Reaction to SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM

Reaction all over the world and the internet is starting to pore in. I will be updating this post periodically over the next day or two as I find interesting reactions from various sources. We can start with a PDF doc posted by the USCCB which provides their translation of the text of the relevant documents and also thirty questions and answers most of which I found to be fair and reasonable. The one glaring exception was the comparison of the attributes of the extraordinary rite with those of the of the ordinary rite. There one finds a clear and lamentable bias against the older form of the liturgy.

Read the USCCB post on the Motu Proprio.

I would also refer the reader to extensive discussion of the MP hosted by the following bloggers.

Rorate Caeli
Father Z
The New Liturgical Movement

Some suggestions for celebratory activities from Fr. Erik Richsteig...

Let their be much rejoicing as the classical Roman Rite is freed! I had several thing planned, even before Carolina Kat suggested one in her comment on the previous blog. Perhaps a felt banner burn and barbecue. Perhaps skeet shooting with Glory and Praise pamphlets. Perhaps a rock throw using porcelain and glass vessels as targets. Best of all, driving slow around the local 'progressive' parishes blasting Palestrina and Plain Chant on the stereo with the windows rolled down.

Read the rest here.

From the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)

By the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI has reinstated the Tridentine Mass in its rights, and clearly affirmed that the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V had never been abrogated. The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X rejoices to see the Church thus regain her liturgical Tradition, and give the possibility of a free access to the treasure of the Traditional Mass for the glory of God, the good of the Church and the salvation of souls, to the priests and faithful who had so far been deprived of it. The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X extends its deep gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this great spiritual benefit.

The letter which accompanies the Motu Proprio does not hide however the difficulties that still remain. The Society of Saint Pius X wishes that the favorable climate established by the new dispositions of the Holy See will make it possible – after the decree of excommunication which still affects its bishops has been withdrawn – to consider more serenely the disputed doctrinal issues.

Lex orandi, lex credendi, the law of the liturgy is that of the faith. In the fidelity to the spirit of our founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the attachment of the Society of Saint Pius X to the traditional liturgy is inseparably united to the faith which has been professed "always, everywhere and by all."

Menzingen, July 7, 2007

Bishop Bernard Fellay

The highly respected Vaticanisti Sandro Magister over at Chiesa has some insightful comments...

This is how the Mass was celebrated before, during, and after Vatican Council II, until 1970. If the passage to the new rite has created divisions and ruptures among the faithful, the fault is partly that of the Church: a fault which the pope now means to remedy

Read the rest here.

Catholic World News (CWN) has an interesting and rather detailed analysis of the MP along with some glimpses of possible future implications. A few short snips...

Summorum Pontificum states flatly that the old form of the Mass, the 1962 Missal, was never abrogated. Implicitly the Pope is recognizing that many faithful Catholics have suffered a grave injustice, since they were told that the old form of the liturgy was now forbidden...

...With his new norms Pope Benedict recognizes that many bishops have not allowed the "wide and generous" access to the old form that his predecessor had encouraged. Citing St. Paul's words to the Corinthians (2 Cor 6), the Pope now exhorts all bishops: "Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows."

But Pope Benedict goes beyond exhortation, and establishes the rights of the faithful in terms of canon law. Every priest has the right to use the "extraordinary form," and needs no further permission. Wherever a "stable group" of parishioners asks for the old Mass, their pastor should "willingly accept" their request, the Pope adds...

...To be fair one must acknowledge that although many bishops have shown themselves unfriendly toward tradition-minded Catholics-- despite the pleas of John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei-- some traditionalists have been every bit as unfriendly in their attitude toward their bishops. Some traditionalists pounce on any opportunity to criticize the new liturgy, and a few-- a minority, certainly, but a very outspoken and divisive minority-- question whether the Novus Ordo liturgy is valid. The response to Summorum Pontificum in traditionalist circles will be another key test. If the motu proprio is warmly welcomed, that positive response might encourage bishops toward a generous implementation; if traditionalists fall into a pattern of carping criticism, bishops will feel that their hostility is justified.

Read the rest here.

This from an anonymous though grateful wit over at YouTube...

TE DEUM LAUDAMUS

Text of the Motu Proprio SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM

"Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of supreme pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, 'to the praise and glory of His name,' and 'to the benefit of all His Holy Church.'

"Since time immemorial it has been necessary - as it is also for the future - to maintain the principle according to which 'each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.' (1)

"Among the pontiffs who showed that requisite concern, particularly outstanding is the name of St. Gregory the Great, who made every effort to ensure that the new peoples of Europe received both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture that had been accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He commanded that the form of the sacred liturgy as celebrated in Rome (concerning both the Sacrifice of Mass and the Divine Office) be conserved. He took great concern to ensure the dissemination of monks and nuns who, following the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the announcement of the Gospel illustrated with their lives the wise provision of their Rule that 'nothing should be placed before the work of God.' In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. It is known, in fact, that the Latin liturgy of the Church in its various forms, in each century of the Christian era, has been a spur to the spiritual life of many saints, has reinforced many peoples in the virtue of religion and fecundated their piety.

"Many other Roman pontiffs, in the course of the centuries, showed particular solicitude in ensuring that the sacred liturgy accomplished this task more effectively. Outstanding among them is St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and 'renewed in accordance with the norms of the Fathers,' and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

"One of the liturgical books of the Roman rite is the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and, with the passing of the centuries, little by little took forms very similar to that it has had in recent times.

"'It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and when necessary clarified. From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform.' (2) Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X (3), Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part.

"In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that 'this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.' (4)

"But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult 'Quattuor abhinc anno," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter given as Motu Proprio, 'Ecclesia Dei,' exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.

"Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:

"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

"It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents 'Quattuor abhinc annis' and 'Ecclesia Dei,' are substituted as follows:

"Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

"Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.

"Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

"Art. 5. õ 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church. õ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held. õ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages. õ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded. õ 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

"Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 õ 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".

"Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission "Ecclesia Dei" to obtain counsel and assistance.

"Art. 9. õ 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it. õ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it. õ 2 Clerics ordained "in sacris constitutis" may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

"Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

"Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", erected by John Paul II in 1988 (5), continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.

"Art. 12. This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.

"We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.

Given at Rome, at St Peter’s, on 7 July in the Year of Our Lord 2007, the Third of Our Pontificate.

BENEDICT XVI

(1) General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002, no. 397.

(2) John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," 4 December 1988, 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.

(3) Ibid.

(4) St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Motu propio data, "Abhinc duos annos," 23 October 1913: AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," no. 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.

(5) Cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio data "Ecclesia Dei," 2 July 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498.

The letter to the bishops:

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO DATA"
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

My dear Brother Bishops,

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. 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. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (Acts 20:28).

I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.

Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007

Bendict XVI

Read SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM in the original Latin.

Tomorrow

Its really coming...

Photo shamelessly stolen from Father Z

Rate your favorite (or least) president...

I stumbled on this (morbidly) amusing website earlier today and thought I would give it a little bump. If you ever wondered whatever happened to Franklin Pierce (who?) after he left office this is where you can find out. It's also where you can express your opinion on various presidents who now belong exclusively to history. I am sure you will all join me in trying to bring up the rating of Chester Arthur. Happy Independence Day!

Happy Birthday

No… I am not talking about that 231 yr old republic. I am referring to the only President of the United States born on the 4th of July; a man often graded poorly among Presidents when ranked by historians. He also happens to be my favorite president.

John Calvin Coolidge (he would drop the John early in life) was born on July 4th 1872 in Plymouth Vermont. Although he would go on to a memorable political career in neighboring Massachusetts, Vermont would always hold a special place in his heart. This dour and taciturn New England Yankee would become the most conservative president of the last century and perhaps the only true Jeffersonian to occupy the White House. He had a lifelong suspicion of government and believed that people were best left alone. At his core Coolidge believed the answer to most problems was hard work, thrift and minding your own business. He was also deeply old fashioned in many other respects.

Coolidge was the last president who wrote his own speeches (all of them) and the last who never learned how to drive a car. He refused to allow a telephone to be put in the oval office and generally refused to speak on one. He claimed they demeaned the dignity of the office and you could never tell who was listening. On which point I think he was ahead of his time. Coolidge was the butt of countless jokes and he laughed all the way to the political bank. He was an extremely reserved and reticent man though he had a very dry wit of his own. It was said that he rarely smiled in public. (Oddly his wife Grace Coolidge was the complete opposite of her husband, a beautiful and socially graceful woman who was the life of the party and a ray of light in the darkest room.) One wag said that seeing Calvin Coolidge smile was like watching the ice break up on a New England river. Alice Roosevelt, the daughter of the former president, once quipped that Coolidge looked as though he had been weaned on a pickle. Newspaper columnist Dorothy Parker when told of his death in 1933 exclaimed “How can you tell?”

Calvin Coolidge presided over a period of great national prosperity and cut taxes twice. He balanced the budget every year he was in office (1923-1929) and reduced the public debt. He wielded the veto frequently cutting government spending at every opportunity. He briefly ordered government employees to type on both sides of each piece of paper in order to reduce paper expenditures. He threatened to fire the White House Chef once for cooking a whole ham for a state dinner with over 200 guests. It was popularly said that when Coolidge held a nickel he could squeeze it so hard you could hear the buffalo roar.

Nor was it only in his public life that Coolidge was parsimonious. Once while taking a walk late in his term as President, Coolidge stopped in front of an ice cream parlor and stunned his companion Col. Edmund Starling (Coolidge’s long time secret service guard) by offering to buy him an ice cream float. Starling explained that when Coolidge pulled out his change purse it appeared to be one passed down from his grandfather and that dust flew from it when the President opened it and extracted the requisite nickel for the treat.

Mrs. Coolidge once related how not long after they had married, she had been smooth talked by a door to door salesman and had bought a large volume of supposed home medical advice for the sum of $10.00 (a not inconsiderable amount in those days). Later she came to regret the purchase and worried what her husband would think. So she stuck the book on the shelf and waited for any reaction. None however seemed to come and she soon forgot about it. Several years later while preparing to move she found the book and sat down with it. When she opened it she found in her husbands crisp handwriting a short note inscribed on the inside of the cover. “I find in this work no cure for a sucker.”

This respect for the value of the penny appears to have been instilled in the future president at an early age. Coolidge himself related the story of how when he was a young boy in the summer of 1880 he asked his father for a penny so that he could buy a candy stick. His father soberly explained that it was an election year and it appeared that the Democrats were going to win. This would mean hard times and he would therefore need to learn economy. However in November Coolidge went back to his father and “I pointed out that the election returns indicated we were to continue a Republican administration. With that view presented I was able to secure the advance of the sum requested.”

But it was his legendary reticence for which Coolidge is best remembered. His nickname was “Silent Cal.” One probably apocryphal story has Coolidge seated next to two women at a dinner when one leans toward him and says “Mr. President, I have made a wager that I can get you to say more than two words.” Coolidge is supposed to have replied “You loose.” It was reported that a state dinner for the Queen of Romania the only words that passed his lips were “Salt please.” Mrs. Coolidge once told the story of how her husband had been invited to hear a famous preacher who was visiting Washington. Later that day while reading the paper together in silence she asked him what he thought of the sermon. “Good” he responded. After a few minutes of silence she decided to press on for more details. What was the subject she asked? “Sin” replied the President of the United States. Somewhat exasperated his wife soldiered on… “What did he have to say about it?” Coolidge now clearly annoyed at the distraction from his newspaper looked up and replied “He’s against it.”

All of this aside the 30th President had a very human side. He was a devoted family man who doted on his wife and deeply loved his two sons. He tried very hard to instill in them the same values he had been raised with, respect for hard work and thrift. While serving as president his younger son Calvin Jr. worked as a field hand at a tobacco plantation in Virginia. When one of the boy’s friends noted that if his father was President of the United States he would not be cutting tobacco in a field, young Cal replied “if your father was my father you would.”

In the summer of 1924 tragedy struck. Calvin Jr. took a short break and while visiting the White House with some friends went out to play lawn tennis. While doing this the boy got a blister which became infected. In this day and age such an infection would be cured quickly with antibiotics. But this was not available in the 1920’s. For days the President sat at his son’s side while he lingered in great agony. It was a presidential election year and in an age when partisan politics were not nearly as nasty as they have become in recent times, the Democrats interrupted the proceedings of their convention twice daily to read medical bulletins on the boys condition and offer prayer. When Calvin Jr. finally died his father was crushed.

Coolidge later wrote that when his son died, the power and glory of the presidency died with him. Not long after the boy’s death Col Starling reported that a boy was seen standing outside the White House fence. When asked what he was doing by a Secret Service man, the boy said he had come to tell the president how sorry he was about his son’s death. The guard then brought the boy in and took him to the oval office where he was introduced to President Coolidge. Coolidge was deeply affected and according to the guard nearly lost his composure. After the meeting the President instructed the Secret Service that if any other children came to the White House and asked to see the President they were to be admitted. Those orders were scrupulously observed for the rest of Coolidge’s tenure in office.

Calvin Coolidge quoted:

“Industry, thrift and self-control are not sought because they create wealth, but because they create character.”

“It is only when men begin to worship that they begin to grow.”

“Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers. It may not be difficult to store up in the mind a vast quantity of face within a comparatively short time, but the ability to form judgments requires the severe discipline of hard work and the tempering heat of experience and maturity.”

“Little progress can be made by merely attempting to repress what is evil. Our great hope lies in developing what is good.”

“Men speak of natural rights, but I challenge any one to show where in nature any rights existed or were recognized until there was established for their declaration and protection a duly promulgated body of corresponding laws.”

“No man ever listened himself out of a job.”

“No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave.”

“Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”

“Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business.”

“Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped.”

“The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten.”

“There is no dignity quite so impressive, and no independence quite so important, as living within your means.”

“We do not need more intellectual power, we need more spiritual power. We do not need more of the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are unseen.”

“We need more of the Office Desk and less of the Show Window in politics. Let men in office substitute the midnight oil for the limelight.”

“Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.”

“Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.”

“I have never been hurt by what I have not said.” – on the virtue of silence

“Any man who does not like dogs and want them about does not deserve to be in the White House.”

Libby's Free Pass

Yesterday George W. Bush commuted the prison sentence of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby without him having served a day in jail. He did it without consulting the Justice Department in violation of strict guidelines that he had loudly trumpeted on entering office in the wake of Bill Clinton's highly scandalous pardon of fugitive billionaire Marc Rich on his way out the door. I think a reduction in his sentence was justified. In fairness the prisons sentence was extreme and seemed to ignore a number of extenuating and mitigating circumstances. Thus I would have been ok if it was reduced to say one year. However, I would feel a little better about it if it came from someone who had not firmly established the reputation for being among the most unforgiving presidents in history.

Bush has issued fewer pardons (a little over 100) and commutations (only 3) than any president in modern history. Per capita he holds the record for the fewest. His administration has consistently demanded that US Attorneys seek maximum sentences in all criminal prosecutions irregardless of extenuating circumstances, and that Federal Judges stick to the sentencing guidelines which Republicans crafted with a lock em up and throw the key away mentality. Those sentencing guidelines were scrupulously adhered to in Mr. Libby's case. All of which causes me to ask, was this a case of helping out a buddy or was it a case of buying someone’s silence? Neither appeals to me. Based on his record I am not inclined to accept that this was just George’s humane nature shining through. How does one square this sudden act of mercy with Bush’s extreme reluctance to use the clemency powers of his office?

Archbishop Christodoulos Hospitalized

Archbishop +Christodoulos, the primate of the Greek Orthodox Church (national) has been hospitalized and is reported to be seriously ill. His health has been poor for some time.

Breaking News: Ecumenical Patriarch is not Ecumenical

From Ankara:
All you Orthodox types out there obviously did not get the memo. You can not presume to order your Church in any way without checking with us. The Patriarch of Istanbul is not "Ecumenical" in any way shape or form. Why? Because we are the Turkish government and we said so. Next time check with us before making any decisions regarding the structure or ecclesiology of your church. Whats that? We weren't around when you made up that canon? Well you should have had the sense to wait. Have a nice day.

(Hat tip to Orthodixie)

Orthodox vs orthodox

This is the equivalent of a e-bitch-slap. “So, call yerselves ‘orthodox’ do ya? Well, guess what? Ya’ll ain’t what’s referenced in the dictionary when it comes to ‘orthodox,’ and dang if ya’ll don’t look anything like a ‘real’ Orthodox Church.” In other words: Calling yourselves “orthodox” is a whole bunch of meaningless twaddle.

AO go on to point out the difference in Orthodoxy and orthodox Anglicans. They’ve done some reading, it appears, and have come to some interesting conclusions. You know, thoughtful chaps, what? It seems that Orthodoxy centers it’s life in the liturgy, while orthodox Anglicans center their lives in the Scriptures. (Or so dichotomizes the AO folks.) But let’s hear it from the AO peeps.

Read the rest here.

Hat tip to the Young Fogey.

Non Habemus Pontificator

Fr. Al Kimel better known to most of us simply as the Pontificator has announced the end of his blog Pontifications. His departure will leave a large void in the religious corner of the blogosphere. While most of us will undoubtedly feel a sense of loss at his departure, it sounds like his decision at least for now is the right one. Fr. Kimel wrote movingly of the personal and spiritual struggles in his life. Being torn from the Episcopal Church by its apostasy left him scarred. And as he wrote in his emotional farewell, some wounds do not fully heal. We all suffer at times from what Catholics used to call the dark night of the soul or what we Orthodox refer to more generally as spiritual warfare. And we must all do what we think is right under spiritual direction to deal with these crisis.

Thus it is with sadness that I bid farewell to the Pontificator whose website was one of the best on the web, and will likely remain the gold standard against which most other Catholic blogs are judged. Fr. Kimel was a great intellectual (and occasional critic of yours truly). Reading the lively and generally civil debates on Pontifications helped give me clarity at a time in my life when I really needed it. And for that I am deeply grateful. I ask the reader to keep Fr. Kimel in your prayers as he carries on in whatever calling God has in mind for him.

Motu Proprio is likely imminent

Roman Catholic traditionalists and conservatives can start icing that bottle of champagne now. It appears that the publication of the long awaited Motu Proprio making available the Tridentine Mass is in fact imminent. I have generally been cautious about any discussion of dates while maintaining that the document was coming. However I am going to shed some of that caution and say that it is likely to be published soon. Very soon.

Multiple sources have indicated that copies of the MP were actually given to a select number of bishops today in Rome. The document is supposedly about three pages in length with a four page cover letter from +Benedict XVI to the world's bishops. According to two sources cited at Rorate Caeli the likely publication date is July 7th. However others are opining that if copies have been distributed to some bishops already, the formal release may come much sooner. Whatever the date we are clearly no longer talking about months or years. I think that the phrase "any day now" is probably apt.

And not a moment too soon when one sees some of the bilge still emanating from various quarters.

As a side note The Curt Jester has posted a humorous list of suggestions for the mainstream media when covering this impending story.

Of Mad Men and the Three Martini Lunch

AMC is getting ready to roll out a new television series that is supposedly set in a high powered ad agency circa 1960. It’s called "Mad Men" and the previews suggest that it is going to give an unvarnished look at business and social life in that period. I have always had a bit of a weakness for period movies or television if they are good. This program might be one of the good ones.

Maybe I am starting to feel my age but while watching a program that gave a glimpse into the making of the series and the extraordinary efforts made by the producers and cast to be period correct, I got small chills. I suddenly realized that I can remember things like rotary telephones, a television that only got a few channels and you actually had get up from the couch to change the channel manually! I can remember a time before cell phones and blackberries, pagers and the internet. There were no microwaves until I was a teenager. And we were always worried about radiation poisoning. Bringing a weapon to school when I was a kid generally meant one of those bright orange plastic squirt guns. I could go on but I am sure you get the picture.

However, this series does not sound like it's intended to be a sort of Leave it to Beaver nostalgia trip for the close of the 1950's. The 1950's-60's was a period where a woman's place in business was generally limited to that of secretary or switchboard operator. It was also a period when what we would call sexual harassment today was not only accepted, it was fairly normative in many offices. People were open in their prejudices. Office politics was rough, even brutal. And all of this is going to be shown in the series.

OK, so maybe setting aside the crazy hairdos on the girls and super thin neckties ending about 3 inched above the belt on men this could be a sort of look in the mirror for a lot of us today. In fairness though, some things have mercifully changed since then. We can start with smoking.

I can see all of the various anti smoking groups throwing a HUGE fit over Mad Men out of fear that it will glamorize smoking. There is a lot of it in the show. But guess what. In the middle of the last century people smoked. I mean really smoked, like chimneys. They smoked at home, in the car, in their office, in the company lounge, in meetings, and of course in restaurants night clubs and that wonderful social nexus of the era, the cocktail bar (of which more shortly). I can still remember my mother setting out ashtrays whenever we had guests coming over (this was in the 70’s and 80’s). Polite people always asked if it was OK to smoke when visiting someone else’s house. And polite hosts always said “yes of course.” I don’t remember when my mother got rid of the ashtrays and people stopped asking if they could smoke in our house. It was probably after I joined the Navy. My grandfather was the only real smoker in the family other than my occasional fondness for a good cigar or pipe (rarely indulged these days). But that aspect of the show is pretty dead on.

The other social vice portrayed (that some people actually complain about missing) was the drinking. In those days people drank. A business man would often have a drink on arriving at the office. A few would make a point of not indulging before noon, but this was not altogether common. One would start a board meeting with drinks. Drinks would be offered to the boss if he entered your office or you were called to his (unless you were in trouble). Drinks were offered to clients and of course after a long day at work the boys (and girls) would get together and head to their favorite watering hole for the after work cocktail, or two or three.

Which brings up one of the great American social institutions now largely gone by. Back in the day when your boss could not text message you on your lunch break and when deals and business were often based on personal relationships rather than email correspondence, it was not uncommon for people to take a leisurely business lunch with friends or clients (who were often both). These could sometimes last well over the hour that is typically the high end lunch break for most working people today. One defining element of them was the lunch cocktail. The so called three martini lunch was a reference to the fact that one could until the mid 1980’s deduct business lunch expenses from your taxes including your drinks. Incredibly people really did go out and have three or more martinis over lunch. I have this from people who attended some of those lunches and lived to tell the tale.

Now consider if you will the ingredients in a martini. Some people today are tragically unfamiliar with this drink.

The basic martini recipe is

6 oz. of gin

5 drops of dry vermouth (The dryer the better.)

2 small twists of lemon rind

2 olives

And with apologies to James Bond a true martini is never shaken. It is stirred.

Take the above ingredients times three and you have over a pound of gin! Forget all the other social and business drinking that went on and just think about a lunch where you have three or more(!) martinis. I suspect I would need help getting back to my office. For that matter, I suspect I would need help finding my office. How American business did not just grind to a halt every day around 1pm with everyone getting totally blotto is beyond me. Perhaps it will be revealed in Mad Men.

The fast pace of modern life that is always on the run can be brutal. But at least our lungs and liver seem to have gotten the better end of the deal. In the meantime we can all sit back and take a glimpse at life in a simpler if perhaps more coarse time. Unless of course your boss texts you on your blackberry about that project in the middle of the show.

Greg Griffith on the Muslim Priestess

There is a must read article over at Stand Firm on the subject of the TEC priestess who now claims to be both Muslim and Christian. A small sample is below.

It's because our Worthy Opponents figured out long ago how to sneak the nose of the gay agenda's camel under the tent of mainstream Episcopalianism: Frame it in terms of civil rights and post-modern notions of tolerance and inclusion, while playing the soft but insistent background music of oppression and marginalization. But what they haven't figured out is how to sell to that same mainstream the fact that their agenda - gutting 2,000 years of Christian teaching on sexual morality in order to devise a "Gospel" that bestows the blessings of the church on same-sex unions - at best allows, and at worst requires, a profound alteration of the lordship of Jesus Christ. There are complex reasons why this is so, but stated simply, it is because it is extremely difficult to assert on the one hand that the Scriptures don't mean what they say about sexual morality, and on the other insist that they do mean what they say about who Jesus Christ is. Leaving open all manner of possibilities for the former requires that one also leave open all manner of possibilities for the latter. This is why the orthodox side of this debate continually insists that the real debate is not about homosexuality, but Christology - who Christ is, why He came to earth, and the nature of His revelation to us.

Read the rest here.

More on Archbishop Chrysostomos' mission to Rome

From the International Herald Tribune...

VATICAN CITY: A Cypriot Orthodox archbishop seeking to arrange a groundbreaking meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and the Russian Orthodox patriarch said Monday that Cyprus would be an ideal location for the talks.

Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus has just completed a six-day visit to Rome for talks with Benedict and other Vatican officials and now plans to meet with Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II in Moscow on July 13.

He said the Orthodox Church is "open" to a meeting with Benedict and that while it is not clear where it would be held, "Cyprus would be a solution."

Read the rest here.

The Apostles' Fast 3 (take 2)

(I have been unable to recover Fr. David's 3rd installment in his series on the Apostle's Fast. However I was able to locate its copy in the archives although the comments appear to have been wiped out. So I am reposting Fr. David's original post. To those who left comments please accept my apologies. Blogger appears to have eaten them. The only way I could restore the comments was by copying them from my email records. John / Ad Orientem)

The Apostles and Walls

This past week the world commemorated the 20th anniversary of words about a wall. They were in a speech that shook a generation and marked the changing of the tides of human history. I am referring, of course, to Ronald Reagan’s famous “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” speech at the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987. To many folks on this side of that old wall, Reagan’s words seemed impossible: that massive barrier, and the ideological polarizations that inspired it, seemed impenetrable. I remember wondering: “Is Reagan for real, or is this just political grandstanding or hopeless naiveté?” The Cold War—those words seem almost archaic now—spawned years of fear and power that only perpetuated a kind of cynical paralysis. Now, Reagan towers as a kind of prophet whose words of authority crushed the giant and led people to freedom. A sentence of six simple words, so obvious that no one hardly dare utter them, were long enough, at the right time and place, to become Archimedes’ lever and move the world. Like “Thus saith the Lord, ‘Let my people go’” and “I have a dream today,” Reagan’s challenge demonstrates the power of words.

Christ’s holy Apostles also prophesied against a wall. Such was the heart of their apostolic ministry, a ministry of reconciliation. As significant as Reagan’s words were—and the breaking they evoked—the preaching by Christ’s holy Apostles catalyzed a still greater revolution, announcing the destruction of The Wall. St. Paul called it “the middle wall of partition:”

“Now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us” (Ephesians 2:13-14).

What is this Wall that St. Paul is talking about? In short, it was the Wall in the Jewish temple that separated the Gentiles from the Jews, limiting the Gentiles to the outer court. The Wall was the physical expression of a Spiritual Reality, one that restricted the works and grace of God to God’s covenant people, the Hebrew people. Paul knew this Wall all too well; not only was Paul a “Hebrew of the Hebrews,” but as an Apostle of Christ he was falsely accused of (and imprisoned for) bringing a gentile into the inner courts of the Temple precincts (Acts 21:28-29, 24:6). Now, this Wall had been demolished by Jesus Christ, and the covenantal gifts of God available to both Jew and Gentile alike. St. Paul and the other Apostles announced the destruction of this Wall, and the liberation of God’s gifts previous held behind the dam of covenant and ethnicity.

Of course, destroying walls is one thing; actually knowing and experiencing newfound unity and freedom is another. The walls of the heart loom large, deceiving even the faithful. I suppose that is one reason why St. Paul called Christ’s destruction of the middle wall of partition a mystery: something once hidden, but now established and revealed. This is the mystery of the Church, which St. Paul actually calls “the fellowship of the Mystery” (Ephesians 3:8-10). Now God’s covenant promises, His gift of salvation, is for all peoples, Jew and Gentile alike, who are united in God’s New Creation in Christ. Isn’t it strange that the City of Ephesus, so far from Jerusalem and its religious institutions, needed St. Paul’s words about the unity of the people of God resulting from the destruction of The Wall? It was far away, but that wall still existed when Paul wrote the Ephesians, its physical destruction was perhaps ten years off. In 1871 archaeologists actually discovered pillar of the “middle wall of partition” once described by the ancient historian Josephus. On that pillar appeared the words:

“No man of another nation to enter within the fence and enclosure round the temple, and whoever is caught will have himself to blame that his death ensues”

The threat of the physical wall was all too real in St. Paul’s day; his words were concerning a spiritual destruction and liberation revealed in Jesus, in His death on the cross and holy resurrection.

Spiritual divisions, even anachronistic ones, do have a way of extending far beyond physical ones. The Church was the very place—the locus—of spiritual reconciliation and unity in Christ. Where else on earth could all peoples worship God “in spirit and in truth” but in the mystery of the Church? Amazingly, the Apostles had to continue to proclaim the destruction of spiritual divisions, not only to the local churches, but even amongst themselves. St. Paul had to rebuke Peter and Barnabas when they were intimidated to break table fellowship with Gentiles who were brothers and sisters in Christ. When the Gentiles began flowing into the Church, the Apostles had to hold the first Church Council, as described in Acts 15, to discern what God had done and was doing in Christ. Yet, as Jesus promised, the Spirit of God did in time lead the Apostles into all truth (John 16:13) about God’s work of salvation in Christ.

So, for us today, to be Apostolic is to proclaim and live out this spiritual unity in Christ, as “the fellowship of the mystery.” The spiritual barriers have been shattered; all peoples can be reconciled to God, and to one another, in Christ. To know this and to live this reality continues to be a struggle in the Church, especially in America. Are we not divided once again by ethnicity? Why do we place the moniker “Greek” or “Russian” or “Serbian,” et al., before the word “Orthodox” on the signs in front of our churches in this land? This not only separates the brethren from one another, but intimidates those who would visit our worship, only to perceive that such was only for a particular group. Besides our labels, we continue in our churches to be divided by language in our service. There may be a place for some use of ancient liturgical languages, but to allow incomprehensible tongues to dominate the landscape of our worship is again contrary to the spirit of the Apostles, dividing us not only from the unchurched, but even from our children.

Such impediments cannot be rationalized; such words are contrary to the spirit of the apostolic gospel. We who on Sunday proclaim the words “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” from the Nicene Creed must remove all contrary words from our life together. And perhaps there is even someone amongst who will stand up, in the right place and occasion, and utter the words about our jurisdictional divisions that we all yearn to hear:

“Patriarch Bartholomew, tear down these walls!”

and/or:

“Patriarchs of Orthodoxy, tear down these walls!”

Whoever will do this, and all that I mention, will truly be apostolic. And the greatest revolution of human history—of liberation in Christ, will be furthered in our day.

Missing Post

Fr. David's post "The Apostles' Fast 3" has vanished. I note there is still the link for it to the right in the archives, but the post itself is now gone. Does anyone have any ideas how this might have occurred? Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

ICXC
John

More on the Muslim Episcopal Priest

As a follow up to my previous post on this subject...

Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.

On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.

She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim.

Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.

Her announcement has provoked surprise and bewilderment in many, raising an obvious question: How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim?

The answer of course, is that you can't. Being an Episcopalian however negates both. Liturgical unitarianism strikes again.

Read the rest here.

Hat tip to T-19.

A History of Arrogance

From the Midest Conservative Journal...

"Why has the controversy over Gene Robinson created the firestorm that it has? Why was it the factor that caused many of us to leave parishes in which we had spent most if not all our lives? After all, many of us rationalized our way through episcopal atheists like John Shelby Spong, besides whom Robbie is a model of Christian orthodoxy.

For me, it was not just the fact that the Episcopal Church had voted in convention that it would not let the Bible get in its way anymore. It was the decision's titanic arrogance. In 2003, ECUSA created a fact on the ground and destroyed, in one stroke, 2,000 years of Christian and Anglican teaching and every measure every GenCon had ever passed on the subject without caring about or being particularly interested in what the rest of the Anglican world thought about it."

Read the rest here

The Apostles' Fast 3

The Apostles and Walls

This past week the world commemorated the 20th anniversary of words about a wall. They were in a speech that shook a generation and marked the changing of the tides of human history. I am referring, of course, to Ronald Reagan’s famous “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” speech at the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987. To many folks on this side of that old wall, Reagan’s words seemed impossible: that massive barrier, and the ideological polarizations that inspired it, seemed impenetrable. I remember wondering: “Is Reagan for real, or is this just political grandstanding or hopeless naiveté?” The Cold War—those words seem almost archaic now—spawned years of fear and power that only perpetuated a kind of cynical paralysis. Now, Reagan towers as a kind of prophet whose words of authority crushed the giant and led people to freedom. A sentence of six simple words, so obvious that no one hardly dare utter them, were long enough, at the right time and place, to become Archimedes’ lever and move the world. Like “Thus saith the Lord, ‘Let my people go’” and “I have a dream today,” Reagan’s challenge demonstrates the power of words.

Christ’s holy Apostles also prophesied against a wall. Such was the heart of their apostolic ministry, a ministry of reconciliation. As significant as Reagan’s words were—and the breaking they evoked—the preaching by Christ’s holy Apostles catalyzed a still greater revolution, announcing the destruction of The Wall. St. Paul called it “the middle wall of partition:”

“Now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us” (Ephesians 2:13-14).

What is this Wall that St. Paul is talking about? In short, it was the Wall in the Jewish temple that separated the Gentiles from the Jews, limiting the Gentiles to the outer court. The Wall was the physical expression of a Spiritual Reality, one that restricted the works and grace of God to God’s covenant people, the Hebrew people. Paul knew this Wall all too well; not only was Paul a “Hebrew of the Hebrews,” but as an Apostle of Christ he was falsely accused of (and imprisoned for) bringing a gentile into the inner courts of the Temple precincts (Acts 21:28-29, 24:6). Now, this Wall had been demolished by Jesus Christ, and the covenantal gifts of God available to both Jew and Gentile alike. St. Paul and the other Apostles announced the destruction of this Wall, and the liberation of God’s gifts previous held behind the dam of covenant and ethnicity.

Of course, destroying walls is one thing; actually knowing and experiencing newfound unity and freedom is another. The walls of the heart loom large, deceiving even the faithful. I suppose that is one reason why St. Paul called Christ’s destruction of the middle wall of partition a mystery: something once hidden, but now established and revealed. This is the mystery of the Church, which St. Paul actually calls “the fellowship of the Mystery” (Ephesians 3:8-10). Now God’s covenant promises, His gift of salvation, is for all peoples, Jew and Gentile alike, who are united in God’s New Creation in Christ. Isn’t it strange that the City of Ephesus, so far from Jerusalem and its religious institutions, needed St. Paul’s words about the unity of the people of God resulting from the destruction of The Wall? It was far away, but that wall still existed when Paul wrote the Ephesians, its physical destruction was perhaps ten years off. In 1871 archaeologists actually discovered pillar of the “middle wall of partition” once described by the ancient historian Josephus. On that pillar appeared the words:

“No man of another nation to enter within the fence and enclosure round the temple, and whoever is caught will have himself to blame that his death ensues”

The threat of the physical wall was all too real in St. Paul’s day; his words were concerning a spiritual destruction and liberation revealed in Jesus, in His death on the cross and holy resurrection.

Spiritual divisions, even anachronistic ones, do have a way of extending far beyond physical ones. The Church was the very place—the locus—of spiritual reconciliation and unity in Christ. Where else on earth could all peoples worship God “in spirit and in truth” but in the mystery of the Church? Amazingly, the Apostles had to continue to proclaim the destruction of spiritual divisions, not only to the local churches, but even amongst themselves. St. Paul had to rebuke Peter and Barnabas when they were intimidated to break table fellowship with Gentiles who were brothers and sisters in Christ. When the Gentiles began flowing into the Church, the Apostles had to hold the first Church Council, as described in Acts 15, to discern what God had done and was doing in Christ. Yet, as Jesus promised, the Spirit of God did in time lead the Apostles into all truth (John 16:13) about God’s work of salvation in Christ.

So, for us today, to be Apostolic is to proclaim and live out this spiritual unity in Christ, as “the fellowship of the mystery.” The spiritual barriers have been shattered; all peoples can be reconciled to God, and to one another, in Christ. To know this and to live this reality continues to be a struggle in the Church, especially in America. Are we not divided once again by ethnicity? Why do we place the moniker “Greek” or “Russian” or “Serbian,” et al., before the word “Orthodox” on the signs in front of our churches in this land? This not only separates the brethren from one another, but intimidates those who would visit our worship, only to perceive that such was only for a particular group. Besides our labels, we continue in our churches to be divided by language in our service. There may be a place for some use of ancient liturgical languages, but to allow incomprehensible tongues to dominate the landscape of our worship is again contrary to the spirit of the Apostles, dividing us not only from the unchurched, but even from our children.

Such impediments cannot be rationalized; such words are contrary to the spirit of the apostolic gospel. We who on Sunday proclaim the words “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” from the Nicene Creed must remove all contrary words from our life together. And perhaps there is even someone amongst who will stand up, in the right place and occasion, and utter the words about our jurisdictional divisions that we all yearn to hear:

“Patriarch Bartholomew, tear down these walls!”

and/or:

“Patriarchs of Orthodoxy, tear down these walls!”

Whoever will do this, and all that I mention, will truly be apostolic. And the greatest revolution of human history—of liberation in Christ, will be furthered in our day.

Breaking: Nifong is disbarred

Mike Nifong has been disbarred by the North Carolina Bar for his conduct in the Duke Lacrosse hoax.

Nifong: 'I should be disbarred...'

In a surprise move Mike Nifong indicated that he believes he should be disbarred and will not appeal any sanctions imposed by the bar committee. I think this may be the first honorable thing he has done in this sad sordid affair.

Breaking News: Nifong Guilty

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong has been found guilty of multiple alleged violations of the rules of ethics and court procedures in relation to the Duke lacrosse hoax. The verdicts have been overwhelmingly damning. The trial is now moving into phase 2 to determine sanctions. IMO Nifong should be disbarred. These were not bad judgment calls. This was a deliberate attempt to railroad three innocent you men.

Catholic Bishops React to the Motu Proprio

I couldn't resist...

Hat tip to Petrosius.

Motu Proprio said to be imminent

Rorate Caeli, a Traditionalist Roman Catholic blog with a reputation for good and fairly reliable posts, reports that a highly credible Italian website has posted actual excerpts from the cover letter intended to accompany the MP liberalizing the Tridentine Mass. According to this report the document has been signed and the cover letter is in the final stages of translation into various languages. Although a precise date for release is not given, it is believed that it will occur before +Benedict XVI departs for his summer vacation in the first part of July.

Again, I want express a healthy dose of skepticism about any predictions of dates. However we have known beyond reasonable doubt that the MP really does exist and it's coming. So everyone take a deep breath and wait to see what happens.

Read the details here.

Some quick notes

First please accept my apologies for the dearth of posts this week. My work schedule this week and next is unusually heavy. I suffer from the same contradictory problem that most of us have. I really wish I had more free time. And I also wish I had more money. Sigh. Posting will likely be less frequent during this period. However I would like to draw the reader's attention to a few items which may be of interest. I again regret that I don't have the time right now to comment at length on most of these.

Crisis Magazine has an interesting (and very Catholic) article on the often discussed problems surrounding Boniface VIII's bull Unam Sanctum which declared...

We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This has been a fairly huge thorn in Rome's side, especially since Vatican II. I hope to address some of this in a more detailed post later as time permits. For now the reader can draw their own conclusions on the strength of the defense.

Southern Baptists appeared to make a small move back towards the center after years of conservative domination within their convention. The measures announced Wednesday move to reinforce a more moderate definition of doctrine originally adopted in 2000. Conservatives seemed unimpressed though. Indeed they quickly got passed a resolution expressing strong doubts about the influence of human beings on global warming. They warned that increased regulation of so called greenhouse gases would injure the poor. This would seem to put them at odds with the overwhelming majority in the scientific community. Not exactly a place the SBC is unknown to occupy though.

The ongoing soap opera within the Anglican Communion continues... The Church of Kenya announced it will consecrate its own bishop here in the United States to minister to those parishes that have defected from the Episcopal Church and its continuing slide into apostasy. Many of those parishes have been seeking to affiliate with one of the various African Churches. There has of course been the predictable outcry from the other side. (Caution: Some of the comments posted here are really ugly.)

Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz of the Philippines has urged Pope Benedict XVI not to travel to his country. He fears for the safety of the Pope. The Philippines suffer from a wide variety of problems including a rise in Islamic terrorism. There has been widespread violence against Christians in this predominantly Catholic country.

Fr. Al Kimel of Pontifications has posted an excellent essay on the subject of the renewal of the Western Liturgy within the Roman Church. I agree with almost everything he wrote and I recommend it to those interested.

Following up on the previously mentioned story about Archbishop Chyrsostom's efforts to mediate a meeting with Patriarch +Alexeii of Moscow, CWN News says the archbishop will leave for Moscow immediately after his meeting with Pope +Benedict XVI. In a related vein +Alexeii recently reemphasized the need for cooperation between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. This is especially true in Europe where secularism and post modernism are rampant. Stay tuned.

On a closing note, I have never made any pitch for money on this blog. However I am going to make an exception today. The mission parish of St. Mary Magdalene in Merced California (my home parish) is in pretty tough financial straights. Even worse than my own finances (and thats pretty bad). If there is anyone who has some spare funds that they would not mind being put to a good and Christian use please drop me a line privately. Any contributions are tax deductible and of course, deeply appreciated.