This is one of the best (probably the best) series of lectures on Vatican II that I have come across.
The true Benedict option:
From the YouTube description: “In the Jubilee year 2000 the monks of Norcia breathed new life into the birthplace of St Benedict. Armed with only their faith and zeal they founded a monastic community which has been attracting men from all over the world to follow St. Benedict’s ancient Rule. Many of their friends have long wanted an insight into the inner workings of their life and so they have produced this high quality up to date film which shows the monks as they go through the daily ora et labora. The title of the film, ‘Quaerere Deum,’ means to Seek God. This is the true calling of all monks, the first and most essential quality of an authentic monastic vocation, as laid out in the Rule of our Holy Father St. Benedict.”
The Monks of Norcia website.
I’m reposting this, because it is so good. But also because we live in a society that has become a slave to sentimentality. This is also true of Christianity — sentimentality affects so much and we are so blind. O’Connor hated sentimentality. Ralph Wood speaks to this in the midst of so much else he says. A rich talk indeed.
Do not let the Traditional Latin Mass become a source of division — and this goes both ways.
From the YouTube description: “Archbishop Sample’s homily during the 2015 Gregorian Chant conference at the Brigittine Monastery in Amity, Oregon on March 7th.”
Here is Cardinal Sarah on the “reform of the reform”:
But here is my hope: God willing, when he wills and as he wells, the reform of the reform will take place in the liturgy. Despite the gnashing of teeth, it will happen, for the future of the Church is at stake. To ruin the liturgy is to ruin our relationship to God and the concrete expression of our Christian faith. (Sarah 134)
Here Cardinal Sarah sees a direct connection between the liturgy (from the Greek λειτουργία, meaning “the work of the people), to our faith. I would guess he would see the way we do liturgy today is not unlike whether the ancient Israelites followed the temple rules in their day, or instead made up new rules and tried to innovate. What would God have thought? How well would those Israelites have created a liturgy better than what God gave them? Is it likely they would have created a liturgy more suited to their souls, more in harmony with their human nature? According the the cardinal, ruining the liturgy ruins our relationship to God.
I was trained to believe none of this is true, or not very important. I was trained to view liturgy as basically inconsequential. I have come to believe otherwise. Much of my understanding derives from a better anthropology than what I once had. I also believe what we have in the Old Testament, though we are not bound to worship exactly as the Israelites did, is a picture of what a human being needs in terms of ritual, liturgy, and cult. When God gave Moses the law and instructions for the tabernacle, and then later to David and Solomon instructions for the temple, and gave them specific instructions for worship, He did so in complete accord with how He created them. God knows what a human being is and needs. We should keep that in mind when we consider how best to do liturgy today, and from what & where we draw our models and our inspiration.
An aside: There are those who would stop the “reform of the reform” because they think it’s not necessary and is grounded in a love of traditions than in more important things. Others say it does not go far enough because the Mass of Paul VI is too fundamentally broken that it should just be scrapped altogether rather than reformed. I don’t know where I stand, I’m not theologian or liturgist, but from what I know of Cardinal Sarah, I stand with him.
And from what I’ve read, I would guess the cardinal seeks reform that is more traditional than even many reforms might seek.
Sarah, Robert, Nicolas Diat, and Michael J. Miller. The Power of Silence: Against the Dictatorship of Noise. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2017. Print.
Is the shape of a church important for the Church?
The Church is the body of Christ. He is the head, we are the body. We are to imitate Him. We are to take up our cross and follow Him.
The way we worship expresses our love, devotion, and commitment to Christ — at least it should. We know this from experience, observation, and Scripture. The way we worship forms us and instills within us the truth of Christ. In this sense worship is also an act of education and training, like an athlete trains her body. The places we worship, and their design and construction, play a role in how our faith is formed.
We are His body. His body that hung on the cross and then rose to glory — we now take that on in a profound mystical sense. The cruciform church is in the shape both of a cross and of a body: head, arms, body, legs and feet. A church in the round, or fan shaped, or “deconstructed” in some modernist fashion, does not express in its form the body of Christ, or of the pilgrim Church carrying its cross.
Both church designs can celebrate the community of believers, but one does so more by declaring that the community is so because of Christ the head, the other declares community more as though it does not need Christ as head, but merely alongside. One says the Real Presence is truly present because Christ is the Real Presence and He is truly present in the Eucharist, the other says the Real Presence is there because Christians are present. One is more about appropriately connecting truth and emotion, the other more about feeding sentimentality. One is more suited for worship, the other more for entertainment. One says Christ is king, the other Jesus is my buddy.
The buildings in which we live, work, and worship silently form us in ways that we often do not notice until it’s too late. It takes conscious work to mentally overcome bad or ill-suited architecture (in all walks of life). It can be done, but it’s better not to have to.
I love the cruciform church. A church does not have to be cruciform to be excellent, but if one has the opportunity to build a church, why not timeless, why not cruciform? I don’t know why architects and bishops have given us so many non-cruciform, trendy-style churches in recent decades. Ironically, many are now stylistically passé. Perhaps they did it due to losing one’s way — bishops can do that just as can you or I. Perhaps its merely a symptom of losing an understanding of the incarnation. (But is that not losing one’s way?)
We have an incarnational faith. God became man. We are Christ’s body. Take up your cross.
Every part of the design has meaning. Nothing in the design is not connected in one way or another to the doctrines of the Church and the Catholic understanding of God, man, and the Gospel.