Two hippies were walking down the street the other
day.
Suddenly coming the opposite way they spotted a
Catholic Priest. They knew he was a priest because he was wearing a
white Roman Collar.
The priest had his arm in a cast. As they drew near
to each other one of the hippies said “Hey man, what happened to you?” The
priest said “I slipped in the bathtub and broke my arm”.
The hippy replied “Sorry to hear that man, have a
good day” and they moved on. Suddenly one hippy said to the other “Hey man,
what’s a bathtub?” The other hippy replied “How should I know, I’m not
Catholic.”
It used to be that you could tell Catholics apart
from other people. Maybe when you saw a large family walking together – you
thought – they must be Catholic. Or if
you saw someone make the sign of the Cross – you immediately thought – they are
Catholic. Or if you saw a cross or a scapular around someone’s neck – you
thought – they are Catholic. These things made Catholics easier to spot. Nowadays
it is harder to identify a person as a Catholic. Over the past few years we
seem to have made a concerted effort to blend in with the rest of society. This has even carried over into our area of worship.
Let me ask you a question. Why did you come to Mass today? What was the
main reason for you to be here? Is it really because you know that it is a sin
to deliberately miss Mass and even if you didn’t want to come – you had to come
anyway.
Is it because you want to join others and meet your
friends at church? Or did you come to participate as best you can in the Mass,
listen to the homily and be uplifted as best you can by the beautiful voices of
the choir?
It seems over the years our reasons for coming to
Mass have changed. In the world we live in today we are conditioned to being
entertained. We turn on the TV to watch a show or a game – our primary intent
is to be entertained – sometimes to relieve the boredom.
We go to hockey games and football games – again to
be entertained. We go to the show, we attend the theatre – again to be
entertained. In all of these things – we need to have something in them to
appeal to our senses. Otherwise we would be bored.
What happens to us a church if the homily is boring
– or if the singing is not the best. Do we leave the church bored or with a
feeling of having wasted our time?
We have been conditioned to come to church to be
entertained in a way. If our senses are not challenged then we lapse into
boredom – even in church.
Let’s just look for a moment at what the Church teaches
about why we come to Mass and what we should be doing when we are there.
First of all, the church teaches us that the Mass is
the supreme prayer, the supreme act of Adoration. If this is the case then we
need to look at what is Adoration. Adoration is praise. Praise is something we
give to God – not because he needs it but because we need to give it.
At the Mass there are four types of prayer we need
to use in order to properly participate in the Mass.
The first and foremost is Adoration – where we give
praise to God.
The second is Contrition – where we review our lives
and ask God for forgiveness for the times that we did not love Him or our
neighbour.
The third is Thanksgiving where we thank God for the
great gift of His Son who died on the Cross for us – while we were still
sinners.
And the fourth prayer is our prayer of supplication
where we ask God for the things we need – either temporal or spiritual. The
graces we need to live holy lives.
You notice in all these prayers – we are directing
our attention toward God. We are not
sitting there being entertained.
We are actively participating in the Mass by
responding to the prayers at the appropriate time as the priest celebrant moves
us through the four types of prayer which constitute the Mass.
When we come to Mass do we actively participate in
it by praying these four prayers.
If we are waiting to be entertained – we will end up
bored. But if we participate in the prayers – in an active way – adoring and
praising God through prayer and song, pleading with Him to forgive us our sins,
thanking Him for His many gifts and asking Him to give us our daily bread, to
heal us and our neighbour and to give us the graces to live good lives.
Are children taught this? Do they understand what is
happening at the Mass? Do we recognize what is happening at the Mass. How Jesus comes to us first through His word -
And then through Holy Communion where He actually
gives us His body and blood so that we might commune with him. So that we might
become one with Him. As Catholics do we believe this? Do we recognize Him at
the breaking of the bread?
If we do – how do we approach Him for Holy Communion
– is it with reverence and adoration in our hearts – or has communion become
for us merely a community meal – a symbol of Jesus – and we eat this meal
simply in memory of Him and to express our unity with each other?
As older Catholics don’t we sometimes wonder what
has happened to the great wonder and awe with which we used to approach the
communion table? We weren’t allowed to
touch the Host - only the priest
celebrant could do that. We received the Lord on our tongue while kneeling down
at the communion rail.
Somebody asked me the other day – when did this all
change?
Of course we immediately think of Vatican II. Vatican II -
the great council of the church which ended in 1965. A gathering of all the world’s bishops. A
council which seems to have changed our Church forever. Or did it?
I grew up in the pre-Vatican II church. I got
married just as the Council ended. I
honestly don’t remember having any problem with the Latin Mass simply because
we had a missal that had Latin on one side and English on the other. And we
easily followed and responded.
I do remember that the churches were full and that
you didn’t dare sit in a pew that belonged to another family. You could identify
a priest or a sister because they wore religious garb.
During an RCIA session in the past someone asked me
why do some people stand while others kneel during the consecration and why do
some people take communion on the tongue while others receive it in the
hand? Which way is the right way? Now,
this is a legitimate question especially since this person is new to the faith
and wants to know the reasons. How would you answer those questions?
I was about to answer when a Catholic in the group
responded with “It’s because Vatican II changed all that”. I thought that was
the right answer until I reviewed the documents of Vatican II and I was
surprised by all the things we attribute to Vatican II that simply aren’t true.
Yes, many things changed after Vatican II but not
all of them as a result of the teachings of Vatican II.
I’ll just briefly review a few of them. I think you
may find them enlightening.
Communion on the hand. Where did this come from? Did
Vatican II teach us that we should now receive communion in the hand. No, it did not. A dutch priest started to
give communion in the hand instead of on the tongue because he felt that the
people should receive on the hand like the priest did. The Vatican was
shocked and forbade the practice but in open disobedience – the priest
continued.
The habit spread like wildfire until the Vatican was
forced to issue an indult (that is temporary special permission) which allows a
bishop to give permission for communion to be given on the hand after proper
catechesis has been given. The Vatican’s
concern of course is that small particles of the host, each of which are the
whole and complete Christ – would be brushed off the hands and onto the floor
instead of being consumed. Even today the universal indult is still in place.
There is a reverent way to receive communion in the
hand. You approach the minister - You make a slight reverence such as a bow of
the head. You make your hands into a throne by placing them one on top of the
other then you gently pick up the host and place it into your mouth. You then
check your hands to make sure that no particles of the host remain on them. Is
this the way you receive Holy Communion?
So much for the myth that Vatican II changed the way
we receive Holy Communion.
Did Vatican II allow individual priests or people to
change the liturgy, such as prayers, response, or posture during the Mass no
matter what their reasons were?
No, it did not – in fact Vatican II taught the
following “ no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change
anything in the liturgy on his own authority”.
So why are some people standing and some people kneeling – I guess
that’s a question for the bishops to answer. We all know that some people for health
reasons cannot kneel.
So this does not apply to them.
Did Vatican II do away with Latin? No it did not. It in fact recommended that it
be kept in parts of the Mass along with the vernacular and most especially in the
music. In fact all the Vatican II documents as well as all encyclicals and
official documents of the church continue to be distributed in Latin, because
Latin is still and will remain the official language of the Church.
Did Vatican II do away with devotions such as
Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and praying the Rosary?
No it did not – in fact it promoted and encouraged
devotions explaining that devotions are not private things such as an
apostolate but rather the prayer of the whole church and are to be greatly
encouraged especially those promoted by the Holy See.
Did Vatican II break with the past and start a whole
new church? No, it did not.
In fact Pope John the 23rd referred to the continuity
and the link between the past councils such as the council of Trent and Vatican I.
Did Vatican II change the role of the laity and the
clergy? No, it did not. In fact it went to great lengths to explain the
necessary difference and similarities between the two. Interesting to note here
that throughout the decree on the laity – there is not one mention of ministry.
Did Vatican II democratize the Church. No, it did
not. It reaffirmed the power of the Pope to act on his own. It did explain that
Bishops when they are in union with the Pope also take part in the Magesterium.
But those Bishops or anyone else who speak on their own without being in union
with the Pope have no authority to do so whatsoever.
The council taught the following “The college or
body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman
Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be
added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity.
For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as
the Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire-Church) has full,
supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always
exercise unhindered”. This is the
teaching of Vat II.
Doesn’t that make you wonder where some of these
dissenting theologians get their authority from? If even a Bishop or group of
Bishops has no authority to speak against the church – where do these individual
guys get their authority from? It seems that they make themselves into their
own magesterium. And Thousands upon thousands of Catholics listen to them,
believe them and follow their teachings.
Did Vatican II teach that ordinary people can
sometimes reject church teaching and in fact are obliged to do so? No, it did
not. The council affirmed that all people owe their obedience to the Pope and
the church’s teachings in all cases.
Did Vatican II teach that people must obey their
conscience. Yes, It did but it added important provisos that are often conveniently
overlooked or ignored by some.
In order to properly form your conscience you must
study what the church teaches and what the church teaches must take precedence
over everything else that you may read or are told. Conscience is never just a
matter of personal opinion or private preference. It never exists in a vacuum
of individual sovereignty. It is not a pious alibi for doing what we want or
what might be convenient for us. You can’t make yourself into your own
magesterium telling yourself what you choose to believe or not believe.
Here's the key to understanding conscience:
Just as John the Baptist demanded conversion,
repentance, humility and honesty from ancient Israel, so a right conscience
speaks to the individual heart. And always, as Vatican II noted in its
Declaration on Religious Liberty, ". . . (I)n forming their consciences,
the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of
the Church.
For the Catholic Church is, by the will of Christ,
the teacher of truth. It is her duty to proclaim and teach with authority
(emphasis added) the truth which is Christ and, at the same time, to declare
and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring
from human nature" (14).
Vatican II can never be invoked as an alibi for
Catholics to ignore the teachings of the church.
A properly formed conscience will never reject the
teachings of the church.
Now I ask you - Is Humanae Vitae – the Church’s
teaching on birth control – Church teaching or not? By whose authority do we
reject it’s teaching?
If we're sincere about our faith, "conscience"
can never be used as an excuse for dismissing what the Church teaches by
pointing to her theological critics, by listening and believing to dissenting
theologians because they are saying what we want to hear, by voter surveys or
public opinion polls,, and then doing what we find more convenient. That's
dishonest. And God made us for something better than that.
If the council seemed to reaffirm the past then why even
call the council? If we are not to break with the past and start anew then what
was the real reason for convoking the second Vatican Council.
Maybe Pope John the 23rd’s opening
remarks give us a clue.
In calling this vast
assembly of bishops, the latest and humble successor to the Prince of the
Apostles who is addressing you intends to assert once again the Church's
Magisterium [teaching authority], which is unfailing and perdures until the end
of time, in order that this Magisterium, taking into account the errors, the
requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might be presented in
exceptional form to all men throughout the world.
The problem facing us, the Pope
pointed out, is the same today as it has ever been: Men stand either with the
Church or against Her; and rejection results in bitterness, confusion, and war.
These Councils testify to the union of Christ and His Church and promulgate a
universal truth to guide individuals in their domestic and social lives.
Pope
John XXIII was quite clear about what he wanted the council to accomplish which
was the defense and advancement of truth.
The Pope went on to say: “The greatest concern of the
ecumenical council is this: “that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine
should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. (effectively)”
Does that sound like a break with the past to you? Does
that sound like the Pope wanted a whole new church? And does it sound like we
have met that requirement to teach the Catholic faith more effectively since
then? I propose that we have effectively
done the exact opposite.
In our haste to have an unauthorized break with the past
even though the council did not want this to happen, when we threw out the
catechisms after Vatican II - even
though the council did not direct us to do so, we also threw out the
methodology by which we taught our children the faith. We went to concepts instead.
We threw the baby out with the bath water.
The end result is that we are now approaching the 4th
generation of uncatechized Catholics – Catholics who do not know their faith
and who have no clue what being a Catholic means. And so it is very easy for them to come to
church or not – what difference does it make?
Understanding of the Mass and true belief in the
presence of Christ in the Eucharist has dipped to new low because the faith has
not and is not being taught except in RCIA and RCIC.
As Catholics what are we going to do about it? Do we
ourselves believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Do we
reflect this in the way we receive Him in Holy Communion?
What have we taught our Children and where are they
today? We need not only to ask those questions but also to answer them.
If children today are not taught the Catholic faith
in our Catholic Schools – who then is going to teach them?
And have their parents been taught their faith well
enough to pass it on to their children?
These children will be the potential Catholics of
tomorrow. No wonder our church seems to be dying in this part of the world.
Look around you and count the young Catholics among
us.
If you didn’t understand the Mass – why would you
want to come to a church that seems to have nothing in it for you? Wouldn’t it
seem like an exercise in boredom to you? A waste of time? Have you sat next to
a kid in church with a scowl on his face because he didn’t want to be there.
I think we recognize this and we want to do
something to change it. We wonder why people have stopped coming to church and
we do search for ways to bring them back.
But instead of teaching the faith – instead of
teaching the truth - we seek to improve the entertainment value.
Something that will get them to come. That will make them want to come. Something that will make them feel welcome.
So we strive to make the music better, we want to
make the homilies more relevant and understandable. We make sure we greet
people as they come through the door. And we do reach out to fallen away
Catholics. And all of this is commendable and to be encouraged but we mustn’t
forget about teaching the main reason why we gather for the breaking of the
bread.
We mustn’t forget about catechesis. We need to teach
the truths of our faith. Children and adults both need to know why we are here.
What God expects of us. Why are we here?
Where we are going? What is actually happening at Mass?
The old Baltimore Catechisms asked us. Why did God
make us?
The answer of course is: God made us to know Him, to
Love Him and to serve Him in this world so that we might be happy with Him
forever in the next.
The nuns taught me that when I was 6 years old – and
I have never forgotten it. How many kids today question why they are here and
what reason is there to keep on living.
When they come to Mass do they recognize that it is
really and truly the risen Lord who comes to them in the form of Bread and Wine?
That He loves them and wants them to come to Him and dine with Him and wants
them become part of Him through holy communion. He stands at the door and
knocks. We need to answer that door.
This is what makes us different. Yes, Our Lord is
present in His Word and also in the Community of Believers but as Vatican II
teaches us He is present in a much more substantive way especially in the
Eucharist. That is what makes the Catholic Church different. It is the Holy
Eucharist.
And Jesus said to them “Oh, how foolish you are! How
slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke! Was it not necessary that
the Christ should suffer these things and enter into His glory?
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He
interpreted to them what referred to Him in all the scriptures.
And it happened that, while He was with them at
table, He took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they
recognized Him. Can we say the same?
Deacon Bernard Ouellette
