A Tale of Two Calendars

As I began studying and practicing many of the traditions of the Church over the past few years, it came to my surprise that not only does the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church have two liturgical calendars, but one calendar is superior to the other.

What Liturgical Year is it?

 After the Second Vatican Council an effort was made to modify the liturgical calendar in order to introduce more scripture into the Mass. The Mass up to that point consisted of a one year cycle of readings with a reading from an epistle and the gospel along with John 1:1-14 at the end of every Mass. Introduced in 1969, the new calendar consisted of a three year cycle of readings for Sundays and a two year cycle of readings for weekdays. Adding more scripture reading to the Mass is a noble cause and this is not why I consider the old calendar of the Traditional Latin Mass to be superior to the Ordinary Form of the Mass, but I do think it is a bit confusing. I am willing to bet that most people are not aware of what liturgical year it is. For those that are curious, we are currently in Year B1 (I had to look it up).

Where did all the Seasons go?

While I see the benefit of modifying the liturgical calendar to include more scripture readings, I do not understand the need to modify the seasons within the liturgical year. Within the Ordinary Form calendar there are six (or seven) liturgical seasons: Advent, Christmas, Ordinary Time, Lent, Triduum, Easter, and Ordinary Time again. Within the Extraordinary Form calendar there are eight liturgical seasons: Advent, Christmas, Time after Epiphany, Septuagesima, Lent, Triduum, Easter, and Time after Pentecost. On the surface level the only changes seem to be the removal of Septuagesima and the changing the names of Time after Epiphany and Time after Pentecost to Ordinary time.

 Even at this surface level both of these changes negatively affect the liturgical calendar. Septuagesima (or pre-Lent) is a penitential time that starts about seventy days before Easter. These three weeks before the start of Lent are meant to prepare us to enter more deeply into the season of Lent. There seems to be no good reason to remove the season of Septuagesima from the liturgical calendar. With regards to the name change to Ordinary Time, Ordinary Time makes the seasons after Christmas and Easter seem like they are mundane and ordinary.  The problem is that there is no ordinary time after the Incarnation! Every moment of the life of Christ presented to us within the liturgical year is anything but ordinary! Having these seasons named Time after Epiphany and Time after Pentecost give these seasons a point of reference and reflection. The names of these two seasons allow us to recall back to the mysteries of the Epiphany and Pentecost and continue to reflect on them throughout the year.

Besides the name changes and removal of a season, the seasons themselves have lost some of the richness that they have within the old calendar. The season of Christmas for example has been reduced from forty days (ending on the Feast of Presentation of the Lord on February 2nd) to twelve days (ending on the Feast of the Epiphany on January 6th) and the Octave of Pentecost is no longer celebrated. Moreover Ember days and Rogation days have been completely removed!

What does the Second Vatican Council Say?

As I read the Second Vatican Council's Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy in preparation for this blog post, could not find anything within the document that would lend itself to justify such drastic changes to the liturgical calendar. Moreover I found the document stating that the traditional customs and discipline of the sacred seasons were meant to be preserved or restored! I do not see how the removal and reduction of seasons preserves or restores the traditional customs and discipline of the sacred seasons. For those reasons I consider the calendar for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to be superior to the calendar for the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

The liturgical year is to be revised so that the traditional customs and discipline of the sacred seasons shall be preserved or restored to suit the conditions of modern times; their specific character is to be retained, so that they duly nourish the piety of the faithful who celebrate the mysteries of Christian redemption, and above all the paschal mystery. If certain adaptations are considered necessary on account of local conditions, they are to be made in accordance with the provisions of Art. 39 and 40. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 107) 

Reflection on Luke 10:38-42 for the Feast Day of St. Martha, Virgin

Jesus’s encounter with Martha and Mary seems to be a private visit. The plural ‘they’ is used in the beginning of this passage from Luke’s gospel to indicate that Jesus was travelling with a group, namely, His disciples. However, the singular ‘he’ is used when Jesus enters the village of Bethany where Martha and Mary reside. It seems as though Jesus was taking advantage of His trip through Bethany by visiting His close friends Martha and Mary, just as we may visit close friends along the way of a long journey.

So how did this so-called “private visit” become “public record” for centuries of Christians to hear and read as a basis for their own reflection and assimilation? Ultimately, we must say that this is the work of the Holy Spirit. On the practical level (through the guidance of the Holy Spirit), we can suspect that either Martha or Mary (or both) shared their experience with the newly formed Christian community, and it was believed to contain a universal lesson from which all Christians can learn. In other words, this passage from Luke’s gospel is not just information about Jesus with Martha and Mary left for historical consideration; rather, it contains formation for all Christians in the very essence of discipleship. So what does this gospel passage teach not only Martha but all of us as Christ’s disciples?

To recount the story, Mary “sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his [Jesus’s] teaching” (Lk 10:39), whereas Martha “was distracted with much serving” (Lk 10:40). From Martha’s perspective, however, it was Mary who was distracted, and her reaction was quite audacious: for Martha questions whether the Lord even cares if she’s serving alone and then commands the Lord to have Mary help her if He really does care. Instead of acceding to Martha terms, Jesus corrects Martha’s perspective: amidst the many duties in life, “one thing is necessary” (Lk 10:42). Thus, Mary has “chosen the better part” (Lk 10:42), which will endure.

We now return to our question: what does this gospel passage teach not only Martha but all of us who wish to be strengthened in our relationship with the Lord? The answer to this question can take several paths. For one, St. Augustine says that Martha was busy preparing a meal for the Lord. He then contrasts Martha with Mary: “Mary was feasting” (Sermon 103) as she sat at the Lord’s feet, listening to His teaching. Complementing the gospel theme that Jesus nourishes us, the hunger of Mary’s soul was being satisfied.

To be sure, the gospel passage does not specify what Martha was busy doing, whether it was preparing a meal or doing something else. What we do know is that Martha was busy “with much serving” (Lk 10:40). In the Latin, it reads, frequens ministerium. Ministerium, meaning ‘service’, is where we get the English word ‘ministry.’ This is not to suggest that Martha was busy doing parish ministry as we now conceive it. Nevertheless, performing the ministry, or service, of the Lord – in whatever form – can become a distraction. Yes, good things can become a distractions from the “one thing necessary,” especially when it becomes a source of self-pity, which occurs when our work is not grounded in the Lord through prayer. The universal character of the story is that we are tempted like Martha, being distracted by good works from what must be the motivation and purpose of our work: Jesus Christ. Hence comes the universal lesson: we must choose the better part and find ourselves not only busy serving but busy sitting at the Lord’s feet, busy listening to His teachings.

How do we sit at the Lord’s feet today? Where is His presence, so that we might sit there? We sit at the Lord’s feet today when we visit Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. Although we might have a lot to say, we must not forget that, like Mary, we must also listen. When we do not have the occasion to visit Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and rest in His presence sacramentally, we can always pause and recall His presence in us and in the world, knowing that Jesus is always with us (cf. Mt 28:20).

In taking seriously this lesson to frequently be in the Lord’s presence each day amidst our busy schedule, let us remember that Martha had to learn and overcome this struggle. After all, the Church recognizes her as a saint. If we persevere, we can become a saint, too. 

Necessity of Prayer: Reflection on Mark 1:35-39

Mark 1:35-39 (RSV- CE)

And in the morning, a great while before day, he [Jesus] rose and went out to a lonely place, and there he prayed. And Simon and those who were with him followed him, and they found him and said to him, “Every one is searching for you.” And he said to them, “Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also; for that is why I came out.” And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons.

Reflection

This gospel passage from St. Mark is set within the context of Jesus beginning His public ministry of preaching and healing: After His baptism, Jesus “was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan” (Mk 1:13). Now, He is in Galilee, “preaching the gospel of God” (Mk 1:14). In the midst of His work – having preached in the synagogue, healed the sick, and exorcised the possessed just the day before (Mk 1:21-34) – Jesus “rose and went out to a lonely place” to pray (Mk 1:35). Afterward, He continued to preach and heal. While reflecting on His public ministry of preaching and healing is worthwhile, we will focus on Jesus taking an apparent “break” or “pause” from His work when He went to a lonely place to pray.

“A lonely place.” Other translations render the Greek as “a solitary place” or a “deserted place.” The notion here is to contrast what Jesus experienced just the evening before while at Simon Peter’s mother-in-law’s house: “the whole city was gather together about the door” to be healed or exorcised (Mk 1:33). Although the whole city was not literally bombarding Jesus, the literary device (called a hyperbole) that St. Mark makes in his gospel is clear: there were many people surrounding Jesus and, from a human perspective, the work was overwhelming. Early the next morning, we find Jesus in a lonely, or solitary, place to pray.

What was Jesus praying about? Although there are times when the gospels reveal the content of Jesus’s prayer to the Father, St. Mark does not reveal it here. What we do know is that He did pray.

That Jesus prayed has caught the attention of Christians for centuries. The question that eventually comes up is, if Jesus is God, why does He need to pray? Several theologians have responded to this inquiry at various times and in various ways. Among them, we believe that Jesus, though a divine Person, is likewise man. In the Nicene Creed, which we profess every Sunday, we say, while bowing, that Jesus “was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” In His human nature, therefore, Jesus can pray to the Father.[1]

Also, Jesus, as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (and therefore distinct from the Father), is not praying to His own divine self but to another divine Person, namely, the Father, the First Person of the Holy Trinity. It is not unusual for the three Persons of the Trinity to communicate. Indeed, they are always communicating.[2]

Finally, we hear from the eminent theologian and Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas that Jesus “wished to offer prayers to the Father, not as though He were incompetent, but for our instruction.” St. Thomas goes further and explains that Jesus wished to instruct us about Him coming from the Father and “to give us an example of prayer.”[3]

Returning to the passage from St. Mark’s gospel, what example of prayer is Jesus giving to us? As mentioned earlier, other gospel passages reveal the content of Jesus’s prayer, that is, what Jesus says in prayer, and therefore giving an example of what to pray. This is not the case in this particular passage. We can then conclude that the example of prayer Jesus is giving to us is not so much the content of prayer but the context of prayer. We have already examined the context of Jesus’s prayer in the gospel passage from St. Mark: in the midst of His work, when “the whole city” had been coming to Him and when He would again “go on to the next towns,” Jesus goes to a deserted place to pray. Therefore, in the midst of our own work and responsibilities, even if we feel as though we are bearing the whole city on our shoulders and yet there is still more to do, we must pause and find a solitary place to pray. We cannot use the excuse, “I am too busy to pray.” Jesus was not too busy to pray.

Furthermore, Jesus taking time to be alone in prayer shows us that prayer is not separate from work, especially the apostolate). Rather, prayer is His work’s conclusion after droves of people came to Him for healing. Prayer also begins His work, as after praying He goes to the next towns. Our work, too, must begin and end with prayer, for work without prayer is empty work. Without prayer, our work is in vain. Work – even good work – can be a tool of the devil to distract us from the source and summit of our work: prayer.[4] Neglecting prayer in order to work does not make us Christians but makes us workaholics.

A final note. St. Mark takes the time to identify the time of day when Jesus prayed: “in the morning, a great while before day, he rose and went…” (Mk 1:35). Although the Church has never obliged the faithful in terms of the hour in which one prays, many saints have put into practice the example of Jesus’s time of prayer. Hence, we have the practice of a number of religious orders who have prayer vigils or community prayer in the middle of the night. The example offered in this gospel passage from St. Mark shows Jesus praying first thing in the morning, right after rising from sleep. The first appointment of the day is prayer: God is first. There is also a practical dimension to praying “a great while before day”: the distraction of the day’s work will not be able to “steal” prayer from us.

So a point we can learn from St. Mark’s gospel is that we must follow the example of Jesus and go away to a lonely place to be with God the Father and pray. Preferably, we can set this time of prayer early in the morning.

---

[1] Summa Theologica III, q. 21, art. 1

[2] Summa Theologica III, q. 21, art. 1, ad 3.

[3] Summa Theologica III, q. 21, art. 1, ad 1.

[4] Especially the prayer of the Mass, the Eucharist. Cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 11.

Humanae Vitae Sunday: Garbage Cans in Church Vestibules to Throw Away Contraceptives

Tomorrow (July 25th) marks the 47th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, the encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI that, among other things, reiterated the Church's teaching on contraception: it's still a mortal sin.

Inspired by Pope Francis's recent comments on "protest art," the following picture is a suggestion for pastors to remind their parishioners this weekend about Humanae Vitae and the teaching it contains in art-like form. It could be placed in the church vestibule.

In light of another encyclical -- the recently promulgated Laudato Si' by Pope Francis on caring for the environment -- pastors may find it beneficial to place a second garbage can in the vestibule:

Planned Parenthood scandal: will they be held accountable?

From a friend:

Please take a moment to contact your Congressional representatives and senators regarding the latest evil at Planned Parenthood, the selling of baby body parts.  Besides being morally reprehensible, this is illegal.  Congress is investigating. 

Brit Hume of Fox News had a good commentary on this which was also picked up by Catholic Vote: 

www.catholicvote.org [or www.catholicvote.org/brithumevideo go straight to the video]

Here's what we can do.  Call the Capitol switchboard in D.C. at 202-224-3121, and ask to be connected to your representatives and senators.  Demand that all taxpayer-funding of Planned Parenthood stop immediately.  Any taxpayer-funding of this evil organization is an outrage.  Something else we can do is to contact the 2016 GOP presidential candidates and urge them to stay on top of this.  When communicating with political staff, it's best to be respectful, yet clear and direct.  For legislative and policy matters, it's best to contact their DC offices instead of their local offices which focus on constituent services.   

Politicians don't usually act, except for an issue they care about, until they feel the heat.  It's up to us to see that they do, especially on something as horrendous as this!    

Guest Post: "We need to stand strong on marriage and resist the attempts to redefine it."

From a friend:

I know that many of us are disappointed and angry about the Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay "marriage" in all 50 states.  One issue concerns states' rights and whether or not county clerks should be forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Another issue concerns religious liberty and whether or not this will be upheld--for clergy who refuse to officiate at the "weddings" of same-sex partners and for business-owners who refuse services to same-sex “weddings” on religious grounds. 

It's important to know that there is no enabling legislation which legitimizes SCOTUS's ruling on marriage.  The majority opinion of the Court expressed sentimental views, but did not make a constitutional argument in support of this.  It was raw judicial activism and tyranny (judicial tyranny bypasses the process of laws).  Therefore, state governors and attorneys general should not be too quick to say that gay "marriage" is the law of the land.  When lawless judges of a Court exceed constitutional authority or limits, this needs to be challenged and resisted.  Until this ruling is reversed, or is overturned by a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, there are other ways to resist an unjust law.  St. Augustine said that an unjust law is no law at all.  We need to remind people that the USA is a free country, and that our Republic, and democratic societies in general, are characterized by shared decision-making.  This does not include activist judges who shred the Constitution and use a court case to force their political will, which lacks objective merit, on the rest of us!  The framers of the U.S. Constitution provided ways to rein in out-of-control judges, and all options need to be on the table.  The last thing we should do is to throw in the towel and accept as legitimate an unjust law passed by unelected politicians.  If we do that, then we only defeat ourselves.  Marriage is a sacred institution established by God, and, especially in a country that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, the Biblical Law of God transcends human law.  We need to stand strong on marriage and resist the attempts to redefine it.

This is important.

Taking Back the Rainbow

The rainbow today has become synonymous with homosexuality and so called gay pride. Tracing back the origins of the gay rainbow flag, I was not all that surprised to find out that the rainbow flag was designed in San Francisco by Gilbert Baker in 1978. The flag originally had eight colors: hot pink stood for sexuality, red for life, orange for healing, yellow for the sun, green for nature, turquoise blue for art, indigo for harmony and violet for spirit. By  the 1979 Gay Freedom Day Parade in San Francisco, the  flag design changed to only include six colors as hot pink was not a commercially dye and indigo was removed to have an even six colors. Over time the rainbow flag become recognized all over the world as part of the active homosexual movement.

This is travesty to Christians as the rainbow has been a Judeo-Christian symbol for thousands of years. From the first book of the bible God has revealed the rainbow as a sign of His covenant with mankind. The first rainbow can be found within the story of Noah found in Genesis 5-10. After God had destroyed the earth with a flood due to the wickedness of the people, God formed a covenant or family bond with Noah promising to never destroy the earth again with a flood.

I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.” Genesis 9:11-17 RSV

God established the rainbow as a sign of his mercy on us and as a promise not to flood the earth because of our wickedness. The actively homosexual community claim the rainbow flag represents the diversity of the their community, but whether they realize it or not it has also become a sign of rebellion against God's mercy. God has provided us with the rainbow to remember the flooding of the earth caused by the wickedness and sinfulness of mankind. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered mortal sins and are one of the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. The rainbow is a sacred sign of God's mercy, associating it with homosexuality could very well be considered sacrilegious! It is time for us as Christians to take back something that until 37 years ago was ours!

This is not what the rainbow should represent!

This is what the rainbow really represents!

"Should Marriage Be Limited to One Man and One Woman?"

Here's a short and reasonable video on marriage and society and why the government, which ought to be ordered to the good of society, should limit marriage to one man and one woman. Note: The arguments in the video, while contextualized within the same-sex marriage debate, are also valid in addressing other diversions from marriage, including polygamy, divorce, etc.