note for a moment - when it manests itself as the agency of God "IN THIS WORLD." Which is to say, that 1) it is most effective, when it agrees to address itself to this physical, material existence."

No, Joe. The Church manifests itself as the Kingdom through the celebration of the Eucharist. I do not know how the Latin Church views it, but when the Divine Liturgy begins with the invocation, "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", it means precisely that: the Kingdom is made manifest in the world at that very moment, and continues to be present until the dismissal; while we are in the Liturgy, we are in the Kingdom. For us, liturgical realism is not negotiable.

" By works of charity, and so forth."

These are the fruits of the Liturgy's manifestation of the Kingdom, not the means by which the Kingdom is made manifest. The dismissal in the Divine Liturgy begins with the acclamation, "Let us go forth in peace", to which the people reply, "In the name of the Lord". That is, as Christ commissioned the Twelve to go forth and make disciples of all the nations, so we are called to go forth and live out "the liturgy after the Liturgy". We do good works because we are the People of God; we are not the People of God because we do good works.

"And if 2) it in PART is about manifesting a spiritual aspect, note that even our spiritual "hope" is hope in part, for 3) a second coming of God to this material, physical earth; in order to realize a full, material "kingdom." One that at last fully realizes all the promises of the kingdom (Rev. 20 ff)."

I agree that the eschatological fulfillment of the Parousia will be Christ's restoration of God's creation, both the material and the spiritual. However, we are directed by Christ to make the "Bloodless Sacrifice" and the "Sacrifice of Praise" until He comes again in glory. Until that time, the Church will bear witness to that fulfillment through the Liturgy.

"So that physical, material aims, are a major element of its existence. "

But not the principal element of its existence. The Church is a sacrament. All sacraments employ matter to make manifest the deeper spiritual reality they represent.

"A great concern for and involvement in the material life therefore, is a major element of the Church. Enough in fact, that the Church notes (in say the NAB glossary) than any condemnations of the "world," should be taken not to condemn, in hierarchical dualism, this material existence; but should be taken to condemn only the "world" of excessively bad people; as it seems clear."

Nobody is making that case, but you, on the other hand, are making the case that the demands of the material world should take precedence over the demand of God for "right worship" or "true glory".

"Thus, the aims of the Church and the aims of secularists are not that far apart."

Oh, no--they are miles and miles apart. It is sad that you cannot discern this.

"Relative to a religiousity that takes seriously the "social gospel," and helping people, in the flesh, here on this material earth. The ultimate "kingdom" after all."

The numbers hardly bear this out. Rather the opposite, you know. otherwise, of course, we would see massive numbers of converts to the Methodists, the Episcopalians and the Church of Christ--all of whom have done what you advocate, all of whom are the very epitome of "whitened sephulchres". Social gospel is thin gruel on which the found the Kingdom, because the true Gospel is actually very simple:

Christ is risen from the dead.
Trampling down death by death,
And to those in the tomb
Bestowing life.

Everything else is philosophy.

I think that Mr. Weigel's suggestion regarding the holy days of obligation is an excellent one. Enough pandering to sloth.

I would also add this:

As Mr. Weigel undoubtedly knows, communists also hated church processions. Cardinal Wojtyla's struggles in this area are well documented. Thus, to strengthen the counter-cultural statement of the Church, let's also bring back the processions.

"Thus, to strengthen the counter-cultural statement of the Church, let's also bring back the processions."

What do you mean, "bring back"? We, at least, never stopped having them, and have them at every appropriate opportunity.

Stuart:

It's very good that your parish continues this practice. Do you have them on church grounds, or out in public?

We are situated in the suburbs, on what amounts to a cul de sac. We go down one side, out to the main road, and then back the other way. Most Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches have processions, because they are liturgically mandated on certain days (e.g., Palm Sunday, Great Friday, Pascha, Bright Monday, Triumph of Orthodoxy, Restoration of the Holy Cross, and the parish patronal feast--in our case, Transfiguration).

But I grew up in Brooklyn, and it was not uncommon for the various RC parishes to have processions through the main streets. I suspect that the real reason most parishes gave up on processions is not local opposition, but rather mild embarrassment or indifference on the part of parish priests.

Stuart:

I tend to agree that it is the "mild embarrassment or indifference on the part of parish priests", and may I add, some laity, that has allowed this practice to atrophy. They've literally abandoned the public square.

Processions and pilgrimages honour God, and thus are part of our patrimony - let's speak of them with our fellow Catholics.

STUART:

For whatever reasons, 1) the Church itself, changed the dates of serveral major holy days, to Sunday. So clearly, opposition by George to any such change, is opposition to the Church.

Why did the Church change? 2) Practical convenience was indicated by Jesus himself.

While in fact, 3) Jesus' statement, that the "Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," contradicts all efforts to put alleged holy things, ahead of human interest.

As for the 4) liturgy? Lately to be sure the Church has been speaking of it it as if it was the promised "kingdom" whole and entire; the "highest point" of our existence, the goal etc.. But this over-enthusiasm contrasts mightily with the earlier promises of a) heaven or a later b) Kingdom of God on earth; which seem like higher goals, after all, and the real "end" of our existence, Biblically speaking.

It is sad if so many Catholics cannot see and celebrate the ties between the world, and heaven itself; "secular" life, and the religious.

Jesus himself saw it: can you acknowledge it? Or will you like many Catholics, remain lost in "hate" for the "world"? Or worse, sancitimonious self-celebration? That the Bible condemned, as being "righteous over-much," or "self-righteous"?

5) The fact that one day heaven itself is supposed to come down to earth, suggests that we should be ready to see holy things in the physical world, today.

6) By the way, our word "secular" comes from the same root as the Fr. for "century"; it simply mean the world or Jesus' time or century. Look it up in your dictionary: look a little closer; at the etymology, Stuart.

Bill,

What is there to say, other than I strongly disagree, and also note that you either did not understand me, or deliberately misrepresented what I wrote. In any case, as a Greek Catholic, whose faith is grounded in the Byzantine Tradition, it's rather difficult for you to make the case that I have some sort of crypto-gnostic hatred of the material world. After all, that's what the Iconoclasm was about, wasn't it?

"It is sad if so many Catholics cannot see and celebrate the ties between the world, and heaven itself; "secular" life, and the religious...Jesus himself saw it: can you acknowledge it? Or will you like many Catholics, remain lost in "hate" for the "world"? Or worse, sancitimonious self-celebration? That the Bible condemned, as being "righteous over-much," or "self-righteous"?"--BIll

Bill, I don't know where you're getting such an impression. You care to cite some evidence or examples of Catholic "hate" for the "world"?

I thought all the sensory elements of the church liturgy were/ARE a celebration of "the ties between the world and heaven itself". I mean, the aroma of incense that reminds us our prayers rise to God, the delicious taste of wine become Blood, the beauty of the hymns that spark adoration and a whole host of emotions, the stained glass that makes a moving tapestry of light to remind us of Christ our light, the soaring majesty of the cathedrals , simultaneously showing the stability and endurance of the Church against the "gates of Hell", the sign of peace and Communion which reminds us we are to be Christ to each other...

Honestly, have you BEEN to Mass lately?! How is all that not a celebration? How are you getting "hate for the world" out of it?!

Yet, for all the goodness of this life, Christ also told us we are to prefer (the word often mistranslated as "hate")the Gospel and God to this world..."Take up your cross daily and follow after me...", "Those who try to save their life will lose it, but those who lose their life for my sake & the sake of the Gospel will save it...", "Unless you hate your parents, wife, brothers and sisters, you cannot be my disciple..."

And never forget, "Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor the mind of man conceived what God has ready for those that love Him."

Those who say this world is preferable or should take precedence over the next are choosing something inferior.

"By the way, our word "secular" comes from the same root as the Fr. for "century"; it simply mean the world or Jesus' time or century. Look it up in your dictionary: look a little closer; at the etymology, Stuart."

Someone once said, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Thank you for proving old adages are still true. While the French "siecle" does mean century, the word "secular" is derived from the Latin "seculorum", or "world"; it can also mean "age" or "aeon", that is, a particular period of existence, not necessarily one defined by a rigid temporality. The term secular, then, means "pertaining to the world", hence defined by the terms and categories of the world. But, as Christ said, the Kingdom is not of this world, and as the Church manifests the Kingdom, it must of necessity be "in" the world while not being "of" the world.

The great danger of secularism to and in the Church is not that secularism will suppress the Church, but that it will capture and subvert the Church. We see this threat constantly, and constantly must strive against it. For, when the Church attempts to define itself in terms acceptable to the world, it betrays itself as the icon of the Kingdom which is not of this world. And when the Church tries to express the sacred in a secular idiom, too often it ends up expressing the secular in a sacred idiom.

But thanks for playing. Here is a home edition of our etymology game Entymologic. And better luck next time.

Stuart:

Look Again: the word "secular" therefore referred, deep down, merely to an era or period of TIME; not the "world" at all. FOr "God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son" to save it.

Where do priests and ascetics therefore get hate for this physical world? Torturing their own physical bodies to "mortify the flesh"? Out of a misunderstanding of what "world" and "flesh" mean. And also "secular." In part when the Bible tells us not to "Be of this world," or to "hate" our life in it. But to be sure, "secular" referred just to an era. And "World" referred not to this physical existence, but probably to the world or era or mood of Jesus' and Paul's time too.

Such misunderstandings of the BIble, have lead Catholics to neglect many practicaol aspects of material life, aside from pretty things; voting against the health bill for example.

On Stuart's reply to my comment about selfindulgence as the cause for
non-observances. Take a look at the beautiful churches in europe that have been converted to museums and tourist spots. They are empty. Maybe the bishops
may have lost their headship but that is not the sole reason why the liturgical observances such as the one hour fast before the eucharist is no longer observed. The laity are also equally to blame. Many here have cited church documents and I applaud you for knowing but more because you share that knowledge. In my side of the world the ratio of laity to priests is 1 priest for every 10,000 church goers, much more when you
include non-church goers. This means that the non-informed on encyclicals, the magisterium and catechism have a thread of chance to know these intricacies. The
seminaries are not all booming with aspirants for the priesthood either. On the side
of the laity, one would normally say why should I bother and waste my free time reading about temporal punishment, when I could read harry potter or hit the spa? Vatican 2 says that we are the church and as such should be responsible for self-evangelization...

"Where do priests and ascetics therefore get hate for this physical world? Torturing their own physical bodies to "mortify the flesh"?...Such misunderstandings of the BIble, have lead Catholics to neglect many practicaol aspects of material life, aside from pretty things; voting against the health bill for example."

*Sigh* Really? Really?!

To say that because some/a minority of priests and ascetics have mortified the flesh means that most or all do is, quite frankly, a conflation that strays into the realm of bigotry. It's certainly not true of the priests I know (and I know many).

Similarly, I know far too many Catholics who were in favor of the abortion expanding healthcare bill, BIll. The debates in the faculty lounge (at my Catholic school) were quite heated and evenly split in number (disappointingly so).

I don't know which is better, when a person at least makes the effort of trying to check one's prejudices at the door, or when they are so (honestly) blatant in them as you've been.

Artiban:


Do you speak for all, or even the majority, of Catholics? 1) Though priests today are not literally flagellating themselves with whips to mortify the flesh, they do a) practice abstinence; and b) take vows of "poverty," as well as of " chastity, and obedience."

2) The USCCB explicitly opposed the Health Bill (because it backed abortion, among other things).

To be sure, there are many liberal Catholics; who know the BIble allows meeting "secular" or practical culture halfway.

But 3) my remarks are addressed more to First Things; which was mostly until recently, a conservative journal; one that pretends habitually that it, and its conservatism, is THE voice of the Church.

4) If you and other Catholics want to raise your voice in protest to that tradition, however, I'm all for it.

In only wish you were NOT the minority voice, in Catholicism.

Cardinal George has just stepped down, as President of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

As of Nov. 16, 2010 the new president of the USCCB, is Tim Dolan of NY.