On sola scriptura

Another funny thing about Protestants is the inconsistencies around sola scriptura itself. It isn't even scriptural; Paul wrote in a couple places about the observance of tradition handed on from apostles: apostolic tradition.^{4 5} And churches don't really follow sola scriptura. They set up their own traditions, based on their understanding of scripture. Or, they profess sola scriptura and try to imitate the earliest Christians. And yet, they can't even get that right. For example, there is a 'full-gospel' church in Boulder which does its best to be like the Acts church, while maintaining sola scriptura and that faith alone saves. Here's how it works out: No infant baptism, because baptism is just a profession of faith. Instead, everyone gathers around the newborn and prays for him, commending him to God. As close to infant baptism as you can get, without taking the logical plunge. The eucharist is celebrated, maybe once every eight weeks, and everyone takes it as a chance to remember the passion. The bread and grape juice are symbols, and we use them because that's what Jesus used. Oh wait, Jesus used wine. Oh wait, the earliest Christians celebrated the eucharist every Sunday,⁶ not one Sunday in eight.

"Acts prayer cloths" are used; the church prayers over bits of cloth, and people can take them home and put them under their pillow for healing or whatever it is they want. This is based on Acts 19:11-12 "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them." Now sacraments are just symbols; they're superstitions--but we're gonna pray over bits of fabric and put 'em under our pillows.

That's where sola scriptura gets you.

^{^4} 2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
^{^5} 2 Tim 2:2 "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."
^{^6}Didache 14, in Staniforth, Maxwell, ed. Early Christian Writings. (Penguin Books: London, 1987), 197.

The Eucharist is Effective, or Why Protestantism doesn't make sense

This post is inspired by my reading of Dom Gregory Dix's The Shape of the Liturgy. Dix was a 20th c. Anglican Benedictine.

In his discussion on the development of the Mass in the high middle ages, he discusses how the people's participation in the Mass had become one of "seeing". Since the Mass was in Latin and with a silent Canon, and ad orientem, their participation in the Mass was primarily adoration of the Host when it was elevated. During the rest of the Mass, they were occupied with private devotions, eg reciting the rosary or meditating on the Passion. Dix writes, "it needed only a continuation of the shift of emphasis for the eucharistic action itself to come to be regarded as a mere occasion for or accompaniment to the individual's subjective devotion and thoughts."¹ He believes that Protestant worship, having arisen from this milieux, is based on this practice of the eucharist. Justification by faith alone having stripped the sacraments of their efficacy, it treats the eucharist as nothing more than an occasion for personal piety and reflection on the Passion. This was all that was left of the Mass after removing its role as an effective re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary. Rather than treating the sacraments as acts that really effect, or do, something, Protestantism views sacraments as occasions for reflection.

Dix recognizes that

"The logical development would have been to remove the external action altogether, and so leave the individual's mental appreciations of and reactions to the passion and atonement in complete possession of the field. But official protestantism (apart from the Quakers) felt unable to do this, at all events for a long time. The tradition that the eucharist was the culminating point of christian worship was too strong to be overthrown at once. The New Testament represented our Lord as having instituted this action for His followers, and great attention had to be paid to that fact."²

If you're going to be Protestant, then it seems that being a Quaker is at least logically coherent. However, the vast majority of Protestant churches continue to celebrate the eucharist. It really doesn't make sense. Why do they do it? Jesus told them to.³ Now, that isn't a bad reason. But it doesn't really make sense, either. If they're going to make sense, Protestants should do away with eucharistic celebration entirely. Instead, sing and listen to a sermon. If worship only exists to be an occasion for the worshipper to reflect on Jesus' life and resolve to be more like him, there's no need for the eucharist.

The Protestant view of God is someone who shouts down commands from on high, without any real rhyme or reason. "Do this in memory of me!" "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit!" The believer's reaction to this view could be one of two: a mindless "Yes, sir", without any thought of why it is done; or it could be "Yes, sir, but will you tell me why?" I contend that the Protestant reaction is the first, and the Catholic reaction the second.

Protestant churches retain at least two of the sacraments, baptism and eucharist, because the bible is pretty darn clear on their institution. But, they don't really stop to think why God wants these sacraments done. It really doesn't make sense to do them, in a Protestant mindframe which denies that the sacraments are effectual: "I'm saved by faith alone. I accepted Jesus into my heart and I got saved and I got the Holy Ghost! I don't need meaningless ceremonies to prove I'm saved. And now, I'm gonna go get baptized cuz the Lord Jesus told me so! Baptism doesn't really do anything, faith in Jesus Christ is what already done saved me, but I'm gonna have this ceremony done anyway." Seriously, that is what should be running through the head of every Protestant anytime a sacrament is performed.

The Protestant mindframe denigrates Christ, because it makes him into a person who commanded practices that just don't make sense. If we are saved by faith alone, then there is no reason to celebrate baptism. If we are saved by faith alone, then there is no reason to celebrate the eucharist. And yet, for the sola scriptura lovers out there, the bible clearly tells Christians to baptize. So Christ told us to do something, even though there is no reason to. Protestants worship a god who commands nonsense.

On the other hand, the Catholic reaction is reasoned. It too recognizes that Christ clearly commanded (as recorded in scripture) that the sacraments be carried out. The Catholic view is that the sacraments are effective: they really do something. Baptism really does get rid of original sin. The Eucharist really is Christ present among us, and reception of communion really does draw us into him, and really does forgive venial sin. The Catholic response respects Christ enough to see him as a person who commands sacraments to be celebrated because they do something, rather than commanding they be celebrated despite their impotence.

The Catholic Church teaches that men's salvation is by faith which is mediated through the sacraments. The sacraments effect changes in the recipient, deepening their faith, hope and love. The eucharist, celebrated every day but one, is effective. This is why the Catholic Church is True.

Protestantism teaches that men are saved by faith alone, and that the sacraments don't do anything. They believe that the eucharist is not efficacious, and yet they regularly celebrate the eucharist anyway. This is why Protestantism doesn't make sense.

^{^1}Dix, Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. (The Seabury Press: New York: 1982), 600.
^{^2}Dix, Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. (The Seabury Press: New York: 1982), 600.
^{^3}Lk 22:19 "Do this in remembrance of me."

Matins in the BR

Yesterday I said Matins from the BR, and with only a minor snag. Thanks for any instruction I can give on the BR should go to Daniel at officiumdivinum.org. His website has posted for every day Lauds through Compline, and he was gracious enough to review my Matins yesterday and correct it. Everything I messed up was in the Nocturns. Nocturns are the BR's equivalent of the LH's readings in the Office of Readings. Matins can have either one or three nocturns, and each nocturn has three lessons (ie, readings). It seems that only first and second class feasts have three nocturns; Sundays, third class feasts, and ferias have one nocturn.

So on to my problem. I figured out that yesterday (St Pius V, 3rd class feast) had one nocturn. I had read the rubrics earlier, but once I got into actually saying Matins, I was going off the Ordinary. I skipped over the section "In an Office of nine lessons" to follow "In an Office of three lessons".

There are blessings associated with each lesson. The Ordinary puts them all together, and relies on you reading the red closely to realize that it goes blessing, lesson, blessing, lesson blessing, lesson; rather than blessing, blessing, blessing, lesson, lesson, lesson. I didn't read the red closely enough.

Also after each lesson is said "Tu autem, Domine, miserere nobis, / Deo gratias." I missed this because while it is listed in the nine lessons, it isn't in the three lessons. It is also the subject of rubric 216, which I had apparently glossed over.

So, I've learned that the nocturn goes as follows:

1. Iube, Domine, benedicere.
2. Blessing 1
3. Lesson 1
4. Tu autem, Domine, miserere nobis / Deo gratias
5. Lesson 1 V/R

6. Iube, Domine, benedicere.
7. Blessing 2
8. Lesson 2
9. Tu autem, Domine, miserere nobis / Deo gratias
10. Lesson 2 V/R

11. Iube, Domine, benedicere.
12. Blessing 3
13. Lesson 3
14. Tu autem, Domine, miserere nobis / Deo gratias
15. Lesson 3 V/R.

Thanks to Daniel for explaining this.

Act of Contrition

I forgot to post when it happened, but my confessor had me use a different act of contrition last time, and I thought I would share it. It is from Ps 142, towards the beginning. In the breviary I had on me, it goes as follows:

And enter not into judgment with your servant, for before you no living man is just. For the enemy pursues me; he has crushed my life to the ground; he has left me dwelling in the dark, like those long dead. And my spirit is faint within me, my heart within me is appalled.

Schola

One of my favourite parishes in the diocese--the only one I regularly attend, aside from my own--is forming a new schola. The pastor at this parish is wonderfully orthodox and traditional. The Mass I attend at his parish is celebrated ad orientem, with a Latin ordinary. The young lady spearheading the schola approached me after Mass about a month ago inviting me to it, and I had my "audition" today. I'm quite sure I didn't do well. I sang quietly and was quite nervous. But she did include me in the discussion of when to have our practices, so despite my poor performance, I seem to have a shred of hope.

I'm very excited about it. I've been reading the NLM long enough to know that a return to singing chant is a necessary, and very important, part of our identity as Catholics. We practised singing the most common Mass setting, the one where the final eleison is elongated. I think it's XVIII, I'm not sure. And our leader made sure to show us a bit of chant before letting us go, assuring us that we would be quizzed on what the notes are called--neumes--next week. I'm so glad. It seems that chant is our goal. She mentioned that she wants to work up to the Mass of the Angels eventually. I hope I have to get the Parish Book of Chant at some point.

So, I have a new saint to add to my post-Communion litany:

St Cecilia, pray for us.

Lauds

I managed to say Lauds according to the EF today, and it seems my only fault was omitting a Deo gratias. I'm surprised at how easily it's coming. The bilingual BR is really helping. I got to celebrate St Monica. The collect was really beautiful:

You are the consolation of the afflicted, Lord, and the salvation of those who trust in You. In Your mercy You received favorably the motherly tears of St. Monica as she wept for the conversion of her son, Augustine. At the intercession of both of them, give us the grace to weep for our sins and to obtain Your forgiveness. Per Dominum....

The current translation of her OF collect is:

God of mercy, comfort of those in sorrow, the tears of Saint Monica moved you to convert her son Saint Augustine to the faith of Christ. By their prayers, help us to turn from our sins and to find your loving forgiveness. Per Dominum...

The OF collect is actually better than I remembered it as I read the EF, but it still pales in comparison. "The tears of St Monica" is not as moving as "she wept for the conversion of her son". "Give us the grace to weep for our sins" could never be accused of Pelagianism, as could "help us to turn from our sins". Obtaining God's forgiveness is deliberate, an act of his will. Finding it makes it sound as though his forgiveness is something we chance upon. The OF just isn't strong enough. The example is a weakly version of the EF collect.

I may end up attached to the FSSP before long. I really like saying the Office in the EF. I am obviously using an English translation. The edition is from 1964, and by The Liturgical Press, in Collegeville. I assume it's licit to say parts of the Office in the vernacular; there were plenty of instructions to this effect through the 60s, before the LH was realized. I say the ordinary in Latin, but the movable parts in English.

And I won't say all three little hours, nor Prime. It is my understanding that diocesan priests using the BR to fulfil their obligation would not have to. If I'm wrong (on this count or the vernacular) please correct me.

The Office, a Play, and the Preface

Three disjointed topics, but they came in rapid succession, so they're rolled into one post.

The Office

Seeking refuge from the Bugninization of the liturgy, I've resolved to find shelter the EF when necessary. Necessity strikes on 21st of this month. In the universal Church, that day is Ascension Thursday. Apparently, US Catholics can't be bothered to attend HDOs that fall on days other than Sunday, so we are forced to celebrate Ascension Thursday-Sunday (as I like to call it) on what is everywhere else the Seventh Sunday of Easter; here, Ascension Thursday is Thursday of the Sixth Week of Easter.

So in my, and all American, diocese(s), I cannot licitly maintain the proper chronology of the Ascension in the OF. Deo gratias, Pope Benedict XVI has clarified that we all have the right to use the EF however, without needing our Ordinary's permission. Further, the PCED has affirmed that while bishops may transfer the day of obligation for HDOs, "the legitimate use of the liturgical books in use in 1962 includes the right to the use of the calendar intrinsic to those liturgical books." I've resolved to use the EF for cases such as Ascension Thursday, the Octave of Pentecost, and Corpus Christi. For the Ascension and 7th Sunday of Easter I will this year have to attend OF Masses. (I'll be in SC and GA and the EF is hard to come by there, I'm finding.) But I can control my recitation of the Divine Office.

I'm teaching myself to say the Office in the older form. Fortunately, I've found a bilingual BR, which I can wade my way through. Trying to read and follow rubrics entirely in Latin is scary. It's a lot to take in even in English. But, I did manage to say None yesterday correctly. One of the more simple hours, yes, prob'ly the simplest next to Compline, but it's a start. I was proud of myself. I'll try my hand at Lauds and Vespers tomorrow, and see how it goes. I think the biggest challenge will be figuring out Matins. Coming from the Office of Readings, nocturns are rather weird. I have nearly three weeks though, and if it comes down to it, I'll find an FSSP priest and get him to teach me. By hook or by crook, this year I'm celebrating the Ascension when I ought!

A Play

Last night, I attended St John Vianney seminary's production of Viva Cristo Rey, by Cathal Gallagher and Fred Martinez. It is about the life of Bl Miguel Pro, a Mexican martyr of the 1920s. The show was very well done, as well as moving. One of the government officials underwent a conversion, and Fr Pro was a very inspiring priest. The show induced more laughter than was expected. My favourite comedic line, you ask? Here it is:

(Pro's father) Son, how did you know this already?

(Fr Miguel Pro) Father, I'm a Jesuit; Jesuits know everything.

Hi-larious, I tell you. I'm so glad the seminary puts on a show each spring.

I almost forgot...the play also struck me through a scene between Ana Maria (Miguel's sister) and Martha (the girl with whom Miguel's brother flirts). Ana Maria obviously doesn't want them to get together, and she wants her brother to follow Miguel into the priesthood. She tells Martha to stay away, that her brother doesn't need to be distracted by some girl. Of course, I was sitting next to Kelly this whole time. It made me feel a little guilty, but I think I am doing well enough with discernment. If nothing else I'm remaining open to the priesthood, not shutting myself to it. This whole thing may be rash judgement though. However, as I said, I'm remaining open to the priesthood. I still want to apply to the seminary this fall. Fr Crisman is supposed to say Mass next week, so I suppose we'll talk about it again. My fear is that the seminary will say they want me to wait another year, instead of yes or no. If they say wait, I'm going to want to forget about it and date Kelly. I feel that submitting the application is due diligence. With respect to discernment, I am fortunate to be surrounded by priests, seminarians and friends who are aware of what's going on in my life, as well as the fact that Kelly by no means wants to steal me from a religious vocation. I've not stopped praying, asking for my vocation. I think my vocation is safe, given all the factors.

The Preface

I don't know if it struck anyone else, but I wasn't expecting it when the Preface today said that Christ is the priest, victim, and altar for his sacrifice. Priest and victim I'm familiar enough with. But altar? It always seemed pretty clear that the cross was the altar for his sacrifice. I asked Fr Dwyer about it after Mass, and he explained it as being the idea that Christ was the support, or basis, for his own offering. Or something to that general effect; I'm sure my explanation has lost something of the way he explained it to me. But I had never thought of that before, and I figured I'd pass it on to you. Fr. went on to mention that the altar in the Church represents/symbolizes Christ; this is why the celebrant kisses and genuflects to the altar. I was familiar with that idea, so it helped a bit in understanding talking about Christ as the altar of his sacrifice. I'm still sceptical of genuflecting to the altar though. Another priest told me we should genuflect before getting in the pew even when the Sacrament isn't reserved, because we're genuflecting to the altar as well. But I'm genuflecting for Christ, so I haven't started genuflecting in chapels that don't have the Sacrament in them. I guess I could start using the left knee for the altar, but something's going to have to push me into that.