Sunday Meditation: Who Do People Say That the Son of Man Is?

On the Twenty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time in Year A, we get the well-known foundation of the Church in the person of Peter.  Three years ago I embedded a video clip of Dr. Brant Pitre giving the fullest exegesis of how this Gospel passage formed the Catholic Church, the Papacy, and the Church’s authority in the person of Peter.  No other video clip is going to expand on that because that clip said it all.  In that clip, Dr. Pitre quoted the second century theologian and bishop, Irenaeus, from Against Heresies on the early Church’s view of this passage.  It’s worth quoting here.

 

St. Irenaeus wrote this about the church at Rome and Peter's successors: quote, “the very great the very ancient and universally known church found in and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men…comes down to our own time by mean of the successions of the bishops.  For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [meaning the church at Rome] on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere…The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate [Linus was Peter successor]…To him succeeded Anacletus; after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement.  To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hygenus; after him, Pius; then after him Anicetus.  Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of this episcopate.  In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, in the preaching of the truth have come down to us. and this is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith which has been preserved in the church and the Apostles until now and handed down in truth.”  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2-3; trans. ANF 1.415-16)

This was written in the year 180 A.D.  Don’t ever let anyone dissuade you from knowing that today’s Gospel passage identified Peter and his successors—for this passage shows the rule of succession which some deny—as the foundation to bind and loose, teach and consecrate from Peter to Pope Leo XIV today. That understanding was there from the beginning.

Today’s Gospel:

 

 

Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and

he asked his disciples,

"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah,

still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Simon Peter said in reply,

"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus said to him in reply,

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.

For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

And so I say to you, you are Peter,

and upon this rock I will build my church,

and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;

and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Then he strictly ordered his disciples

to tell no one that he was the Christ.

~Mt: 16:13-20

 

 

My Catholic Life! provides an exegetical aspect that Dr. Pitre doesn’t develop.  It’s worth including here.

 

My Catholic Life!:

Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:13–16

 

The symbolism associated with Caesarea Philippi is central to today’s Gospel. Located north of Jesus’ home base in Capernaum, it was a predominantly pagan city known for its shrines to false gods. One of the most prominent was Pan, after whom the region was named Panias (later Banias). Pan, a Greek god, was honored at a shrine near a large cave and spring considered the entrance to Hades. Pan was the god of nature, shepherds, flocks, wild places, fertility, and rustic music, and was often depicted as half man, half goat, with horns and hooves. He played the pan flute and was associated with lust, chaos, and sudden fear—from which we get the word panic.

 

Additionally, the city was the site of a temple dedicated to the late emperor, Caesar Augustus, who was worshiped as a god throughout the Roman Empire. It was into this spiritually dark pagan setting that Jesus led His disciples—on what may have been a two-day journey—for what culminated in a single, monumental question.

 

Jesus took the Twelve away from the comfort of their familiar fishing village and Jewish neighbors for a reason. He wanted them to answer His question not in the midst of the familiar and safe, but in a place marked by spiritual confusion and idolatry. Why? So that faith could be professed even there, and divine grace could confront the darkness that permeated the region.

The locations of where the Gospel events occur are usually important to their meaning.  I may have mentioned this before, and here the region of Caesarea Philippi—notice its very Roman derived name—is a contrast to what Jesus is trying to instruct.  If the Roman emperor titled Caesar was considered a god and a son of god, Jesus identifies who the true God and the true Son of God is.

 

For the pastoral homily I’m going to turn to the successor of St. Peter, the current Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV.  This is from his homily on this passage given today at his Sunday Angelus.  The first four minutes are television introductions.  The Holy Father comes out at just about the 4:00 minute mark. 

 

Better still, you can read his entire homily at the Vatican Website.  Here are some key excerpts.

Pope Leo XIV:

The Gospel passage makes us understand how decisive this question is for the experience of discipleship.  Indeed, although the twelve apostles had already shared so much of the life and ministry of their teacher, Jesus did not take for granted that they truly knew him or had understood the mystery of the Kingdom of God.  Thus, after asking them what people were saying about him, he addressed them directly: “But who do you say that I am?” (Mt 16:15).

 

Brothers and sisters, this is a fundamental question for the disciples of every age, and for each one of us.  Faith is not something given to us once and for all.  Rather, we continually need to rediscover the face of Christ and his Gospel, to enter more deeply into his message and to renew the choices we make in our lives, so that they may be consistent with what we profess.  In this way, we can overcome the temptation to think that we already know everything and to reduce faith to mere habit.

 

The question that is put to us each day — who is Jesus for me, and what does his presence mean in my life? — emerges especially in prayer and when we meditate on the Gospel.  Yet it also arises when we encounter the wounds and needs of our brothers and sisters, and in those relationships and situations that most deeply challenge our conscience.  In our daily lives, in short, we can discover whether the Lord Jesus is for us merely a great figure of history, who said and did important things, or the Christ of God, the One sent to bring us into the love of the Father and to transform our lives and the world in which we live.

The question Jesus poses to the apostles is the question He poses to us, not just once or once a month or once a year.  Jesus poses this question to us every day, and we are to be guided by our response every day.

 

 

 

Sunday Meditation: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

 

 

 

Let’s return to John Michael Talbot for today’s hymn with “Surrender to Jesus.”

 

 

Take all my freedom

My liberty, my will

All that I have

You’ve given to me

So I offer it up to You

 

CHORUS:

I surrender it all to Jesus

I surrender it all to God’s will

I surrender it all for the kingdom of God

I surrender my life, my all

 

Your grace and Your love

Are wealth enough for me

Grant me these Lord Jesus

And I’ll ask for nothing more

 

(CHORUS)

 

I surrender it all for the kingdom of God, my life, my all.  I surrender it all to Jesus.

Sunday Meditation: The Establishment of the Apostolic Churches

Two weeks ago, on the 21^st Sunday of Ordinary time, in the 16^th chapter of Matthew Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom with the power to bind and loose.  Two weeks and two chapters later, repeats the authorizing of binding and loosing, but this time to all the aapostles.

 

Jesus said to his disciples:

"If your brother sins against you,

go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.

If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.

If he does not listen,

take one or two others along with you,

so that 'every fact may be established

on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.

If he refuses to listen even to the church,

then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Amen, I say to you,

whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,

and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Again, amen, I say to you,

if two of you agree on earth

about anything for which they are to pray,

it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name,

there am I in the midst of them."

~Mt 18:15-20

Why does Jesus repeat Himself?  Dr. Brant Pitre explains. 

 

That explains a lot!  I did not realize the full ramifications of this passage until now.

Meditation: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

I’ve always loved that verse. 

 

Sunday Meditation: Upon This Rock

I today’s Gospel passage, Jesus does one of His most important and everlasting things. He founds the Holy Catholic Church. 

Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and

he asked his disciples,

"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah,

still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Simon Peter said in reply,

"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus said to him in reply,

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.

For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

And so I say to you, you are Peter,

and upon this rock I will build my church,

and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;

and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Then he strictly ordered his disciples

to tell no one that he was the Christ.

~Mt 16:13-20

I thought I knew this passage well, but Dr. Brant Pitre pulls out double from what I knew.  He is absolutely amazing here.

 

That is the fullest exegesis I have ever heard of this very important passage. Let’s meditate on this verse.

Meditation: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.  For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father."

Do we see the Father in heaven reveal this to Peter?

Left Wing Groups Planning on Crashing Catholic Churches

I have received multiple email warnings about left wing groups, especially one called Ruth Sent Us, planning to crash Catholic Churches this Sunday in the aftermath of the leaked SCOTUS decision to overthrow Roe.  From the Washington Times: 

 

Pro-choice activists are planning protests in churches on Mother’s Day and are preparing visits to Supreme Court justices’ homes next week to express anger over an anticipated ruling overturning legalized abortion.

 

The activist group “Ruth Sent Us,” named for the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is challenging people to protest inside a Catholic Church on Sunday and it published a map purporting to show Republican-appointed justices’ homes for a “Walk-by Wednesday” demonstration.

 

“Whether you’re a ‘Catholic for Choice,’ ex-Catholic, of other or no faith, recognize that six extremist Catholics set out to overturn Roe,” the group said on Twitter. “Stand at or in a local Catholic Church on Sun May 8. #WarOnWomen #MothersDayStrike.”

You may ask, isn’t this against the law?  Of course, but so were the BLM riots during last summer.  Do you think mere legalities matter to left wing progressives? 

It’s amazing how dopey these people are.  Ruth Bader Ginsberg, from which the group takes its name, although a strong supporter of abortion felt that the Roe decision was incorrectly decided.  Also on Mother’s Day they want to protest against motherhood itself?  LOL.  And as far as I can tell, those silly costumes from the Handmaid’s Tale are takeoffs of clothing the Puritan women wore, not Catholic. 

The Catholic website ChurchPop has a video from TicToc uploaded from Ruth Sent Us that calls for invading Catholic Churches next week.  I can’t embed TicToc, so you’ll have to go there to see it.  In it the activists shout, “For 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has been an institution for the enslavement of women.”

Why do they single out the Catholic Church?  At least three reasons.  (1) Five of the six Supreme Court Justices who voted against Roe and Casey, the other infamous SCOTUS decision that instituted abortion, are Catholic.  (2) When Roe was first decided in 1973, the Catholic Church was the only institution that instanteously opposed the decision.  In fact opposition to Roe was in the subsequent few years after almost solely a Catholic Church endeavor.  In the following years it built a coalition of groups, especially Protestant Evangelical Churches, to oppose abortion and seep that opposition into the political sphere.  The Republican Party was not the Pro-Life Party back then.  Both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush supported abortion.  It took a while for that persuasion to change their hearts.  The Catholic Church has been at the very core of the Pro-Life movement.  Just come down to an annual Pro-Life March in January and you will see that some 80% of the marchers are Catholic.  I might go so far as to say the Pro-Life movement propelled by the Catholic Church has been her finest hour of the last hundred years.

Which brings us to the third reason why they single out the Catholic Church.  There’s an element of truth to that shouting about 2000 years of the Catholic Church.  The teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion does indeed go back 2000 years to the Didache, a first century document written around the time as the fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John.  You can read from Wikipedia how it almost made it into the canon of the New Testament.  It collects the teachings of the apostles, and in it you will find a recapitulation of the moral law per the Torah.  Here is the specific verse:

 

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not corrupt boys; thou shalt not commit fornication. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; thou shalt not practice sorcery. Thou shalt not procure abortion, nor shalt thou kill the new-born child. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. (Chapter 2, Verse 2)

The highlight is my emphasis.  Other translations I’ve seen phrase that sentence as not killing the child in the womb.  So you see, the earliest Christians found it immoral to kill a child, indeed to not kill one that has not been born yet.  Notice the context of the paragraph.  It puts the killing of the unborn in the same context as the Ten Commandments, at the same level of morality as the killing of a birthed human being.  In addition, that corollary on not killing a “new-born child” was a direct statement against the pagan killing of infants, either from exposure by the Greeks and Romans or as a sacrifice by the North African pagans, such as the Carthaginians. 

So, it’s not that the Catholic Church has enslaved women for 2000 years.  It has provided them dignity first as mothers for their very biological being and second for aborted infants who tended to be girls.  But in twisted morality of the left wingers, they recognize the Catholic Church has been at the very foundation of making abortion immoral. 

Actually this warning for Sunday goes beyond just Catholic Churches.  I’ve also seen they want to go after the homes of the Supreme Court Justices that voted against it and after Evangelical Churches as well.  I’m not sure they can distinguish the Protestant Churches that support abortion from those that don’t, so I would be cautious no matter which church you attend.

And remember, if you are Catholic and someone tries to vandalize or crash the Mass, you have an obligation to protect the Eucharist. 

Catholics: A Novel by Brian Moore, Post #1

This is the first in a series of posts on the Brian Moore novel, Catholics: A Novel. 

Brian Moore was an Irish born novelist and movie script writer, but after serving in WWII as a young man emigrated to Canada where he established himself as a novelist.  Later he moved to the United States where he wrote for film as well.  He tends to be thought of as a Ca
nadian writer.  He was short listed for the British Booker Prize three times, so he is a writer of some reputation.  Catholics: A Novel was not one short listed.  As you will see, especially in my later posts on this novel, I do not think highly of this work, and of course I don’t recommend it.  I don’t know what his good novels are like, but this novel makes me skeptical about the value of the others.  However, his three short listed novels came after Catholics.

Catholics:A Novel was published in 1972, well beyond his developmental years.  What is important to know about Moore’s biography is that he grew up Catholic in Northern Ireland, and by the time he was an adult he had pretty much lost his faith and considered himself an atheist.  Still, a good deal of the subject matter of his life’s work dealt with Catholicism, as does this novel of course.  This novel was written shortly after the Vatican II Church Council, and it takes the changes of the Council to an absurd level.  The premise is that after a “Vatican IV” Council, almost all the traditions of the Church have been obliterated and those rules are enforced by a militarized church.  So Moore is writing a dystopia set in the future.  One of the changes to the traditions is to the Mass, the Latin Mass now forbidden, and the novel hinges on the changes to the Mass, as well as the loss of the belief that the true Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist. 

We read this novel for the Goodreads Catholic Book club, and it was coincidental (or perhaps providential) that as soon as we completed the read, Pope Francis issued is moto propio, Traditionis Custodes, severely limiting the use of the old Latin Mass.  It was amazing how contemporaneous to real life activity this read became.  And if I may editorialize, Pope Francis’ moto propio was just as dictatorial in tone as the militarized future church in Moore’s dystopia.  Our discussion did not take the moto propio into account because that was published one week after we had moved on from the book. 

###

Summary:

Part One

The novel is set in the future after Vatican IV has removed all mysteries associated with the faith, all rituals now to be regarded as symbols.  Father James Kinsella is sent by Rome to Muck Abbey, a monastery off the west coast of Ireland where a religious order (the fictional Albanesian Order) still practice the Latin Mass as it has been done for centuries. 

The weather has made it impossible for any sea craft to get to the island, so Fr. Kinsella stays on the mainland encountering the people who attend the old Latin Mass and traditional private confessions.  He learns that the Abbot of Muck, which dates back to 1216, is a sixty-nine year old Tomás O’Malley and the Abbey contains thirty monks who live off their fishing and growing of kelp.  No one on the mainland identifies Fr. Kinsella as a Catholic priest because in the new mode, priestly dress is à la secular. 

###

This captures the devotion of the locals who attend the traditional Mass.

 

The pilgrims rose early on Sunday, went in buses and cars to the foot of Mount Coom, five miles from the village. There, they ascended the mountain, on foot, to kneel on muddied grassy slopes, or on shelves of rock, often in the unyielding Irish rain. Most could see the Mass rock and the priest only from a distance, but all heard the Latin, thundering from loudspeakers rigged up by the townsfolk. Latin. The communion bell. Monks as altar boys saying the Latin responses. Incense. The old way.

And this exchange with the hotelkeeper shows the emotional reaction of learning the locals are not following Rome’s directives.  Fr. Kinsella first asks about confessions:

“But why do the confessions take so long?”

 

“We still have private confessions. One person at a time in the box.”

 

Private confessions. This was not known in Rome. “What about public confessions?”

 

“Public confessions, Father?”

 

“Where the whole congregation stands before Mass and says an act of contrition?”

 

“Ah, that never took here.”

 

Anger, sudden and cold, made Kinsella say: “It took everywhere else!” Ashamed, he saw the hotelkeeper bob his head, obedient, rebuked, but unconvinced.

Fr. Kinsella is angry over this.  “It took everywhere else.”  Why hasn’t it taken here in this remote part of Ireland?

It may have taken everywhere else, but perhaps parishoners were forced to, or did it out of obedience.  Kinsella then recalls a conversation he had with his friend who had done some sort of study on this.

 

His friend Visher, a behaviorist, had made a study of current Catholic attitudes toward their clergy. “People are sheep,” Visher said. “They haven’t changed. They want those old parish priests and those old family doctors. Sheep need authoritarian sheepdogs nipping at their heels from birth to funeral. People don’t want truth or social justice, they don’t want this ecumenical tolerance. They want certainties. The old parish priest promised that. You can’t, Jim.”

This novel was first published in 1972.  It certainly speaks to us today.  We have been going through changes since Vatican II, and they are still current today.  I’m not against ecumenical tolerance or social justice, but when it becomes the primary focus of the faith there is something wrong.

###

Joseph Commented:

It is certainly fascinating that a 49 year old novel is still current events. I offered Mass for our local Latin Mass Community yesterday and celebrating both forms of the Roman Rite pretty much back to back makes the issues they're talking about even more poignant. I wouldn't say that I noticed a difference in attitude on the part of the people, but the ritual patterns of worship and having to switch between them makes me appreciate more just how jarring things must've been when the Novus Ordo was first promulgated and why there are people who will literally drive hours to find a TLM.

My Reply to Joseph:

That’s pretty cool Joseph. I’ve only been to one Latin Mass in my life, and I have to admit it wasn’t the spiritual experience some claim it to be. I found the language did not resonate with me. Even when I knew the Latin referred to a known segment of the Mass, say the Agnus Dei, my mind transliterated the words in block rather than knowing each word as one would in their vernacular. I think the vernacular makes the words more intimate. I feel I absorb the “spiritual nutrients” better from the vernacular than from the Latin. Of course if I went to Latin Mass routinely that might change. But it occurred to me now, since I’ve been writing on Dante the last few days, that Dante consciously chose the vernacular for his great religious poem and rejected writing in Latin. Now I understand the theological value of having the Mass in a universal language—it’s small “c” catholic!—the very opposite of the Tower of Babel, but yet there is a lot of value with the language of prayer being intimate with the parishioner.

 

As to facing ad orientem, I can’t make up my mind. It’s not as warm as facing the congregation, but I think it is proper and the Church should experiment with using it with the vernacular. Perhaps there is an optimum mix of when during the Liturgy of the Eucharist the priest should face Christ and when he should face the congregation. Perhaps East during the Eucharistic prayer and the congregation when we re-kneel for the presentation of the Lamb of God? After all it is an exchange of our man-made gifts for His flesh and blood.

My Reply to Catherine:

Catherine wrote: " Imagine describing a form of liturgy or prayer as nostalgic! These are worship and prayer that go back to Jesus. Maybe not the rosary directly but the prayers and the mysteries are Scriptural based."

The Latin Mass used to be universal. It's now nostalgic.

Catherine wrote: His description of confession was equally horrifying. An act of contrition before the congregation and that's it??? I have to wonder if this was the author's hope for where the Church was going. "

When I got married back in 1991 and I went to confession, the priest just had me think my sins to myself without saying them to him. Then when I was done he gave me absolution. Some really funky things were happening back post Vatican II. [Actually I kind of prefer confession like that, but it's not real confession.]

Good insight on his outfit resembling Maoist.

My Comment:

This is the second novel we've recently read where the author presents the collapse of Catholicism from the de-sacralization of the rites over the emphasis to social justice. Lord of the World had a similar argument.

Joseph Commented on the Latin Mass:

Manny I think your experience with the Latin Mass points to what I was getting at, and I think what Moore is getting at as well. It's something so alien to our everyday experience that if you just drop someone into it they're completely lost. I had the same experience my first time going, and that was after 6 years of studying Latin. The tension that Moore is pointing out between these two understandings of liturgy is very much present and the debates about how to do whatever thing best haven't ended either.

My Reply to Joseph:

Joseph and others, why do you think Pope Francis is anti Latin Mass? I'm struck by his outright hostility toward it. As I said above, the Latin Mass is not something that moves me spiritually, but I know it does many Catholics, and I see no harm in keeping it as an alternative for those who prefer it. But Pope Francis has spoken against it and there are rumors he may actually put a stop to its use. I can't understand why. I think that discussion is worthy here. I would like to do it without bringing up Church politics, but it does dovetail with the central dystopia being presented in the novel.

Joseph’s Reply:

I don't think it's so much that he's against it as he's worried about a division within the Church along liturgical lines. I generally find that reporting about stuff that comes out of the Vatican is woefully inaccurate and misrepresents what's actually going on. That being said, I think that whatever updated Latin Mass guidelines come out are going to be emphasizing that it's currently considered the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and that it shouldn't push the Ordinary Form to the side in any given parish.

Kerstin Replied:

The most recent episode of the Burrowshire Podcast delves into this issue and sheds light on the different versions of the Latin Mass, whether it is a Novus Ordo Mass said in Latin or the Extraordinary Form. I was very much surprised how many historical details there are I wasn't aware of at all.

My Reply to Kerstin:

I listened to that Kerstin. I thought it was excellent, though they seemed to get off topic toward the end. Actually what they said is what I support. If done reverently the Novus Ordo is a richer Mass, bringing in more rites than are in the Tridentine Mass. What people call the Latin Mass was established at the Counsel of Trent, and therefore a reaction to Protestants. It was not the original Mass. If it feels that there are more parts to the Novus Ordo, it's because there are more parts. The Church brought them back from prior to the Counsel of Trent. I maintain the Novus Ordo is a richer Mass if done properly.

My Reply to Irene:

Irene wrote: "The abbey seems to represent the opposite temptation. It has so withdrawn from the world that people only can hear the liturgy over a megaphone, kneeling at a distance. I think that Moore describes the mood of the worshipers as nostalgic because he wants the reader to understand that this is not a deep encounter with Christ, but a clinging to some external for its own sake. It may be engaged in lovely liturgical rituals, but, in the words of St. Basil, whose feet are they washing? ."

That is interesting Irene. I had not picked up on that. You seem to be reading this as a balanced tension between the past and the future, while I'm seeing this as a dystopia. At least the Introduction in my edition by Robert Ellsberg presents it as a dystopia. Even on the surface it strikes me as unbalanced between the two sides: little obscure, powerless monastery in the middle of nowhere versus the big, bad institution of the Church who exerts its will through power. I haven't finished but haven't been seeing it that way. Perhaps I have to look a little closer with this in mind, but the surface details do not paint Fr. Kinsella as having any positive attributes that would engender sympathy.

Irene Replied:

No, I am not reading this as a balanced tension between past and future. I am reading this as two temptations against what it means to be church. Both have existed in the past. Both can exist in the future. One builds walls to keep out the world; the other knocks down walls to let the world in. One finds certitude in clinging to a particular historical moment; one denies all certitude and with it all truth. But God can't be walled in or pinned to a historical moment. Nor can we claim to be Church just because we claim institutional titles or authority.

My Reply to Irene:

Two temptations still implies some sort of equal weight. Nonetheless, I don't see the Abbey as building walls. If anything they are reaching out to the mainland as far as their limited reach can go. In Part One at least there is nothing to suggest they are ignoring the social justice needs of the people around them at the expense of their liturgy. Who is being shown as deprived? If you're reading was accurate, there should be some sort of social deficiency dramatized or suggested.

My Comment:

There was a really good article in The Catholic World Report as a memorial to a nun who was influential in the author's (who happens to be a priest) life, "Requiem for a Holy Nun". The article's intent is to highlight the nun who was the author's teacher and who had predicted he would one day be a priest. The nun lived to 108, so he got to know her as an adult as well. It was quite touching and I would recommend that article for that alone. Here is the article:

 

But I post this in the context of this read and discussion. The author mentions how the nun refused to no longer wear her religious clothing after Vatican II, while apparently all the other sisters of her chapter followed the directive. Here is that paragraph:

 

We moved out of the city after fifth grade, but Sister and I kept in touch. She was thrilled when I entered the seminary in 1968, making me truly one of “her boys” (an affectionate term nuns often used for their students who became priests). That year – that annus horribilis – was also the year of her community’s general chapter when they doffed their habits, moved into apartments, and abandoned our schools in droves. Sister stayed the course. When she refused to take off her veil, she was sent for psychological counseling and was also told there was no position open for her in the community.

 

Can you imagine? Sent for psychological counseling because she refused to change to secular clothing? That is just so Marxist. So one can see where Brian Moore is coming from when he created this dystopia.

My Comment:

I should also make it clear, Brian Moore is not ridiculing the Novus Ordo. He is ridiculing the fictional "Mass" that came out of the fictional "Vatican IV."