Hagiography doesn't get much better than this!

Three Religious Rebels

The Forefathers of the Trappists 

M. Raymond

IVE PRESS. Kindle Edition. (2013-08-02).

My stumbling upon this dear book I count not only as fortunate but as a pure grace. I think at my age, I can safely say that I do not have the call to the monastic life, let alone to the strict observance of the Trappists, who owe their origin to these three holy founders of the Cistercian Order. Even so, without maudlin or exaggeration, this book gave me as much of an answer as I could possibly want to what is possible when men and women give themselves over totally to God in the consecrated life. Most encouraging in this year dedicated to the consecrated life in the Church!

Read it, please, and decide for yourself if it is a book for old men or young idealists. Just don't tell me you didn't like it or didn't gain profit for your own soul from reading it. I won't hear of it, as I honestly had a hard time putting the book down.

Father Raymond does a super job not only on his three major characters, the founders, but also on some of the minor characters. He sets his story in most difficult times for the Catholic Church and the Papacy; he hazards as much of an explanation of the miracle of Citeaux as anyone would dare. As I say, read it for yourself.

The book itself was written seventy years ago, but strikes me as if its 2012 copyright in the print edition might actually be its first edition. The book is neither quaint nor antiquated. 

One of the points discussed any number of times in the book was whether these saints were attempting to turn back the clock by six centuries and recapture St. Benedict of Nursia. True to its Benedictine matrix, much is made not only of the roles of poverty, silence and manual labor for monks, but a goodly part of it is a reflection of the limits or dimensions of the obligation the monastic community has to choir, to the singing night and day of the Divine Office.

People who know my blogging will not be surprised that I focus on what is said of devotion to the Eucharist and the profound praise reserved for the silent Low Mass of the individual priest monks. Many of those who entertain doubts about the urgency of the task of moving with conviction toward a restoration of the Roman Rite as sine qua non for regaining the possibility of the organic development of a living liturgy should let this book speak to you as well.

The Cistercian Order was God's gift to save the Church from all kinds of evils, but especially from the lack of faith which found the ideal seedbed in the feudal system. Sadly, faith is also lacking today and the Ordinary Form of the Liturgy would leave many priests at a loss to identify with these lovely words attributed by Father Raymond to St. Stephen Harding: 

"I can tell you that I never feel so small, so utterly unworthy, so crushingly humiliated as I do when I, Stephen Harding, a sinful man, hold God in my hands. Why, Peter, every time I reflect on the power God has given me, I blush as deep as my soul. No, my friend, to be conscious of being God’s instrument does not make a rational man complacent; it makes him confused and deeply, deeply humble.'” [Kindle Highlight Loc. 9372-91]

Very simply, we have to take arms against the abuses which hold the Ordinary Form hostage; the arbitrary must give way to a new God-centeredness. This book offers much food for thought about the clear sense of restoration as something quite other than archaeologizing. The orientation mentioned in this next quote is both cosmic and profound:

"You spoke of being ‘God-orientated.’ Well, that’s the secret of Citeaux. Even your church is facing due east! You’ve got your face to the sun. And if you’ll allow me to play on words, you’ve got your face to the Son of God. I see now why Cistercians are so little self-conscious and so utterly unconscious of the world. They are entirely Christ-conscious, totally God-conscious; that’s the reason." [Kindle Highlight Loc. 11804-7]

Legend has it that Our Lady espoused St. Robert of Molesme, the first of the three founders, already in his mother's womb. The predilection the Mother of God had for the Cistercians is no more than an indication of her great love for all in the Church and of her longing that we be washed and saved in the Blood of her dear Lamb. Could a Cistercian or a Trappist revival be in the cards for the Church today? We need only ask for generous hearts to return with valour the love showered upon them and upon our world unceasingly by God through Mary and all the Angels and Saints.

PROPERANTES ADVENTUM DIEI DEI

From Sacred Canons to Hope and Back

I had one of those privileged experiences 1-2 May, the dedication of a new church this time in Kherson, not far from either of the two fronts of Russian aggression against Ukraine.

I try to spare my poor arthritic knees long trips like this: seven hours twice in a row, of one day over, one day back by car from Kyiv to Kherson for the dedication of the new parish church of St. Volodymyr, now the largest in the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Exarchate of Odessa. The picture is of the procession with the relics of the holy martyrs, which were then sealed into the church's stone altar.

This was not my first experience of a church dedication; over my years in Ukraine, I took part in the dedication of the new cathedrals in Kolomyia and in Kyiv, as well as of a big new parish church in Ivano-Frankivsk. Such occasions speak of accomplishment and of hope for the future. I would say that hope, strong and beautiful, probably resonates above all else from this latest celebration. The liturgy formed the centerpiece, if you will, of a spring meditation there in Kherson, but also all along the road, rain and shine: great expanses of dark green winter wheat, other fields bright yellow and promising of vegetable oil, fallow land in abundance and the black of newly plowed soil, across a landscape flatter and seemingly more limitless, if that is possible, than the Midwest of the United States.

Besides gazing out the window and daydreaming, I did manage to read one very good book about the holy founders of the Cistercian Order and moved along quite a bit with another book which may seem a bit incongruous to the scene I have sketched above: The Seven Ecumenical Councils (Henry R Percival). The author is a bit flippant English, but the work lists the seven councils and their canons, explaining why each of these early councils is held to be ecumenical by the Christian world and for all time. He gives authoritative interpretations for historical sources, background material of interest and in most cases glosses which get beyond the bare bones of the laconic canons themselves as is the case with this Canon XII from Antioch in Syria.

"If any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any bishop deposed by a synod, shall dare to trouble the ears of the Emperor, when it is his duty to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and to refer to more bishops the things which he thinks right, and to abide by the examination and decision made by them; if, despising these, he shall trouble the Emperor, he shall be entitled to no pardon, neither shall he have an opportunity of defense, nor any hope of future restoration." [Kindle Highlight Loc. 4862-67]

This particular text and many others like it have moved me to a deeper appreciation of the Byzantine world and the way that it too struggled against what ended up being a centuries long conflict in the Western Church over the curse of lay investiture. Canon XII says more and that more got me thinking about the new drive on here in Ukraine for the establishment of one local orthodox Church in the tradition of the ancient Byzantine See of Kyiv founded from Constantinople more than a millennium ago. As much as we have to thank St. Volodymyr for his cooperation with God's grace so as to bring about the Baptism of the people of the Rus over a millennium ago, the Church, even for Constantinople and certainly for Kyiv for whatever meaning can be drawn from the notion of symphonia, remains Church under God in Christ, by the grace of the Holy Spirit. The princes must know their place in the temple of the Lord and the bishops and clergy must know that their only court of appeal beyond the Synod, or in our case the Apostolic See, would be on bent knee before the Heavenly Throne.

Although fasting and penance may not be appropriate to the glorious Easter Season, I hope and pray that our Orthodox brothers and sisters are pleading before the Heavenly Throne for the grace of the Holy Spirit for the upcoming deliberations of their bishops in search of reconciliation among the various bodies within Ukrainian Orthodoxy, which still find themselves very much divided. Humanly speaking, the savvy may clearly understand that the historical reasons for the present divisions, which have rent the seamless garment of Christ, are rooted in sin and human failure. Even so, the Fathers of Antioch and many more teach that recourse to the strong arm of the "Emperor" would also be a crime.

UT UNUM SINT

 

Diplomacy and the Petrine Ministry

Over a year ago now (here and here) I wrote two pieces on Vatican diplomacy, let us say, more properly speaking dealing with the diplomatic activity of the Holy See vis-a-vis "diplomacy" as it is commonly defined. I mention them, because they garnered more attention than most other blogposts I have written over the years. Actually, to those two pieces I prefer my own sequel writing to the piece on the three pillars of diplomacy (here), making the point about the supremacy of truth and Christ's Kingship. Just recently again, I shared with my readers my fear that there is something less than deliberate, insufficiently pondered, about the way the Holy See goes about plying the diplomatic trade (here). Again, not long ago, this skeptic repeated his insistent cry that in troubled times and for extreme situations we need to get beyond diffidence in the face of evil and aggression, if we as Catholic Church want to be of service in building up the edifice of diplomacy, which owes much to the Holy See, diplomacy seen as something noble, contributing to world order and the common good (here).

Undaunted by my observations, one or the other vaticanista continues to throw around the word diplomacy, applying it to countless things, as if it were some sort of wonder ointment or balsam, that if rubbed in with enough determination could become the cure-all for what ails our world and the Church. I am just as uneasy about this enthusiasm as I am about the malaise in which we find ourselves; I am saying that things are not good, but this is far from the worst of times. The point being that you can't claim that there was such a thing as a golden epoch of Vatican diplomacy, which perhaps peaked under Cardinal Casaroli and proceed from there to call just about anything and everything which doesn't go or plain fails a "martyrdom of patience", dispensing with a thorough-going analysis of the problem and the admission of errors of judgment, of failures, and perhaps, of the need for a radical course correction (if given the possibility) in order to address certain problems straight on.

In the literature one reads that Pope St. Pius X wanted very much to redirect the mission of the apostolic nuncios away from the purely secular and classically diplomatic. Granted, the diplomat is not a preacher and even for the Holy See diplomacy as it is practiced around the world today must also seriously take into account the work of a papal nuncio when he's "doing diplomacy", if there is such an expression. Nonetheless, as a papal legate, the nuncio's mission is two-fold. That other type of legation, which commands most of his time and talent, is that of being the Pope's representative to the Catholic Church in the country or region where he is accredited (note my intentional omission of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue from the constellation solely for reasons of length). That is indeed a form of legation, but it is not diplomacy in any sense of the term generally defined. The overarching term then is that of "legation" and not "diplomacy". Diplomacy is and must remain firmly in the temporal sphere, political even. Legation does not escape that sphere but is open enough to be used in the service of the Pope as the successor of St. Peter, in his Petrine ministry. The content of the Petrine ministry was defined essentially by Christ in the Gospel as the work of "strengthening the brethren", the brethren being first and foremost the successors of the Apostles.

The only ambassadorial Letters of Credence I have ever seen are those of a nuncio, in thirteen cases now those being my own. They are signed by a monarch, the Pope who sometimes is writing to another monarch or maybe to the president of a republic. These Letters announce the sending of someone who has the sender's trust to act in his name, extraordinary and plenipotentiary. I guess there may be occasions where some nuncios or some ambassadors still do handle in that fashion, as if the head of state or in my case the Holy Father really wanted me to stand in for him and get done on the level of the extraordinary whatever it is that needs to be done. But the world has changed a lot even since when, as a young diplomat, I went to Kigali, Rwanda in 1985. Back then, ordinary communication depended almost entirely on the exchange of reports and dispatches written and sent by diplomatic pouch. The Holy See never went in for those big radio or satellite operations, the relic of which (a rusting giant motorized satellite dish) is still standing in front of the closed building of the former US Embassy here. Granted, by 1985 the pouch exchange no longer took place by slow boat but by airplane, but even so, it was a far cry from the continuous and instantaneous cabling done by my ambassador colleagues today. Back then, you had to go to the central post office and send a telegram if the matter was urgent and there was need of consultation; otherwise, and seemingly rightly so in the logic of things, you were on your own as plenipotentiary. Not that many years ago, legation and in the narrower sense diplomacy were exercised with a measure of personal responsibility on the part of the plenipotentiary, but no more.

The question arises then why the ongoing financial and personal outlay, why continue spending so much for the biggest item in the budget of the Holy See next to the communications ensemble presently facing rationalization and reform, as we read in the news from the Vatican? Diplomacy being what it is today, many small countries are able to economize on diplomatic staff and buildings by relying on honorary consuls, usually native to the country where they serve and invariably ready to pay their own way in exchange for the honor of serving as consul. Part of the reason the system works is that in secular diplomacy, whether in the hands of professional or honorary protagonists, the activity carried on has much to do with economics and trade. Even cultural exchanges between two nations, language programs or student exchanges can be worked out through the system of honorary consuls. It is debatable whether you really need someone on the ground for diplomatic work, taken in its most restrictive definition. Other ways can be found to organize visits by high-level delegations. Even in times of crisis, it would be hard to claim that for most countries the embassy staff has more to do than cover logistics for the shuttle diplomacy of foreign ministers, premiers and presidents.

Times have changed too for the Holy See. It used to be that every nunciature had a throne room ready for a papal visit, which was at that time unthinkable. I remember one of my nuncios joking about a house renovation which eliminated the throne room, just as Pope St. John Paul II started traveling. In bygone days trips by curial cardinals were few and far between, usually timed for the sunset years of a pontificate and aimed at making His Eminence better known to other cardinals outside Rome, who might be potential electors in the next conclave. It would be hard to fathom otherwise the reason for the invite to Cardinal Pacelli to come and bless the Brooklyn Bridge. No, today the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Secretary for Relations with States are on the road an awful lot because that is how secular diplomacy works; they have to be present abroad after the manner of their secular counterparts.

Basically then, if the Holy See can be said to conform to the common usage when it comes to the strictly diplomatic, it is hard to see why the need for nunciatures. One needs to keep the notion of legation and the nuncio's service to the Petrine ministry then in view. Here too, if the conciliar principle of subsidiarity is ever to find application, as more desirable than concentrating the power to make decisions in Rome, then either you give the nuncio more possibility to work things out locally or you withdraw the nuncio in favor of the local Church and its exercise of responsibility in communion with the See of Peter.

While leaving discernment concerning the ways and means of proclaiming the Gospel of Christ in our day to others, I cannot help but be a bit impatient about the Holy See's diplomatic policy on many issues, which seems less than energetic and decisive. I only ask if the structural dynamics of how legation is carried on could not be improved through change. How can the Holy See be a player in what is strictly diplomatic? Does the present legation structure best serve the Petrine ministry in its efforts to "strengthen the brethren"? There is linkage between the two questions, but please, dear vaticanisti, the fundamental category is legation and not diplomacy.

Rooting International Law and Reaching for Peace and Reconciliation in Europe

Last night I participated in the round table discussion, following the keynote addresses which opened an International Conference here in Kyiv, bearing the title: Ukrainian Reconciliation Projects and the Future of Europe. The event was encouraging because it was so upbeat by comparison with the usual diplomatic concerns burdening war-torn Ukraine.

All three keynote speakers were convinced that there is a European way of doing things and which can be applied to conflict resolution, in this case toward putting an end to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and fighting corruption and internal divisions here in the Country. I was particularly impressed by the reference made by Prof. Jose` Casanova back to the origins of the OSCE from HELSINKI in long ago 1975, in the FINAL ACT of the CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE. The professor focused on Helsinki as the best possible formulation of the principles of international law in the matter of "Questions relating to Security in Europe". I will list all ten from the Helsinki Final Act, but he highlighted the first five points of the "Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States" as decisive yet today for how European nations should be dealing with each other: 

I. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty 
II. Refraining from the threat or use of force 
III. Inviolability of frontiers 
IV. Territorial integrity of States 
V. Peaceful settlement of disputes 
VI. Non-intervention in internal affairs 
VII. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief 
VIII. Equal rights and self-determination of peoples 
IX. Co-operation among States 
X. Fulfilment in good faith of obligations under international law

Do I need to say that the first five in particular shine a very bright light on Russia's bad behavior?

I offer this reminder in the hope and prayer that policy makers in Russia and in Europe, all those who adhere to the OSCE, might find their way "home" to the good sense which inspired those who went before them back in 1975. There is little to be lost and everything to be gained by finding our way back to such wisdom as a guide for relations among states, and not only in Europe.

Arbitrariness as Scourge.

Imbuing the Ordinary Form with Extraordinary Form Spirituality

PETER KWASNIEWSKI

I shared this article from New Liturgical Movement on Facebook and was surprised to actually receive comments as opposed to the usual pro forma "Likes" and "Shares", which I interpret as a sign of recognition, not necessarily even guaranteeing that the person has read the post. Almost a week has gone by and from time to time I come back to the issue, which the author of the article raises and to which I received reactions, it being one or two issues really, of: a) putting some meat on the bones of mutual enrichment; b) articulating as best one can the scandal involved in the rupture or discontinuity brought upon the Roman Church's Liturgical Tradition by the Novus Ordo.

Basically, despite my profound respect, I want to differ with Peter Kwasniewski on this article. His intention is well-meant, but does not address the heart of the problem or adequately express the ultimate intent of efforts at mutual enrichment between the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the one Roman Rite:

"Since the usus antiquior preserves in a specially intense way the theology and piety of many centuries of faith, a judicious emulation or adoption from it of elements of holiness and “good form” will make a real difference in the devotion of the celebrant and the ensuing fruitfulness of the Mass."

a) Mutual enrichment can't be about putting meat on the bones of either of the two forms, if it cannot do that for both; what other sense can the word mutual have? The 1962 Missal and the 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal are both equally untouchable as far as anyone other than the Supreme Legislator goes. Apart from nourishing piety, mutual enrichment cannot do anything but inspire reflection. It cannot do other than touch hearts and stimulate thoughts on the question of the organic development of the Roman Rite.

b) Apart from the rational or rationalizing character of the post-Conciliar liturgical reform, I think it is important to note that its execution in the late 1960's and the 1970's, in my part of the world, for sure, and in many other places as well, was marred by violence. It was imposed and all which had been before was taken away and proscribed. It was a break with the past which cannot be justified by any reading of the Apostolic Constitution on the Liturgy, hermeneutic or no hermeneutic. The ongoing, up to our day, saga of liturgical abuse and legal optionality, which seem to go hand and glove with the Ordinary Form, makes of it something quite arbitrary and hence laboring under of deficit of what Kwasniewski describes as, "... elements of holiness and “good form” ..." As one of my commentators observes, Peter's approach to enhancing the Ordinary Form, by adding or clarifying according to three principles (continuity, augmentation, mnemonic) seems like too much effort. Or as another commentator put it: as effort needed to change the people's hearts and prepare them for something else, namely a restoration, totally foreign to the experience of their life time, if, as most are, they happen to be under sixty years of age and still have not been exposed to the Extraordinary Form.

Recently, I saw pictures and video of two hierarchical liturgies which were celebrated in my beloved Caribbean region with all manner of singing and swaying and clapping after the popular manner. I will not take on anyone who insists that this is liturgy from the heart and after the manner of the folk. The point is not to deprive anyone of the means of self expression as Saul's daughter attempted in criticizing her husband, henceforth estranged, King David, dancing before the Ark of the Lord as it was being carried up to Jerusalem. The point is obvious, namely that processions are not Temple worship, any more than the popular devotion of a prayer meeting is the same as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The ultimate tragedy of the last fifty years has been to radically narrow the Church's devotional radius to one act, depriving the Eucharist of its unique and sublime character. The major error of the rational reform was the banalization of  all by abandoning the once rich variety of devotions which characterized Catholic culture and its popular particularities outside of Mass in all the various parts of our great Catholic world.

I understand and respect what Kwasniewski is advocating. Some of it, like proper decorum in Divine Worship and celebration of the preparation of the gifts and the Eucharistic Prayer of all together directed ad Orientem, eliminating chaotic moments during the liturgy and slowing down the Communion procession by returning to the reception of Communion at the Communion rail, are not embellishments but options which should be taken and held without variance. Nonetheless, the intent of mutual enrichment would seem to be to expose people to the Extraordinary Form in all its glory or in the case of the Low Mass in all its noble simplicity. The author's three principles presume that priests are familiar with the Extraordinary Form. Maybe priests who find the hurdle to introducing the Extraordinary Form to their parishes as insurmountable should visit with confreres who have succeeded. Maybe seminaries should open up or loosen up (you choose the metaphor) to the Extraordinary Form under the rubric of "try it, you'll like it" and let the creativity of a younger generation of soon to be priests face the challenge of restoring the full spectrum of Catholic devotional life, leaving no one deprived of culturally correct self-expression, while at the same time allowing young and old to be caught up into the mystery of standing, sitting and kneeling before the Throne of God.

Restoration for the sake of organic development is not restrictive but rather particularizes and reopens a window to heaven. The didactic and the rational, the popularly devotional and expressive should not be given short shrift by being crammed into a scarce hour on Sunday morning or whenever you can cram it in on a regular, preferably weekly, basis. What else could it possibly mean to claim our world for Christ?

PROPERANTES ADVENTUM DIEI DEI

The Upper Room - Praying for Pentecost

Since last Sunday, Easter Sunday on the Julian calendar, I have been kind of mulling over or reflecting upon my experience in the early hours with Easter Morning Prayer in the Greek-Catholic Cathedral of Uzhhorod. The Cathedral was packed full and by the time we came outside so were all the streets leading to and from this lovely house of God on the hill, as well as the processional space which surrounds it. People were assisting at the service broadcast outside by loudspeaker, waiting patiently and joyously to have blessed their "paskha", their baskets with the foods for the early morning Easter breakfast: breads and salt, meats and sausages, eggs and more, each with its carefully tended Easter candle. Besides the prayers and blessing, the bishop expressed words of greeting and warm welcome for Easter to all present, as well as for their loved ones at home. In Ukraine, as to be expected, there were lots of young adults and children, even babes in arms, carefully bundled against the chill of the night, all wanting to be doused with holy water along with their baskets.

 For me this is the Church of the Acts of the Apostles, faithful to the admonition of the Risen Christ to watch and pray for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Upper Room could not hold them all and they listened attentively to the words of Peter, announcing the victory of Jesus over sin and death, and eagerly seeking direction as to what they had to do to be saved.

I look at my pastors and priests here, many of them wearied, worn down by the aggression against their land and their people, perhaps from a human point of view even overwhelmed at the challenges which face the nation. We all need to repair to the Upper Room, persevering in prayer, confident that God will show Himself in power by a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 

We gather our strength from the power of Christ's Resurrection. Through the gracious words of His ministers, we draw courage and strength from Him alone. He feeds and carries us. Let us all fervently pray, unceasingly pray for the outpouring of His Holy Spirit! For the renewal of the face of the earth!

Leva in signum super nos lumen vultus tui, Domine.

The English translation for the refrain of the Responsorial Psalm for this Third Sunday of Easter Time is: Lord, let your face shine on us. For some reason, I associate the light radiating from the face of Jesus Risen from the dead with this Rubens painting of His encounter with my Patron Saint, the Doubting Thomas. I suppose I could have cropped out the two "prominent Catholics" who had themselves painted into this glorious scene, no doubt in exchange for the financial remuneration of the great painter. I hope the two of them are in heaven and I wish this Sunday to recommend the 100 prominent Catholics of San Francisco to their intercession. Would that those so-called prominent of today would humble themselves or at least learn to spend their money as these two did, namely, to edify, to build up, rather than to tear down.

The first two readings for this Sunday are really powerful and could knock the socks off anyone seeking space within the Church for his or her sin. In the glory of Easter St. Peter and St. John proclaim the hope which can be ours through repentance and conversion.

I hope and pray that priests everywhere in the world this Sunday will have the love and the courage to let the truth of the unabbreviated Gospel shine forth with all its might for the prominent and not so prominent to hear. That stubborn and hardened hearts might repent! That the world might be saved through the preaching of the Gospel in all its fullness!

Leva in signum super nos lumen vultus tui, Domine.