Showing posts with label Tradition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tradition. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

The Chapel Veil Campaign


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Starting in Advent 2011, the U.S. Catholic Church is to begin its long awaited, and much anticipated, liturgical reforms of the English mass. The new translation, demanded by the Vatican, will reflect a much more accurate rendering of the official Latin version of the Novus Ordo liturgy issued by Rome nearly 40 years ago. (You can download a PDF of the new English mass HERE.) This marks a major shift in the American Church toward a more traditional and orthodox approach to the liturgy. You can read more about the coming changes here.

Some women have expressed to 'The Catholic Knight' a desire to return to the time honored custom of wearing the chapel veil during mass, and see the coming liturgical changes as a perfect opportunity to do this. Returning to this tradition will serve to further reinforce the message that the Catholic Church is the same today as it was yesterday, and the time honored customs of the Church have not died out, but on the contrary, live and breath through a new generation of Catholic women.

Sacred Scripture presents several reasons for wearing the chapel veil. St. Paul tells us in his first letter to the Corinthians (11:1-16) that Christian women must cover their heads because it is a Sacred Tradition commanded by our Lord Himself and entrusted to Paul: "The things I am writing to you are the Lord's commandments" (1 Cor. 14:37). "That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels" wrote St. Paul (1 Cor. 11:10). The invisible hierarchy should be respected because the angels are present at all Christian assemblies during worship, offering the Holy Sacrifice with us according to the honor due to God. St. John the Apostle wrote: "And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense that he might offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne." (Rev. 8:3, see also Matt. 18:10). They are offended by a lack of reverence at mass. The women of Corinth, beset by modern sensibilities, started coming to church without their heads covered. When St. Paul heard of their neglect, he wrote and urged them to keep the veil. According to St. Jerome's commentary Bible, he finally settled the matter by saying the head covering was a custom of the primitive communities of Judea, "the Churches of God" (1 Thess. 2-14, 2 Thess. 1-4) which had received this Tradition from early times (2 Thess., 2:15, 3:6). The “veil” represented modesty in many religions and cultures, especially in Judaism which was the cradle of the early Christian Church. A veil or head covering, is both a symbol and a mystical sacrifice that invites the woman wearing it to ascend the ladder of sanctity. When a woman covers her head in the Catholic Church it symbolizes her dignity and humility before God. It should not surprise us why so many modern women have so easily abandoned the tradition of the chapel veil (head covering) when the greatest meaning of the veil is modesty. It is purely an anti-Catholic culture that frowns on modesty. Do not be deceived, it was Secular feminism (a militantly anti-Catholic movement), that shunned Catholic women for wearing the chapel veil, telling them that a male dominated Church seeks to repress them. Such lunacy was nothing more than a lie straight from hell. If it were true, women would have been instructed to veil in the presence of men, but that is not the case at all. Both Sacred Scripture and previous canon law instructed women to veil in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (not men), and particularly during the public prayer of the holy mass. The veil is a sign of modesty before our Eucharistic Lord. It is NOT a sign of male dominance. You can learn more about the custom of the chapel veil and what it means here.

'The Chapel Veil Campaign' is accompanied by a survey poll which can be viewed at the top of this blog. 'The Catholic Knight' requests that all you Catholic ladies out there review this material and prayerfully consider it. Then cast your vote in the accompanying poll to express your support for The Chapel Veil Campaign. Your vote of support will help other Catholic women muster the courage to do the same. The idea is to encourage young Catholic women all over the English-speaking world to put away the rebellion of the 1970s "hippy" generation, and start wearing the chapel veil again.

In the United States, the new English translation of the liturgy is currently scheduled to go into effect in Advent of 2011. That's because the US Catholic bishops no longer have permission from the Vatican to celebrate the "defective" English translation of the Novus Ordo mass we've been using since the 1970s. Since permission to celebrate it has been revoked, the US Catholic bishops will be unable to delay the transition anymore.

The return of the chapel veil, along with the liturgical renewal in the English translation of the mass, will send a clear and definite signal to the world that English-speaking Catholics have not lost the time-honored traditions of our sacred Catholic faith.

Please pass this message on by sending a Chapel Veil Campaign link to friends and family...
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007/12/chapel-veil-campaign.html


'The Catholic Knight' welcomes your comments...

Related Stories...

Saturday, May 22, 2010

An Interview With Fr. Jeffery Fasching

Bishop James V. Johnston assists Father Jeffery Fasching during
the Traditional Latin Mass at St. Agnes Cathedral in Springfield Missouri.
Sunday, May 9th 2010

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The following is an exclusive interview of Father Jeffery Fasching by The Catholic Knight (TCK). It is a followup to his article entitled Young Priest Discovers Renewal In Old Rite. Father Jeff Fasching serves as pastor for the Latin Mass Community at St. Agnes Cathedral in Springfield Missouri.

--------------------
TCK: Father Fasching, first I want to thank you for your service to the Church and for granting this interview. It is a pleasure and an honor to share this time with you.

Fasching: You're very welcome for the interview. It is my pleasure to have the opportunity to address some questions regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I am truly humbled that you have taken an interest in the ministry God has bestowed upon me.

TCK: In your article you indicated a general renewal in your approach to the liturgy and the eucharist by learning the traditional Latin mass, also known as the "Tridentine," Extraordinary Form and Usus Antiquior (or "ancient use") mass. Would you like to elaborate on this?

Fasching: I indicated in my previous article that I have experienced somewhat of a "spiritual renewal" in my approach to the Liturgy and the Eucharist through becoming familiar with the Traditional Latin Mass. Up until less than a year ago, all I had known for the thirteen years I have been ordained was the Novus Ordo mass. When a brother priest and some mutual friends introduced me to Summorum Pontificum in the fall of 2009, an excitement came over me I had not felt in quite some time. Part of this excitement was due to my first-hand experience of many priests taking unnecessary liberties with the liturgy. For example, I was once asked in an RCIA class by a priest to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass while simultaneously pausing to explain the various parts of the Mass to the class! This is common practice for many priests. I don't believe it is necessary here for me to explain why this is inappropriate. The point is that Summorum Pontificum made it clear to me that our Holy Father's desire is to restore a sense of the sacred to the Liturgy that has been sadly lost over the past few decades: "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too...It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

I was also thrilled because it occurred to me that so many saintly priests throughout the ages offered the Holy Sacrifice with the Traditional Latin Mass using exactly the same gestures and words that I would soon come to know myself. As soon as I began to learn the Traditional Latin Mass, I immediately experienced a growing bond toward my favorite saint, John Marie Vianney. Not only was our Holy Father encouraging priests to learn the Traditional Latin Mass, but he was also proclaiming John Vianney patron of all priests! God chose to manifest the dignity and essence of the priesthood of Jesus Christ in this humble priest. Saint John Marie Vianney exemplifies what every priest, whether diocesan or religious, should strive and aspire to be. Since I so often fall short of this ideal, I thought at least I could do one thing exactly the same way my favorite saint used to!

I knew that other modern-day saints, such as Padre Pio and JoseMaria Escriva said the ancient Mass as well. There was obviously a reason for this. Despite what some see as a disfigured image of the priesthood today, the priesthood of Jesus Christ remains timeless and magnificent in its essence. In this age the priesthood is in dire need of reform and renewal. Summorum Pontificum is a large part of the answer to this renewal because it helps to restore unity to our Lex orandi (Law of prayer.)

Learning the Traditional Latin Mass has also enriched my personal prayer life. For example, each day for me begins with at least one hour of Eucharistic adoration (praying before the Blessed Sacrament exposed.) When I anticipate offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form as I pray before our Lord, I experience an almost indescribable bond with the Tradition of Holy Mother the Church. I believe this bond comes from realizing that I will confect the Eucharist following the exact same rubrics that so many other saints much holier than myself have done before me. I feel an unmistakable unity with the Church Triumphant through the Liturgy and the Eucharist.

TCK: Some readers of TCK blog have requested clarification on your views of the Novus Ordo (new order) or Ordinary Form mass. They wish to know if you view the Ordinary Form, when properly celebrated, as somehow deficient or incapable of transmitting the same graces as the Extraordinary Form. How would you answer this?

Fasching: I appreciate the concern of many of your readers regarding the notion that the Novus Ordo Mass is in some way deficient when it comes to transmitting graces when compared to the Traditional Latin Mass. I don't believe this at all! We are speaking of two forms of the very same rite. Let's review the Church's teaching on this subject that dates way back to the fourth century.

When a sacrament is celebrated according to the norms of the Church and in faith, the Church believes that it confers the grace it signifies. While a human being is the minister of the sacrament, Christ Himself is the one who is at work: Christ baptizes, Christ confirms, Christ absolves, Christ changes the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, etc. Acting in His sacraments, Christ communicates the grace-that sharing in the divine life and love of God-offered through each sacrament. (Catechism no. 1127-28.)

Therefore, the Church has taught that the sacraments act ex opere operato that is "by the very fact of the action’s being performed." The efficacy of the sacrament does not depend upon the human minister- whether a bishop, priest, deacon or layperson. Nevertheless, priests must strive always to be worthy ministers of the sacraments they celebrate, acting in a state of grace and reflecting the Christ in whose person they act.

The faithful need to pray for their priests that they will have the grace to lead holy lives and persevere in their sacred vocation. We must not forget the thousands upon thousands of priests and religious who have devoted their lives to the Lord and the Church, but never have received media attention for their good work.

In many places, the image of the Catholic priesthood is in disarray. Many priests are discouraged by the failings of a few of their brother priests. Some are even afraid or ashamed to wear the clerical collar out of fear of what people will think or say. We live in the midst of troubled times. Our Holy Father is being persecuted and so are many of us. However, the Church will be purged and purified. As a result, we will have a stronger, holier Church in the end. Graces will flow from both forms of the same rite, but priests who put on the mind of our Holy Father and strive to lead holy lives will more quickly help the Church reach her destiny.

TCK: I know this may seem like a silly question, but as a "Traditional priest" do you accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as they were written?

Fasching: As a Traditional priest, I absolutely accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as they are written. I would like to take this opportunity to focus on one particular statement resulting from the Second Vatican Council:

"And so I (Pope John Paul, II) desire that all of you should, with me, find in Mary the Mother of the priesthood which we have received from Christ...among the people of God which look to Mary with immense love and hope, you must look to her with exceptional love and hope. Indeed it is your task to proclaim Christ, her Son. And who can better communicate to you the truth about Him than His Mother? It is your task to nourish men's hearts with Christ. And who can make you more aware of what you are doing than she who nourished Him? Hail, true Body, born of the Virgin Mary. There is a wonderful dimension to our ministerial priesthood: it places us near the Mother of Christ." (Vol. 2, p. 360)

Mary is the Mother and the Queen of Priests. It has been God's divine plan to will to become incarnate and to become a priest with and only with the previous consent and cooperation of His Blessed Mother. I, in turn, would not have become her child and a priest of God unless she willed it and chose to adopt me as her son. I am so happy and grateful to belong to the Blessed Virgin Mary by her personal choice and by an immutable and eternal decree of our Heavenly Father. Christ loves His Mother more than all other creatures together. I believe He wishes me, His other self, to love her even as He has loved her. This I strive to do.

Although Christ is God, He willed while on earth to receive everything through His Blessed Mother. He made known all His needs to her and addressed to her all His requests. I try to do the same. God is infinitely good and powerful and Christ is ready to give me everything as His priest, but He will not do so without receiving a sign from His Immaculate Mother.

Mary is the distributor and the Mediatrix of all graces. Since Christ willed to be entirely dependent upon His Mother as a tiny infant, I believe in order to please Christ I must also have that same humble and loving subjection. I try not to undertake anything without her or her council and I strive to always ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to enlighten me.

Since Christ also willed to have her consent not only to receive human life, but also to lay it down on the Cross, I also try to pay her the homage of my entire priestly life, all my activity, my joys, and my suffering. The Blessed Virgin Mary gave Christ His human existence and offered Him to God as a holocaust at the foot of the Cross. She is invisibly present at every Mass I offer and she continues with me, her priestly son, to offer Christ as a Victim to God.

TCK: In your article you highlighted the connection between holy mass and Eucharistic adoration. In the Western Church today, it would seem there is not only a mental disconnect on this, but a casual approach toward the Eucharist in general. By this I mean communion in the hand while standing for example. The Holy Father has sought to restore the traditional custom of receiving the Eucharist while kneeling and on the tongue. This of course is standard practice in the traditional Latin mass, and has now become the standard practice in all papal liturgies as well. Do you believe this practice should be promoted in the modern vernacular mass too, and could you elaborate on this?

Fasching: I do believe that the practice of receiving Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue should be promoted and practiced at all times because it better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful, and lends itself more easily to the sense of sacredness and mystery. The above are some of the ideas that have been lost over recent decades, particularly in the Novus Ordo Mass.

As a former athlete who played football and basketball in college and an avid runner, I am well aware of the strength needed in one’s knees to perform certain tasks. Knees are symbolic of both strength and humility. What we do with our knees gives evidence of what we believe in our hearts. When we genuflect before Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, we express what matters most in our lives. In the Acts of the Apostles we are told that Saint Peter "knelt down and prayed" (9:40), and that Saint Paul "knelt down and prayed with them all" (20:36). One of my favorite scripture passages that gives the strongest theological foundation for kneeling is found in Saint Paul's Letter to the Philippians, 2:6-11, where Saint Paul writes: "…at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father".

I believe that the most respectful manner of receiving the Eucharist is kneeling and on the tongue. When we enter a Eucharistic adoration chapel we kneel down to pray. Why would we not want to kneel when actually receiving the very flesh and blood of our Lord? We must recover the respect and reverence that the Eucharist deserves by our external actions because I believe our inward souls are at stake.

TCK: It seems there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the Church between contemporary and traditional Catholics. That misunderstanding sometimes leads to unnecessary hostility between them. Perhaps this comes from a misplaced fear of the unknown, or perhaps the false notion that all Traditional Catholics seek to "take the Church back in time." What do you think might eliminate some of this unnecessary hostility and misunderstanding?

Fasching: There does seem to be a prevailing notion that Traditional Catholics want to "take the Church back in time." This is based on a common lack of understanding of the mind of our Holy Father. Pope Benedict has reminded us that the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form are two forms of the same rite and are co-equal:

"The usus antiquior is not a museum piece but a living expression of Catholic worship...what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred for us too...It is a treasure that belongs to the whole Catholic Church and which should be widely available to all of Christ's faithful...It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer and to give them their proper place."

Some common misunderstandings with respect to Vatican II include the following:

The priest facing the people was not introduced by Vatican II. It became the unwritten practice in the Novus Ordo mass without any directives from Vatican II or by the Missal of 1969. Cardinal Ratzinger said in The Spirit of the Liturgy that the priest in facing the congregation is tempted “to be an actor.” The Mass is not a performance, therefore applause is inappropriate. The Mass is a sacrifice and must transcend the personality of the priest.

The official language of the Novus Ordo is Latin and the Mass may be celebrated either in Latin or in English. The practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not called for by Vatican II. This sprang up as an abuse and was subsequently accepted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1977 by a slim majority. This indult can be withdrawn at any time.

The Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict making the Traditional Mass more available should be viewed as “reform of the reform,” a renewal of the Church began by liturgical renewal. The vast majority of the thousands of bishops at the Council neither wished for, nor mandated, a radical reform of the liturgy. It was never the intention to abandon the use of Latin or to require the celebrant to face the people. Nothing had been said about standing to receive Communion in the hand, or the use of altar girls. No mention had been made about the use of multiple Canons. In the Roman rite there had always been one Eucharistic prayer. The many changes in the liturgy were for the most part made after Vatican II. Interpretation of the Council’s intent was motivated by what became known as “the Spirit of Vatican II.”

The most grievous change following Vatican II was the loss of reverence. As a result, consciousness of the Real Presence has diminished. The Traditional Latin Mass helps restore this loss of reverence and sense of the real presence due to its contemplative nature. It is surrounded by silence. There is clear emphasis on the Mass as the same sacrifice Christ offered on Calvary, although in a bloodless manner. Every gesture by the priest, the signs of the cross, the genuflections, are strictly controlled by the rubrics. There is nothing spontaneous. In fact our Holy Father has said that the greatness of the liturgy depends on its lack of spontaneity. The Mass is designed to be an elaborate ritual of “time outside of time.”

The Holy Father has emphasized that through the Motu Proprio he wishes to enrich the liturgy of the whole of the Church and not merely to protect the right of those who prefer the ancient form. Pope Benedict’s point in making the Traditional Latin Mass more widely available is neither nostalgic nor “taking us back.” Rather, by encouraging the more widespread celebration of this classic form of Roman rite, he intends to create a kind of liturgical magnet, drawing ‘the reform of the reform’ in the direction of greater solemnity and reverence in the Catholic Church’s worship.”

TCK: Once again I would like to thank you for the privilege of speaking with you, and for granting us this interview. May God bless you in the work you are doing for the Diocese of Springfield - Cape Girardeau.

Fasching: Thank you Catholic Knight for granting me this interview and for all you do in the battle against relativism in the Church. I hope to speak with you in the near future.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Young Priest Discovers Renewal In Old Rite

Father Jeffery Fasching Elevates the Eucharist at
the Traditional Latin Mass in St. Agnes Cathedral - Springfield, Missouri
May 9th. 2010
A Catholic Priest is first and foremost a man of prayer. Prayer alone with our Lord is the single most important activity that I engage in each and every day. If any priest tells you otherwise, he does not have his priorities in order. A significant number of seminarians and priests attribute their vocations to Eucharistic adoration. I am one of them. Being alone with the Lord with no distractions each day makes for a very personal visit through which I am able to listen to the Lord speak to me.

The Eucharist is a priceless treasure. I first began to learn this in my home parish of Saint Francis of Assisi in Wichita, KS when I was in my early twenties. As I began to discern my vocation, I felt a powerful attraction toward regularly visiting our Lord in the perpetual adoration chapel in the parish. Our Lord spoke to me in my heart with an overwhelming invitation to confect the Eucharist and bring Christ to the world. From that time on I realized that among the many possibilities that life offered me at that point, nothing could begin to compare with working for the salvation of souls as a Catholic priest.

Over the years I have truly experienced first hand how the words of Pope Benedict XVI ring true regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and adoration: “Only within the breathing space of adoration can the Eucharistic celebration indeed be alive…Communion and adoration do not stand side by side, or even in opposition, but are indivisibly one.”

Less than a year ago I learned of our Holy Father’s milestone document “Summorum Pontificum,” which restored to priests the freedom to celebrate the “extraordinary form” of the Roman rite. With the help of an on-line tutorial, I trained myself to offer Mass in the extraordinary form. The reason for my attraction toward the Latin Mass is twofold: my traditional upbringing and my experience of an unwillingness on the part of many priests to follow the rubrics of the mass.

Since I have been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the extraordinary form I have experienced both a strengthening of my faith and great consolation as a Traditional priest who has experienced tremendous support from a Traditional, like-minded bishop. I have experienced a deeper union with the Church and our Holy Father through the classical Roman Liturgy because so many saints throughout the ages have offered the Holy Sacrifice precisely the same way that I am able to do right now.

As children of God our relationship with God is by far the most important relationship we can have. This relationship is intimately united with the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. It is through the Mass alone that we are able to receive our Lord in Holy Communion and thereby nourish our personal relationship with Him. My experience has been that in any human relationship the words we use and the actions we perform play a significant role in the success of that particular relationship. Since our salvation depends upon our relationship with God, we should take extreme care with the words and actions of the Sacred Liturgy.

The documents of Vatican II clearly state that no individual, not even a priest, has the right to change the rubrics of the Sacred Liturgy. Nevertheless, this practice is common-place in many parishes. When a priest changes the words and gestures of the Sacred Liturgy he endangers the faith of those for whom he celebrates and thereby becomes responsible for diminishing the integrity of their belief. In learning to offer the Traditional Latin Mass that has grown under the influence of the Holy Ghost for so many centuries, I have experienced tremendous peace in the midst of casual behavior and gratuitous changes of words and gestures so prevalent in many parishes around me.

The Catholic Faith and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are the greatest gifts God has bestowed upon us. Therefore we must nourish our faith, grow in it, and never take what God has given us for granted. The Sacred Liturgy has been given to us by God to remain in contact with Him. As a priest, it is therefore incumbent upon me to help others to see how important the Liturgy is for our daily lives. The vestments, chalice, and all other items used during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should show that we want to give back to God the most beautiful things that we have when we are in communion with Him.

The principle aim of the Church is to bring people into communion with the Lord through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Mass is the source and summit of our lives as Catholic Christians. Consequently, Liturgical matters have always been of the utmost importance with respect to Holy Mother Church. Despite this, many pastors do not even care to take charge of how liturgies are performed in their own parishes! As a result, I have experienced a tremendous lack of knowledge among the lay faithful with respect to Catholic doctrine.

This is precisely where I believe my mission as a priest sympathetic to the extraordinary form of the Mass begins. Recently appointed pastor of a growing Latin Mass community, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to share my God-given faith with others who have it their aim to draw nourishment from the Sacred Liturgy that has nourished countless others throughout the centuries in the life of Holy Mother the Church.

Written by the Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching
Diocese of Springfield - Cape Girardeau

For more read The Catholic Knight's exclusive interview with Father Jeff Fasching HERE.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Frequently The Catholic Knight is privileged to make the acquaintance of some remarkable people in the Catholic Church who have been inspired by the liturgical renewal of Pope Benedict XVI. The above article was written by one such person. Father Jeffrey Fasching is a new Traditional Latin Mass priest in Springfield Missouri. He is currently serving at St. Agnes Cathedral. Having just discovered historic Catholic tradition less than a year ago, he has been transformed and energized by the spiritual depth of the Usus Antiquior. Father Fasching is meeting the desperate need of faithful Catholics in a diocese where many people are struggling to understand the intentions of our Holy Father. The Catholic Knight is pleased to present this exclusive article written by Father Fasching, and hopes to bring you more from him in the near future.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Vatican Prefect On Kneeling For Communion


[La Razón:] Nevertheless, Benedict XVI has reiterated in some instances the propriety of receiving communion kneeling and in the mouth. Is it something important, or is it a mere matter of form?

[Cañizares:] - No, it is not just a matter of form. What does it mean to receive communion in the mouth? What does it mean to kneel before the Most Holy Sacrament? What dies it mean to kneel during the consecration at Mass? It means adoration, it means recognizing the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist; it means respect and an attitude of faith of a man who prostrates before God because he knows that everything comes from Him, and we feel speechless, dumbfounded, before the wondrousness, his goodness, and his mercy. That is why it is not the same to place the hand, and to receive communion in any fashion, than doing it in a respectful way; it is not the same to receive communion kneeling or standing up, because all these signs indicate a profound meaning. What we have to grasp is that profound attitude of the man who prostrates himself before God, and that is what the Pope wants.

source
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: So while traditionalist Catholics have been ignored and berated for years, it finally turns out that they've been right all along - at least on this issue.

It's been a long time coming. Once again the Vatican points us back to our historic traditions. We Catholics need to start acting like Catholics again. As the new prefect points out; standing or kneeling for communion is not the same, and it is not just a matter of form. That's why Protestants don't do it. You'll notice that Protestants don't kneel at the consecration, when they visit a Catholic mass, simply because they don't believe in the real presence. They know EXACTLY what kneeling means. To kneel is to show adoration. That's why they don't do it. Funny how so many Catholics seem to have forgotten this when it comes time to receive the blessed sacrament.

So the question is what to do now. Should Catholics take it upon themselves to begin kneeling and receiving on the tongue during the Ordinary Form liturgy, or should they wait for the USCCB to come out with some kind of statement on the matter. If the latter, we may be waiting for a hundred years. Maybe it's time to just do what we know is right, and what the Vatican confirms is right. Based on papal liturgies, and now these words from the CDW prefect, the official position of the Vatican is that Catholics should kneel and receive communion on the tongue. While the official position of the USCCB is that Catholics should stand and receive communion on the hand. So which is it? Do we obey the Vatican or the USCCB? After all is said and done, that's what it comes down to. We must chose between the USCCB, which has no real governing authority, or the Vatican, which is the apostolic See of Peter. What's it going to be? Peter or the USCCB? I know my position. 'The Catholic Knight' will be kneeling and receiving communion on the tongue no matter what mass I'm attending.  The only exception to that would be if kneeling might hold up the line or cause some kind of disturbance.  In which case I will at least receive the sacrament on the tongue while standing, as they do in the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church.

The point is we've got to take a stand somewhere - (no pun intended). If we don't boldly show our reverence for the eucharistic Lord at mass, when shall we do it? Now I'm not talking about making a scene. The mass should never be a place for calling attention to one's self, but at the same time, it should not be a place for the disciples of modernism to strip our faith of everything we hold dear. Now is as good a time as any to do something about it, and the Vatican has affirmed our right to do it. So let's do it in a spirit of true reverence for our eucharistic Lord, and with no spite or malice toward anyone. Let's all agree to boycott the hand for starters. No more communion in the hand. From now on communion on the tongue in all circumstances. Then when the opportunity presents itself, and doing so will not cause a disruption of any kind, we kneel down to receive the Lord. Is there anybody out there with me on this?

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

LIFETEEN Founder Excommunicated

Teenagers Gather Around the Alter During the Consecration
As Was A Common Practice In LIFETEEN Masses Some Time Ago
Only A Few LIFETEEN Parishes Still Continue This Practice
(AP) - Phoenix's Catholic bishop has excommunicated a priest who started a nondenominational ministry after the priest was charged with misdemeanor sexual misconduct.

The action announced Monday against Monsignor Dale Fushek, once the diocese's second highest-ranking administrator, was a response to his creation of the Praise and Worship Center in Chandler....

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It's time for Catholic parishes around the nation to rethink what they're doing. Yes, as Catholics we MUST reach out to the youth in our own congregations, but we need to reconsider how we're doing it.

For starters let's look at the English version of the mass itself. We're currently using a translation of the liturgy that the Vatican has labeled "defective" (read more here), and has revoked our permission to keep using it. That's why a new English translation has been approved by the Vatican and the USCCB, which will be put into use sometime in 2010.

The pope has also made it clear that we should expect more changes to the Ordinary Form of the mass, that will reintroduce traditions long since forgotten by most Catholics. For example, we can expect to see the use of high alter candle configurations, wherein the priest always faces a crucifix, and sometimes (when appropriate) the use of the ad orientem posture, where the priest faces east. We can expect to see the reintroduction of bells at the consecration, along with the use of more incense. The pope has also suggested the use of Latin at the consecration itself in all masses, no matter what language it's celebrated in. He is also planning on moving the "sign of peace" closer to the creed so as to create a greater atmosphere of solemnity during the eucharistic prayers. He has already indicated he would like to see greater use of traditional sacred music (such as Gregorian chant) during mass. The list goes on and on.

What's the message being sent here? It should be obvious. The Catholic Church needs to start being "Catholic" again, embracing our historical traditions, and giving them new life in the modern world. The changes coming out of the Vatican should serve as a guide for the average parish liturgist and choirmaster. We're heading toward a period of greater solemnity, greater reverence, and more tradition. Parishes that resist this change will only get left behind and ultimately hurt themselves.

But what about the youth? How will they be able to relate? Those who seriously ask such questions are operating on a template that is about 30 years old. The pop culture folk masses (which are epitomized by LIFETEEN) are an antiquated relic of the last generation. Youth may still be seeking out loud contemporary music, but mass is not where they really want to find it. Contemporary Christian music is a huge industry now. There are radio stations around the nation 100% dedicated to playing these songs around the clock. Youth can listen to these songs on their car radios, iPods and MP3 players. In fact, they often do. Over the last 30 years a new phenomenon has developed called the "Christian rock concert," wherein Christian youth can scream, dance, wave their hands in the air, etc. This didn't exist in the 1970s and 80s, but it does now, and it's bigger than ever. The youth hear this music all the time, outside of mass, and in fact, it's usually a lot better than anything the local parish choir can produce. Yes there is an outlet for Catholic youth in contemporary music, and Catholic parishes SHOULD be promoting it, but not at mass!

The point is the youth of today can get their pop culture music, in Christian variety form, anywhere they want. There is even a "Catholic flavor" of Christian pop music -- believe it or not. What, you've never heard? Ask any Catholic teenager. Many surveys are now perplexing Church leadership with results finding that the majority of practicing Catholic youths are more "pre-Vatican II" in their mentality. How could that be? and why? For starters, Vatican II has nothing to do with it. What it really has to do with is the sense of solemnity. When Catholic youth visit mass, they're not looking to hear the same thing they can get on their iPods and MP3 players. They're looking for something completely different. They're looking for a sense of the sacred. They want mystery. They want other-worldly. They want to escape the trappings of this earth to meet the Lord in sublime reverence and awe. That's why so many of them are flocking to the Extraordinary Form of the mass. It has nothing to do with Latin. It has nothing to do with the 1962 Missal. It's about solemnity, mystery, reverence and transcending everyday reality. That's something they can't get on their iPods and MP3 players. That's something they don't hear on the car radio, and it's something they will never experience at a Christian rock concert. It's something that only the Catholic Church can give them, that is, IF their local parish is willing.

The excommunication of LIFETEEN founder Dale Fushek should be an eye opening watershed to most LIFETEEN parishes, and contemporary Catholic parishes in general. Fushek's excommunication had nothing to do with LIFETEEN, directly, but it did have a lot to do with the attitude and mindset of the man who created LIFETEEN. It was an attitude and a mindset that got him into trouble with the law, and ultimately led him to create a "nondenominational worship center" outside of the Catholic Church -- effectively a schismatic act. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying LIFETEEN is schismatic, but I am saying that it was produced by a schismatic mind, and that in itself should be cause for alarm. When you compound this with the obvious problems associated with the current English mass translation (soon to be retired), and a general loss of historic Catholic traditions, you can begin to see the possible dangers. The tragic and saddening event of Dale Fushek's excommunication should be a wake-up call to Catholic parishes all around the nation. Perhaps it's time to look to the pope for new guidance and reconsider the direction of the American Church.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

The Chapel Veil - Veiling or Head Covering - Fully Explained

Chaldean Catholic Women Attend Sunday Mass

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Unfortunately, something as simple as a chapel veil has become somewhat of a controversy in the modern Catholic Church. To be more accurate, it's not so much a controversy in the "modern" Catholic Church as it is in the "western" Catholic Church, particularly in English-speaking nations. One would not find so much of a controversy if one were to visit a Catholic Church in the third world. There one would find the chapel veil used by many Catholic women almost universally. Eastern Orthodox women also veil in these regions. While here in the western industrialized world, eastern Orthodox women (along with eastern Catholic women in the Byzantine Rite) have kept the custom a bit more faithfully than western Catholic women in the general Roman Rite. Yes, veiling in some form was even common in most Protestant communities for many centuries prior to the 1960s. In some Protestant groups the custom evolved into large elaborate hats, which one can still see practiced in the Methodist Episcopal denomination. The custom is also still practiced in the form of lace mantillas and/or bonnets among the Amish, Mennonites, the Apostolic Christian Church, some Pentecostal groups, which includes the 'Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith,' and the stricter Dutch Reformed churches. Though most Protestant denominations have no official expectation that women veil, some individual ladies choose to practice the custom according to their understanding of 1st Corinthians 11.

The chapel veil was the custom of all Catholic churches (eastern and western), everywhere in the world (including English-speaking nations) for nearly 2,000 years. The custom only fell out of use among western Catholic women, particularly in English-speaking nations, in just the last 30-40 years. Why is that?

A movement was introduced to western culture at around the same time that explains a lot of it. The movement was called feminism. Like most social movements born in the 1960s, some good did come out of it. But at the same time, some not-so-good things came out of it. On the positive side, feminism pushed for equality for women in the workplace and in government. On the negative side, feminism saddled women with burdens they never bargained for, and in some ways made their struggle worse than it was before. The long term effects of feminism (positive and negative) will be debated for decades to come, and that is not the purpose of this article. So for now, we'll leave the sociology to the sociologists.

What concerns us is feminism's effect on Catholic women in western cultures, particularly those in English-speaking nations. The most noticeable effect in such nations was the rapid disappearance of the chapel veil from mass. Almost overnight the veil was gone. This was accompanied by the release of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, which no longer mentioned chapel veils. Since the new Code of Canon Law abrogated the older code, it was assumed by many that the custom of veiling was also abrogated, simply because it was no longer mentioned. That combined with feminist influences on Catholic women in western nations led to the popular misconception that veiling is now optional, and women are no longer required to do it. As a result, it came to be the norm for older traditional women to keep wearing the veil, while younger Catholic women discarded it completely.

The feminist transformation of western Catholic women was accomplished mainly though propaganda. It was propaganda that fit the feminist mindset very well, but actually mischaracterized and falsely represented the Catholic mindset. Women were told that the veil represented male oppression, and that a male controlled Catholic Church sought to dominate women by forcing their subjection through the symbolic act of veiling while in Church. (Now none of this is true, and if it were, yours truly would be against the chapel veil as well.) The tide of feminism was overwhelming in western culture, particularly in English-speaking nations, and as a result most Catholic women simply accepted this propaganda as truth without ever questioning it. Thirty years have gone by, and one can easily find Catholic women who still accept the propaganda without question, having never even heard a rebuttal.

It would appear the Vatican listened to the feminist movement, and did find a potential problem in the Code of Canon Law that could be made as a case to bolster the erroneous feminist argument. It was possibly for this reason the Vatican dropped the chapel veil requirement from the Code of Canon Law. Under the old Code of Canon Law, women could theoretically be forced under penalty to wear a chapel veil against their will. The problem with this was twofold. First, this canon could be used as a case to bolster the erroneous feminist argument against the chapel veil. Second, this canon actually defeated the authentic Catholic reason for veiling in the first place.

The authentic Catholic reason for wearing the chapel veil is the Biblical reason. It's just something that all Christian women (regardless of denomination) are supposed to do, not because they have to, but because they're supposed to want to. The Catholic Church has decided to no longer enforce this Biblical custom through Canon Law, and in doing so, the Church is saying it does not want to be our nanny. The chapel veil is a custom for women to do voluntarily, because they want to, not because they are being forced to. The idea is that women are to read what the Scriptures have to say, and be convicted according to what is contained therein. In order for a chapel veil to be an authentic sign of humility and holiness, it must be voluntary. Indeed, Christian women are supposed to wear one, but it is never to be forced.

The Scriptural case for the chapel veil...
1st Corinthians 11:2-16
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you...
The tradition of the chapel veil comes from Christ, by way of the Holy Spirit, through St. Paul, for Paul mentions later in this same epistle: "What I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized." - 1st Corinthians 14:37-38 St. Paul commends the Corinthians for keeping the chapel veil tradition, among other traditions, and then he continues in chapter 11...
....But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God...
Here we have the central point of misunderstanding. This verse has been misused time and time again as a means of male superiority. Not only is this a misreading of the text, but it completely misses an important theological point Paul is trying to make. This chapter of Corinthians is entirely Eucharistic, in the sense that it centers around the Eucharistic celebration (or the mass). The following verses (17-34) deal entirely with the celebration of Holy Communion. When Paul says the head of every man is Christ, what he's saying is that Christ came in the form of a man. He's making a statement about the incarnation. He's saying that Christ came in human form, and because of this, the man becomes a physical representation of Christ -- particularly if he is a husband. When he says the head of every woman is her husband, he is not saying that women are inferior to men in any way. What he's saying is that if a husband becomes the physical representation of Christ's incarnation, than his wife becomes the physical representation of Christ's spouse -- or the Church. When Paul says "husband" here, he is referring both to earthly husbands, and to Christ himself. That being the case, wives take on the symbolic role of the Church. Paul continues in chapter 11...
...Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head...
Again, this goes straight back to the incarnation. All of this is a symbol of what we Catholic Christians believe about Christ, his incarnation, and the Eucharist. Paul tells us that if a man covers his head during mass, he dishonors his spiritual "head" which is Christ. In other words, a man who covers his head during mass dishonors Christ, because his action of veiling himself sends the physical statement that Christ was not incarnate as a man. The woman, on the other hand, representing the Church, ought to cover her head because if she believes that Christ is truly incarnate, she should veil herself as a sign that the Church has been made holy by Christ as his spouse. In doing so she honors Christ as a symbol of his sanctification on the Church. She also honors her husband with a physical sign that he represents Christ, because Christ came in the form of a man. The chapel veil is a sign of holiness because Christ has made his Church holy, and women represent the Church as the "bride" of Christ. It is a sign that the Church is covered and under Christ's protection. This is the symbolism of the Church's relationship to Christ. It is not so much a statement of a particular woman's holiness, but rather the Church's holiness. Paul continues...
-- it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil...
Here Paul is really laying it on think, and he has good reason. He's trying to convey a big theological point. Customs in the church are not the result of random happenstance. These things exist for a reason. Under the Old Covenant, both Jewish men and women covered their heads during worship, but the early Jewish Christians changed that custom for a reason. They wanted to make this practice of veiling a symbol of Christ's incarnation, like they did with so many other Jewish traditions, and as Paul mentions in chapter 14 (cited above) these things are not trivial man-made customs, they came from the Holy Spirit Himself. Here Paul is telling us that it is shameful for a Christian woman not to cover her head during mass, and he is using an illustration from antiquity that has to do with punishment. In ancient times, women would have their heads shaved publicly as punishment for lack of modesty. It was a form of public humiliation. Here Paul is not advocating the shaving of a woman's head for refusing to wear the chapel veil, but rather, he is trying to convey the seriousness of the imagery. When a Christian woman refuses to do this, she is in effect saying (though perhaps not intentionally) that Christ was not incarnate in the form of a man. Granted, in modern times this is almost certainly not the intention of any woman who refuses to veil during mass, but what Paul is telling us here is that every custom in the Church has meaning, and because of that, failure to keep those customs also has meaning, whether one intends to convey that meaning or not. It's sort of like bowing, kneeling or genuflecting before the Eucharist for example. Catholics do these things in mass for a reason, and that reason is to stress the real presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament. In practice, we are bowing, kneeling and genuflecting before our God and King, whom we profess to be really and truly present in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. That being the case, if one fails to bow, kneel and genuflect, what kind of signal does that send to those around him/her? One may not intend to send any signals of disrespect, but invariably one can, whether one intends to or not. The custom of the chapel veil has similar significance. Paul continues....
...For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels....
Here we have another commonly abused passage. Again, Paul is not trying to bolster male dominance here. Remember, we have to keep the context of this chapter in mind, and the context of 1st Corinthians 11 is the Eucharistic celebration. Paul calls man the "image and glory of God" for one reason and one reason only -- because Jesus Christ (who is God) was made incarnate as a man. Then he expounds on this by pointing out that the woman is the "glory of man" (or mankind). This is meant to be a complement. Of the two human genders, women are far more "glorious" then men in their appearance, beauty, voice, fashion and general gracefulness. The hair was considered a woman's crowing glory in Biblical times (Song of Songs 6:5). Beyond that, women bear the special gift of motherhood. In that, God touches them in a way no man has ever experienced. The Scriptures tell us that God Himself fashions the unborn child in the womb, and plants a living human soul inside the body of a women when she becomes pregnant (Psalm 139:13-16). In this way, God touches the body of a woman in a way he never touches a man's body. This makes the woman's body a sacred vessel of God's creative powers. It is something that is particularly holy, and must be respected as such. It is no wonder why women are called the "fairer sex." Paul is agreeing with that here. However, Paul is also reminding women not to get too prideful. He reminds them of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, where the woman is made to complement the man, and not vice versa. Now we learn that the chapel veil is also a sign of personal humility in addition to the Church's holiness. The woman not only covers her head as a sign of her belief in a incarnation, not only to show how Christ has made his Church holy, but also to cover her "glory," as a sign of humility to show that she is not vain or overly proud of her womanhood and beauty. The veil or headcovering is a symbol of the woman's acceptance of her role in society, the family, and the Church, in accordance with God's will. It is an imitation of the Virgin Mary, who wore such a headcovering.

Then St. Paul says something very curious. He says the woman ought to veil her head during mass "because of the angels." Paul tells us that the angels participate with us during mass, and this is reinforced by the writings of St. John: "And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense that he might offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne." (Revelation 8:3, see also Matt. 18:10). The angels watch everything that is going on during mass, as they participate in the same liturgy we do. They are also well aware of the customs of the Church and what they mean -- even the custom of veiling. Angels are offended when we ignore or refuse to follow any liturgical custom, whether it be failing to kneel or veil in the presence of our Eucharistic Lord.
...(Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)...
If ever there was a verse to counter the abuse of male dominance, this is it. If ever there was a verse to prove that St. Paul was not a male chauvinist, this is it. Paul follows his previous verse, reminding women to be humble, with this verse, reminding men to be humble too. He doesn't want the men to use what he just wrote as a means of beating down the women in a form of male superiority. He is reminding the men that they are not superior to the women, but rather fully dependent on them, and that both genders come from God. One cannot be "better" than the other. Then he continues with some rhetorical questions to back his point...
...Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering....
Paul is not prohibiting hair styles here. To focus on hair styles is to miss the point. Paul is simply asking a few rhetorical questions based on popular culture. In most cultures women have longer hair then men, and when they do, it usually looks better. He's saying that when a woman has long hair it usually looks beautiful, and when a man has long hair, it usually looks a little odd. In some cultures, long hair is considered a sign of femininity. So if a man has long hair, it looks feminine in those cultures, and that is "degrading" to him. What Paul is doing here is he's appealing to nature. He's saying; "Look, even mother nature teaches us the same lesson. She gives women long hair as a covering and it looks good and proper on them." Then he concludes with this interesting verse...
...If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
Some Bible versions have mistranslated this verse to say "we recognize no such practice, nor do the churches of God." This mistranslation is often used to negate the previous first half of the chapter. In other words, those who abuse such mistranslations say that Paul spent half a chapter, explaining a deep theological principle pertaining to a custom he applauds the Corinthians for keeping, only to say in this last verse that they really don't need to keep it. Such interpretations are silliness. The proper translation is rendered here as "we recognize no other practice." Here Paul is telling the Corinthians not to get too contentious over the chapel veil custom, because he's not going to burden them with anything else beyond that. He's not going to tell men and women how to dress. He's not going to tell them what kind of a veil they should wear, or how they should wear it. He's simply saying that this is the custom as it is practiced in the "churches of God" and they recognize no other practice beyond this.

So the chapel veil has nothing to do with male dominance. It has nothing to do with subjecting women under male authority. It has everything to do with Christ's incarnation, and the real presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

The Bible is very clear about this. Women are supposed to veil in the presence of the Eucharist and in prayer, but at the same time, they are to take it upon themselves to do it. They are not to be forced into it by men, nor coerced into it by the Canon Law of the Church. Coercion actually defeats the whole purpose of veiling. (Which may be one reason why the custom of the veil has no place in canon law.) It has to be voluntary, if it is truly to be a sign of holiness and humility. This is why the Church removed it from Canon Law. It was not to send a signal to women that they need not do it anymore. Rather, it was to tell women that when they veil themselves, it is not because men told them to. It is a sign and symbol coming from them, voluntarily, not as a grudging requirement against their will.

Furthermore, the chapel veil is a sign of the incarnation, illustrated in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Women are supposed to veil in the presence of the Sacrament and in prayer before God. They are not veiling in the presence of men, nor has the tradition of the Church ever required this. The feminist propaganda was wrong. If the chapel veil were a sign of male dominance, than it would have been required in the presence of men, but it is not. Nowhere in Church history, Canon Law, or the Bible, are women required to veil in the presence of men. They are only expected to veil in the presence of our Lord.

Though the custom has generally lapsed in western cultures, particularly English-speaking nations, it is not erased entirely from the conscience of western Christians. For example; what's the first thing a Catholic mom does when her daughter is preparing for first communion and confirmation? She goes out and buys a veil. Likewise, what's one of the most important accessories to a bridal gown? Why it's the veil of course! Finally, when a baseball game or community event is opened in prayer, regardless of the religious denominations of those in attendance, what's the first thing everybody does? The men all remove their hats, and the women do not. Funny how that works, isn't it. This doesn't just happen by accident. It all goes back to the ancient Christian custom of veiling.

Yes, Christian women are supposed to veil during worship, and this is especially true for Catholic women who understand the incarnation of Christ and His real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. According to the Bible, this is not optional. All Christian women are expected to do it, but it is to be done voluntarily, without force or coercion. The custom was removed from the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, but it was never abrogated as a Biblical custom of the Faith. To veil properly, women must do so voluntarily, and they must do so with proper understanding of the custom and what it means. Hopefully this article has been helpful in this.

Related Stories...

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Wearing The Chapel Veil


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It is revealing when one considers how Catholic women all over the world still keep this custom. Unveiled women during mass is a phenomenon mostly seen in the West -- particularly English speaking nations. In a way, we could consider this custom a barometer of sorts. A society's Liberal decadence can be measured in part by how few women veil themselves during mass...
Derived from a book in progress called: "The Unveiled Woman"
by Jackie Freppon

During the second Vatican Council, a mob of reporters waited for news after a council meeting. One of them asked Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, then secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, if women still had to wear a headcover in churches. His response was that the Bishops were considering other issues, and that women's veils were not on the agenda. The next day, the International Press announced throughout the world that women did not have to wear the veil anymore. A few days later, Msgr. Bugnini told the press he was misquoted and women still had to wear the veil. But the Press did not retract the error, and many women stopped wearing the veil out of confusion and because of pressure from feminist groups.

Before the revision in 1983, Canon law had stated that women must cover their heads ". . . especially when they approach the holy table" (Can 1262.2). But in order to reduce such a growing collection of books, the new version of Canon law was subjected to concise changes. In the process, mention of headcoverings was omitted. In 1970, Pope Paul VI promulgated the Roman Missal, ignoring mention of women's veils. But at the time the Missal was published, it didn't seem necessary to keep mandatory such an obvious and universal practice, even if it no longer had a "normative" value (Interinsigniores, #4). And mention in Canon law or the Roman Missal is not necessary to the continuation of the tradition, for it is rooted in Scripture and has been practised ever since the early Church. Indeed, Pope John Paul II affirmed that the real sources of Canon law are the Sacred Tradition, especially as reflected in the ecumenical councils, and Sacred Scripture (O.S.V. Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 169).

SCRIPTURE
Sacred Scripture presents several reasons for wearing the veil. St. Paul tells us in his first letter to the Corinthians (11:1-16) that we must cover our heads because it is Sacred Tradition commanded by our Lord Himself and entrusted to Paul: "The things I am writing to you are the Lord's commandments" (1 Cor. 14:37).

DIVINE HIERARCHY
God has established a heirarchy, in both the natural and religious spheres, in which the female is subject to the male. St. Paul writes in first Corinthians: "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11-3). And, in the institution of marriage, God gave the husband authority over the wife, but responsibility to her as well. Not only is he the family's decision-maker, but he is also responsible for the material and spiritual welfare of his wife and children. Man is not in this position to enslave or belittle the wife. As the Bride, (the Church), is subject to Jesus, women must wear the veil as a sign that they are subjected to men: "Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church." (Eph. 5, 22-23). The man represents Jesus, therefore he should not cover his head. However, this subjection is not derogatory to women, because in God's kingdom everyone is subjected to a higher authority: "For as the woman is from the man, so also is the man through the woman, but all things are from God." (1 Cor. 11, 12). Furthermore, the symbolism of the veil takes that which is invisible, the order established by God, and makes it visible. In the history of the Church, priestly vestments have played a similar symbolic role.

WOMEN'S HONOR
It is an honor to wear the veil. But by publicly repudiating it, a woman dishonors her feminine dignity, the sign of female subjection, just as the military officer is dishonored when he is stripped of his decorations. The Roman Pontifical contains the imposing ceremonial of the consecration of the veils: "Receive the sacred veil, that thou mayst be known to have despised the world, and to be truly, humbly, and with all thy heart subject to Christ as his bride; and may he defend thee from all evil, and bring thee to life eternal" (Pontificale Romanum; de benedictione). St. Paul says an unveiled woman is a dishonor: "But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncoverd disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven" (1 Cor. 11, 5).

BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS
"That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels" wrote St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11, 10. The invisible heirarchy should be respected because the Angels are present at Christian liturgical assemblies, offering with us the Holy Sacrifice with the honor due to God. St. John the Apostle wrote: "And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense that he might offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne." (Rev. 8:3, see also Matt. 18:10). They are offended by a lack of reverence at Mass, just as they abhorred King Herod's acceptance of adoration from the people of Jerusalem: "But immediately an angel of the Lord struck (Herod) down, because he had not given honor to God, and he was eaten by worms, and died." (Acts, 12:23).

ANCIENT TRADITION
The custom of wearing the veil was maintained in the primitive Churches of God. (1 Cor. 11:16). We see this in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians. The women of Corinth, beset by modern sensibilities, started coming to church without their heads covered. When St. Paul heard of their neglect, he wrote and urged them to keep the veil. According to St. Jerome's commentary Bible, he finally settled the matter by saying the head covering was a custom of the primitive communities of Judea, "the Churches of God" (1 Thess. 2-14, 2 Thess. 1-4), which had received this Tradition from early times (2 Thess., 2:15. 3:6).

GOD'S COMMAND
Even today some people erroneously believe that St. Paul based the tradition on his personal opinion. They think he did not intend it to be continued in the Universal Church, but only as a local custom. This argument, however, does not conform to the Pauline spirit. After all, it was Paul who stood before Peter to change Jewish traditions in Christian Churches (Gal. 2:11-21). St. Paul reminds them: "for I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it; but I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:12), referring to the authority of his ministry, and veracity of his words. Pope Linus, who succeeded St. Peter, enforced also the same tradition of women covering their heads in the church (The Primitive Church, TAN). Our Lord warns us to obey His commandments: "He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19).

CONCLUSION
In summary, the reasons that St. Paul advises women to cover their head in the church are:

  • Our Lord commanded it;
  • It is a visible sign of an invisible order established by God;
  • The Angels at Mass are offended if women don't use it;
  • It is a ceremonial vestment;
  • It is our heritage.

Christian women around the world have other reasons to wear a hat, mantilla, rebozo, gele, scarf, shawl or veil. Some wear it out of respect to God; others to obey the Pope's request, or to continue family traditions. But the most important reason of all is because Our Lord said: "if you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). We should always be ready with our bridal veils, waiting for Him and the promised wedding (Apoc. 22:17), following the example of our Blessed Mother, Mary, who never appeared before the eyes of men but properly veiled. To those who still think that the veil is an obsolete custom, remember that: "Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday and today, yes, and forever" (Heb. 13:8).

source

Related Stories...

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Tridentine Mass Touches Jewish Roots of Catholicism

(First Things): In my experience, Catholics who have an affinity for the particularly Judaic character of their Christian faith are more likely to be drawn to the Tridentine Mass than are Catholics for whom Judaism is a category on the other side of a boundary they would consider it bad manners to try to cross. You might think that, while Reform Catholics were on the subject of Catholic liturgy and Judaism, they would ask what happened to the Church’s observance of the event that most vividly marks Jesus as Jewish. The establishment of the 1970 missal as normative was accompanied by a certain curious change in the liturgical calendar: The Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord, on January 1, eight days after the celebration of his birth, wasn’t just moved. It was eliminated.

Of the criticisms that early Protestants leveled against Catholicism, the one that arguably cut deepest was that the Church presumed to revive the Levitical priesthood, which the spilling of Christ’s blood on Calvary now rendered obsolete. They inveighed passionately against the Mass, which they saw as overtly Judaic in its tone, structure, and purpose. (This Jewishness they objected to was largely a theological construct, not to be confused with the social and cultural construct of Judaism familiar to students of Jewish Studies departments at American universities.)

Protestants were correct that the Mass, in its aspect as a sacrifice, could not be fully understood outside the framework of pre-rabbinic Judaism. By the middle of the twentieth century, when Rome’s wish for some thaw in its cold war with Protestantism was in full bloom, it reformed the Mass such that the visible and audible distinctions between Mass and the worship services of the mainline Protestant churches were now greatly softened. Many Catholics saw it as an appropriate ecumenical gesture. So did many Protestants. Whether that step in the direction of Wittenberg and Geneva was deliberate or unconscious, what it was a step away from was Jerusalem, from the Temple and the daily sacrifice priests used to perform there.

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: As a convert to Catholicism from Evangelicalism, I can particularly relate to this story. I often tell people that I came into the Church through the "back door" so to speak. What I hadn't really stopped to consider was that the "back door" used to be the "front door," that is, until Vatican II seemed to turn things around. My interest in Catholicism developed from my exploration of the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. As a good Evangelical, I was particularly interested in the Jewishness of Jesus and his apostles. I wanted to discover the Jewish connections to common Christian beliefs and customs. After a brief journey through the Messianic Jewish Movement, I learned a lot about the nature of symbolism, ceremony and liturgy. As I searched for Christian churches that still preserved many of the ancient Jewish connections, I could only find one that fit the description. It was none other than the Roman Catholic Church. Little did I know at the time how much the Ordinary form of the mass, promulgated in 1970, had stripped down the Jewishness of liturgy. Had I been born in a different time, I would have immediately seen the direct connection between Jewish liturgy and the pre-1970 mass. Fortunately for me, I now live in a time when the Church is rediscovering her "Jewishness" by restoring the Extraordinary form of the mass.

Saturday, July 7, 2007

FREE AT LAST: Tridentine Mass Liberated!


See Related Video Here
See CNN Report Here


Download Motu Proprio, Pope's Letter with Q&A from US Bishops


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: After having been repressed for nearly 40 years, the Mass of Saint Pius V (commonly known as the "Tridentine Mass" or "Classical Latin Mass") has been liberated by Pope Benedict XVI - formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. For over three decades, the vast majority of Catholics around the world have been under the false impression that the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II: 1962-1965) dispensed of the old mass (Tridentine) and replaced it with the new mass (commonly known as the "Novus Ordo" or "Mass of Pope Paul VI"). Not so! Vatican officials have in recent years repeatedly said the old rite was never abolished, and can still be celebrated anywhere in the world, with the permission of the local bishop. The late Pope John Paul II issued his own Motu Proprio regarding this same matter on July 2, 1988, establishing the norms for how this takes place.

However, it would appear that in most diocese throughout the world, particularly the United States, many bishops simply ignored Pope John Paul II and refused to grant permission to celebrate the Tridentine mass when it was respectfully requested by the faithful. The seriousness of this problem led to the alienation of many Catholics from their historic roots, and the rapid growth of a semi-schismatic group known as the "Society of St. Pius X" (SSPX). The SSPX currently operates outside the canonical structures of the Roman Catholic Church, celebrates the Tridentine mass exclusively, and totally rejects the reforms of Vatican II. The Motu Proprio issued by Pope Benedict XVI today, entitled Summorum Pontificum (which means "Of the Supreme Pontiffs"), builds upon Pope John Paul II's decision to permit greater freedom and latitude for the Tridentine mass. It does so by insisting that all local bishops grant permission for the faithful to celebrate the Tridentine mass, and if a bishop is unable to comply, the faithful have recourse to the pontifical commission of Ecclesia Dei, which will endeavor to "help" that bishop with this problem.

Over the last three decades, the Tridentine mass has become something of an anathema to liberals within the Church, many of whom find it intolerable. Usually those most hostile toward the old mass, also tend to be those most permissive toward fanciful innovations and liturgical abuse within the new mass. The liberal mindset follows the modernist presumption that Vatican II dispensed of the old Catholic Church, and created an entirely new one where "anything goes." The introduction of the Novus Ordo mass in 1970, along with the simultaneous repression of the Tridentine mass, unfortunately served to fuel this false presumption for decades.

Therefore this papal decision sends a virtual "death blow" to the liberal ideology of liturgical innovation and the modernist influence over the mass. Thus allowing the tide of historic Catholic tradition to flood back into the Church, the local congregation, and every individual Catholic willing to receive it. This restoration of the Tridentine mass is sure to exert a "gravitational pull" on the Novus Ordo. By that, I mean the Novus Ordo (commonly celebrated in the vernacular languages) is bound to come into greater continuity with the historic traditions and customs of the old Tridentine mass. Over time the two will remain distinct, but the continuity between them will be more obvious. Many of the customs and traditions of the Catholic mass, which were never intended to be thrown out, will slowly return to the Novus Ordo. This is part of Pope Benedict XVI's greater plan of liturgical renewal. Such a scenario may be intolerable to hard-core liberals, and because of that, we might expect to see a small exodus. However, Pope Benedict's intent is to put an end to disputes over the mass, and restore tranquility to the liturgical scene. His accompanying four-page letter chides hot tempers on both sides of the debate, calling for peace and harmony as both traditional and contemporary Catholics learn from each other, recognizing that no harm can come from historic traditions that have always been observed. He calls contemporary Catholics to greater fidelity to the authorized rubrics of the Novus Ordo mass. Furthermore, he insists that both masses (old and new) are part of the same Roman Rite, and that no rupture exists between them. A new vocabulary is called for in referring to the two masses. For the Novus Ordo is now to be referred to as the "Ordinary" form of the Roman Rite, while the Tridentine is to be called the "Extraordinary" form of the Roman Rite. (This blogger will henceforth attempt to honor the pope's request.)

There is an ancient Catholic maxim that says; "As the Church worships, so it believes, and so it behaves." In other words, worship shapes faith and behavior. The return of historic tradition, both in the revival of the Extraordinary form of the mass, and it's gravitational pull on the Ordinary form of the mass, has leveled the playing field. The traditional arm of the Church can now operate freely to effect the "reform of the reform" sought by Pope Benedict XVI. This is a pivotal moment in post-conciliar history. A fatal blow has been dealt to the liberals corrupting the Catholic Church and twisting the meaning of Vatican II. Today is "D-Day!" What Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio did today was the equivalent of the Normandy invasion in the liturgical sense. The liberal war on our historic Catholic Tradition is far from over, but today we have seen the "beginning of the end." Historic Catholic Tradition has finally been reintroduced to the Church in the revived Extraordinary form of the mass, and with it, the Ordinary form will soon be elevated to its intended glory. All of these things can only serve to make both the clergy and the laity more conservative, more orthodox and ultimately more Catholic.

Related Stories:
Differences Between Tridentine & Modern Mass
The Failures of Vatican II
Some Examples of Liturgical Abuse
How to Dress for Mass
How to Transform an Alter
How to Gregorian Chant
Traditional Latin Mass Explained
Priest Training Workshops
Prayer Shawls - A Sign of Class, Beauty and Courage
Wear Your Mantilla With Pride
Tridentine Mass is ONLY Solution to the SSPX Problem
The Mass Proscribed by Vatican II
The Real Vatican II
Is the Tridentine Mass A Key to Christian Unity?