A HAPPY AND HOLY CHRISTMAS!!

A HAPPY AND HOLY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL

MAY CHRIST AND HIS BLESSED MOTHER BLESS YOU ALL

MIDNIGHT MASS HOMILY
by Abbot Paul of Belmont

Christmas Eve 2013

            On behalf of Fr Prior and the Monastic Community, I welcome you to this Midnight Mass and wish you and your loved ones every blessing and a very Happy Christmas.

            We have just heard the Christmas story, St Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus. We’ve heard it so often that, perhaps, we no longer listen to what’s being said. On the other hand, we might long to hear each word and could happily listen to the story over and over again, hoping that each time something new will strike us. St Luke writes so beautifully that it makes for easy reading, even when the story told is hard to grasp and difficult to understand.

Take, for example, the sentence, “She wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn.” What are these swaddling clothes? In Israel at the time, when an infant was born, the umbilical cord was cut and tied, and then the baby was washed, rubbed with salt and oil, and wrapped with strips of cloth. These strips kept the newborn child warm and also ensured that the child's limbs would grow straight. Mary must have done that for her newborn son. Did she do it all alone or did Joseph assist her? That’s most unlikely, so were there other women present, who witnessed the birth of Jesus, just as later they would witness his death and resurrection, perhaps the very women who prepared Jesus for burial and dressed him with a funeral shroud? We don’t know, but it’s an intriguing thought. What the story does show us is how brave Mary was and how powerful her trust in God. When she said to the angel, “Be it done unto me according to thy word,” she accepted her part in the whole Mystery of the Incarnation and in all its terrible consequences. So we must ask ourselves tonight, what are we willing to do for God and how far are we willing to go for him? Can we even begin to follow in the footsteps of Mary?

The child was “laid in a manger,” a feeding trough for cattle to be found in every stable. No doubt it was comfortable and warm, what with the hay and the swaddling clothes, and very practical. But there’s more to it than that. Mangers were made of wood, as was the cross on which Jesus was lain to be crucified. Mangers were shaped like an open coffin, reminding us of the tomb in which he lay dead as, in darkness, he awaited the resurrection. Cattle gather around a manger to feed, just as we are gathered tonight around the altar for Mass, where we will be fed by Jesus with his own Body and Blood. Although we are used to seeing paintings of the Madonna and Child with Mary looking lovingly at her child, in the stable at Bethlehem, the House of Bread, the Holy Infant lies alone in the manger wrapped in swaddling bands. The Child in the manger is the Host on the altar, there both to feed us and to be adored, for Jesus our Messiah is Emmanuel, God with us. The question for us tonight is this: if God became incarnate, that we might eat the Bread of Life and so have God’s life in us through partaking of the Eucharist, what sacrifice am I willing to make in order that Christ may live in me and I in him? What does the Mass really mean to me and what sort of preparation do I make to receive Holy Communion?

“There was no room for them in the inn.” Just a short phrase this to explain why Mary and Joseph ended up in a stable. The village was crowded for the census, all available space was fully occupied and, in any case, no woman was allowed to give birth where others were living. Labour and childbearing must take place in private and in seclusion. But there’s more to it than that. Jesus came as an outsider, a stranger, for he was God who came to live as a man among men: his home was in heaven. St John writes in his Prologue, “He came to his own home, and his own people not accept him.” He came to be rejected, to face trial and to die on a cross and the process began even before he was born, hence the stable. But what if Mary and Joseph had come to my door? What if they turn up tonight? Will I let them in? Will I make them welcome? Or will I simply turn them away? How often have I turned my back on Jesus in the course of my life? And how often, even now, do I turn him away, when he comes to me and asks for my help in the person of others: the aged, the poor, those made outcast and despised by others, immigrants and foreigners and those who are just different from the rest of us? Is there still no room in the inn? Is there still no room for Jesus in my life?

            To celebrate Christmas is to proclaim our faith in Jesus Christ. To come to Midnight Mass is to say that there is nothing and no one more important to us than Jesus. He is the centre of my life. He is everything for me. “Lord Jesus, you have given your life for me. Help me now to give my life for you. Forgive my past negligences and sins and, as I kneel before the altar of the crib tonight, give me new life, a life which is centred on you alone, a life that will never end. Amen.”

            

 A Nativity Sermon by Pope St Leo the Great

 Dearly beloved, today our Savior is born; let us rejoice. Sadness should have no place on the birthday of life. The fear of death has been swallowed up; life brings us joy with the promise of eternal happiness. No one is shut out from this joy; all share the same reason for rejoicing. Our Lord, victor over sin and death, finding no man free from sin, came to free us all. Let the saint rejoice as he sees the palm of victory at hand. Let the sinner be glad as he receives the offer of forgiveness. Let the pagan take courage as he is summoned to life. In the fullness of time, chosen in the unfathomable depths of God's wisdom, the Son of God took for himself our common humanity in order to reconcile it with its Creator. He came to overthrow the devil, the origin of death, in that very nature by which he had overthrown mankind. And so at the birth of our Lord the angels sing in joy: Glory to God in the highest, and they proclaim peace to men of good will as they see the heavenly Jerusalem being built from all the nations of the world. When the angels on high are so exultant at this marvelous work of God's goodness, what joy should it not bring to the lowly hearts of men? Beloved, let us give thanks to God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit, because in his great love for us he took pity on us, and when we were dead in our sins he brought us to life with Christ, so that in him we might be a new creation. Let us throw off our old nature and all its ways and, as we have come to birth in Christ, let us renounce the works of the flesh. Christian, remember your dignity, and now that you share in God's own nature, do not return by sin to your former base condition. Bear in mind who is your head and of whose body you are a member. Do not forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of God's kingdom. Through the sacrament of baptism you have become a temple of the Holy Spirit. Do not drive away so great a guest by evil conduct and become again a slave to the devil, for your liberty was bought by the blood of Christ.

Christmas by John Betjeman

The bells of waiting Advent ring,

The Tortoise stove is lit again

And lamp-oil light across the night

Has caught the streaks of winter rain

In many a stained-glass window sheen

From Crimson Lake to Hookers Green.

The holly in the windy hedge

And round the Manor House the yew

Will soon be stripped to deck the ledge,

The altar, font and arch and pew,

So that the villagers can say

'The church looks nice' on Christmas Day.

Provincial Public Houses blaze,

Corporation tramcars clang,

On lighted tenements I gaze,

Where paper decorations hang,

And bunting in the red Town Hall

Says 'Merry Christmas to you all'.

And London shops on Christmas Eve

Are strung with silver bells and flowers

As hurrying clerks the City leave

To pigeon-haunted classic towers,

And marbled clouds go scudding by

The many-steepled London sky.

And girls in slacks remember Dad,

And oafish louts remember Mum,

And sleepless children's hearts are glad.

And Christmas-morning bells say 'Come!'

Even to shining ones who dwell

Safe in the Dorchester Hotel.

And is it true,

This most tremendous tale of all,

Seen in a stained-glass window's hue,

A Baby in an ox's stall ?

The Maker of the stars and sea

Become a Child on earth for me ?

And is it true ? For if it is,

No loving fingers tying strings

Around those tissued fripperies,

The sweet and silly Christmas things,

Bath salts and inexpensive scent

And hideous tie so kindly meant,

No love that in a family dwells,

No carolling in frosty air,

Nor all the steeple-shaking bells

Can with this single Truth compare -

That God was man in Palestine

And lives today in Bread and Wine.
allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/gC6pOeCpjTM" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">

Ecumenical Patriarch’s Christmas Message
by Nelson
ArticleImages_52049_554709_10101745244408292_1577064479_nHis All-Holiness, Bartholomew of Constantinople Christmas Message.

Prot. No. 1109

Patriarchal Encyclical for Christmas

+ BARTHOLOMEW
By God’s Mercy Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome
and Ecumenical Patriarch
To the Plenitude of the Church:
Grace, mercy, and peace from the Savior Christ, born in Bethlehem

Beloved brothers and sisters, children in the Lord,
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given.”
(Isaiah 9.5)

Many centuries ago, the Prophet foresaw and announced with enthusiasm and joy the birth of the child Jesus from the ever-Virgin Mary. Naturally, even then, there was no period of census by Augustus Caesar, no place to stay for the safety of the Holy Virgin who was carrying a child by the Holy Spirit. So the holy Joseph as her betrothed and protector was obliged to lead her to a cave, a manger with animals, “in order to give birth to a child.”

Heaven and earth received them, offering thanks to their Creator: “The angels offered the hymn; the heavens a star; the wise men gifts; the shepherds a miracle; the earth a cave; the desert a manger; and we the Mother Virgin.” The shepherds were keeping watch over their flock, protecting them throughout the night, while the angels were witnessing the Mystery in ecstasy, singing hymns to God. (From Vespers of the Nativity)

The sweetness of the Holy Night of Christmas once again embraces the world. And in the midst of human trial and pain, of unending crises, of passion and enmity, of concern and despair, it presents the mystery of the Incarnation of the Divine Word as a genuine and timely solution. For He descended as dew in a field of cotton inside the womb of the ever-Virgin Mary in order to give rise to righteousness and much peace. (See Ps. 71.7)

In the silence and peace of that sacred night of Christmas, Jesus Christ – being without beginning, invisible, incomprehensible, immaterial, ever existing and the same – enters the drama of history bearing flesh, being insignificant, simple, poor and unknown. At the same time, he comes as a “wonderful, counselor, almighty, prince of peace, everlasting father.” (Is. 9.6) Indeed, he comes as a human being, born of a Virgin Mother, to solve the complexity of sin and grant resolution to the impasse of life’s anxiety through His grace and mercy, while providing destiny, value, content, as well as an exemplary ethos and model for the human adventure.

The Lord assumed and sanctified all of human nature. The pre-eternal God condescended to become for us an embryo and be borne inside the womb of the Theotokos. In so doing, He both honored human life from its earliest stage and taught us respect toward humankind from its earliest conception. The Creator of all accepted to be born as an infant and be nurtured by a Virgin. In so doing, He honored both virginity and motherhood, spiritual and natural. This is why St. Gregory the Theologian exhorts: “O women, be as virgins, so that you may become mothers of Christ.” (Homily XXXVIII on Epiphany, PG36.313A)

So the Lord appointed the marriage of male and female in the blessed family. The institution of Christian family constitutes the cell of life and an incubator for the spiritual and physical health and development of children. Therefore, the manifold support of the institution of the family comprises the obligation of the Church and responsibility of leadership in every country.

In order for a child to be raised in a healthy and natural way, there needs to be a family where man and woman live in harmony as one body, one flesh, and one soul, submitting to one another.

We are certain that all spiritual and ecclesiastical, much like the vigilant shepherds of old, but also the leaders of our world, know and accept this divine truth and reality, which we once again proclaim from the Ecumenical Patriarchate during this Christmas period. We must all encourage the creation and function of natural families, which can produce citizens that are spiritually healthy and joyful, filled with sentiments of security, based on the feeling of safety provided by a strong and protective father as well as a nurturing and loving mother. We need families where God might find rest. We invite and urge the entire plenitude of our holy Orthodox Church to live in a manner that is worthy of their calling and do everything that is possible to support the institution of marriage.

Brothers and sisters, “the night is far gone; the day is at hand.” (Rom. 6.12) The shepherds are already headed toward Bethlehem in order to proclaim the miracle. They are inviting us to follow them “like other star-gazing wise men filled with joy” (From the Christmas Troparion of the 4th Ode), bringing “worthy gifts” “such as fine gold to the King of ages, incense to the God of all, and myrrh to the immortal that lay dead for three days.” (Anatolios, Vesperal Hymn at Christmas) That is to say, the gifts of love and our faith, which test us as Christians, especially as Orthodox Christians, in the ethos and tradition of the family, the Fathers, and the Church, which has always practiced the Orthodox way through the centuries and to this day holds together our blessed society, whose cell for sacred life and growth is the family.

Beloved brothers and sisters, children in Christ,
2013 years have passed since the birth of Christ in the flesh
2013 years have passed and, like then, Christ continues to be persecuted in the person of the weak by Herod and all kinds of contemporary Herods
2013 years have passed and Jesus is persecuted in the person of Christians in Syria and elsewhere
2013 years have passed and Christ still flees like a refuge not only in Egypt, but also in the Lebanon, Europe, America and elsewhere, seeking security in an insecure world
2013 years have passed and the child Jesus remains imprisoned with the two hierarchs in Syria, Paul (Yazigi) and Youhanna (Ibrahim), as well as the Orthodox nuns and many other known and unknown Christians
2013 years have passed and Christ is crucified with those who are tortured and killed in order not to betray their faith in Him
2013 years have passed and Jesus is daily put to death in the person of thousands of embryos, whose parents prevent from being born
2013 years have passed and Christ is mocked and ridiculed in the person of unfortunate children, who experience the crisis of the family, destitution and poverty.

It is this human pain, sorrow and affliction that our Lord came and once more comes to assume during this Christmas season. After all, He said: “As you have done to one of these, the least of my brothers and sisters,” you have done to me.” (Matt. 25.40-41) It is for these that He was born of a Virgin, for these that He became human, for these that He suffered, was crucified and arose from the dead. That is to say: for all of us. Thus, let each of us lift up our personal cross in order to find grace and mercy when we seek His assistance. Then, the born Emmanuel, our Savior and Lord, will “be with us.” Amen.

Christmas 2013
+ Bartholomew of Constantinople

Your fervent supplicant before God

Christmas Epistle of His Beatitude Sviatoslav

by Nelson

nativity-iconThanks to the excellent site The Royal Doors for an (unofficial) English translation of the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic 
Church
Nativity epistle.

To the Son, eternally and immaculately born of the Father,

Who—in the fullness  of time—was born bodily, without seed, from a Virgin,

Let us cry out to Christ-God: Holy are You, O Lord,

Who fortified our strength!

(Canon of the Nativity).

Christ is born!

At the voice of the angel, calling to the shepherds in the dark of night, let us now hasten to the poor stable in Bethlehem. Here we see in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s arms the Son of God, who came into our world as a man. Together with them, let us rejoice and marvel; let us sing and contemplate the living and true God, who—born in a human body—gives Himself into human hands as a small, gentle and defenceless child.

Our Saviour’s Nativity reveals the depths of Divine life as well as the truth about man. He—who today appears in human flesh—existed before the creation of the world, for—as God before all ages—He is eternally and immaculately born of the Father as a son! This is the ineffable and incomprehensible mystery of Jesus Christ’s divine sonship which today is revealed and preached to all mankind. This feast makes the divine sonship accessible for all through the proclamation that God the Father loves us as his sons and daughters. In His new-born Son, we experience today our nearness to God. We experience the same warm, powerful, real and life-giving intimacy which is the Father’s intimate affection for His first-born.

Gazing into the faces of the Divine Child and His Mother Mary, let us grasp the truth the Nativity teaches us about our humanity and of His humanity, which is a sign of God’s presence: “And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger” (Lk 2:12). This child—the God of Israel, Who—in the fullness  of time—was born bodily from a Virgin without seed. He bestows upon Joseph the Betrothed, the wonderful role of guardian. At the Nativity of Christ, we receive the Eternal God in our own form. For people rightly desire to be cared for and here in Bethlehem, God himself—as a child—is the one caring for the human family!

Humaneness—as a sense of and respect for the sanctity of human life—is a moving and saving path along which—on this mysterious night—the Son of God, the Son of Mary, comes to our homes, to our families, to our nation. And this divine-humanity—the God-Manhood of Incarnate Son of God—gives us a Christmas path to follow in order to love God and neighbour. By celebrating Christmas with travellers and the homeless, or in solidarity with those who are despised and whose dignity is denied, we, Christians, as true guardians and evangelists of God’s presence among us, make our world, our society more humane and dignified for man himself.

The birth of the Son of God, the Eternal Word of the Father, reveals along with the greatness and glory of our God, the Creator and Saviour, the greatness and glory of man as the crown of all creation. In His Incarnation, God reveals the special dignity of man, because He is incarnated in it—that is to say, in his own image. St. Irenaeus of Lyon says: “When the Word was made flesh… He Himself became what His image was… making man like the invisible Father through the visible Word” (Adv. Haer., 5, 16, 2).

Glorifying the dignity of the human person, Christ’s Church today sings out: “Let us cry out to Christ-God: Holy are You, O Lord, Who fortified our strength!” Just as the coming to earth of the Son of God through the Incarnation became the centre of world history, similarly the dignity of the human person is the foundation for a true and indeed humane society. The Church teaches that social institutions and their leaders must respect each human person and their prime duty is to promote the holistic growth of each person. The person can never be a means for the realization of economic, social or political agendas imposed by secular authorities. Rather governments must be vigilant when placing restrictions on freedoms or burdens on a person’s private life to never harm human dignity (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 131-133).

There is no future for a society in which man is demeaned. The dignity of the human person is the source for just laws and equitable social order. For in the human person the temporal and eternal, the divine and human, are united. Humanity is the door to eternity opened on Christmas Day by the Son of God’s humanity. So celebrating the Nativity means to keep open the doors of our hearts to human dignity, especially of the weak and defenceless, as was the Divine Child Himself in the arms of the Virgin Mary.

Today once again Ukrainian society is striving to build its future on the foundation of the Christian faith. The new-born Saviour is the fulfilment of the hopes of all mankind for the coming of God’s kingdom—a kingdom of justice, peace and goodness. The birth of the eternal King of Peace was announced by the angel, when he said to the shepherds: “Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will come to all people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour” (Lk 2:10-11). This historic moment is important to us, for the word of the Evangelist proclaims that Christ Himself is the source of our joy and the end of our fears! In the Nativity of Christ, may our anxiety be transformed into hope, may confusion and uncertainty be directed along the path that leads to the place of our Lord’s birth. On this Christmas Day, when, according to the apostle Paul, the power of God was made manifest in human weakness (cf. II Cor. 12:9), our sense of powerlessness is turned into a realization of our self-worth. Through the action of the Holy Spirit, this realization of our self-worth becomes a force that will enable us to build a society worthy of man. That is why today we glorify the power of the divine-humanity, singing: “Holy are You, O Lord, Who fortified our strength!”

Dearly beloved in Christ! On this joyous feast day of Christ’s Nativity, I wish all of you my sincerest greetings. I wish for you goodness and peace, harmony and health. I desire to knock on the door of every Ukrainian family! With the sound of ancient carols, I wish to cheer every Ukrainian heart! Announcing the great joy of our Saviour’s birth, I want to gather around Bethlehem’s stable all of our church—both in Ukraine and abroad— into one community of God!

Today let us feel like one Christian family in which our Saviour is born. Along the path of humanity and Christian solidarity, we can touch all who defend their own dignity, the dignity of their family and their nation! Let us share our Christmas joy with those who are far from home, in hospital beds or prison bunks. Together, guided by the light of the star, let us make ​​haste towards our neighbours in order to see in the flesh—the Invisible One; in His poverty—the Source of all goodness; in His weakness—the Almighty, as the new-born Christ-God in the embrace of the Theotokos.

Christ is born!

Let us glorify Him!

† SVIATOSLAV

Given in Kyiv,
at the Patriarchal Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ,
19 December 2013,
on the feast day of St. Nicholas, Archbishop of Myra, the Wonderworker


Nelson | December 23, 2013 at 8:31 pm | Tags: Greek Catholic, A

HERMITS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY OF MOUNT CARMEL

Mt. Carmel Hermitage

P.O. Box 337

Christoval, Texas 76935-0337  

My Introduction

As far as I understand, there are two Carmelite monasteries of hermits and one cenobitical community in the United States, beside a number of solitaries, men and women.   They are modern communities.   The Carmelite hermits show some of the characteristics of the monks and nuns of Bethlehem in France and elsewhere who follow the Rule of St Bruno, and also many other monastic communities founded either just before of after Vatican II, notably a strong devotion to the Blessed Sacrament exposed and a strong influence of Eastern Orthodox spirituality.   In this they are contemplative witnesses to the compatibility of the two traditions which really belong to each other, even when they differ.

Between the years of 1206 and 1214, there existed a group of hermits living in Mt. Carmel in Palestine that had formed themselves into a group under the leadership of a man named Brocard.

This group proceeded to ask Albert, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to provide them with a "formula vitae" or rule of life which became the Carmelite rule.

Because of the association of Mt. Carmel with the Prophet Elijah, these first Carmelite hermits took him as their "Dux et Pater", or leader and father.

They also had a particular devotion to Our Lady, building an oratory dedicated to her, and by doing so pledged themselves to her service and placed their community under her patronage and protection. Hence they later became known as "the Brothers of St Mary of Mount Carmel."

Hermits, belonging to ancient Orders or New Institutes, or being directly dependent on the Bishop, bear witness to the passing nature of the present age by the inward and outward separation, from the world. By fasting and Penance, they show that man does not live by bread alone but by the work of God. Such a life "In the Desert" is an invitation to their contemporaries and to the ecclesial community itself, never to lose sight of the supreme vocation, which is to be always with the Lord.  

"From the rising of the sun to its setting..." 

3:30

A.M.

RISE

3:50

 VIGILS in Church 

4:30

MEDITATION WITH EUCHARISTIC ADORATION in Church 

5:30

LAUDS in Church, GRAND SILENCE ENDS

6:00   ANGELUS, HOLY ROSARY & LITANY B.V.M.

6:30

CONVENTUAL MASS, THANKSGIVING

7:15

BREAKFAST, LECTIO DIVINA in Cell

8:45

TERCE in Cell, WORK OR CLASSES

11:45

END OF WORK, SEXT, EXAM OF CONSCIENCE in Cell

12:00 

P.M. 

ANGELUS, DINNER, REST in Cell

1:30 

NONE in Cell 

1:45

MERCY CHAPLET & PRAYERS in Church, WORK

4:00   END OF WORK, Return to Cell

4:30

MEDITATION in Cell

5:30

VESPERS in Church

6:00

ANGELUS, COLLATION, CARMELITE READING in Cell

7:00

CHAPTER, COMPLINE,  

GRAND SILENCE BEGINS

8:00

RETIRE TO BED

"...may the name of the Lord be praised."

This hermitage is obviously respected in monastic circles and received a visit from the Prior of the Camaldolese monastery of Monte Corona a couple of years ago.

HERMITS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY OF MOUNT CARMEL

Carmelite Hermitage

of the Blessed Virgin Mary 

8249 de Montreville Trail 

Lake Elmo, MN 55042-9545

the Divine Liturgy

This community is obviously more influenced by Orthodox spirituality than the one above.   The very shape of their chapel interior shows this, calling the Mass the "Divine Liturgy", together with their strong emphasis on icons.  Yet they are Latin Rite, using the Carmelite use that was the liturgy of the Latin Rite Christians in Jerusalem at the time the Carmelites were forced to leave Mount Carmel.   They brought it to England where they settled at Aylesford Priory in Kent under St Simon Stock.   The hermits sing the Mass in English, but use Gregorian Chant on Sundays and feastdays.

OUR CALLING

The Hermits of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel were founded in 1987 as an eremitical Carmelite Shield community of Carmelites within the ancient Order of Carmel. We lead a semi-eremitical, semi-communal form of life, based upon the Carmelite Rule and the spiritual teaching of the saints of Carmel.

By means of prayer and silence, stillness and solitude, we seek a participation in the life of the indwelling Holy Trinity. Gathering the faculties of the soul to employ them in the unceasing remembrance of God and the work of love, we attempt to fulfill the admonition of Sacred Scripture to pray always (Lk. 18:1 and 1 Thes. 5:17).

Our Lady of Mount Carmel The Blessed Virgin Mary is the principal patroness of the Order of Carmel and of our monastic community. The goal of our life is to be pure of heart, as she, the Immaculate Virgin, is pure of heart, in order that our life may be given over completely to the service and worship of Christ, her Son. The maternal tenderness and transfigured beauty of the Mother of God compel us to place ourselves beneath her protection.

As far as possible, we support ourselves by the labor of our hands and minds. We lead a simple life; our treasures are spiritual not material, yet our life is wholesome, nourishing body, mind, and spirit. Monastery Cloister

We are mindful of the living reality of the Body of Christ which is the Communion of Saints. We desire to strengthen this Communion and hasten the Kingdom of God by acting as a hidden leaven in the Church (Mt. 13:33). Although hidden from the world, we are at the same time silent witnesses and living signs of the future glory which was once revealed in the Resurrection of Christ and is to be fully revealed at His return. For the grace of God which brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this world, while we await our blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Tit. 2:1 1-13).

Strive to preserve your heart in peace and let no event of this world disturb it. Reflect that all must come to an end.   + Keep spiritually tranquil in a loving attentiveness to God and when it is necessary to speak, let it be with the same calm and peace. + Let Christ crucified be enough for you, and with Him suffer and rest.

+ St. John of the Cross

OUR LIFE

Monastery Cloister

Aspirants to our life must be between the ages of 20 and 40. After initial correspondence, a visit to the hermitage is arranged. A simple application process precedes postulancy, which begins on the day of entrance and lasts for six months to one year. At the end of this period, the postulant receives the Carmelite habit and a new name. He then begins a two year novitiate. Upon successful completion of this program of formation, the novice makes vows of obedience, chastity and poverty, first for three years, and then for life.

Our Community is composed both of priests and brothers. We do not engage in priestly ministry outside of our monastery with the exception that we offer assistance to the Carmelite Nuns by way of retreats, conferences and spiritual direction.

All of us who wear this sacred habit of Carmel are called to prayer and contemplation, because that was the first principle of our Order and because we are descended from the line of those Holy Fathers of ours from Mount Carmel who sought in such great solitude this treasure, this precious pearl of which we speak.

Brother reading

+ St. Teresa of Jesus

Our life is composed of prayer and study, manual and intellectual labor. Both liturgical and personal prayer are important to us. Most important of all is that our prayer spring from a pure heart and lead us back into the heart, the dwelling place of the Holy Trinity.

Carmelite Monastery The study of sacred things is a source of nourishment for the spirit. Particular emphasis is given to Carmelite and monastic spirituality and to the liturgy. We occasionally author books and articles in these and related fields. Manual labor provides an important balance to the work of the mind and helps to sustain the hermitage. We have an extensive garden, carpentry and leather shops, as well as a studio of sacred art. The studio makes available reproductions of the original iconographic art created by us for use in worship in our private monastery chapel. Friends of the monastery fulfill many of the business requirements of the studio, leaving us free to pursue our first vocation,which is prayer.

Monastery Hermitages

 Each member of our community spends part of his day in the solitude of his hermitage. We come together as a community for the liturgy, meals and an hour of recreation during which the silence is lifted and we enjoy the company and conversation of one another. A greater degree of solitude is permitted to experienced members of the community.

Carmelite Rule

The Rule of Saint Albert

for my source click here

[1]  Albert, called by God's favour to be patriarch of the church of Jerusalem, bids health in the Lord and the blessing of the Holy Spirit to his beloved sons in Christ, B. and the other hermits under obedience to him, who live near the spring on Mount Carmel. 

[2] Many and varied are the ways in which our saintly forefathers laid down how everyone, whatever his station or the kind of religious observance he has chosen, should live a life of allegiance to Jesus Christ -- how, pure in heart and stout in conscience, he must be unswerving in the service of his Master. 

[3] It is to me, however, that you have come for a rule of life in keeping with your avowed purpose, a rule you may hold fast to henceforward; and therefore: 

[4] The first thing I require is for you to have a prior, one of yourselves, who is to be chosen for the office by common consent, or that of the greater and maturer part of you; each of the others must promise him obedience -- of which, once promised, he must try to make his deeds the true reflection -- and also chastity and the renunciation of ownership. 

[5] If the prior and brothers see fit, you may have foundations in solitary places, or where you are given a site that is suitable and convenient for the observance proper to your Order. 

[6] Next, each one of you is to have a separate cell, situated as the lie of the land you propose to occupy may dictate, and allotted by disposition of the prior with the agreement of the other brothers, or the more mature among them. 

[7] However, you are to eat whatever may have been given you in a common refectory, listening together meanwhile to a reading from Holy Scripture where that can be done without difficulty. 

[8] None of the brothers is to occupy a cell other than that allotted to him or to exchange cells with another, without leave or whoever is prior at the time.

[9] The prior's cell should stand near the entrance to your property, so that he may be the first to meet those who approach, and whatever has to be done in consequence may all be carried out as he may decide and order. 

[10] Each one of you is to stay in his own cell or nearby, pondering the Lord's law day and night and keeping watch at his prayers unless attending to some other duty. 

[11]  Those who know how to say the canonical hours with those in orders should do so, in the way those holy forefathers of ours laid down, and according to the Church's approved custom. Those who do not know the hours must say twenty-five Our Fathers for the night office, except on Sundays and solemnities when that number is to be doubled so that the Our Father is said fifty times; the same prayer must be said seven times in the morning in place of Lauds, and seven times too for each of the other hours, except for Vespers when it must be said fifteen times. 

[12] None of the brothers must lay claim to anything as his own, but you are to possess everything in common; and each is to receive from the prior -- that is from the brother he appoints for the purpose -- whatever befits his age and needs. 

[13] You may have as many asses and mules as you need, however, and may keep a certain amount of livestock or poultry. 

[14] An oratory should be built as conveniently as possible among the cells, where, if it can be done without difficulty, you are to gather each morning to hear Mass. 

[15] On Sundays too, or other days if necessary, you should discuss matters of discipline and your spiritual welfare; and on this occasion the indiscretions and failings of the brothers, if any be found at fault, should be lovingly corrected. 

[16] You are to fast every day, except Sundays, from the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross until Easter Day, unless bodily sickness or feebleness, or some other good reason, demand a dispensation from the fast; for necessity overrides every law. 

[17] You are to abstain from meat, except as a remedy for sickness or feebleness. But as, when you are on a journey, you more often than not have to beg your way; outside your own houses you may eat foodstuffs that have been cooked with meat, so as to avoid giving trouble to your hosts. 

At sea, however, meat may be eaten. 

[18] Since man's life on earth is a time of trial, and all who would live devotedly in Christ must undergo persecution, and the devil your foe is on the prowl like a roaring lion looking for prey to devour, you must use every care to clothe yourselves in God's armour so that you may be ready to withstand the enemy's ambush.

[19] Your loins are to be girt with chastity, your breast fortified by holy meditations, for, as Scripture has it, holy meditation will save you. Put on holiness as your breastplate, and it will enable you to love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength, and your neighbour as yourself. Faith must be your shield on all occasions, and with it you will be able to quench all the flaming missiles of the wicked one: there can be no pleasing God without faith; [and the victory lies in this -- your faith]. On your head set the helmet of salvation, and so be sure of deliverance by our only Saviour, who sets his own free from their sins. The sword of the spirit, the word of God, must abound in your mouths and hearts. Let all you do have the Lord's word for accompaniment. 

[20] You must give yourselves to work of some kind, so that the devil may always find you busy; no idleness on your part must give him a chance to pierce the defences of your souls. In this respect you have both the teaching and the example of Saint Paul the Apostle, into whose mouth Christ put his own words. God made him preacher and teacher of faith and truth to the nations: with him as your leader you cannot go astray. We lived among you, he said, labouring and wary, toiling night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you; not because we had no power to do otherwise but so as to give you, in your own selves, an example you might imitate. For the charge we gave you when we were with you was this: that whoever is not willing to work should not be allowed to eat either. For we have heard that there are certain restless idlers among you. We charge people of this kind, and implore them in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they earn their own bread by silent toil. This is the way of holiness and goodness: see that you follow it. 

[21] The Apostle would have us keep silence, for in silence he tells us to work. As the Prophet also makes known to us: Silence is the way to foster holiness. Elsewhere he says: Your strength will lie in silence and hope. For this reason I lay down that you are to keep silence from after Compline until after Prime the next day.

At other times, although you need not keep silence so strictly, be careful not to indulge in a great deal of talk, for, as Scripture has it -- and experience teaches us no less -- sin will not be wanting where there is much talk, and he who is careless in speech will come to harm; and elsewhere: The use of many words brings harm to the speaker's soul. And our Lord says in the Gospel: Every rash word uttered will have to be accounted for on judgment day. Make a balance then, each of you, to weigh his words in; keep a tight rein on your mouths, lest you should stumble and fall in speech, and your fall be irreparable and prove mortal. Like the Prophet, watch your step lest your tongue give offence, and employ every care in keeping silent, which is the way to foster holiness. 

[22] You, brother B., and whoever may succeed you as prior, must always keep in mind and put into practice what our Lord said in the Gospel: Whoever has a mind to become a leader among you must make himself servant to the rest, and whichever of you would be first must become your bondsman. 

[23] You, other brothers too, hold your prior in humble reverence, your minds not on him but on Christ who has placed him over you, and who, to those who rule the Churches, addressed the words: Whoever pays you heed pays heed to me, and whoever treats you with dishonour dishonours me; if you remain so minded you will not be found guilty of contempt, but will merit life eternal as fit reward for your obedience. 

[24] Here then are the few points I have written down to provide you with a standard of conduct to live up to; but our Lord, at his second coming will reward anyone who does more than he is obliged to do. See that the bounds of common sense are not exceeded, however, for common sense is the guide of the virtues.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF POPE FRANCIS TO POPE JOHN PAUL II & POPE BENEDICT XVI

I am just a little younger, by a few months, than Pope Francis, which means that I was a priest student of theology and he was a Jesuit student  at the time of the Council.   It was a wonderful time to be a student, and gave us a kind of front seat in the drama that was going on within the Council just at the time in our lives when we were most curious and impressionable. 

 Of course, then as now, it was of interest to the media to turn everything into dramatic narrative, and to aid them in their wish to entertain as well as to inform, they adopted a “cowboys and Indians” approach, dividing the bishops and experts into “conservatives” and “progressives”.   That both tags are completely without any theological content in themselves, means they can be used in any way  the journalist wishes, though now it is “conservatives” and “liberals”. However,  “conservative” now refers to people like Pope Benedict XVI who was a “progressive” during the Council, in spite of the fact that his position has not fundamentally changed in most things.  Back then, "conservative" meant only one thing: it applied to those who wanted to preserve the status quo. However, the "progressive" label was given to anyone who wanted change.   This hid from the public that there were various important groups with quite different positions, and one, which could be called "liberal" was irreconcilable with the others.   “Liberal” meant people who explain truths of faith by saying they are the same as, or equivalent to something regarded as true by secular thinkers.  Hence Liberation Theology is liberal when it explains Christian eschatology as equivalent to Marx’s movement towards a perfect socialist society through class war.   Reducing spirituality to psychological wholeness is liberal.   Making the goal of the Mass the celebration of our human togetherness , while eliminating all that suggests the sacred,is also liberal.  Saying that each age has factors that oppress it, in the first years of Christianity it was sin, and nowadays it is different forms of oppression; and that the Church must adapt its doctrine of salvation to the oppression of the moment: that is liberal.  However, all who wanted change were called "progressives", and we were not conscious of the differences.

 What was going on was dramatic enough, because it is true that there was an entrenched group in the Vatican that had its own theological tradition of neo-scholasticism, plus the tendency to interpret the whole Gospel through the spectacles of a canon lawyer. They suspected there were modernists hiding under every bed, had been suspicious of the outside world ever since it confiscated the papal states; and they were ready to condemn any theologian for modernism whose thinking differed from their own.

I was a fan of a number of French theologians whose theology is now called “nouvelle theologie”, though this title was given them by their opponents because, in general, they were patristic scholars, though some were Dominicans who appealed to St Thomas Aquinas against the neo-thomist school, and one, Teilhard de Chardin, was a famous scientist.      They were not conscious of being a group, though, seen from this distance, they clearly were, largely because of common influences and their meeting with Orthodox theologians of high quality, refugees from Communist Russia, who had settled in Paris.  

Perhaps these theologians could be better described as an informal network of friendships with certain characteristics in common..   There were names which are now well known. Henri de Lubac and Jean Danielou, were Jesuits, Marie-Dominique Chenu and Yves Congar were Dominicans, Louis Bouyer was an Oratorian and a liturgist,  Hans Urs von Balthasar left the Jesuits and was a parish priest in Switzerland.  They were looked on with suspicion by the Vatican, with books put on the Index some put under obedience not to publish.   However, Pope John XXIII, who had himself also been on the list of suspects by the CDF, rescued them from enforced oblivion and into the limelight by inviting them to take part in the Council. Their influence in the Council was enormous; and de Lubac was, perhaps, the most important theologian in Vatican II.   Together with a young Polish Archbishop of Cracow called Wojtyla, he wrote the original document  for discussion which came to be called Gaudium et Spes,  and it was his scholarship that was behind the document Lumen Gentium on the Church . They were joined by Wojtyla, Ratzinger and the English Benedictine Christopher Butler; and the whole Council bears their stamp.  Von Balthasar was not invited to Vatican II, but he spent the time developing his theology and is, perhaps, the best example of this ressourcement theology and a continuing influence in modern Catholic thought.   

 They differed from the “neo-scholastics” like Garigou-Lagrange, on the relationship between nature and supernatural Grace.  The neo-scholastics saw both nature and supernature as two entirely independent systems, both dependent on God, though supernature is built on nature and can transform it.   These French theologians talked of a natural desire for God, that nature was created to be transformed by Grace and would be eternally frustrated if it were to lose Grace, that there is no such thing as eternal natural happiness in Limbo, for instance, because pure nature cannot exist alone but has a natural need for grace; so much so that it is unnatural for our nature to be without  Grace because God, out of his own goodness, decreed our salvation before the creation of the world, and He created the world with grace in mind.   Hence, Nature is geared to be completed by Grace.   As St Augustine says in his Confessions, “  "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you." Their opponents said that this takes away the gratuity of Grace; to which they replied that both Grace and Nature are gratuitous gifts of God and are made for one another.


  Also, they held that there is a natural attraction of the Holy, one that can be woken by natural means, and “the Holy” is the point of contact between Nature and the Grace which transforms it.  Why is the modern industrial worker without religion?    Because he is cut off from the liturgy by Latin and by a clericalised liturgy.    Give him access to the Holy, and he will have the basic religious experience upon which religion is built. There will be no re-evangelisation of Europe without liturgical reform which will open up the “sacred” to ordinary human beings.. 

The third characteristic of this group was their belief in Tradition as a basic dimension of the life of the Church.   Tradition is the product of the synergy between the Holy Spirit and the Church that is found especially in the Eucharist, but also in the whole liturgical life of the Church.   In the Eucharist, the Holy Spirit and the Church act together.  Just as the Holy Spirit acted in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, thus enabling her to become Mother of God, this requiring humble obedience on her part, so the Mass is work of the Holy Spirit acting in and through the Church, enabling it to proclaim, celebrate, consecrate and communicate as Christ’s own body, this requiring humble obedience by the Church.   Just as Tradition is the product of that relationship between the Spirit and the Church found in the Eucharist and other liturgical celebrations, so the liturgy is the primary expression of Tradition as well as the source of all the Church’s powers and the goal of all its activity.  And the liturgy is celebrated in local churches.    
Especially in the early Church, there was much liturgical creativity, but this creativity had to be exposed to the celebration of the liturgy over a long time, and it was the Holy Spirit’s job to sift the wheat from the chaff, using his human instruments, the experience of the Church and especially the ministry of the bishops, to gradually eliminate what was bad and to give more and more meaning to what is good as prayers and other texts are used by God’s people.  

 The fourth characteristic of this group was a logical consequence of seeing Tradition as embedded in the liturgy of local churches and to see the celebration of the liturgy as the source of all the Church’s powers and the goal of all its activity.   It was to adopt an “Eucharistic ecclesiology”, the fruit of their meeting with Affanasiev, the Orthodox theologian who lived in Paris; and Orthodox influence can be detected in much of their theology. 
  
 The local Church with its bishop is not only a part of the Catholic Church: it is the whole Church, uniting heaven and earth and all times, from the time of the Apostles till now, and beyond now till the end of the world, and gathered together by the Holy Spirit and manifesting itself in each Mass.
   
This put the spotlight on the fact that the process of synergy between the Holy Spirit and the Church from which arises all the Church’s powers and to which are ordered all its activities is rooted in the local Church and doesn’t come down from the centre.  It must  also be at work in the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches because it arises out of the celebration of the same Eucharist that we celebrate in common; also that their traditions are expressions of the same Apostolic Tradition that we enjoy, even though expressed in different words and with some different insights.   This holds out the hope that, even where we have differences, there is an underlying unity.

This led these theologians to an idea that certainly put the wind up the neo-scholastics and strengthened the belief that the ressourcement theologians were modernists.  The common neo-scholastic understanding of the development of doctrine was that the Church moves to ever greater clarification, so that, if you really want to know the true meaning for faith of historical texts, you find them in the teaching of the modern Church because it is the same Church now as then with the same guarantee of infallibility.

    However this group of theologians had a different approach.   If the Holy Spirit is continually active in the Church, not more active in one century than in another, and if the Church can reach greater clarification on a doctrine as time passes, truths coming out of obscurity into the light, then the reverse must also be true: it must be also true that some insights that were clear in the Early Church can fall into obscurity and can be forgotten over the centuries, and it is necessary to delve into the past to clarify them and to get a better understanding of the Church’s present day teaching.  It was for this reason these theologians were called ressourcement theologians. 

An example: Even though we must accept the Holy Spirit’s role in the definitions of Vatican I, if we accept that Tradition is alive in both East and West, if we discover, together with our Orthodox brethren what the Church believed when East and West were united, this may provide a better context with which to interpret the Vatican I definitions that only represents Western Tradition.   This does not deny the Holy Spirit’s work in Vatican I, but does admit that the Council represents a Church impoverished by the absence of an adequate representation of the Orthodox Tradition.   For this, the theologians were called ressourcement theologians, going back to the past and using  the thought of previous centuries to help us solve our present problems.

It is accepted each church is guided by the same Spirit, so that Catholics cannot simply reject what it has declared to be true in the past.  Neither can the Orthodox for the same reason.  When it comes to another insight, like the patristic Eucharistic ecclesiology in relation to the universalist, “legalistic”, “perfect society” ecclesiology where the Church is held together by the exercise of the jurisdiction of the pope, the 2nd Vatican Council simply puts the two versions side by side, leaving the question open to the “traditioning” process, where the Holy Spirit enables the Church to arrive at a solution.  Pope Benedict has done the same with the liturgy,  putting the old Mass and the new Mass side by side, rather than impose his own rubrics.

   Again, while discovering the underlying unity between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is the goal of the theological talks between the two sides, to find a generally accepted theory is not enough.   What would happen if the Orthodox and Catholic theologians were to arrive at an agreement before the churches are ready to come together?

  The unity of the Church is the work of the Holy Spirit and his Presence is manifested in ecclesial charity.   This ecclesial charity is the unity of the Church.   Agreement without love will never hold.   The agreement in doctrine, when it is authentic, is never simply an agreement between theologians: it is a consequence of ecclesial love, because faith as knowledge is knowledge based on love, and Christian unity is formed by the synergy between the Holy Spirit and ecclesial love..   Thus, in the Byzantine rite, the kiss of peace comes immediately before the recitation of the Creed .   They are asked to love one another in order to say "with one heart and one voice" the creed.   Hence, the Patriarch of Moscow has suggested several times that we put side by side these two versions of the One, True, Church, and concentrate on working together for the re-evangelization of Europe.   By living the "joy of the Gospel" together, we can trust the Holy Spirit to forge the context in which agreement can be arrived at and the work of the theologians bear fruit..   That is the way of Tradition.

Another group of theologians who may have been mainly German-speaking Jesuits, made common cause with the nouvelle theologie theologians in the Council.   They advocated what they called "kerygmatic theology".    They were mainly concerned with the practical work of teaching the Faith.   They said that the order in which doctrines of the faith are taught matter if those who are being instructed are to have a coherent picture of what Christianity is about.   The order of truths as laid out in the Summa Theologica is not good for this purpose.   Remember, these theologians were not trying to change Catholic teaching  but, rather, to make sure that the prime importance of the  kerygma is not obscured.   The kerygma is the Good News that God is Love and loves his creation and has manifested this Love in the life, death and resurrection of Christ.  

 There is a hierarchy of truths: those that arise from the Church's understanding of the kerygma, and the Catholic teaching (didache) of truths that gain from the kerygma their significance.  If the kerygma is not emphasised and other dogmatic truths are not seen from the standpoint of their relationship to the kerygma, then the corpus of Catholic dogmas loses its unity and Catholic moral teachings appear as unrelated and arbitrary restrictions on our conduct. 

I can remember only two names.   One was Father Hugo Rahner S.J., the elder brother of Father Karl Rahner S.J., who wrote about it.   He also wrote a ground breaking book on "Our Lady and the Church", which said that the first treatises on Our Lady were really ecclesiology, because Our Lady personifies the Church in its relationship to Christ.  This argument resulted in the Council treating Our Lady in a chapter of the Constitution on the Church. The other name is Father Johannes Hofinger S.J. from the University of Innesbruck, who was a liturgist by training.   He was a pupil of Father Josef Jungmann S.J. and helped to write the conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy.   However, he was best known for his work in Catholic catechesis.   I once had the privilege of sitting at his feet for a week.   This approach to theology and teaching became part of the accepted Vatican II legacy.  This is an exerpt from "The Kerygmatic Enigma":

Bl. John Paul II, in his 1979 apostolic exhortation Catechesi Tradendae, describes how catechesis builds upon the kerygma:  

Thus through catechesis the Gospel kerygma (the initial ardent proclamation by which a person is one day overwhelmed and brought to the decision to entrust himself to Jesus Christ by faith) is gradually deepened, developed in its implicit consequences, explained in language that includes an appeal to reason, and channeled towards Christian practice in the Church and the world (CT 25).Thus, the initial kerygmatic proclamation and catechesis are two necessary and mutually enriching components of evangelization. However, in my experience I have found that there is general imbalance in the Church (on the diocesan and parochial levels), which unfortunately tends to place a much greater emphasis on catechesis at the expense of initial proclamation. 

In his 1990 encyclical, Redemptoris Missio, Bl. John Paul II underscored how essential kerygma is in the life and mission of the Church:

Proclamation is the permanent priority of mission. The Church cannot elude Christ's explicit mandate, nor deprive men and women of the "Good News" about their being loved and saved by God. "Evangelization will always contain—as the foundation, center, and at the same time the summit of its dynamism—a clear proclamation that, in Jesus Christ . . . salvation is offered to all people, as a gift of God's grace and mercy." All forms of missionary activity are directed to this proclamation, which reveals and gives access to the mystery hidden for ages and made known in Christ (cf. Eph 3:3-9; Col 1:25-29), the mystery which lies at the heart of the Church's mission and life, as the hinge on which all evangelization turns.... The vital core of the new evangelization must be a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the person of Jesus Christ, that is, the preaching of his name, his teaching, his life, his promises and the Kingdom, which he has gained for us by his Paschal Mystery.

The final group among   the "progressives", as we have already noted, were the already mentioned "liberals" who sought to adapt the Church to the modern world where mankind, they believe, has "come of age" They regarded the dominant characteristics of the modern, secular world as permanent because the 20th century was, they believed, the height of a long process of social evolution, and they were very optimistic about the future of a world in which man (and woman) had become mature. There was much quotation of Dietrich Bonhoeffer to this effect.  If the average modern man feels no need for the sacred, then liturgy must reflect human solidarity which he does value; but "with God" would be added as a hidden dimension of any human solidarity, so that he could go on being a practising Catholic, even if he has difficulty having contact with God.   The Church must become really modern, which means accepting the values of modern secular humanity.   In its dialogue with the world, it would strive to show to secular society that Christian  teaching is a better guarantee of modern values than any other, but it must be ready to jettison as outmoded what "modern" human beings do not appreciate.   

If, by ecumenism, the ressourcement theologians saw unity with the Orthodox as their main goal, the liberals looked to the Anglican Church as best embodying their ideals, certainly more than the Vatican!

Although this group had very little representation among those who drew up the Council documents, nor among the voting bishops, they had enormous influence in the media. Because they had a typically 20th Century outlook on so many things, the journalists understood them and could identify with them without difficulty.   Later, because so many priests and religious had learnt  about the Council principally through the media, if they read the documents of the Council at all, they read them through liberal spectacles.  A simple test: remember a "new mass" celebrated in the  nineteen sixties or seventies or, if your memory is dim, attend a Mass "in the spirit of Vatican II" now, and then compare it with the document on the liturgy.  Discover how many insights of the Council document have been simply forgotten.  The problem is not the texts of Vatican II, nor of the "new Mass" liturgy- it can be and often is celebrated beautifully - but lies in the lack of rubrics, so that it can be given any sort of emphasis you want; and too many priests who learnt their Vatican II from the media, came to celebrate "in the spirit of Vatican II", which often means, "according to the interpretation of Vatican II that belonged to that group in the Council with which the media could identify."  It means, the kind of celebration where vertical relationships with God are sacrificed to horizontal relationships with "our brothers and sisters."  It means the elimination of the "sacred".  I do not believe it was deliberate: it was done unconsciously.  

The "nouvelle theologie" theologians were devastated.  The situation was far worse than before!   The hi-jacking by the liberals of the "spirit of Vatican II", which had nothing to do with the documents, except where quoted out of context, was a disaster in many places, especially the way so many celebrations of the "new Mass" were celebrated with every whiff of the sacred eliminated in favour the celebration of togetherness. It must also be said that many priests celebrated in a very befitting manner; and when that happened, it was a wonderful success.

   The ressourcement theologians had explained the loss of Catholic practice among Catholic workers by the fact that they had been cut off from opportunities to experience holiness.   Their explanation was confirmed as popular attendance at the new Mass fell sharply, as vocations dropped, and as priests and religious left in droves.   The document on the liturgy is so rich, the celebration of the liturgy that was supposed to be based on the document was, so often, so banal.   An opportunity had been lost, and the results were catastrophic.   The result was that two popes, who had associated themselves in the Council with the nouvelle theologie group, postponed putting into eeffect the main decision of the Council to re-organise the church structure in favour of episcopal collegiality and de-centralisation, in order to counter-act the effects of this liberalism in the Church.

In his disappointment and hurt at what happened to the liturgy,   Joseph Ratzinger as cardinal made some criticisms of the new Mass that showed little respect for the good intentions and professional competence of those who did the work.   In fact, there is nothing unorthodox or even liberal about the texts which were well thought out; and each change had its reasons, was debated by people who knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. Moreover, Pope Paul VIth was closely involved, and is even personally involved in some of the changes.  Cardinal Ratzinger ignored the fact that there are many places where the new Mass is celebrated beautifully, that there was much to be said in favour of many of the changes, and that it had received the enthusiastic approval of Pope Paul and the majority of the bishops, and of a very great number of faithful.   However, after he became Pope, he put much of that right.   Of the new liturgy, he says in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum:

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.

The Pope leaves aside his barbed criticisms that he made as Cardinal and accepts that the new Mass was  approved by Pope Paul VIth in 1970, and the new books were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful.  In other words, the new liturgy is a valid, and in many places, a popular expression of the Tradition of the Church, having as much right to the adjective "traditional" as has the missal of Pius VIth, even if it is new.   Nevertheless, in accordance with eucharistic ecclesiology, even though the process through  “traditioning” has a long way to go.   (Further discussion of this is discovered here.)

To carry on his campaign to improve the liturgy, Pope Benedict XVI postponed the restructuring of the Church that would re-emphasise collegiality as the Council and he had wanted , and began to govern by decree. He even gave a theological justification for this, saying that the only place where the bishops govern with the Pope by divine right is an ecumenical council, and that, if they do meet, their authority comes from the Pope: a bit of a turn-around which cannot be squared with his previous interpretation of the Council.

      Nevertheless, it is clear that he hadn’t thought things through.   Ten years before he became Pope, he lamented the terrible bureaucracy in the Church, saying that  "The saints were people of creativity, not bureaucratic functionaries," and he wrote as Pope  that the Church bureaucracy is “old and tired”.  He also said that any reform of the Church must reduce the bureaucracy, This is the old Fr Joseph speaking!! He did not seem to realise that this over heavy bureaucracy is the inevitable result of centralisation, and that, by supporting centralisation, he was inevitably supporting a large bureaucracy.

   Moreover, it was not consistent with at least one other decision.  In 2001, the Congregation for the Defence of the Faith issued a decree while he was in charge that was initialled by the Pope which said that” the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession”, in spite of the fact it has rejected every ecumenical council since Ephesus.   This implies that local churches are true churches of orthodox faith, not because of their connection with Rome or their relationship with the other local churches: they gain their authenticity from their fidelity to their own Apostolic Tradition, even though it is Catholic teaching that communion with Rome should be a consequence of their orthodoxy. This fidelity makes them identical to all other true churches of orthodox faith, and hence,  one body with all others, including Rome that presides in charity..   That this identity with all other local churches springs from the fullness of its own sacramental life is the truth that justifies both collegiality and de-centralisation. It is what eucharistic ecclesiology is all about.   

It must be remember that this Assyrian Church is not a single diocese, but a communion of local churches under a patriarch, the equivalent of a national or regional church   Although the unity of this communion of local churches does not come from the Pope, nor is it ecclesiastically related to the Pope in any way  , as a union of churches it still functions as a " true particular church built on orthodox faith..."   This view is not consistent with Pope Benedict's view that local and regional synods get their authority from the Pope. 

Also, it goes directly against ecumenical relations with the Orthodox who never recognised nor were even called to recognise, nor ever will recognise that their own patriarchal synods receive their jurisdiction from the Pope.

   However, Catholic teaching requires us to state that the Pope has universal jurisdiction in synergy with with all other episcopal jurisdictions, whether regional, national or diocesan.   This is possible because what truly unites us at the various levels is ecclesial charity, not the domination of power. This is what distinguishes canon law from all types of civil law.  There is no divinely instituted police force, no prisons, nor have the authorities power to put people into hell.  What is left is ecclesial love, sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit who is invoked at the epiclesis in every local celebration, but who does not allow any grouping of Christians at any level to be closed in on itself.   Christian love, in its perfection as a reflection of Christ's love, is universal, and thus has no borders.   For this love to work habitually at all levels, including the universal one, there is need for the papacy.

Another factor in which Pope Francis shows himself in continuity with his two predecessors and with the ressourcement group, especially with Hans Urs von Balthazar,  is the place of beauty as a transcendental leading to God.   He writes in Evangelii Gaudium: 

’167. Every form of catechesis would do well to attend to the “way of beauty” (via pulchritudinis). Proclaiming Christ means showing that to believe in and to follow him is not only something right and true, but also something beautiful, capable of filling life with new splendour and profound joy, even in the midst of difficulties. Every expression of true beauty can thus be acknowledged as a path leading to an encounter with the Lord Jesus. This has nothing to do with fostering an aesthetic relativism which would downplay the inseparable bond between truth, goodness and beauty, but rather a renewed esteem for beauty as a means of touching the human heart and enabling the truth and goodness of the Risen Christ to radiate within it. If, as Saint Augustine says, we love only that which is beautiful, the incarnate Son, as the revelation of infinite beauty, is supremely lovable and draws us to himself with bonds of love. So a formation in the via pulchritudinis ought to be part of our effort to pass on the faith. Each particular Church should encourage the use of the arts in evangelization, building on the treasures of the past but also drawing upon the wide variety of contemporary expressions so as to transmit the faith in a new “language of parables”. We must be bold enough to discover new signs and new symbols, new flesh to embody and communicate the word, and different forms of beauty which are valued in different cultural settings, including those unconventional modes of beauty which may mean little to the evangelizers, yet prove particularly attractive for others.’

Pope Francis is a bit of a mystery for some people, a worry for others, even as his approval ratings reach record heights.   The problem is the same one that the Council had.   The journalists interpret his"off the cuff"  remarks  in the light of their own agenda or to create an interesting story.   They  look for drama, for contrast, for a narrative worth telling; and, if what he says can be interpreted  as a contradiction against the words of Pope Benedict, for example, then that is what they do because then there is narrative. Then, when he says something that contradicts this interpretation, it is worth another article that theorises why he has changed his mind.   In this way, they end up misinforming the public.

Let us take the example of S. Magister and the affair of the Friars of the Immaculate Conception. S. Magister's articles are all the more significant because he is a first class journalist, one that we can normally read when seeking information; but, in the case of the Friars of the Immaculate, he seems to have caught journalitis very badly.

  This highly successful new congregation, with lots of vocations and excellent work in evangelising, accepted the wish of Pope Benedict XVI to celebrate both the new mass and the old.   There was a majority in favour of the old Mass and a minority in favour of the new; though the common practice was to celebrate either according to the circumstances: so far, so good.

  Unfortunately, the minority were made to  feel under attack. It seems that there were those among the majority who regarded the new Mass as sub-Catholic. So bitter did it become that the minority appealed to the Vatican, back in the time of Pope Benedict XVI.  As is usual in these cases, the Vatican sent in people to investigate and, as a result of this investigation, the Vatican removed the general superior, put in a Capuchin administrator, and forbade the celebration of the old Latin Mass.

What was the Vatican trying to do?   It is obvious to any religious.   The Vatican was trying to save the unity of the congregation; and the measures they decreed would only remain in force until the problem was resolved.   However, a rather sordid quarrel and a Vatican patch-up isn't news.   S.Magister and others said this was the first time that the present Pope had gone against Pope Benedict's policy that all may celebrate the old Mass without restriction.   Some gave the impression the Pope Francis was showing his true colours: a wonderful story for a journalist to discover if it were true; but it isn’t.   

Every religious knows, from stories handed down, how, with a religious community, a storm in a tea cup can transform itself into a tempest.   The problem had nothing to do with the Pope, but much to do with the preservation of an excellent congregation that is worth preserving.

  It isn't always going to have a Capuchin superior; nor will the ban on the old Mass last for ever.   For a community to give witness to the Catholicity of both ways of celebrating Mass, more is required than the simple celebration of both uses: they must treat both as equal.   It was they who chose to accept the task to bear witness in this fashion, so that the oath that they must accept both uses, old and new, as equal in status, as equally Catholic, is a simple and logical requirement in the light of the obviously bitter disagreement they have had within the community.   It would never have become public, and the public would never have been misled, if journalists had not been looking for a story, which they distorted to make it worth publishing.   How often has this happened before?.

We shall now look for the news behind the news; and we shall sum up the evidence and ask whether Pope Francis is truly in continuation with Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, or whether he is ploughing a furrow independent of theirs.


There are important differences.   The last two popes were important participants in the Council who joined the French group, along with others, and had had a voice in drawing up the documents.   Pope Francis was a student at the time, but, most probably, highly interested in what was going on.      

One quality he has in common with the ressourcement theologians is contact with and admiration for the Byzantine Tradition, and this influence is clear in what he says and writes.  It began when he regularly served as acolyte at Byzantine Masses as a boy.  He believes the Catholic Church should learn what the Holy Spirit has taught our separated brethren down the ages, especially the tradition of the Orthodox churches on regional government. His belief that the Holy Spirit acts in and through Orthodox tradition is clear and unequivocal. His acceptance of eucharistic ecclesiology was made clear from his very first days because his preferred title is not "Pope" but "Bishop of Rome" who presides in charity - using the language of St Ignatius of Antioch.   When wanting to show the difference between prosyletism and evangelisation, he said in a recent talk that evangelisation is the product of the Holy Spirit and the evangelist working in synergy.   This use of the word “synergy” is an Orthodox theological term of immense importance.   It appears in the Catholic Catechism weakly translated as “co-operation”.   His use of the word accurately shows his closeness to Orthodox thought. I shall bring up another field where, I believe, he may be looking  for guidance, but I will do this nearer the end of this article.

As a Latin American Catholic, he shares with the Orthodox a similar understanding of images.   For example, the Brazilian Marian shrine of Aparecida has that name because finding a small statue of Our Lady in a river was hailed as equivalent to a surprise apparition: images manifest the presence of the saint depicted.   In all this he shows his theology to be very close to that of Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul.


Another sign that he learned from the "progressive" side of Vatican II to which Archbishop Wojtyla and Fr Joseph Ratzinger belonged, is his conviction that his first task is to confront the modern world with the kerygma, with the love of God in Jesus, to allow the other teachings of the Church, which he fully accepts and regards as important, to enjoy second place to the preaching of the kerygma, and to invite from us our personal response.   He preaches the kerygma at every opportunity.  This has led many people to misunderstand him; though people who have read Johannes Hofinger would recognise what he is doing.   Unless we have this personal relationship to Jesus, the pro-life,  anti-divorce stances of the Catholic Church are out of their true context and lack conviction; and we can no longer take for granted that people have had the Gospel preached to them.   Without knowledge of the Good News, our morality seems to be nothing more than out-of-date opinion.

Pope Francis has more in common with Father Joseph Ratzinger, the theological expert of Cardinal Frings at the Council, than with Pope Benedict XVI.   Read this excerpt from the National Catholic Reporter.   The words in inverted commas are the words of Fr Ratzinger:

Although the first session of the council produced no concrete results, it was, according to Ratzinger, of outstanding importance for two reasons. In the first place, in refusing to endorse the materials prepared by the Roman curia, “the body of bishops” demonstrated that it “was a reality in its own right.” The preparatory schema on revelation, for example, was “utterly a product of the ‘antimodernist’ mentality,” according to Ratzinger. Would the “almost neurotic denial of all that was new” be continued? Or would the church “turn over a new leaf, and move on into a new and positive encounter with its own origins, with its brothers, and with the world of today? Since a clear majority of the fathers opted for the second alternative, we may even speak of the council as a new beginning.”In rejecting the schema on revelation “the council had asserted its own teaching authority. And now, against the curial congregations which serve the Holy See and its unifying functions, the council had caused to be heard the voice of the episcopate -- no, the voice of the universal church.”In the second place, the first chapter of the Constitution on the Liturgy “contains a statement that represents for the Latin church a fundamental innovation.” The statement in question is the stipulation that, within certain limits, episcopal conferences “possess in their own right a definite legislative function.” Ratzinger sees this as of outstanding importance: “Perhaps one could say that this small paragraph, which for the first time assigns to the conferences of bishops their own canonical authority, has more significance for the theology of the episcopacy and for the long desired strengthening of episcopal power than anything in the Constitution on the Church itself.”Whereas previous popes had “regarded the curia as their personal affair on which a council had no right to encroach,” as a result of Pope Paul VI’s opening address to the second session, “the theme of curial reform was ... in a sense officially declared open for council debate.” At the heart and center of debates on the schema on the church was the notion of collegiality: “Just as Peter belonged to the community of the Twelve, so the pope belongs to the college of bishops, regardless of the special role he fills, not outside but within the college.” Later discussion of the schema on bishops sought concretely to implement the concept of collegiality by decentralizing power to bishops and episcopal conferences, and by proposing appropriate forms of centralization through the creation of “an episcopal council in Rome.”

Ratzinger’s reflections on the debates on ecumenism, the schema on which may be seen as “a pastoral application of the doctrine in the schema on the church,” contain an interesting discussion on the relationship between “churches” and “the church” in the form of a detailed response to the Protestant ecclesiology laid out in October 1963 in a lecture in Rome by Edmund Schlink of Heidelberg, Germany.

This session saw the promulgation of the first two conciliar texts, the Constitution on the Liturgy and the Decree on the Media of Social Communication. Paul VI’s formula of approbation broke with the custom, since the late Middle Ages, of regarding conciliar decisions being put into effect as papal law: “Paul, bishop, servant of the servants of God, together with the council fathers” (my stress).

On the other hand, for Pope Benedict XVI, the Synod of Bishops only had a consultative voice, as was laid down by Pope Paul who founded them, because cum Petro must necessarily mean sub Petro.   Really, everybody agrees that the bishops have the duty, received at ordination, to govern the whole Church with the Pope; but it is not so easy to put all the different threads together, either in theory or in practice, especially as Pope Francis is charged with a task for which there is no precedent.  

Towards the end of the Council, it is said that Father Ratzinger was already worried that people were seeing the  bishops as a future parliament.   In his vision of the Church, the relationship that the bishops have among themselves, and the relationship between the Pope and the college of bishops have nothing to do with any model taken from secular politics.   It seems that any attempt to express this these relationships in legal terms is fraught with difficulties.   It seems that the only thing to do is to work out a modus vivendi and put that in legal terms, while knowing that the ecclesial reality of the Church is a Christian Mystery too big to be adequately expressed in a legal vocabulary.   Apophatic theology also has its place when describing the reality of the Church.

In fact, in spite of efforts on the part of journalists and the jibes from some right-wing bloggers,   Pope Francis's theology is not very different from his two predecessors.   He is a straight down the middle, orthodox Catholic who has been greatly influenced by Vatican II and by the same theological influences that were important to the last two popes.

However, there is one enormous difference.   He has several academic degrees, but is not an academic.   The university which had most influence on his life he found on the streets of Buenos Aires. Although I live in Peru, it is not so different among the poor.  Once he became Archbishop, he began to walk the streets in the poorest barrios, talking to the people, sharing their worries, listening to their woes, learning about people living and caring for their children, and making ends meet, in spite of almost impossible odds.  He would have discovered that a large proportion of the families exist without the sacrament of marriage; there are many divorced, many women are bringing up children whose father is married to someone else; and many are living in conditions which make any change from their present situation virtually impossible.   He will have also found that, living among all this hardship and sin and ignorance, many examples of heroism and even of sanctity.   He will have discovered people "living in sin" who show heroic virtues, a self-sacrificing generosity that has made him feel very small; and he will have discovered people living in the state of grace under conditions which make their virtue seem miraculous.  He will be surprised how, under these condirions so many people are so kind, to one another, and to people less fortunate than themselves.   There is also cruelty and vice, sheer evil that does not hide its face.

It was his job to show these people the love of God, to tell them of Christ who died for them, to preach the resurrection where there only seems room for death. 

Then he had to celebrate Mass for them, perhaps during a fiesta.   He sees the fervour of so many, with devotion in their eyes, as they accompany the image of the feast, feeling God's presence through the image, in the midst of the jostling crowd.   Then comes communion; and they surge forward like hungry dogs - the description by Graham Greene of peasants in Mexico, but it is true - as they approach the Lord.

I am now projecting onto Pope Francis my own experience and that of countless other priests, but I suspect that I am not far from the truth.   Archbishop Bergoglio was a very correct and orthodox in his beliefs.   From his conversation with the people, he knows the highly irregular situations of so many who are pressing forward to receive communion.   He knows the rules and agrees with them.   He doesn't want to see them changed because they are true to how things should be.   But, somehow, he thinks, deep down, that, on this occasion, if he really wishes that they should know that God loves them, if he really wants these wounded, broken people to meet the Lord and be healed, if he wants to feed the very real and profound goodness in so many of them, he should put aside the rules and feel the multitude with Christ's body.  That does not mean he believes the rules are wrong, just that there is something more pressing than observance of the rules, specially among people who know only vaguely what the rules are or do not know how to get out of the situation they are in.   There are situations where even good and true rules can be obstacles between the sinner and the love of God. Gradually, as the Church became more and more present, he would introduce order, and, with the order would come the rules; but,looking back, he would know that, those early Masses gave the Church in the poor barrio a kick-start. Rules are for those who are capable of obeying them: manifesting God's mercy is a constant in our pastoral behaviour.. That mercy sometimes has priority over the rules, and that usually, it is best served working through the rules is recognised in Orthodox pastoral theology, and I wonder if this isn't one of the areas where Pope Francis might be looking for ideas from them.

Pope Francis believes what Pope Benedict believes, and he follows the same line, but they do it in very different ways.   But their way of living the same faith is coloured by their very different formations.   It would be silly to say that one is right and the others is wrong: they are different.   They also came to be Pope under very different circumstances and have different gifts, given them by God, to fulfil different roles in the implimentation of Vatican II.   The "reform of the reform" is still underway - we are having the publication of all the documents concerning the Constitution on the Liturgy, and there have been at least two Graduale's published in English; but it will probably be others, rather than the present Pope, who will continue the task.  Pope Francis has set himself the task of implementing collegiality, as well as putting the emphasis on the kerygma, on the love of God in Christ, and he is trying always to put the teaching of the Church in that context.   In this, his theology is in agreement with Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, but he is doing so much more emphatically.

   





 .