Projects Done

Today we finished the old pink room and now it is a mint green room, very pretty, actually. This will be our room now until we move. When J goes to GA, I will move C in with me in her crib.

I started on the room that had been ours for the past year and a half. I got most of the walls done, except for the upper part of one wall, near the ceiling, because I didn’t want to over do it. I will work on it tonight, after the kids go to bed and hopefully be able to do the trim tonight as well. We have the flooring guys coming tomorrow to put the floor down in the office so that will be another room down.

For those keeping track, we needed to do something to two bedrooms, an office area, our dining room as well as finish installing insulation and shingle the roof to the porch. (All things we thought we would have lots of time to do, but the suddenness of the move made them have to be done NOW!) So now, we are down to the dining room, finishing the trim in the office (once the flooring is down), the insulation and the roof. (if there is more, I don’t want to be reminded.

I should think of the positive things that we have going for us and this house. Since we signed the mortgage, we have put in: a new hot water heater, new furnace, new roof (down to the rafters), taken down wallpaper in three bedrooms (soon to be dining room too), fresh paint in three bedrooms and built an office area. If I forgot something, you can remind me in this section!

Today I had to deal with our car insurance. I noticed a dent in the van the other day, a small, softball sized one, one I should have probably ignored, but called it in anyway. I know the woman I talked to told me she would call me back with the time to take it to the shop. I even wrote what she said down and hung it on the fridge. Well, no call came, so I put it out of mind. That was until the repair place called and said we had an appointment at 10 this morning (they called at 2 in the afternoon). Next day they can get me in is Monday. I called another place, same thing.

Of course, this call came right after I had sat down to have a snack and realized that Joshua was leaving in just a few days, so I was a wreck. I started bawling and Joshua thought it was because I was upset about the car until I managed to get out that I was scared that he was leaving and how spoiled I am and how much I depend on him and how am I going to do this all.day.everyday for at least a month?

(Joshua called the insurance company back and they told him that they could send someone out for an estimate. Uh, why wasn’t I told that when I said I had time constraints?)

I see that it is 450 and I have no idea what to make for dinner. These are the nights I wish I could just say “pizza” and call, but I know that fastfood has not been treating me well lately, so I will probably do cheesy noodles. French toast sounds good too.

One more thing: Happy Birthday, Mom!!!!!

Filed under: General Stuff

On being shy

I used to think I was shy. I am not shy, really, I have come to realize, I just happen to hold my cards very closely to myself.

When it comes to play dates with the kids, I would rather drive an hour to visit friends from back in the day and have our kids play than hang out with a mother who has children close to same age as my kids in my current location. (Exception: The Coolest Kid’s Mom).

I would rather hang out with a few select friends than have a crowd to run with again. Most nights, I am happy sitting on the couch with Joshua, reading or watching a dorky science fiction television show. I am content in the quiet of the evening. I enjoy an occasional Ladies Night Out with my friends, sure, but being at J’s side is even more fun.

I have come to realize why this is. It is very hard to trust someone, very hard.  I have found that many women are still mentally in eighth grade. How does one get married, raise a family and not leave mentality that behind?  How do you trust a woman like that? You are not able to, so you have to hold your cards close.

One thing I look forward to with this move it the chance to return to anonymity. No one will know who we are. Sure, they may notice us as the family with 3 then 4 young ones who talk funny, but that is all they will ever have to know. I cannot express how much I look forward to this!

Filed under: General Stuff

Quick Posts

I find that a few quick posts help me to know where I have been and where I am going in preparing for our move.

We have been finding ourselves moving the down comforter from the bed to the chair to the bed to the chair each day. This morning I remembered that the linen cabinet I use to store my clothes in is all cleared out, so I folded up our extra blankets and stuck them in there, the room looks much nicer now.

I sorted the last two baskets of laundry in to “current” and “not current” clothes for the kids, so, once I get things packed in to totes, I can say, clothes are packed. Book are done, some toys are done, kitchen is not done. I will probably work on that this week.

We have contractors coming to day to measure the office for flooring and a painter coming next week to do the porch and to strip the wallpaper from the walls in the bedrooms and the dining room. This of course made us realize how pretty the walls would be and that people would probably notice the crummy floors, especially if the house does not sell and we leave it empty for a bit. So, we will probably have someone come and lay carpet. Of course, this may help us get what we want from the house, in terms of selling price.

Filed under: General Stuff

My Wishes

Simple, really, here are some wishes I have for the future of our Church:

1. That those who are in charge of teaching the faith to our youth actually accept wholly, the teachings of our wonderful Church.

2. That those who do not agree with the Church and her teachings (contraception, woman priests, actually having to assist at Mass on Sundays and all Holy Days) would open their hearts to the Holy Spirit and open their minds to the reasons behind the teachings.

3. That Youth Ministry Programs become more prayerful and less skitful. We are not doing our children any favors by serving them Peeps when they need Lamb. We need to teach our children and teens how to pray, how to embrace silence, how to fall in love with Love Himself. When one is fed with the truth of God, they do not need fabricated fun.

I have more and will probably add to this list in the future. For today though, I am praying for those who do not understand and who fight against the teachings of an All-Male Priesthood.

Filed under: General Stuff

Why Women Cannot Be Catholic Priests

Recently, this issues came up in our parish. I pray for those who are mislead in to thinking that women will someday be ordained, it will not happen, ever. I was going to write an article explaining why, when I came across this wonderful article at EWTN.com from Our Sunday Visitor, in 1995.

WHY WOMEN CAN'T BE PRIESTS

Lost in the debate over women priests is the reason for the
Church's  teaching. A top woman theologian explains why the
Church has always believed what it believes 

By Mary DeTurris

Shouts of rage and whispers of schism have irrupted in
the month since  the Vatican issued a brief confirmation
of the Church's long-held teaching that it cannot ordain
women to the priesthood.

Yet lost amid the rash of reports of rebellion and
frustration is a  chorus of voices singing out in
support of the clarification of Church teaching,
published Nov. 18 by the Vatican's Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith with the approval of Pope John
Paul II.

 These supporters argue that critics, confused Catholics
and others, would  do well to study what the Church has
really said about the reasons for barring women's ordination,
which have nothing to do with "gender equality" and everything
to do with Jesus and the  history of the Church.

 "It seems so patently unreasonable and unfair to people that
they can't  imagine this, and they don't even give it a chance,"
said Sister Sara Butler, a Missionary Servant of the Most Blessed Trinity.

Admittedly, at one time Sister Butler would have been
an unlikely  supporter of the Church teaching. And she
understands firsthand the frustrations of those  advocating
women's admittance to the priesthood.

In the 1970s, she was among the numerous theologians
who spoke out  publicly in favor of women's ordination.
But Sister Butler, currently a theologian at  Mundelein
Seminary in Illinois, said she was forced to change her
mind as her study of the issue drew her  deeper into Scripture
and Church history.

Now, after years of continual study of the questions,
she is one of the  American Church's leading authorities
on the issue. And she believes that Pope John Paul II's
argument is "the only possible reading of the tradition"
of the Church.

Original choice

 "Catholics have always insisted that the ordained ministry
has its origin  in Jesus' own choice of the Twelve [Apostles]
and that they are the foundation of the Church," she explained in a recent interview.

Following Jesus' example of choosing 12 males to be His apostles,
the  Church from the earliest days has reserved the priesthood to males.

Sister Butler acknowledges that this requirement is not spelled
out  directly in the Bible, "as if Scripture, as if Jesus, said,
'I don't want any women to be priests.' "

History, however, shows that the first Christians believed that Christ
intended a male-only priesthood.

"We know it is so because early in even the second and third centuries
some people went ahead and admitted women to at least priestly functions,
if not to ordination,  and those people were considered heretics,"
she explained. "The response was that this was not what Christ willed,
and it's against apostolic teaching."

<Inter Insigniories>, a 1976 declaration by the Vatican's  Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, details the early Church's response
to the Gnostics and other radical Christian sects that supported
women priestly roles. The Fathers of the Church, the Vatican said,
"immediately censured this step, judging it a novelty which should on no
account be accepted into  the Church."

The declaration, which was approved by Pope Paul VI and remains
the  Church's most explicit explanation of its teaching on women's
ordination, recounts that  beginning with early Church leaders such
as St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and St. John Chrysostom,
and extending through the Middle Ages down to the current popes, the
male-only priesthood was  an unquestioned tradition.

Even the Oriental or Eastern churches, which split with the
Roman Church over many theological issues, never questioned
that tradition. The question came up with the Protestant Reformation
in the 16th century. The Protestant churches effectively abandoned
the idea  of the priesthood in favor of "a pastoral ministry" in which
men and women could participate.

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church and the various Eastern Catholic  churches have
held true to Christ's original plan.

 As Sister Butler said, "The reason is we don't think Jesus intended this  for the Church,
and this judgment has been made repeatedly and definitively by the Church of our
own ancestors. It's a universal, unbroken tradition."

Anti-woman bias?

 Nonetheless, critics of the ban on women priests insist that it has  always reflected anti-
woman bias in the Church, and that if Jesus were living in an age with a  greater
appreciation of women's dignity and gifts, He would have chosen female disciples and
ordained  women priests.

 This is another argument that holds little water for Sister Butler, based  on her study of
the issue and the history, even though she once felt that the Church's main  objection to
women priests was based on its belief that women were inferior and should be
subordinate to  men.

 "The Vatican did clarify its teaching about women's equality and has been  very
specific," she said. "Pope Paul VI very specifically reiterated what Vatican II had said
about  the absolute equality of women and men, and Pope John Paul II has been very
lucid in many, many  places clarifying women's equality with men."

 In fact, Pope John Paul has written and spoken often about the equality  of women,
their unique gifts and their role in the Church.  In 1988, he devoted a 116-page
apostolic letter, <Mulieris Dignitatem>, to the subject of the dignity and vocation of
women.  And  last year he wrote an open letter to the women of the world in which he
acknowledged that women have  been oppressed and discriminated against and that
some of the "blame" for this can be laid  on "not just a few members of the Church."

 In apologizing for discrimination by some Churchmen, the Pope affirmed  women's
central importance in history and said the Church believes the Gospel message of
Christ is "ever relevant" when it comes "to setting women free from every kind of
exploitation and  domination." In <rdinatio Sacerdotalis>, the Pope's 1994 apostolic
letter  reaffirming the Church's teaching on ordination, he was careful to spell out that
the decision to deny women  access to the priesthood is not based on a belief that
women are less competent than men.

 "The fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the  Church,
received neither the mission proper to the apostles nor the ministerial priesthood
clearly shows that the nonadmission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that
women are  of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as a discrimination against them,"
the Pope wrote.  "Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be
ascribed to the Wisdom of the  Lord of the Universe."

 That wisdom is sometimes called into question by those who campaign for  the
ordination of women. Many who support a female priesthood claim that there is no
connection between today's bishops and priests and Jesus' choice of the Twelve
Apostles.

 That view, according to Sister Butler, is something "quite alien" to  Catholic tradition.
"They really intend to suggest that the ordained ministry is the creation of the  Church,
something that it  developed for self-organization," she said. "Once you have done that,
you  have completely emptied out the whole idea of the Catholic sense of this Church."

 Since the very beginning of the Church, she continued, the authority of  bishops and
the priests under them has been seen as an extension of "the authority of Christ, who
acts through His ordained ministers who exercise His authority in a way that other
baptized Christians cannot."

 This authority structure ensures that what the Church teaches remains  true to the
teaching of Christ, and that is why the teaching authority of the popes and the  bishops
is at the heart of the question concerning women's ordination.

 And the authority of the Church has been "absolutely consistent" on the  issue of the
male-only priesthood, Sister Butler said. "Theologians have thought through the
centuries that it belongs to the deposit of faith, and that's what the Holy Father is
saying now, and  it does." The "deposit of faith" is the body of unchangeable teachings
entrusted by Christ to the  apostles and handed on by them to the Church.

 "When you tell people that this is what Christ willed for the Church,  they often say, 'If
He were alive now, He would do it differently.' He is alive now. Don't we believe  that
the Lord is living and acting in the Church, that these teachers are not just acting on
their own judgment but are trying to be absolutely faithful to the teaching that they are
entrusted  with and doing that against tremendous odds?"

 While she believes in the Church's authority and believes that the Church  is teaching
the doctrine of Jesus on the ordination question, Sister Butler worries that reaction  to
the Vatican's recent statement is focused so much on the authority question, which is
"misleading to the average person," and misses the real reasons for the Church's
teaching.

 "My expectation is that there will be a lot of talk about the pope's  authority," she said.
"But what we really need is a deeper theological investigation of the reasons
Filed under: General Stuff, Vaccination Information

Motivational Mondays

Anyone know of anything to help with motivation on Monday? I am sure that loading your weekends with all day activities and avoiding sunburn would help.

Yesterday we went to the Columbus Zoo and the attached water park, Zoombezi Bay. The Scouts had a special group rate and for $10/person, we could get into the zoo and the water park. I honestly am not a zoo person. I do not enjoy it and I can certainly tell you that I do not enjoy the zoo when there are thousands of people there. Once we got to the water park, I was much happier. The kids had a blast and K informed me that he wanted to go again today.

We also went out to dinner, a special treat for us and to make things even better, the kids ate free! I had suggested McDonalds when we were first talking about going out to eat but Joshua suggested eating some place we won’t be able to when we move, so I suggested Old Bag of Nails (if you are ever in Columbus Ohio, I recommend checking out one of their many locations around the city).

However, today, I am blah. It started at 315 this morning when firecrackers went off on our street. Who does that? I finally fell back to sleep, thankfully, but it was not a sound sleep. Thankfully, Joshua worked from home a bit this morning so I could sleep in a bit. We had a mover come and give us an estimate for loading and transporting our stuff to Georgia, fun times. We cleaned and organized a few things up stairs. After Joshua left for work, I forced myself to do a few loads of laundry then pack up books. I found a few books I would like to sell* on line but after looking  at the going price, I figured, nah, I will just garage sale them. We are talking $.75 for a hardcover book that retails for $32.00.If you are willing to pay shipping and are interested in a biography of George H W Bush (aka 41) or a “portrait” of the marriage of George and Laura, please holler!

We needed to use up the money in our flex spend account, so I just ordered three years worth of contacts, fun times. Well, actually, I think it should technically be a year and a half, as they are suddenly supposed to be tossed every two weeks. I have been using the same ones since I got contacts nearly 10 years ago and only with this purchase have I been told that they are not monthlys. Oh well.

Tonight’s dinner will be left overs from last night plus some fresh fruit and pudding for dessert. We had a gallon of skim milk left over from a fund raiser breakfast that I needed to use up. If I drink it, I feel yucky after and the kids don’t like it, so I figured I would put it in pudding.

*And no, Suzanne, my autographed copy of “The Privilege of Being a Woman” is not on that list.

Filed under: General Stuff

Of Life

Today I went to my first home schooling conference. It was in Dayton, Ohio and I had a good time. I picked my friend, Kimberly bright and early this morning for the drive over. We were able to attend mass then the conference. The speakers were great! We had a great line up of speakers, Andrew Schmiedicke, Father Sherry, CPM, Danielle Bean and Maureen Whittmann. I really enjoyed each and every talk!

I took a look at the many books offered and while I held back from buying anything. It was not easy, but the idea of buying them, just to pack them in a box did not seem wise to me.

What’s that? Why would I pack them in a box without reading them? Well, let me tell you why. Joshua got a new job. In Georgia. As in we are moving this summer. To Georgia. In the summer. Pregnant.

Why is it that I seem to be moving either pregnant or with a new born? I also seem to recall telling Joshua, shortly before we were married, that we were living in the Beaumont House for three years. By the time our third anniversary rolled around, we were on our third address. In the time since our third anniversary, we have seen two more addresses. So, by the time our Sixth Anniversary rolls around, we will have lived in four different states and held seven different addresses.

I do ask for prayers, for Joshua’s new job, for me keeping my sanity while packing up a house and being a single mother for a bit, while he goes and I stay and for us to be able to sell our house, quickly!
Quick Edit: No, I will not be burying a statue of St. Joseph in my yard.

Filed under: General Stuff

A post for pondering

I am borrowing (with permission) the following blog post from a friend of ours. It is a bit of a read, but well worth it. Here is the link for the blog he write, but I have copied the whole post here.

A Modest Proposal

Fear not, I have no intention of suggesting that we sell our children to rich families for a source of supplemental nutrition in order to ease the woes of our current economic situation. Instead, I offer a proposal that is the result of a modest amount of criticism I have received followed by a not-so-modest amount of prayer and reflection on my part. I am speaking here about my previous comments on Sacred Music, its nature, and its place in the Liturgy. It seems that we, meaning myself and my critics, are at a crossroads of sorts. The conversation has thus far been considerably ineffective and, on both sides, often uncharitable. For my own part, it appears that there are two paths along which I can travel. The first is to cease public proclamation and seek refuge in a place to worship that will not cause the conflict and angst that has previously plagued my conscience. (Virtually everybody who was upset by my articles said the same thing: if I am so unhappy with the state of the Liturgy in my own parish, then I should leave.) The second is to stay and continue to work for the Kingdom of God, spreading the Church’s teaching on the Sacred Liturgy. It is important to realize that both paths are valid and potentially laudable. While I feel very strongly about the importance of the geographical parish, there does come a time and place when a father and husband must do what is in the best interest of the spiritual development of his family. Admittedly, there have been numerous times in the last month that the thought has crossed my mind. However, I believe I am called to follow along the second path, at least for the time being. Nevertheless, if the conversation is to continue, it is clear that some things must change. For starters, not everyone has the same sense of humor, so it is probably best to leave humor and hyperbole* at the door. The Liturgy is a serious issue, and as such it deserves a treatment that is of a serious nature.

The reality is that worship is the most important thing that we do. In the spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas’ exitus-reditus cycle, worship is the means by which we give ourselves back to the God from whom we have come. It is the recognition that out final cause is the same as our efficient cause. In this sense, when we worship we become fully human because we participate in that for which we were created. It stands to reason then that we insist on getting worship right, not just for God’s sake (which should be our primary concern), but also for our own sake as human persons. I cannot, and I will not, drop the issue; it defines who we are both as Church and as humanity. To “agree to disagree” is simply not an option. Truth by its very nature strives to be both discovered and proclaimed. I can, however, offer a modest proposal about how to make this dialog more fruitful.

Let’s take off the gloves.

Let’s not agree to disagree, but let’s agree to seek agreement in truth and love. Let’s agree that there is a truth, that the truth is worth finding, and that truth will be found only by consulting the source of Truth: Jesus Christ speaking through His Church.

Let’s take off the gloves.

I do not know how often I will be able to write and respond, but I will do my best. I am, after all, not a professional writer, but a teacher and a father, both of which are full time jobs in their own right. I promise to be respectful. I promise to listen. I promise to attempt to abandon preconceptions. But I also promise that I will not back down on the truth simply because it is hard for some to hear. And I also promise that I will not ignore the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

I propose as a ground rule that we make every effort to separate criticism of positions and actions from criticisms of intentions. We are called to critique positions that are not in conformity with the truth, just as we are called to point out when actions do the same. We are not, however, permitted to judge the human heart, which is the seat of personal intentions. I have tried to limit my past criticism to positions and actions and to not let them seep into personal intentions, and while it was my intention to limit my criticisms to positions and actions, it is clear that my comments were not taken the way I intended, and in this, the execution of my intentions has failed. For that, I am sincerely repentant. It was never my intention to criticize others’ intentions.

The question at hand is:

What is the nature of the Liturgy as taught by the Catholic Church?

I will resist the temptation to start stacking up reference upon reference of ecclesial documents. Doing so cannot be beneficial unless we can agree on how to interpret these documents. After all, two people can read the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and come up with diametrically opposed conclusions. (Well, perhaps diametrically opposed is exaggerated, but certainly the conclusions can be varied enough that not both can be correct.) In a way, this reminds me of the problem that Protestants have when interpreting Holy Scripture. Two people can read John 6 and come up with two very different interpretations on what Jesus meant when he said, “He who eats my flesh will have life within him.” The Catholic Church has a solution to this problem in her teaching magisterium. We believe that Jesus Christ did not leave us high and dry to figure out the mysteries of the Gospel on our own. The Church has the God-given power to speak authoritatively on the meaning of Christ’s words. The Church has the God-given authority to say that Jesus meant literally his flesh.

However, on the surface does it not seem that the Catholic Church has the same problem as the Protestants but merely relocated? After all, if Jesus gave us a teaching Church so that we don’t have to argue about Scriptural exegesis yet we turn around and argue about how to interpret the Church’s interpretations, then we are no better off than the Protestants. To avoid this dilemma, it is essential to realize that the teaching magisterium is a living reality, and as such, she continually interprets herself and clarifies her positions when people go astray. This living reality provides a tradition strong enough to serve both as a foundation for interpretations and also a mechanism whereby that foundation can reach the present situation. It is precisely because of this living reality that we are not faced with the Protestant impasse.

Recently, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion about the Second Vatican Council, what it said, what it did not say, and what we are to make of all of it now that half a century has passed. Pope Benedict, in his 2005 Christmas address to the Roman Curia, has given us direction on how to make sense of this treasure of Church history.

“Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or – as we would say today – on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform’, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.”

In short, the Holy Father is saying that we must read the Council in continuity with the entire teaching of the Church. The Council is not to be ignored, but nor is that wealth of teaching that preceded it and the wisdom of the magisterium that follows. To be sure, this is not simply the opinion of this Holy Father; a hermeneutic of continuity is the very “glue” that keeps the Church from falling apart and lapsing into Protestant division. A hermeneutic of discontinuity has no remedy against the ill of the “that’s-your-interpretation” phenomenon. If we see the Second Vatican Council as a rupture that separates the history of the Church into “pre-Vatican II” and “post-Vatican II” we thereby give up any objectivity in how to interpret the Council’s words.

In my original post, I quoted the following:

“The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place—provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ” (Inter sollicitudines, Pope Pius X).**

This particular passage caused quite a stir, and many people kindly sent me references from Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium. The most commonly quoted paragraph reads:

“In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful” (paragraph 120).

At this point it would be beneficial to revisit the quote from Inter sollicitudines. While a Constitution from an Ecumenical Council certainly takes precedence over a Motu Propio, we should ask ourselves if the quotation from Vatican II contradicts anything from Pope Pius X’s document. It seems to me that both documents allow for instruments other than the organ, but both documents issue warnings that this allowance is not a wholesale endorsement of any kind of instrument played in any kind of style. Both paragraphs even make mention of the role of the local Ordinary (“competent territorial authority”). The continuity between the two documents is rather striking; it seems that Sacrosanctum Concilium is merely offering a summary of the corresponding paragraph from Inter sollicitudines. The continuity between the two documents is strengthened by the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium makes specific mention of St. Pius X in the opening paragraph of the chapter on Sacred Music (112).***

Of course, these are but two documents from the 1900’s. If we wanted a more complete treatment of the subject, we should try to visit every major document written on music from Pius X through the present. (Of course, it would be nice to also look at documents written before Pius X, but I think beginning with him will give us more than enough to do.)

Further, this is only one topic (that of instrumentation in the Liturgy) among many important topics for our time, not the least of which is the place of Latin and Gregorian Chant (in particular the Propers) in the Liturgy.

From here, then, where are we to go? Allow me to formulate the key questions as well as the ground rules for hermeneutics we employ. I will try very hard to state the questions in a neutral manner, not one geared towards my own agenda.

Question One. What style(s) of music are appropriate for use in the Sacred Liturgy?

Question Two. What instrumentation best suits the style(s) from Question One?

Question Three. What language, Latin or the vernacular, best suits the style(s) from Question One?

For a proper hermeneutic, ground rules need established. However, I am willing to discuss these ground rules and not simply take them as a given. They form the hermeneutic from which I approach this problem because it is the hermeneutic that Pope Benedict has proposed, but I readily recognize that others may be viewing the issues through a different lens. Lest we fall into relativism, before commencing a discussion on Sacred Music, we should first reach agreement on a proper hermeneutic.

Ground Rule One.

The Liturgy is not the result of our own creative efforts, but is something that we receive through Sacred Tradition. As such, issues of Sacred Music are not matters of opinion. Truth is objective and can be reached through honest and humble dialog in which each participant abandons himself and, along with the self, any preconceptions that accompany it.

Ground Rule Two.

We abandon ourselves to what the Church has actually written on these matters. I welcome theological arguments; they can certainly be beneficial in aiding our understanding on the Sacred Liturgy. It is clear that both sides can present these sorts of defenses, but in the end we must recognize the axiom Roma locuta est, causa finita est. We must recognize that obedience is only a virtue when we are met with a teaching that we do not fully understand. This is particularly important when looking at Vatican II; it is the documents that are the fruit of the Council, and it is therefore the documents that should speak for the Council.

Ground Rule Three.

When presenting Church teaching, we must read this teaching in continuity with the entire history of the Church. This requires an honest and meticulous analysis of a plethora of magisterial writings. It also requires us to abandon the notion that Vatican II was a deliberate rupture with the Church’s tradition; we must do our best to see the Second Vatican Council as (1) just as important as any other ecumenical Council, and (2) no more important than any other ecumenical Council.

This is a serious issue, and as such it requires serious attention. Let us engage it responsibly in a spirit of prayer and humble self-abandonment with the confidence that the Holy Spirit will guide us to truth and protect us against being “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14).

Let’s take off the gloves.

* The request to abandon hyperbole came from one of my more eloquent critics, one who actually attempted to engage the issues and not merely issue ad hominum attacks, for which I am grateful. It is a request that is both insightful and aimed at advancing the conversation for the better.


** The Motu Propio of Pius X (1903) was originally titled Tra le sollecitudini in Italian. A Latin translation followed it immediately entitled Inter plurimas pastoralis officii sollicitudines, which is often shortened to Inter sollicitudines, not to be confused with the 1515 Papal Bull of Pope Leo X. I have opted here for the Latin title.


*** I readily admit that Inter sollicitudines itself is not referenced, but merely the name of Pius X. Nevertheless, the mention of the name of Pius X is but one piece of evidence of continuity. The content of the paragraph itself makes up the crux of the evidence.


Filed under: General Stuff