Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 22

Thoughts on the Practice of Preferring to Receive Holy Communion from a Priest

For previous treatments see my posts about overuse of Eucharistic Ministers of Holy Communion, and a lengthy dialogue on receiving from a priest, with priests. See also the public Facebook thread where I linked to this, with more of my own comments and those of others, and a second Facebook thread with yet more comments.
* * * * *
Reason #412,574,034 why I am close in spirit (in many ways) to mainstream "traditionalists" (as opposed to radical Catholic reactionaries).

***

Nothing against eucharistic ministers themselves (really). All I'm saying is that there is excessive use, and that I receive from the priest because he is the alter Christus / in persona Christi in a way that the lay ministers are not.

That's my entire argument in a nutshell. I discussed it with several priests: some agreed with me, one (very much) did not. But he's an esteemed friend with a great, thriving parish, so we can agree to disagree. No biggie.

***

I prefer to receive from a priest (and no one has of yet told me why I should not have that opinion or not be able to exercise it). One priest friend of mine could only argue that I would be disrupting the Mass. But I take great pains to not do that, and if it causes a "scene" I don't get in a different line.

***

Fr. Rod Allers (in blue throughout this section): there is absolutely no difference between the host in my bowl and that of an extra-ordinary minister.

I didn't say there was. The only difference is the status of you vs. them. You're a priest; they are not. And that is a significant factor. It's precisely why the use of EMHCs is supposed to be limited in the first place.

The EM (for sake of space) is exercising a valid ministry.

Of course; already acknowledged that; not an issue.

I think you should be serenely free to receive from who you would like, just so long as you understand that there is no difference.

Good. No difference in Who I am receiving; difference in the one I'm receiving from (and this cannot be denied).

Point I am trying to make is this... the Truth for all of us probably lies in a radical trust of God in our lives. I have also found that the Truth is usually found somewhere in the middle. I have watched a few traditionalists think the church is a haven for them rather than a mission to proclaim forgiveness and reconciliation and true freedom and fullness of humanity. I think both extremes have hindered this mission.

I agree. I'm not a "traditionalist". I am coming at this from a concern for the rubrics, and from the theology of the priesthood. I'm all for mission, of course, being an apologist and evangelist myself.

I have extreme respect for priests. May God always bless you, Father, as you serve Him! Thanks so much for your time and valuable input on this thread. 

***

There is a sense in which one may receive a little more alongside receiving the Eucharist (which remains the same from either source): akin to a priestly blessing. I don't know if that is literally true or not but I suspect it is. The hand that consecrated the elements now distributes our Lord Who is there because of the miracle of transubstantiation wrought by his own hands.

To me it is (technically speaking) more of a liturgical or symbolic thing than eucharistic. The priest is the norm; therefore I prefer him if at all possible. He's out there distributing communion, too. I want to receive from the priest.

What possible objection could there be? The priest who commented on this thread fully agreed that anyone can receive from the priest. Certainly there is no canonical prohibition of it. We ought not disrupt the procedure to do so; we agree on that.

***

Those of us who prefer the priest don't usually "switch lines"; we simply get in the one where the priest is, without making a fuss.

I commend you for your service. As I have reiterated, none of this discussion requires any derision against EMHCs per se (have lots of friends who do this): it's only objecting to overuse of them, and poorly trained ones, or ones with objectionable demeanor or dress.

Nor does preference to receive from a priest necessarily imply any such derision at all. We want to receive from him, because that is the norm, and he is the alter Christus. It's not difficult to understand.

I agree that if this is accompanied with dumb attitudes and elitism, or disrupts a service, it then becomes wrong. I don't do any of that.

We're not trying to major in the minors. We seek to receive Our Lord from the alter Christus. Don't take it personally! It is not (or shouldn't be) any slam at you.

Even if one who takes this view holds that excessive use is in play, it's still not the fault of the individual EMHC, but of the priest who should know his rubrics better.

We have to be careful. If abuses take place, it's not the fault of every EMHC. If you do a perfectly fine, solemn, pious job you shouldn't be subjected to any criticism for it. As one who is subjected to bum raps almost every day online, I can deeply empathize with that. It's terrible.

As an analogy, I often criticize the public schools. But I rarely criticize teachers in them. I have the utmost respect for teachers of all sorts. It's a system vs. individuals in the system issue. So I can respect you as an EMHC, while continuing to object to abuses in the way it is carried out, as outlined in this thread.

But you and I both know that there are EMHCs who don't do a good job, and it is understandable that there is a lot of resentment and even anger over that. We've seen it in this thread. This sublimely sacred act -- a sacrament -- of Holy Communion shouldn't have to be accompanied by impious or inappropriate behavior (like my example of the lady with nice legs and a miniskirt).

It's a lot like abuses in the OF Mass. We are complaining about that, not the Mass itself (like the RadCathRs do). 

***

Catholics believe that it is not only the Blood given under the appearance of wine but the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, under either and both elements or accidents. That's why if only one is given, there is no intrinsic loss in what is received. There is no necessity to receive both, as the host contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ (which is why the Church reserved the cup for many centuries). Both/and as usual in Catholicism. Anyone can do one or both, and they are receiving Jesus.


***

It's not about EMHCs; it's about wanting to receive from the alter Christus. Individuals who do this ministry may be the holiest, most pious ministers in the history of the world, but it remains the case that they aren't priests. That is the reasoning behind why I practice the way I do.

But I received from a deacon at my parish the last time. I didn't make a "scene" or get legalistic about it. I only "switch" to the priest if it doesn't disrupt anything.

***

My post was no more running down priests (quite the contrary!) than it was supposedly running down EMHCs. If it is a large parish, the Church allows for EMHCs. If not, it's a violation of the rubrics. That's not me saying that: it's Holy Mother Church (and writers like Jimmy Akin and Fr. Peter Stravinskas pointing this out). I didn't make the rules.

***

I'm not questioning the role of the EMHC at all. I am saying it is abused according to the rubrics, and that I prefer to receive from a priest. Having a preference carries no implication whatever that one is "against" the thing not chosen. 

***

The Body of Christ is the Body of Christ no matter who you receive Him from.

Of course. Not the issue at all. I simply want to receive my Lord from the hands of the person who presided over the consecration. As a priest stated above, the Church says this is the "ordinary" way of receiving Holy Communion. I could see that offense could rightly be taken if I were bashing Extraordinary Ministers, but I'm not, as reiterated about 3,863 times by now. To criticize an abuse of a practice is not to criticize the practice.

It's also against the rubrics to raise hands during the Our Father or hold hands during it. But that is rarely ever taught, for some reason. It's harmless, yet the Church has the rubrics for good reason, I assume. 99% of the congregants who do it don't know it is against the rubrics.

Either the priests who allow it don't know what the rubrics say about that, or don't care, which I find disturbing. I think if they made a statement during the homily, 95% of Catholics would gladly obey the instruction. 

***

"With over 2,000 people there is no way that I could distribute communion to even half of them."

Exactly, Father! That is a case where EMHCs are needed, and why the Church provides that assistance to the priest. Everything is great if folks will simply go by what the Church teaches, in its rubrics and in everything else it authoritatively proclaims.

If someone is completely against the EMHCs, they go against the Church. If someone rails against a person who simply wants to receive Holy Communion from a priest (the "ordinary" way), without being legalistic or spiritual prideful or disruptive, that is wrong, too: just as it was wrong to deprive Catholics of the right (by canon law) to receive kneeling and on the tongue: though many priests sought to deprive them of that. 

***

Fr. Carlos (and to the other priests in this thread, on both sides of this issue),

There is no one I respect more than priests. You are extraordinary human beings, and my heroes. I immensely admire all the work priests do, and what you yourself (Fr. Carlos) do (reading your comments). I never claimed that any priest had to distribute Holy Communion to 2,000 people!

EMHCs FOR 2,000 PEOPLE IS NOT AN ABUSE OF THE RUBRICS. (I use caps because many people seem to be missing this elementary point in what I'm saying, or at any rate, have written elsewhere in other papers).

"You can decide that Communion should only be distributed by the priest because he is the most worthy person to distribute Our Lord."

That's not my reasoning at all (I can't speak for all others in the thread: they may have some erroneous thinking). My reasoning is that he is the alter Christus, and presided over the consecration. His personal holiness is technically irrelevant to this particular discussion, on the basis of the notion of ex opere operato. That was all decided definitively back in St. Augustine's time. 

***

The Church does not forbid a Catholic from receiving from a priest if he or she wants to do that. It would be as legalistic and wrong to frown upon that or forbid it as it would be to do the same towards the EMHCs. Legalism can be present in either side of an issue. 

***

"getting into the other line to receive Communion from the priest is not criticizing the abuse of the practice: it is criticizing the practice."

It's not criticizing anything! It's a personal preference in good faith, just as how we receive Holy Communion (standing / kneeling / hand / mouth) is: one acknowledged by the Church. There's really no argument against it.

I'm sure that some who do this are legalistic, prideful Pharisees, because legalism can be found in any belief-system or practice: we being sinful human beings. If a person is plainly being disruptive or has spiritual pride, then I am against that as much as anyone. But that has to be determined.

In any event, the simple preference to receive from a priest is not legalistic or prideful at all, in and of itself. Priests are the dispensers of the sacraments. They grant absolution. They baptize.

I received from the deacon in our parish last time I went to church. I'm not legalistic at all. He's not an alter Christus. And his being at the Mass was not an abuse.

***

"I am a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic. We never use EMs - our priests don't seem to mind serving a lot of people."

This is another indication or continuance of the traditional way of doing that. Eastern Catholics comprise many many millions of Catholics. It was this way for a reason. So the Latin Rite now allows EMHCs. That's fine. The Church can do whatever she wants, and I defend her, and do so here.

At the same time, those of us who want to receive from a priest should not be insulted and frowned upon simply because we prefer to receive the way the Church dispensed Holy Communion for 1950 years. That's ludicrous. If the Church had said we must receive from the EMHC or never can receive kneeling or on the tongue, that would be entirely different. But of course that is not the case. Thus, legalism on either side of this is uncalled-for.

We've been through all this sort of argumentation regarding the TLM / EF. People who preferred that have been pilloried and insulted. Then all of a sudden JPII and BXVI started allowing it more widely. I had always advocated freedom of worship, since I became a Catholic in 1990. So I was ecstatic about all that. I myself prefer the OF. I want folks to worship as they prefer for themselves and not to be run down for it.

***

"I am more focused on WHO I am receiving, then WHOM I am receiving from...."

GOOD. SO AM I! The insinuation is that those of us who prefer to receive from a priest somehow think we get "more" of Jesus in doing so. No one I'm aware of is saying that, and it would be ridiculous if they did. No one is denying that Jesus is received, either way, and that that is overwhelmingly more important than any other consideration. That's not at issue. This is a question of liturgy and personal preference and piety (and what the Church allows). 

***

"My position is if someone chooses to ONLY receive from a priest it is an act of pride."

I agree if they did that and decided never ever to receive otherwise, and/or blast the Church for allowing otherwise. But I'm not doing that, and I don't think most or all of the others on the thread who prefer the priest think that way, either. 

***

"Life for Catholics would be a lot happier if everyone would just follow what the Church teaches."

Oh, I agree 100%. Now, can you be so kind as to tell me which Church teaching or canon law or rubric I violate for wanting to receive Holy Communion from a priest? Thanks. [it never came]

***



"One thing I've never understood, is why some people feel the need to publically state that, "I only go to a Latin Mass", or "I always receive Communion on the tongue", or "I prefer to receive Communion only from a Priest." What is the purpose in making these public declarations?"

Fair enough; a fair question. Some people do do it in a prideful way, I think (I'm not saying who: God knows), because that is the human condition. Every good thing is corrupted by the devil. I agree that there is no particular reason to state this out of the blue. It usually comes up in discussions of liturgy.

It's not just a matter of some prideful bigot wanting to receive a certain way or else they'll condemn everyone including the priest, pout, and take their bat and ball and go home. It's a serious consideration regarding the Eucharist.

I've condemned legalism and pride and insults on both sides. All I'm doing is practicing my faith as I see fit, in good conscience, not trying to make any scene or disrupt anything or condemn anyone else.

***

"Why the need to stir up controversy with particular topics that we know will produce controversy?"

1) I think all topics regarding the Catholic faith are worth discussing.

2) Heaven help me, I am an idealist and will be to the grave, and I actually think that anyone ought to be able to discuss anything rationally, without rancor and acrimony, and that Christians should be able to do this and edify and learn from each other. The reality is often otherwise, but that is the cross we idealists bear. We keep trying.

3) Simply disagreeing is not the problem. Rather, it is when accusations of interior dispositions get slung around. 

4) It's worth discussing, because there is a lot of erroneous thinking in this area about why people are doing what they do: the rationale for it, alter Christus, etc. 

***

I agree that there have been some attacks on EMHCs too. I oppose those, not because they are never true, but because it makes the argument turn emotional, and folks get defensive. We must take pains to say that we're not against all of them because some do a lousy job at it.

***

"I don't think anyone is learning anything here, feelings are just being hurt."

I can't control how people behave. I expect adult Christians to conduct themselves with charity and sensibility.

But I will not refuse to have a discussion because certain folks get all in a tizzy about it. If a controversy is present, generally in my experience it is because of massive misunderstanding and/or ignorance. That's why people are getting mad. They say something about the other side that betrays their lack of understanding, then the other side gets insulted and hurt (since it misrepresents them) and it escalates.

The way to get beyond that is not to put our heads in the sand and go throw a Frisbee and sing Kumbaya around the fire, ending the night with a group hug. It's talking it through: listening to each other; interacting with opposing arguments. That's how adult Christians should be able to resolve things. But if some people want to manifest that they cannot engage in a discussion without getting angry and insulting, then it's a free country. All I can do is delete the worst offenses.

I refuse to give into the lowest common denominator. I'll keep being the biblical idealist and try to call people to a higher behavior, not give up and in effect admit that we are incapable of it, like we're a bunch of first-graders: not a whit different in behavior from the world we are called to be a witness to: offering something better and different, because of God's grace and the Holy Spirit in us.

According to 1 Corinthians 13, love "believes all things." That's part of love. I believe we can do better in talking about this.

***

One of the problems here is that people (on all sides of any issue) tend to think in terms of "either/or" or back and white; oppositional thinking, or what Louis Bouyer calls "dichotomous thinking": the incessant and annoying tendency of pitting one thing against another when there is no need at all to do so.

So if a person simply says, "I prefer to receive Our Lord at Mass from the priest" other people hear or think that means, "I am condemning all of you morons who receive from the EMHC and I'm spiritually superior to you."

One doesn't follow from the other. It's sort of like someone saying, "I prefer chocolate ice cream." Then the next guy says, "why are you condemning me for liking vanilla ice cream better? I'm not inferior to you!"

***

"Dave, you seem to ignore the fact that this approach causes division"

Jesus caused division. He said, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword; brother will be divided against brother . . ." Paul caused a big ruckus wherever he went (often riots). How is that any argument to not discuss something?

All I would have to do is delete comments from the folks who can't talk amiably to those with whom they disagree. I have deleted some, but generally I like to allow free speech as much as possible. I was a staff moderator of a forum for three years at The Coming Home Network, so I even have experience with that. We allowed absolutely no personal attacks. We were very strict about it. And I'm almost that strict on my Facebook pages.

"In fact the true Christian way, would be to be in the line least favorable, and let others receive the "best""

Okay; following that "logic" I'll seek out the crappiest, most insufficient Christian service I can find (with no sacraments, lousy sermon, ugly building, etc.), so I can be sure to exalt in my own humility in abasing myself and making sure that other folks get fed better than I do at a church service.

[That is what is called in logic, a reductio ad absurdum. Illustrating the absurdity of an opposing position by taking it to its logical extreme. St. Paul was quite fond of it.]

"I think switching lines is offensive...for any reason."

Why? Because you can't handle a person who believes in good faith in a thing you don't agree with? How does it affect you? Why must you be bothered by what someone else does? My view is, "worship and let worship." That's why I defend reception of communion in different ways, defend folks going to whatever kind of Mass they want, and now defend this choice if someone wants to make it, since the Church doesn't forbid it.
***

And another thing occurs to me. If this practice we are advocating is so extremely prideful: up there with the Pharisees: the most unimaginably wicked thing conceivable (receiving from a priest!), why is it that the Church doesn't simply forbid it once and for all: say that no one can choose to receive the Lord from a priest if they want to (where EMHCs are present)?

The Church has all kinds of other regulations, yet with this it says not a word (that I'm aware of). Instead we have folks condemning others for a thing the Church says nothing about. 

***

"changing lines is not the answer to a problem."

It's not a "problem" at all: it's a preference. 

"Does Jesus switch lines? no, He stays, so should you.....who is above the Master?"

Jesus didn't go to Mass; He started it. He didn't have to wait in any line. He served Himself.

***

Virtually all of us who do this, desire to do it "without causing a problem." Yet we're too often accused of being disruptive and raising a ruckus at Mass. People will believe whatever they want, if they have an emotional disdain of something and don't seem to even understand it in the first place. Clearly, people are out to sea on this, if they think we think it's because the priest is way holier than anyone else, or that we receive more of Jesus from him (as if Jesus can be quantified: that is rank heresy, denying His simplicity and self-sufficiency).

Nor are we saying that EMHCs are fundamentally evil and wicked and that the Church has no reason or right to allow them. Myths and fables abound.

***

We take three seconds max to get in one line rather than another, without causing the slightest problem. How does that somehow subtract from our adoration of our Lord?


*** 

"Maybe for the first time in their lives they feel needed? or welcomed by the church?"

Yes, maybe so. Wonderful! Good for them! Now kindly explain to me how that is any reason why I should be forced to receive Holy Communion from them? 

***


Worship and let worship. I've never disrupted a Mass in my life. I've never personally criticized or have been rude to a priest, either in person or online (or an EMHC, either, for that matter). I always treat priests with the utmost respect and deference. I detest parish council meetings when they are filled with infighting, complaining, backbiting, trashing the priest (which seems to be, sadly, often), and refuse to participate in that (nor did I as a Protestant, with all their endless civil wars in congregations, etc.). I'm the last person in the world who wants to foster any division or bickering within a congregation.

Here is the simple solution, from m,y friend Patti Sheffield: "I just receive from whomever the Church says is okay to receive from, and don't mind if others prefer to go to a priest or a deacon. As long as nobody is disruptive it's no big deal."

The truth is so simple and right in front of us. Thanks, Patti! My variation of this would be:

"I prefer to receive from a priest whom the Church never says I should not receive from, and don't mind if others prefer to go to an EMHC. I'm not disruptive at all, so it's no big deal."

***

My friend Bret Bellamy wrote: "When I was Latin Catholic, my preference was to receive Communion from the priest or deacon. However, if I happened to be in a line with an EM, I continued in that line. To me, disrupting Communion for others due to my personal preference tramples on an important virtue overlooked by some/many on this issue as well as on a related issue that shall never be named. That virtue is Charity."

I agree 100% Bret. Thanks! As I've said, if I'm at another parish (since this isn't an issue at my own), I try to get into the line where the priest is, if it causes no disturbance. If not, I receive from the EMHC in the hand with no attitudes whatsoever of hatred, derision, haughtiness, arrogance, etc.

There are few other situations where my mind, heart and soul are so wholly concentrated on our Lord and adoration than when receiving Holy Communion. Any insinuation that I am supposedly thinking of all this other rotgut during that time is severely offensive to me.

***Of course "switching lines" could be disruptive. No one denies that. What we're saying is that we who do this don't cause a disruption, so it's a moot point: criticizing a thing no one is doing in the first place. Several times, we have said (in the previous thread) that if it causes a disruption, we receive from the EMHC.

Some people say they would never receive from an EMHC. As long as they don't disrupt, that's fine, but if they do cause a disruption or "scene" in order to receive from a priest, I say that that is wrong and inconsiderate of others.

***"on a personal level I am sure the vast majority [of EMHCs] are sincerely trying to serve the Church and do a good job."

I've said the same many times, too.

***

I'm not against the thing itself (EMHCs); I am for reform of the abuse of the thing. Huge difference . . . I don't say, "ditch all the EMHCs and what the Church wants; be gone with all of 'em." Rather, my view is: "there are widespread abuses; those should be reformed, and I personally prefer to receive from a priest, without judging anyone else, which is not my business to do."

This is completely sensible and can hardly be argued against. 

***Someone also mentioned how if someone was at a Mass with the pope, wouldn't they try to receive from him? That would take it to another level still. It's still the same Jesus, but people want to receive from the pope, and there isn't one thing wrong with that.

***

There were actually three issues simultaneously being discussed (in the now-deleted, often acrimonious Facebook thread), and that confused things all the more:

1) Abuses in the practices of using EMHC (i.e., too many for too small of a crowd). That is the priest's fault: who should know better.

2) Abuses of some few individual EMHCs (clothes, demeanor, irreverence, ignorance of communion on the tongue). This is the individual's fault.

[neither #1 nor #2 implicate EMHCs as a class or a whole, because the fault lies with a priest or one EMHC, not the Church or the whole group]

3) The preference of an individual to receive Holy Communion from a priest. This is a permitted preference and it's no one's "fault" and does not inherently correspond with alleged pride or other unsavory dispositions. Nor does it automatically imply disdain of EMHCs. 

***

Our reasoning is that the priest is the alter Christus who presided over the Eucharist in a way that the EMHC has not done. Thus we prefer to receive from him, as was almost exclusively done till Vatican II, still is among Eastern Catholics and Orthodox and even Anglo-Catholics.

It is not "anti-EMHC"; it's "pro-priest as the alter Christus." It's not running down EMHCs as a class or as individuals, as just clarified. They have their place. But it's often abused in numbers, and poorly trained ones do the whole valid ministry a grave disservice. 

***I don't personally receive from the priest (if possible) because of any abuses among EMHCs because I have never personally been confronted with that. I go to the priest because he is the priest. Period. Its a very simple thing, really. The priest is a special person; he dispenses sacraments as part of his main duties. We want to receive our Lord from him.

***In one place I said that this perspective is not so much eucharistic (since the same Lord is received in any case) as it is liturgical and symbolic. This is why it is so misunderstood and pilloried, because traditional liturgical sensibilities and outlooks are so poorly known, primarily because many millions no longer practice them, and we are less familiar with what we have little or no personal acquaintance with.

***Another thought I have is that we shouldn't run down the special, extraordinary nature of the priest in emphasizing a greater role of the laity. As always in Catholicism, it's a "both/and" proposition." The priest remains special, while we figure out that the laity should have a greater participation, too.

I'm all for lay involvement and ministry, obviously. I've been a full time apologist for twelve years now. When it comes to EMHCs, however, that is part of the Mass, so there are obvious limitations. They can't perform the Mass, they can't consecrate (even a deacon can't do that). They can't give homilies. They can't hear confessions before Mass, or absolve. They can't give blessings. They are supposed to be used only in "extraordinary" circumstances, with large numbers, but we all know that is often (if not usually) not the case.

Quite obviously, then, they remain vastly different in status from priests, and so many of us prefer to receive from the priest. I'm truly sorry if someone is offended by that or imagines that it is "anti-EMHC." It's not.

There is also the fact that in the numerous cases of overuse of the EMHCs, partaking from them is literally participating in the abuse; knowing it is an abuse (if a person is aware of the provisions concerning them). Thus if one was trying to follow Church rubrics, there would be all the more reason to receive from the priest.

***

If we point out what the Church actually teaches about the use of EMHCs, all of a sudden some folks say we are disobedient to the Church? Huh? That's not even logical, let alone sensible. It's like saying that someone who loves the Bill of Rights is anti-constitutional.   

***

If someone points out the abuses of those who do apologetics (which are many, usually in inverse proportion to how much a person knows about theology and apologetics, and how experienced they are), I readily agree and concur that it is a shame, and shouldn't happen. I don't fight against it and make out that the critic is "anti-apologetics" or hates me as a person. I don't get angry and defensive.

I join them in desiring to reform the practice that I love as my profession. I don't want to see it besmirched. Apologetics has always had a PR problem and is subject to many bum raps, so I think the less nonsense in the name of apologetics, the better.

***

My friend Paul Hoffer wrote: "The abuses you categorized above in 1 has as its effect a residual clericalism that improperly denigrates the importance of lay participation from the pews in the Mass."

Yes, unfortunately, any abuse gives a thing a bad reputation or name among many (we have seen the terrible tragedy and aftermath of the sex scandals in the Church). It's unfair but that is how it is. It's irrational, too, because if one notes, e.g., a bad teacher, clearly this has no implication as to all teachers or even all teachers in one school. All it proves is that that teacher was a bad apple.

The abuses you categorize in 2 is in effect a lack of theological understanding of what the Eucharist is. When I take the Eucharist to nursing homes, the home-bound sick and to hospitals, I still wear a suit and tie out of respect for the sacrament and I still pray that I am worthy to carry out this sacred office before I receive the hosts to be distributed. At Mass, when I am EMHC, I make the effort to spiritually prepare myself for the immense privilege to actually touch Our Lord and carry out His Command to take and eat. I could not even imagine irreverence before Our Lord like what you speak.

Well, I'm quite sure (because I know you) that you perform the ministry with the utmost diligence, reverence, and dignity.

That is why EMHC are only supposed to be appointed to that office for two years and receive additional formation and training to before being allowed to participate in that ministry in the future to remind of them of the awesome and humbling duties we are called to carry out.

Then how can it even be possible for an EMHC to be so ignorant of canon law and the rubrics, that they would roll their eyes at someone wanting to receive on the tongue? I guess it's clearly improper formation somewhere down the line (or screening as to character and qualifications).

Because, most parishes or dioceses for that matter do not follow the two year rule or require their EMHCs to read up on the Eucharist~Fr. Rolheiser's book "Our One Great Act of Fidelity" or Saint Augustine's sermons 227-229A, 272 or your "Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology" for example or encourage them to distribute communion outside of the Mass setting which impresses better the theology of 'missa' or mission or going forth to proclaim the Gospel which is why the Church used EMHC in the early Church in the first place.

Like I said, abusive practices lead to ignorance of theology or a failure to create a spirit of faith seeking understanding. [ . . .]

As for 3, I think it is all about attitude. If one wants to take communion from the priest to honor the mystery of the priesthood as spoken of by BL. JPII in Dominicae coenae (1980), that is laudable; but if one is doing it because one denies that EMHC's are a legitimate expression of our participation in Christ's priestly office, that is not.

I agree. My reasoning is not to deny the legitimacy of the EMHC; it's based on the undeniable fact that the EMHC is not a priest, and preferring the latter for the purpose of reception of Holy Communion.

Bottom line is this, the office of EMHC is subject to abuse like all ministerial offices, but if nonpriests did not have a legitimate role in the distribution of communion we would have no St. Tarcisius after whom I try to model myself after when I am called to carry out the office of EMHC nor would we have deacons distributing communion.

I think they do "have a legitimate role". Holy Mother Church has said so and I follow and defend her at all points. The biggest abuse by far is overuse, which is not the fault of the EMHC at all. They're gonna do what the priest tells them, and they should. But someone somewhere down the line has to communicate with the priest that there is such a thing as overuse.  

if I switch lines at Communion because of my dislike for a priest or deacon, what message am I sending?

One that says you harbor sinful ill will. Of course most people wouldn't know the interior disposition, but I'm going with your example. That's not a theological or liturgical argument (at least not regarding the priest) but a personal grudge.

Does it not give the appearance that the mystical Body of Christ is not a reality?

It indicates a sinful attitude.

Switching lines because one does not want to take communion from a EMHC is no different.

One thing is sin and the other is a mere preference based on the status of the priest. We simply can't be forced to partake from the EMHC. No canon law that I'm aware of forbids a preference for the priest. Preferring one thing does not automatically entail disdaining the other: which I have constantly disagreed with as illogical and not necessarily following at all, using the (trivial but analogous) example of being in the line for chocolate ice cream and then someone else saying, "why are you against vanilla ice cream?"

Like a deacon expressed in my newer thread on this topic, there is nothing whatever wrong with that as long as it is expressed as a preference and not as a dogmatic or legalistic thing. The preference itself is for the alter Christus over the one who is not.

If the office of the EMHC is being rejected altogether, on the other hand, then your point is a valid one in that instance.

Such an attitude was declaimed by St. Paul at 1 Cor. 12.

That chapter is about different parts and offices of the Body of Christ all being valid and important. I have not denied that the EMHC is a valid office or ministry. I commend all who undertake it, provided they do so properly (as you, no doubt, do). Your argument would only hold for one who is doing that (and I think that was probably your intention).

St. Paul is teaching there that God distributes gifts as He wills. He also "distributes" various differences in how Catholics (in all good conscience) prefer to worship; differences in liturgy: what rite; various options within rites (and we must respect those, too, by the same token). Thus, this is one of those things. To simply prefer one way has no direct relationship to what our opinion of another way is, or of those who choose it. If we can choose entirely distinct Masses to attend, certainly we can choose one communion line over the other when they lead to those who hold different offices in the Church.

As another analogy, many people don't care much for apologetics (in fact, I know that for sure!). Some of them may be legalistic or biblically ignorant enough to actually say it is a worthless endeavor altogether (just because they don't like it). But most people, I think, would recognize that it is valid and important and modeled in Scripture: but just not their cup of tea.

That isn't sinful, if it is in the second, non-legalistic sense, nor is it running down altogether what one personally doesn't engage in.

Neither is the preference of receiving Holy Communion from a priest. The only argument that can be made against it is where disruption or excessive legalism are present, too, or, as you have been arguing, if the very role and office of the EMHC is "dissed." I heartily condemn both attitudes / actions, with you.

***It is clearly an abuse if use of EMHCs is seen as permanent and ongoing, regardless of how many parishioners are present. That's simply an abuse. It's supposed to be "extraordinary" use. Words ought to mean things. I don't think Paul defended that, or would agree with the scenario one person mentioned where there were 25 people at the Mass and three EMHCs were still used. That is plainly an abuse.

I can see three different scenarios where it would be perfectly acceptable to not receive from an EMHC:

1) Due to far too frequent experiences of abuses in the past (such as Michele was recounting). One is entitled to remove oneself from such annoying abuses; nothing wrong with that. That is a result of poor formation or selection of those EMHCs. No Catholic need be subjected to such unnecessary annoyances during this holy and sacred moment of the Mass. Thus, it is avoided by going to the priest.

2) Refusing to participate in an abuse (too many EMHCs being used, contrary to the rubrics). That is being obedient to the Church, by refusing to engage in acts that imply consent to an abuse.

3) Simply preferring the priest, as I have argued in various ways.

That's not just one good reason; it's three, and I don't see any way to refute or overthrow them. Abuse is abuse: the first two are two different abuses that occur, and the third is a perfectly valid preference. 

*** 

 The entire related earlier thread on my personal Facebook page, originally from August 2013, has been taken down, because:

1) The meme offended several people and doesn't adequately or accurately express my actual opinions. No sense offending so many people; and at the same time what they are offended by isn't even (at least based on one report of someone highly offended) my true opinion.

2) The thread itself was a free-for-all. I am fessing up to my part in causing that by an overly harsh and provocative meme.

3) I'm sorry that all the comments (450!) had to go with it, but I think, overall, it was best to take it down. I want good discussions to take place on my pages: not hurt feelings and rancor and misunderstandings all around. 

***

Deacon Sean Smith: I guess I have a preference, too. In my view, it isn't about what we "prefer" and more about how we act. If our actions in service of our preferences are disruptive, then that seems to run counter to the very idea of "Communion". If our preferences are based on poor theology, then the theology should be reconsidered, and then maybe the preference.

I agree; as I stated over and over: there is to be no disruption of anything. Alter Christus and the special, extraordinary status of the priest are very good and true theological positions to hold, as far as that goes. 

If we can act on our preferences in a manner that doesn't make them any more than preferences (I prefer Pepsi to Coke), then go for it.

I like that way of expressing it. Thanks! It's being overly dogmatic or legalistic from any perspective, or falling into dichotomous, "either/or" thinking, that creates problems and ill will.  

I suspect a big reason this topic generated so much attention is that too many of us have experienced people absolutely being disruptive. If people acted as you described, then there really wouldn't be much to discuss.

I'm sorry to hear that. People fall short in any way that they possibly can, so it's no surprise that this happens (how often it does, I don't know), and I condemn it wholeheartedly along with you. 

***
I've never "switched" lines. If I can get in the priest's line, without making the slightest disturbance, I do. If not, I go to the EMHC (and receive in the hand) without the slightest disgruntlement, etc., or any other negative emotion or distraction from adoration of our Lord. I have no problem receiving in the hand because I know that it was very common in the early Church; in fact, it seems to have been the norm then, for some six centuries. Thus, I feel that I am participating in an equally valid liturgical tradition in doing that.

In my own parish, it is at the altar rail kneeling, on the tongue, which 95% of us do: all at the rail: some few in the hand.



* * * * * 

Thoughts on the Supposedly Prideful and Disruptive Practice of Preferring to Receive Holy Communion from a Priest

For previous treatments see my posts about overuse of Eucharistic Ministers of Holy Communion, lengthy dialogue on receiving from a priest, with priests, and very lengthy Facebook thread, from which these comments of mine are drawn.
* * * * *
Reason #412,574,034 why I am close in spirit (in many ways) to mainstream "traditionalists" (as opposed to radical Catholic reactionaries).

***

Nothing against eucharistic ministers themselves (really). All I'm saying is that there is excessive use, and that I receive from the priest because he is the alter Christus / in persona Christi in a way that the lay ministers are not.

That's my entire argument in a nutshell. I discussed it with several priests: some agreed with me, one (very much) did not. But he's an esteemed friend with a great, thriving parish, so we can agree to disagree. No biggie.

***

I prefer to receive from a priest (and no one has of yet told me why I should not have that opinion or not be able to exercise it). One priest friend of mine could only argue that I would be disrupting the Mass. But I take great pains to not do that, and if it causes a "scene" I don't get in a different line.

***
Fr. Rod Allers (in blue throughout this section): there is absolutely no difference between the host in my bowl and that of an extra-ordinary minister.

I didn't say there was. The only difference is the status of you vs. them. You're a priest; they are not. And that is a significant factor. It's precisely why the use of EMHCs is supposed to be limited in the first place.

The EM (for sake of space) is exercising a valid ministry.

Of course; already acknowledged that; not an issue.

I think you should be serenely free to receive from who you would like, just so long as you understand that there is no difference.

Good. No difference in Who I am receiving; difference in the one I'm receiving from (and this cannot be denied).

Point I am trying to make is this... the Truth for all of us probably lies in a radical trust of God in our lives. I have also found that the Truth is usually found somewhere in the middle. I have watched a few traditionalists think the church is a haven for them rather than a mission to proclaim forgiveness and reconciliation and true freedom and fullness of humanity. I think both extremes have hindered this mission.

I agree. I'm not a "traditionalist" (in fact, was very unjustly treated by several of them last night [August 2013] ). I am coming at this from a concern for the rubrics, and from the theology of the priesthood. I'm all for mission, of course, being an apologist and evangelist myself.

I have extreme respect for priests. May God always bless you, Father, as you serve Him! Thanks so much for your time and valuable input on this thread. 

***
There is a sense in which one may receive a little more alongside receiving the Eucharist (which remains the same from either source): akin to a priestly blessing. I don't know if that is literally true or not but I suspect it is. The hand that consecrated the elements now distributes our Lord Who is there because of the miracle of transubstantiation wrought by his own hands.

To me it is (technically speaking) more of a liturgical or symbolic thing than eucharistic. The priest is the norm; therefore I prefer him if at all possible. He's out there distributing communion, too. I want to receive from the priest.

What possible objection could there be? The priest who commented on this thread fully agreed that anyone can receive from the priest. Certainly there is no canonical prohibition of it. We ought not disrupt the procedure to do so; we agree on that.

***
Those of us who prefer the priest don't usually "switch lines"; we simply get in the one where the priest is, without making a fuss.

I commend you for your service. As I have reiterated, none of this discussion requires any derision against EMHCs per se (have lots of friends who do this): it's only objecting to overuse of them, and poorly trained ones, or ones with objectionable demeanor or dress.

Nor does preference to receive from a priest necessarily imply any such derision at all. We want to receive from him, because that is the norm, and he is the alter Christus. It's not difficult to understand.

I agree that if this is accompanied with dumb attitudes and elitism, or disrupts a service, it then becomes wrong. I don't do any of that.

We're not trying to major in the minors. We seek to receive Our Lord from the alter Christus. Don't take it personally! It is not (or shouldn't be) any slam at you.

Even if one who takes this view holds that excessive use is in play, it's still not the fault of the individual EMHC, but of the priest who should know his rubrics better.

We have to be careful. If abuses take place, it's not the fault of every EMHC. If you do a perfectly fine, solemn, pious job you shouldn't be subjected to any criticism for it. As one who is subjected to bum raps almost every day online, I can deeply empathize with that. It's terrible.

As an analogy, I often criticize the public schools. But I rarely criticize teachers in them. I have the utmost respect for teachers of all sorts. It's a system vs. individuals in the system issue. So I can respect you as an EMHC, while continuing to object to abuses in the way it is carried out, as outlined in this thread.

But you and I both know that there are EMHCs who don't do a good job, and it is understandable that there is a lot of resentment and even anger over that. We've seen it in this thread. This sublimely sacred act -- a sacrament -- of Holy Communion shouldn't have to be accompanied by impious or inappropriate behavior (like my example of the lady with nice legs and a miniskirt).

It's a lot like abuses in the OF Mass. We are complaining about that, not the Mass itself (like the RadCathRs do). 

***
Catholics believe that it is not only the Blood given under the appearance of wine but the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, under either and both elements or accidents. That's why if only one is given, there is no intrinsic loss in what is received. There is no necessity to receive both, as the host contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ (which is why the Church reserved the cup for many centuries). Both/and as usual in Catholicism. Anyone can do one or both, and they are receiving Jesus.



***

It's not about EMHCs; it's about wanting to receive from the alter Christus. Individuals who do this ministry may be the holiest, most pious ministers in the history of the world, but it remains the case that they aren't priests. That is the reasoning behind why I practice the way I do.

But I received from a deacon at my parish the last time. I didn't make a "scene" or get legalistic about it. I only "switch" to the priest if it doesn't disrupt anything.

***

My post was no more running down priests (quite the contrary!) than it was supposedly running down EMHCs. If it is a large parish, the Church allows for EMHCs. If not, it's a violation of the rubrics. That's not me saying that: it's Holy Mother Church (and writers like Jimmy Akin and Fr. Peter Stravinskas pointing this out). I didn't make the rules.

***

I'm not questioning the role at all. I am saying it is abused according to the rubrics, and that I prefer to receive from a priest. Having a preference carries no implication whatever that one is "against" the the thing not chosen. 

***

The Body of Christ is the Body of Christ no matter who you receive Him from.

Of course. Not the issue at all. I simply want to receive my Lord from the hands of the person who presided over the consecration. As a priest stated above, the Church says this is the "ordinary" way of receiving Holy Communion. I could see that offense could rightly be taken if I were bashing Extraordinary Ministers, but I'm not, as reiterated about 3,863 times by now. To criticize an abuse of a practice is not to criticize the practice.

It's also against the rubrics to raise hands during the Our Father or hold hands during it. But that is rarely ever taught, for some reason. It's harmless, yet the Church has the rubrics for good reason, I assume. 99% of the congregants who do it don't know it is against the rubrics.

Either the priests who allow it don't know what the rubrics say about that, or don't care, which I find disturbing. I think if they made a statement during the homily, 95% of Catholics would gladly obey the instruction. 

***
"With over 2,000 people there is no way that I could distribute communion to even half of them."

Exactly, Father! That is a case where EMHCs are needed, and why the Church provides that assistance to the priest. Everything is great if folks will simply go by what the Church teaches, in its rubrics and in everything else it authoritatively proclaims.

If someone is completely against the EMHCs, they go against the Church. If someone rails against a person who simply wants to receive Holy Communion from a priest (the "ordinary" way), without being legalistic or spiritual prideful or disruptive, that is wrong, too: just as it was wrong to deprive Catholics of the right (by canon law) to receive kneeling and on the tongue: though many priests sought to deprive them of that. 

***
Fr. Carlos (and to the other priests in this thread, on both sides of this issue),

There is no one I respect more than priests. You are extraordinary human beings, and my heroes. I immensely admire all the work priests do, and what you yourself (Fr. Carlos) do (reading your comments). I never claimed that any priest had to distribute Holy Communion to 2,000 people!

EMHCs FOR 2,000 PEOPLE IS NOT AN ABUSE OF THE RUBRICS. (I use caps because many people seem to be missing this elementary point in what I'm saying, or at any rate, have written elsewhere in other papers).

"You can decide that Communion should only be distributed by the priest because he is the most worthy person to distribute Our Lord."

That's not my reasoning at all (I can't speak for all others in the thread: they may have some erroneous thinking). My reasoning is that he is the alter Christus, and presided over the consecration. His personal holiness is technically irrelevant to this particular discussion, on the basis of the notion of ex opere operato. That was all decided definitively back in St. Augustine's time. 

***

The Church does not forbid a Catholic from receiving from a priest if he or she wants to do that. It would be as legalistic and wrong to frown upon that or forbid it as it would be to do the same towards the EMHCs. Legalism can be present in either side of an issue. 

***
"getting into the other line to receive Communion from the priest is not criticizing the abuse of the practice: it is criticizing the practice."

It's not criticizing anything! It's a personal preference in good faith, just as how we receive Holy Communion (standing / kneeling / hand / mouth) is: one acknowledged by the Church.

There's really no argument against it. That's why we see merely emotional arguments or insinuations [in the thread] that those who do this are legalistic, prideful Pharisees (thus it becomes a personal judgment of them). I'm sure some are, because legalism can be found in any belief-system or practice: we being sinful human beings. If a person is plainly being disruptive or has spiritual pride, then I am against that as much as anyone here. But that has to be determined.

In any event, the simple preference to receive from a priest is not legalistic or prideful at all, in and of itself. Priests are the dispensers of the sacraments. They grant absolution. They baptize.

I received from the deacon in our parish last time, as I mentioned. I'm not legalistic at all. He's not an alter Christus. And his being at the Mass was not an abuse.

I'm always amazed how virtually any discussion about the liturgy becomes so emotional and highly charged.

***

"I am a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic. We never use EMs - our priests don't seem to mind serving a lot of people."

This is another indication or continuance of the traditional way of doing that. Eastern Catholics comprise many many millions of Catholics. It was this way for a reason. So the Latin Rite now allows EMHCs. That's fine. The Church can do whatever she wants, and I defend her, and do so here.

At the same time, those of us who want to receive from a priest should not be insulted and frowned upon and have all sorts of nefarious and unsavory motives attributed to us simply because we prefer to receive the way the Church dispensed Holy Communion for 1950 years. That's ludicrous. If the Church had said we must receive from the EMHC or never can receive kneeling or on the tongue, that would be entirely different. But of course that is not the case. Thus, legalism on either side of this is pathetic and outrageous.

We've been through all this sort of argumentation regarding the TLM / EF. People who preferred that have been pilloried and insulted. Then all of a sudden JPII and BXVI started allowing it more widely. I had always advocated freedom of worship, since I became a Catholic in 1990. So I was ecstatic about all that. I myself prefer the OF. I want folks to worship as they prefer for themselves and not to be run down for it.

If someone wants to call me (and those who think like me in this respect) prideful and arrogant and disobedient for doing that, you go right ahead, and God bless ya. I've been called 10,000 other lying things (as an apologist). This one ain't gonna bring me down, and it has zero effect on the argument I make, because mine is not a merely emotional argument. 

***

"I am more focused on WHO I am receiving, then WHOM I am receiving from...."

GOOD. SO AM I! The insinuation is that those of us who prefer to receive from a priest somehow think we get "more" of Jesus in doing so. No one I'm aware of is saying that, and it would be ridiculous if they did.

Why do these discussions have to keep going into directions that have nothing directly to do with the topic at hand? No one is denying that Jesus is received, either way, and that that is overwhelmingly more important than any other consideration. That's not at issue. This is a question of liturgy and personal preference and piety (and what the Church allows). 

***

I would love it to see folks actually interacting with the arguments I am making on this, rather than merely pointing out that those of us who prefer to receive a certain way are supposedly filled with spiritual pride and condescension, holier-than-thou, blah blah blah.

Anyone can see the various arguments I have made in the last hour, above, and see that no one who disagrees thus far is interacting with them. Maybe I've missed something, though. [it never happened, during some eight straight hours of wrangling about this in the thread]

***

"My position is if someone chooses to ONLY receive from a priest it is an act of pride."

I agree if they did that and decided never ever to receive otherwise, and/or blast the Church for allowing otherwise. But I'm not doing that, and I don't think most or all of the others on the thread who prefer the priest think that way, either. 

***
"Life for Catholics would be a lot happier if everyone would just follow what the Church teaches."

Oh, I agree 100%. Now, can you be so kind as to tell me which Church teaching or canon law or rubric I violate for wanting to receive Holy Communion from a priest? Thanks. [it never came]

***
I'm delighted to be classified as prideful. Jesus was accused of being possessed by a demon. I don't think I've heard that one yet, out of the innumerable insults received over 16 years of online apologetics, but I may have forgotten. I know I've been called "evil" and a schizophrenic . . .

"Pride" is nothin' . . . let the insults fly, folks, if it floats your boat to interact with others in that fashion. I won't even cite what the Bible says (many many times) about evil speaking. But if my patience is tried any further, I will cite those passages.

It's not loving to accuse others of spiritual pride at the drop of a hat, for no good reason. That's a very serious sin, and Jesus denounced it (spiritual pride) in the most vehement manner of anything that He talked about.

***
We can truly assert that a person suffers from pride if the outward evidence is cumulative and overwhelming, confirmed again and again, etc. St. Paul does that on occasion, and he says we are to imitate him.

I just think it's ludicrous -- laughable -- to conclude that a person suffers from pride simply because he or she wants to receive our Lord at Mass from the priest who presided at the consecration and miracle of transubstantiation.

***

"One thing I've never understood, is why some people feel the need to publically state that, "I only go to a Latin Mass", or "I always receive Communion on the tongue", or "I prefer to receive Communion only from a Priest." What is the purpose in making these public declarations?"

Fair enough; a fair question. Some people do do it in a prideful way, I think (I'm not saying who: God knows), because that is the human condition. Every good thing is corrupted by the devil. I agree that there is no particular reason to state this out of the blue. It usually comes up in discussions of liturgy.

In this thread I was simply trying to get discussion going. Boy, did I do that! But I am seeing few arguments from the opposing position, which is immensely frustrating to me, as one who loves dialogue and detests threads turning into fracases and free-for-alls. And I was trying to facilitate discussion on it because the issue is vastly misunderstood, as I think I and others have shown throughout this thread.

It's not just a matter of some prideful bigot wanting to receive a certain way or else they'll condemn everyone including the priest, pout, and take their bat and ball and go home. It's a serious consideration regarding the Eucharist.

I've condemned legalism and pride and insults on both sides. No one can make blanket statements about this or condemn others. But if I am to be condemned as prideful for this view then that is outrageous, because there's no basis for it. All I'm doing is practicing my faith as I see fit, in good conscience, not trying to make any scene or disrupt anything or condemn anyone else.

***

"Why the need to stir up controversy with particular topics that we know will produce controversy?"

1) I think all topics regarding the Catholic faith are worth discussing.

2) Heaven help me, I am an idealist and will be to the grave, and I actually think that anyone ought to be able to discuss anything rationally, without rancor and acrimony, and that Christians should be able to do this and edify and learn from each other. The reality is often otherwise, but that is the cross we idealists bear. We keep trying.

3) Simply disagreeing is not the problem. Rather, it is when accusations of interior dispositions get slung around. 

4) It's worth discussing, because there is a lot of erroneous thinking in this area about why people are doing what they do: the rationale for it, alter Christus, etc. 

***
I agree that there have been some attacks on EMHCs too. I oppose those, not because they are never true, but because it makes the argument turn emotional, and folks get defensive. We must take pains to say that we're not against all of them because some do a lousy job at it.

***

"I don't think anyone is learning anything here, feelings are just being hurt."

There is plenty of substance being presented, but it's not being interacted with for the most part. I can't control how people behave. I'm not a kindergarten teacher. I expect adult Christians to conduct themselves with charity and sensibility.

But I will not refuse to have a discussion because certain folks get all in a tizzy about it. If a controversy is present, generally in my experience it is because of massive misunderstanding and/or ignorance. That's why people are getting mad. They say something about the other side that betrays their lack of understanding, then the other side gets insulted and hurt (since it misrepresents them) and it escalates.

The way to get beyond that is not to put our heads in the sand and go throw a Frisbee and sing Kumbaya around the fire, ending the night with a group hug. It's talking it through: listening to each other; interacting with opposing arguments. That's how adult Christians should be able to resolve things. But if some people want to manifest that they cannot engage in a discussion without getting angry and insulting, then it's a free country. All I can do is delete the worst offenses.

I refuse to give into the lowest common denominator. I'll keep being the biblical idealist and try to call people to a higher behavior, not give up and in effect admit that we are incapable of it, like we're a bunch of first-graders: not a whit different in behavior from the world we are called to be a witness to: offering something better and different, because of God's grace and the Holy Spirit in us.

According to 1 Corinthians 13, love "believes all things." That's part of love. I believe we can do better in talking about this.

***
One of the problems here is that people (on all sides of any issue) tend to think in terms of "either/or" or back and white; oppositional thinking, or what Louis Bouyer calls "dichotomous thinking": the incessant and annoying tendency of pitting one thing against another when there is no need at all to do so.

So if a person simply says, "I prefer to receive Our Lord at Mass from the priest" other people hear or think that means, "I am condemning all of you morons who receive from the EMHC and I'm spiritually superior to you."

One doesn't follow from the other. It's sort of like someone saying, "I prefer chocolate ice cream." Then the next guy says, "why are you condemning me for liking vanilla ice cream better? I'm not inferior to you!"

***
"Dave, you seem to ignore the fact that this approach causes division"

Jesus caused division. He said, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword; brother will be divided against brother . . ." Paul caused a big ruckus wherever he went (often riots). How is that any argument to not discuss something?

All I would have to do is delete comments from the folks who can't talk amiably to those with whom they disagree. I have deleted some, but generally I like to allow free speech as much as possible. I was a staff moderator of a forum for three years at The Coming Home Network, so I even have experience with that. We allowed absolutely no personal attacks. We were very strict about it. And I'm almost that strict on my Facebook pages.

The meme was a bit pointed. I agree with that. But sometimes provocation is a good thing. That's biblical, too. St. Stephen was awful provocative, and was stoned for it. Jesus was provocative with the Pharisees and moneychangers.


"In fact the true Christian way, would be to be in the line least favorable, and let others receive the "best""

Okay; following that "logic" I'll seek out the crappiest, most insufficient Christian service I can find (with no sacraments, lousy sermon, ugly building, etc.), so I can be sure to exalt in my own humility in abasing myself and making sure that other folks get fed better than I do at a church service.

[That is what is called in logic, a reductio ad absurdum. Illustrating the absurdity of an opposing position by taking it to its logical extreme. St. Paul was quite fond of it.]

"I think switching lines is offensive...for any reason."

Why? Because you can't handle a person who believes in good faith in a thing you don't agree with? How does it affect you? Why must you be bothered by what someone else does? That is the criticism we are getting throughout this thread. But look now who is looking down their nose at others!

My view is, "worship and let worship." That's why I defend reception of communion in different ways, defend folks going to whatever kind of Mass they want, and now defend this choice if someone wants to make it, since the Church doesn't forbid it.

I asked hours ago for someone to produce anything from the Church forbidding me to receive from the priest. I'm still waiting. And I sure as Hades won't hold my breath waiting . . . 

***
And another thing occurs to me. If this practice we are advocating is so extremely prideful: up there with the Pharisees: the most unimaginably wicked thing conceivable (receiving from a priest!), why is it that the Church doesn't simply forbid it once and for all: say that no one can choose to receive the Lord from a priest if they want to (where EMHCs are present)?

The Church has all kinds of other regulations, yet with this it says not a word (that I'm aware of). Instead we have all these people in this thread condemning others for a thing the Church says nothing about, and yet at the same time saying that we are full of pride and are looking down on others and being legalistic.
That just don't cut it. 

***

"changing lines is not the answer to a problem."

It's not a "problem" at all: it's a preference. 

"Does Jesus switch lines? no, He stays, so should you.....who is above the Master?"

Jesus didn't go to Mass; He started it. He didn't have to wait in any line. He served Himself.

***

As usual, you, like virtually all of us who do this, desire to do it "without causing a problem." Yet we're being accused en masse of being disruptive and raising a ruckus at Mass. People will believe whatever they want, if they have an emotional disdain of something and don't seem to even understand it in the first place. Clearly, people are out to sea on this, if they think we think it's because the priest is way holier than anyone else, or that we receive more of Jesus from him (as if Jesus can be quantified: that is rank heresy, denying His simplicity and self-sufficiency).

Nor are we saying that EMHCs are fundamentally evil and wicked and that the Church has no reason or right to allow them. Myths and fables abound.

***
Somehow she has a beeline to all our hearts and thinks that all this rotgut is inside of them simply because we take three seconds max to get in one line rather than another, without causing the slightest problem: as if that somehow subtracts from our adoration of our Lord. It's flat-out amazing. 

***
"Maybe for the first time in their lives they feel needed? or welcomed by the church?"

Yes, maybe so. Wonderful! Good for them! Now kindly explain to me how that is any reason why I should be forced to receive Holy Communion from them? 


* * * * * 
 

Joseph's Carol (My 12th Christmas Poem)

Since 2006 I have written five Christmas poems of a narrative nature: four of them recounting different persons' experience on the first Christmas: Simeon (2006), the Blessed Virgin Mary (2008),  our Lord Jesus (2009), and the shepherds (2010). The fifth was a diversion from the Christmas morning / biblical theme, but still narrative in form: about St. Nicholas (2012).

It has become a literary tradition (first-person, Bible-based poems) within a personal creative tradition (my own Christmas poems) within a Christian liturgical tradition (Advent and Christmas). See also my first six Christmas poems and my Christmas web page.

St. Joseph was clearly the most important remaining subject for the next poem of this sort, and this will likely conclude the now five-part series of "biblical Christmas" poems. I hope you enjoy reading as much as I have enjoyed writing all of these poems, and a blessed Advent and Merry Christmas to one and all!


My name is Joseph, descendant of King David and father of the savior of the world;From Nazareth, a town in Galilee, from which, it was said, nothing good ever came!I was betrothed to sweet, lovely Mary, serious and ever holy, even as a young girl;Joyously awaiting marriage, we never imagined what an angel would soon proclaim.
Glorious Gabriel suddenly appeared to my beloved, and at first she was quite afraid;Hailing Mary as "full of grace" and thus confirming her exceptionally favored state.Speaking of a wondrous child, born of God the Holy Spirit, in her womb to be made;"Second Eve" was overshadowed by God and Jesus took flesh: at conception great.
Not knowing this at first, I was greatly distressed to find my betrothed with child,And resolved to divorce her quietly, so as to spare her any public scandal or shame.But then an angel spoke to me in a dream, affirming Mary's innocence all the while;The Holy Spirit had indeed conceived  "God with us": He who would heal the lame.
Later that year, we journeyed to David's Bethlehem: for a census to be signed by all; Even though Mary, riding a donkey, was great with child: a mother very soon to be.Seeking a warm inn as the time drew nigh, we found no lodging but an animal's stall.There newborn baby Jesus lay in a manger; adored by parents and shepherds, was He.
We escaped to Egypt to flee Herod's wrath; the Messiah he had determined to shun; Mary and I found Jesus, at twelve years old, teaching in the temple, warning of hell.He was our pride and joy, and what a privilege: our many years with the God the Son!  As Jesus grew, I taught Him the carpenter's trade; from Him I learned much as well.
Happy and wonderful!: the blessed time we spent with our Lord who was yet our son;Peace filled our hearts as Jesus told us of God's gospel and kingdom message wise.Though I would not live to see Him preaching, healing in Galilee: sinners to be won,I'll never forget my son's birth, with glowing angels and the star lighting up the skies.


Written on December 5-6, 2013.




 

Fr. Robert Barron's Denial that the Adam and Eve of Genesis Were Historical Figures and the Primal Human Pair

I covered this topic two years ago at length. I thought it was fairly straightforward that he denied a literal Adam, in his video, "Misreading Genesis," where he asserted the following: 

Adam. Now, don't read it literally. We're not talking about a literal figure. We're talking in theological poetry. Adam: the first human being . . .

It was brought to my attention that in the comments for the video above (now up to 879!), the following exchange took place:

Ariel Gonzalez:

According to Pius XII in Humani Generis: "For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." How can this be reconciled with Fr. Barron's assertion that Adam and Eve weren't literal persons?

Fr. Robert Barron [under this name. not a pseudonym or nick]

@DonusAmbrose ["in reply to Ariel Gonzalez"]

The "Adam" that the Pope is speculating about here is some primordial, first originator of the human race--not the literary character in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis.

Here's another key one:

[in reply to AetheriusLamia] Not so! I completely agree with you that Genesis three is of key theological importance and that the doctrine of original sin is indispensible to Catholic orthodoxy. But none of that relies on a crudely literalist construal of the story of Adam and Eve. For the details, consult John Paul II, and most recently, Cardinal Pell of Sydney, both of whom clarify that the first chapters of Genesis are not to be read literalistically.

In other comments (where I'm too lazy to look up what he was responding to, because it's a lousy comments system), Fr. Barron wrote:

@VibrantNTingling Jesus is indeed a real, historical figure. Like so many others, you want an easy, univocal answer: the Bible is all mythology or it's all straightforward history. It's actually both--and lots of other things besides.

@VibrantNTingling It's not a matter of "discarding" them! Do you "discard" Hamlet and Moby Dick and Henry Higgins just because they're fictional characters? No, you allow them to speak a particular truth to you, a truth that could be spoken in no other way.

@sensengine "I'm absolutely amazed how common your misunderstanding is! Take a good hard look at the interpretive tradition and you'll see that allegorical, spiritual, and theological readings of the Bible have been on offer from the earliest days. I think a lot of people are duped by the "Inherit the Wind" version of this question. But that play (and movie) were about the struggle with fundamentalism, not with Catholicism.

@sensengine Oh give me a break! The Fall is happening every day, as we "fall away" from what God intends for us. We "'fall short" of our true humanity. We wander in the land of unlikeness. Choose your metaphor; it doesn't effect the deep theological truth being communicated.

[in reply to sfappetrupavelandrei] Friend, I'm afraid that's patent nonsense. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI proposed non-literalistic readings of Genesis.

[in reply to AthenaSchroedinger] You know what I always find amusing? The insinuation--evident in your response--that the metaphorical is tantamount to silliness or nonsense. Metaphors--in poetry, mythology, and religion--bear extraordinary amounts of meaning. The binary option is not literal truth or nonsense. And friend, metaphorical and non-literal readings of Genesis have been on offer since the ancient church. Take a look at Origen's and Augustine's treatments of these texts, if you doubt me.

[in reply to CarlSagan6] Original sin names the fact that there is something irreducibly wrong with us, something that we cannot fix on our own. Genesis speaks of that reality in the manner of a myth or saga, narrating events "in illo tempore." The point is that the struggle with sin is an ongoing dynamic of life here and now, and the offer of grace is a present reality. 

I'm not a fundamentalist or literalist when it comes to the Bible. I never was, not even as a Protestant evangelical. I understand different literary genres in the Bible; have written about that many times.

The issue here is not whether all of Genesis is absolutely literal. I agree that some portions of it are presented in a poetic or non-literal genre or style. The issue is whether the Adam and Eve described in Genesis were real persons and the primal human pair. I (and I believe the Church) say yes; Fr. Barron appears to deny it. And to me, this is a very serious issue, which brings into doubt original sin (even though Fr. Barron asserts that doctrine several times in the comments). The doctrine seems to me to go hand-in-hand with original sin. Denying one has consequences with regard to the other.

If popes and major Catholic (orthodox) theologians have denied that the Adam and Eve of Genesis were literal human beings and the primal pair of human beings: the parents of the human race, I'd like to see that. Fr. Barron implied several times that they did, but gave no documentation. As far as I know, they don't. This is a product of theological liberalism or modernism: again, as far as I know (I'm always open to -- eagerly welcome -- correction and expansion of knowledge of Things Catholic).

Here are links to several other papers on my site about Adam and Eve (and some related materials):

Adam and Eve: Defense of Their Literal Existence as the Primal Human Couple, by Catholic Philosopher, Dr. Dennis Bonnette  

Dr. Dennis Bonnette Debunks the Argument Against Adam and Eve from Molecular Biologists  

Defending the Literal, Historical Adam of the Genesis Account (vs. Catholic Eric S. Giunta) 

Correcting Radical Catholic Reactionary Lies About My Supposed Denial of a Literal Adam and Eve, Original Sin, Etc. 

Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Noah as Actual Historical Figures: the Biblical Evidence and Catholic Agreement With It 

Catholics and the Historicity of Jonah the Prophet 

It appears very certain now that Fr. Barron has denied the literal Adam and Eve of Genesis. He tries to harmonize the Genesis accounts of them with modern science by denying that they were literal. The problem is that Catholic doctrine and the Bible itself doesn't allow this, as far as I can tell.

I thought his original comment that I critiqued two years ago was quite clear, but in charity, I was willing to accept that it wasn't an airtight proof of heterodox views, and sought clarification. None has been forthcoming these two years, but I think his comments under the video have removed pretty much all doubt about it. The following statement, especially, nails it:
 

The "Adam" that the Pope [Pius XII] is speculating about here is some primordial, first originator of the human race--not the literary character in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis.

This explicitly separates Adam and Eve from the first human parents, in a way that is impermissible to do in Catholic theology, and also makes them merely "literary character[s]". That immediately kills two birds with one stone (the question of a literal Adam or not, and of the first human pair) and casts doubt on the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible.

Sorry; that is theological liberalism, to assert such a thing.

I haven't seen Fr. Barron's highly acclaimed video series or read much of his writing at all, so have no opinion on it (but take others' word as to his general orthodoxy). He's a great, dynamic communicator and teacher: what I have seen of his stuff. I would hope that he can be convinced he is in error on this point, and move forward.

Neither Pope Benedict XVI nor Blessed Pope John Paul II nor Ven. Pope Pius XII denied a literal Adam (i.e., the one described in Genesis), as I have documented in my past papers on this topic. They accept some allegory and non-literal material in Genesis: especially the early chapters (as I do), yet don't include Adam and Eve in that category.

Given the papal quotes, it's impossible to argue that a literal Adam is merely the primitive speculation of the "old guys" before modern science, that we can now dismiss with a smile (as liberals habitually do regarding anything before the date of their birth).

No! The recent popes are asserting exactly the same thing. This isn't a matter of only wooden literalist fundamentalists saying it. They may be right for the wrong reasons about a literal Adam and Eve, but at least they are right about that and don't deny rather plain teachings of Scripture (not just Genesis but later NT references).

It takes two seconds in a Bible search to see that the NT casually assumes that Adam is 1) literal, 2) a man, and 3) the first man, who fell, and from whom we are all descended. See, e.g., the genealogy of Luke 3:23-38. The text doesn't descend from literal history to mere myth: it's all of a piece. See also (RSV):

Romans 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, . . .

1 Corinthians 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Jude 1:14 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,  

The Hebrew for "day" [yom] has been understood early on (esp. Augustine) as allowing a wide latitude of meaning, so that's not a big deal. There is no necessity to adopt a literal six-day creation or a young earth (6,000 years old, etc.)

The NT regards Adam as literal and the first human being. The Church follows suit. But I don't think the Church was strictly necessary to nail down this point. Scripture is quite sufficient, which is why historic Protestantism agrees with it, without the magisterial assistance.

Theoretically, Fr. Barron could be persuaded that mythical and allegorical elements in parts of Genesis do not necessitate including Adam and Eve. It shouldn't be difficult, but it's tough to get anyone to change their mind.

Lo and behold, as I was compiling this paper,  Fr. Barron made his clearest statement yet, on the matter:

Adam is a literary figure gesturing toward the truth of what obtained "in the beginning." He is not to be read as a straightforward historical figure like Caesar or Abraham Lincoln.

[You Tube, under the video, "Misreading Genesis," at approx. 6 PM ET, 11-27-13]

Here is the screenshot:



So I've been right in my opinion of his statement for two years now.  And I rebuked the person who asked if he was insane, for being disrespectful of a priest, and he later softened his remarks.

Fr. Barron asserts original sin; but he disconnects the fall from the Adam and Eve of Genesis. He puts it back to some "primordial" human beings who were other than the Adam and Eve we know from biblical revelation.

The thing now is to see how he would interact with solid critiques of his position (which I think my papers are). If he has read them over the last two years, there is no evidence I've seen, of that. So I don't know what he would say to NT biblical arguments, statements from recent popes that contradict his understanding, etc. I've cited both Pope Benedict XVI and Blessed pope John Paul II as popes referring to Adam in literal terms. I have not seen anything otherwise from magisterial sources. I'm always happy to be shown something I was unaware of. Thus far, that hasn't happened, so I teach what I know. 

Modernism is very pervasive . . . it has its tentacles into so many things, and people otherwise orthodox are affected by it even if they may not be aware that it is heterodoxy.


Once again, this is not a scenario where on one side you have fundamentalists who interpret everything in the Bible literally, believe in a 6,000-year-old earth that doesn't rotate, along with theologians before 1800 who don't know a whit about modern biology and evolution vs. Fr. Barron, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, etc. (and theological liberals). Recent popes are on the side of a literal Adam and Eve as the first human pair, who fell -- and we with and in them (original sin).

Moreover, not one word I've written nor that the Church has expressed in official documents casts into doubt the possibility of theistic evolution. There could easily be a scenario of primitive human beings evolving; however, they didn't yet have a soul. It was ensoulment that made the first human beings: in God's image. Adam and Eve were our first human parents, and we're all descended from them.

Fr. Barron claimed (quote above) that Ven. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis (1950) separates Adam from the first human being (as if that were permissible in Catholic dogmatic theology). This is untrue. In section 37 he mentions Adam (footnoting Romans 5:12-19, which reads quite historically at face value):

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. 

[footnote: Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19, Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.]

In section 38, he grounds this Adam in the context of the book of Genesis. Clearly he is referring to that Adam. Yet Fr. Barron has denied it (which I think is special pleading). Here it is (blue highlighting and bolding my own):

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. [13] This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.

[footnote 13: January 16, 1948: A.A.S., vol. XL, pp. 45-48]

That ain't myth and mere "literary" non-literal stuff. He's talking about Adam; he makes clear that he means by that the Adam of Genesis, who is a real person, just like we are, and that this has to do with the origin of the human race.

It's like the genealogy of Luke from Adam to Jesus: one can't start out with a mythical figure like Zeus or Hercules in the beginning, and then all of a sudden the list becomes historical as it goes through time. The very fact that descendants are being talked about proves that Adam is literal also. And that list proves that it's the Adam of Genesis, since it gives his immediate descendants, as there described.

Game, set, match. End of story. Period.

Playing games with these things is sheer liberalism and heterodoxy, and the sooner those who do it can figure that out, the better, because when you go down this road of modernist garbage, you may end up like Charles Curran or Hans Kung or multiple thousands of goddess-worshiping former nuns. 

But we are what we eat. We all know there is a great deal of falsehood and heterodoxy taught in many seminaries, so Fr. Barron got some of that somewhere along the line. A generation of rotten seminary teaching and lousy Catholic schools has produced its bad fruit.

The first human beings are what they are because of direct ensoulment from God. That was the first time He did what He now does with all of us at conception: special creation of the soul, which doesn't descend from biology; has nothing to do with biology at all, being spirit.

This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church state about the historical Adam and Eve:
 

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice". This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". 

  
Fr. Barron's position contradicts dogmatic theology and revelation, as interpreted by apostolic tradition, consistently for 2,000 years. No one ever dreamt up these silly notions till theological liberalism blessed the world after 1700. This stuff comes from that: not from authentic Catholic tradition and legitimate hermeneutics and exegesis.

This topic has nothing to do with some supposed conflict between faith and science. We all agree on that (there is no such conflict). I wrote a whole book about it; have had a web page on science and faith online for 16 years. It's about biblical inspiration and the authority of Catholic tradition, that provides a template and guideline for proper understanding of Scripture. Fr. Barron isn't guilty of weak science here, but of weak hermeneutics and a deficient familiarity with Catholic doctrine on the matter.

Fr. Barron thinks Adam and Eve are real: they're just not the ones in Genesis. It's classic liberal changing of terminology and commonly accepted concepts. "yeah, I believe in Adam and Eve": but it's redefined, contrary to tradition and existing dogma. This is what liberalism does: all the time. It is practically of the essence of liberal theology and modernism to engage in this sort of bait-and-switch dishonesty. People hear Adam and Eve being discussed and it sounds great and orthodox till we delve deeper and discover that it means something (in the mind that has accepted some liberal heterodox nonsense) quite different.

Theological liberalism is destructive of logical consistency because it deals in falsehood, and truth is harmonious with itself. So if one accepts a liberal tenet, that will be contrary to orthodox opinions that he may generally hold. It doesn't fit in.

See also the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis. Here is an excerpt:

Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? -- Reply: In the negative.

Man-like creatures who existed before Adam and Eve didn't have souls. Adam and Eve could have evolved from them. No problem. It doesn't contradict anything in Catholic theology because the key to being human rather than merely an animal is having a rational soul. God could have created them instantly or they could have come from earlier creatures that God still made, but who were not yet human. The soul by its nature has to be a supernatural creation by God.

People are very confused about this issue and the Church has made it clear. It's all there for us. If people are confused, then I'm glad someone wrote to me today asking about it (I hadn't dealt with this for over two years), then sent a quote from Fr. Barron. It was God's providence that people learn about this Church teaching today, and that's the job of the apologist. Happy to do it . . .

We're all learning all the time. It's not a thing to be ashamed of: to be wrong. We should be ashamed, however, about resisting evidences that prove we are wrong. How people react to those things are what really indicate their approach to the authority of the Church and to truth (in cases where it seems to most people to be a clear-cut case).

I don't take any pleasure in saying someone is wrong: but this is the task of the apologist. We're not always gonna win popularity contests and have people ecstatically love us if we tell them they might be wrong about something. It's not just me saying "I'm right!" I am merely repeating what Scripture and Church assert: passing it along and defending it.

I simply make my arguments and document what the Church teaches: from Scripture, from magisterial statements and papal general audiences, the Catechism; analysis of the context of Humani Generis, showing that Pius XII could only have been referring to historical Adam and Eve discussed in Genesis . . . I also have links to two papers where a philosopher friend of mine tackles the polygenism thing from a serious scholarly perspective.
 
The first thing the liberal outlook on life does is start attacking the Bible: especially the historicity of many things in the Old Testament. So people buy into some of that, even though they are not "liberals" themselves and believe most of what the Church teaches.

The problem with picking and choosing like that is that, according to St. Thomas Aquinas and Cardinal Newman: to deny one dogma of the Catholic Church is to lose the supernatural gift of faith. That's scary. We should desire to wholeheartedly accept all that the Church teaches. What we don't understand, we accept in faith and seek apologetic answers so our mind can be content with it: on rational ground, not irrational or fideistic ground.

I have Cardinal Ratzinger's 1986 book, "In the Beginning...": A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Our Sunday Visitor, 1990, translated by Boniface Ramsey, OP) in my own library. And what does the future pope say about Adam? He said the same as he said when he was pope (some of which I cited in my papers linked above):

In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. (p. 89)

From this it is seen:

1) Adam was a person.

2) "Adam" in a Christian context refers to the person spoken of in Genesis.

3) Adam "stands at the origin of humankind." He was the first human being.

4) Sin and original sin begin with this real person Adam, described in Genesis.

Why would there be any argument about these things at all, from Catholics? Is Pope Benedict XVI a raving fundamentalist who takes everything in the Bible literally? Is he anti-science? Is he anti-philosophy or anti-intellect? Why is this even controversial? Why are so many errors bandied about in this regard? Everything one can find from magisterial documents, catechisms, popes, future popes, pontifical biblical commissions all points in the same direction. 

Someone noted on my Facebook page: "Fr. Barron often describes himself as a product of the very liberal '"Balloons and banners' Catholic religious education of the 70's and 80's."

Well, my "school" was Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., who is being considered for sainthood: a person perhaps regarded as the most orthodox theologian in America in the second half of the 20th century. He was a close advisor to Pope Paul VI and was the catechist to Blessed Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity. He was my mentor, received me into the Church, said (in the early 90s) that my writing was "very Catholic," and wrote the Foreword to my first book. 

That is my orthodox Catholic background. I was also largely persuaded to become a Catholic by Cardinal Newman. He will soon be a saint and probably a Doctor of the Church (Pope Benedict alluded to that). His thinking was praised by Pope St. Pius X: considered the most "orthodox" of popes, and the hero of "traditionalists." That's rock-solid orthodox sources. I never was trained in theological liberalism even as a Protestant. I always detested it. And so it has had no influence on me. I've been blessed in having great teachers.

And what did Fr. Hardon teach about Adam? From his Modern Catholic Dictionary :
 

The first man. Created in the image of God. His wife was Eve and his sons Cain, Abel, and Seth. They lived in the garden of Eden but were expelled because Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command not to eat the fruit of a certain tree (Genesis 1,2). In early accounts of Adam's life he is referred to, not by a specific name, but "the man" (Genesis 3). Not until his descendants were given (Genesis 4:25) was the proper noun "Adam" applied to him. Many doctrines in the New Testament are traced back to the life of the first man, notably original sin and the concept of Jesus as the second Adam bringing redemption to the human race.

Someone wrote: "There are good theologians both Catholic and Protestant who don't know or care if Adam and Eve really existed." No, there are not ! Someone who thinks that is not a good theologian in either tradition, and is alarmingly heterodox on that score. If they can hold an opinion that ridiculous, then their credibility is entirely in question. And if anyone doesn't understand that, they need to do some serious study and get up to speed in orthodox Catholic theology.

Virtually no one would assert that Genesis is to be taken completely literally from beginning to end. That's not at issue. About the only ones who do are young earth geocentrists: that sort of goofy outlook that derives mostly from Protestant anti-intellectual fundamentalism. 

I am greatly saddened and disturbed that people are so confused on this issue [many people who wrote in my combox on Facebook], but I have tried to make my arguments, from the Bible and Church. If someone wants to ponder them, they will; if not, I've done all I can do. It's clear that we apologists and catechists and DREs and seminary professors and priests and the Church as a whole have our work cut out for us to explain these sorts of teachings, so that folks aren't so confused about them. The Church has made it clear enough, in my opinion.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:
 

According to the Catholic Faith we are bound to hold that the first sin of the first man is transmitted to his descendants, by way of origin. For this reason children are taken to be baptized soon after their birth, to show that they have to be washed from some uncleanness. The contrary is part of the Pelagian heresy . . . all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents . . . (ST 1-2, q. 81, a. 1c)

According to the Catholic Faith we must firmly believe that, Christ alone excepted, all men descended from Adam contract original sin from him; else all would not need redemption which is through Christ; and this is erroneous. (ST 1-2, q. 81, a. 3c)

Adam and Eve are the first human beings because they were the first to be infused with a rational soul. They could quite possibly have derived from earlier man-like creatures, through evolution. If so, the ancestors did not have a soul, so they weren't human beings made in God's image.

And there could have been (and I believe were), earlier creatures that weren't human in the full sense, whether Adam and Eve descended from them or not. But that's all irrelevant to the whole question because it's not a biological one; it's a spiritual / theological matter, having to do with spirit, not matter. The soul is immaterial, and so are rebellion and original sin.

All human beings, who have a soul (special creation by God at each conception) are derived form Adam and Eve (the ones in Genesis: not some imaginative junk from liberal / modernist theological minds, snatched out of thin air). That is Church dogma. All Catholics are bound to believe that. St. Thomas and Cardinal Newman both stress that to deny even one dogma of the Catholic faith is to lose the supernatural virtue of faith.

In other words, if we rebel like that, God won't give us the grace required to believe all that the Church teaches. That is a terrible bind to be in, because it means we will likely reject more and more orthodox doctrines as time goes on (as we have observed many millions of fallen-away Catholics do).


* * * * *  

Catholic Worship and its Relationship to Beauty and the Senses and the Deep "Catholic Imagination"

 Beautiful altar, stained glass, statuary, and woodwork at St. Joseph's Church in Detroit: my parish since 1991. [ source: Elizabeth Tichvon]
These were my comments in another thread, that started out asking which form of liturgy "better captures the Catholic mythological imagination." In my replies, I broadened this consideration to include architecture and art and music as well: the complete worship experience.
* * * * *
If the choice is between the EF [extraordinary form of the Roman / Latin Rite or the Tridentine Mass] and how the OF [ordinary form or Novus Ordo or "New" Mass in the Roman / Latin Rite] is ordinarily celebrated (no pun intended), no contest. 

If  the Mass wasn't celebrated in the virtually unique way it is in my parish (very "traditional" OF), almost certainly I'd be attending the EF because the outward, aesthetic way in which the OF is so often celebrated "feels deficient" to me: too often, lousy music (both the music used and the performance), inane architecture; loss of a sense of the Real Presence, extreme overuse of eucharistic ministers, the loss of the bells and incense; the whole nine yards.

Note that I am entirely centering on abuses or ancillary mediocrity: not the essence of the OF itself. The OF Mass at my parish has retained traditional elements of the Mass in those "mythological" or symbolic respects, which I would say is a good thing, because I'm fundamentally "traditional" in that sense and many others. 

 Unfortunately, the OF often omits "smells and bells" and other "fuller" elements, so when it retains them, we can talk of maintenance of traditional liturgical practices, which are mostly (in practice) preserved in the EF within the Roman Rite. I don't think in essence it has to be the case, because the OF can (and sometimes does) preserve "smells and bells" and other traditional elements of the Mass. Vatican II intended for any Mass reform to do that (including Latin), but alas, it was not to be, for the most part.

To actually follow through on the original post: I think that architecture, statuary (or icons), stained glass and other ecclesiastical art and music, are also key to fostering the "Catholic imagination" and worldview, in addition to the form of liturgy.

This is what I also love about my own parish: all of that is impeccable (German Gothic Revival style, with lots of lovely woodwork). We have some of the best stained glass in the country: also one of the largest bells in North America.

Let's be sure, however, to distinguish two different issues:

1) Should we be happy and content where we are; be committed to our parish and friends there, and realize and be thankful that we receive Jesus in the Mass [yes].

2) Ideally, should we have the "fullness" of the beauty and tradition of Catholic liturgy and art at Mass [yes].

It's not about what we "get out of" Mass, but what God gets out of us; and he gets more out of us, I submit, if the worship experience is as full as it can be, incorporating all of our senses and deepest aspirations, and appealing to the whole person in as many respects as possible. If I were to compare my worship at Mass now, to my worship as an evangelical, meeting in a bare YMCA hall, there's no contest whatsoever. Even pagans and atheists are almost invariably moved by, and recognize the profundity of a beautiful cathedral or basilica.

My evangelical worship was altogether wholehearted and sincere, too, and a good thing, but compared to a Gothic Cathedral? Beauty was always intended to be part of worship, as we see in God's elaborate decorations in the temple. We don't (or shouldn't) conclude that we ought to build no beautiful churches because others are aesthetically mediocre or even outright bad architecture, and/or including bad ecclesiastical art.

There is scarcely any argument that could be made against what I'm staking out here (I submit). In effect, oftentimes people will assert, "if these elements of art and beauty and liturgical fullness that I myself acknowledge are good things, are not present, I will still be content in my worship and recognize that I receive Jesus."

Yes; we all agree. If anyone didn't agree, I would give them a hard time! But if the question is, "is it better to have more of these elements of beauty and 'high liturgy' than to not have them?" -- I say it's clearly preferable to have them.

Virtually no one would deny the "goodness" of a beautiful cathedral (though, sadly, many seem to disparage the EF or a traditional OF, such as what I attend). They simply do an "end run" around that and say, "that's all cool; lovely stuff, but we don't have it at my parish and I'm a content and happy Catholic anyway." They "settle" for less. And perhaps that gets to the heart of what I'm driving at.

Contentment (Phil 4:11) and non-complaining (Phil 2:14) are proper (and required / commanded) attitudes for any Catholic to have. The interior disposition or "attitude of the heart" is supremely important and is what it is all about in the end (see the Sermon on the Mount). But I'm contending that the Church should foster a fuller worship that incorporates these other elements, so that it would be unnecessary to have to have an attitude of, "our parish is great despite [deficient visual and liturgical aspects] a, b, c, .....z"

Nothing is perfect, of course, but I don't think these things should have ever become issues at all. Once upon a time, a Catholic church was beautiful, period. That was a given. There was hardly an instance of one that wasn't. So for that not to be the case today is clearly a net loss. I don't see how that is even arguable, unless someone makes a positive case for modern "art" or minimalism or whatever one might call it (yuk!): that a gymnasium-type sanctuary is preferable to traditional Catholic architecture.

I have to wonder at the (to me, ludicrous / absurd) mentality that causes a priest (or bishop) to look at statuary or a beautiful altar and say, "let's get rid of that and put in its place insipid modern art, so folks can have a better worship experience."

Just from a completely neutral, common sense, practical perspective: why "get rid of" something that is perfectly acceptable (not to mention, beautiful), that's already there? It's just stupid: dumb economically and every other way.

I think the mentality of these notorious "church rapings" wasn't just so-called "progressive" or supposedly the "spirit of Vatican II." It was the spirit of modernism in its worst sense and of sheer anti-traditionalism. These guys didn't get it.

I fully agree with "traditionalists" that these things are supremely important and can't be separated from the whole of Catholic worship. To tear down beautiful altars or other beautiful items in a church is to make a statement about theology or worldview, and of liturgy. And it's not a very good statement . . .

The "simplicity" fetish was simply repeating the errors of the so-called "Reformation." The early Protestants (i.e., Calvinists, Anabaptists mostly) wanted to get rid of what they considered "unnecessary extras" at best and idolatry at worst. Thus, we have to ask ourselves why a Catholic would think in the same way, unless he had, in fact, adopted tenets of modernism that are fundamentally un-Catholic and more in accord with iconoclastic and relatively less sacramental strains of Protestantism.

I think this is why many "traditionalists" argue (falsely, in my opinion) that the Novus Ordo was "Protestantized" -- because they saw what was happening in association with it: the raping of beautiful churches. Since the latter suggests what I have been saying: modernism and anti-traditionalism, it was guilt-by-association and they concluded that the OF Mass itself must be a product of the same unsavory forces of liberal theology and heterodoxy among Catholics.

Even Luther didn't get rid of beauty and severely chided his former colleague Carlstadt for his iconoclasm. On the other hand he winked at and rationalized (like his fellows in England) the wholesale stealing of churches by the multiple thousands, so he was a bit double-minded. 

Catholic writer Simcha Fisher wrote an article entitled, "Why I Love My Ugly Little Liturgy" (National Catholic Register, 21 Feb. 2011). She's making the same argument that I noted above, and helps prove my point.

It's not an argument against beauty, but for humility (something different from beauty: another topic altogether) and "settling". One thing doesn't cancel out the other. It ain't a zero-sum game. She's arguing as St. Paul did: being "content" and not a grumbler in all situations. I ask, though: why should we have to settle for mediocrity and "ugly"; why should it be an issue at all, that we have to be in a position at all to have to joyously accept (almost as a penance) a shoddily performed liturgy or ugly church building? We have accepted it as the status quo, far too often. She's settling for that and making the best of it.

I think what I'm saying, is that we have to do a deeper analysis than that (I'm always examining premises, as a good socratic): we shouldn't settle for what pretty much everyone (even the ones who try to defend it in the above sense) agrees is mediocrity or lacking important aesthetic elements. Instead, we should ask why this is, and how we can get back to the more universal beauty in church settings that used to be a given and not something we now have to take pains to seek out.

It took one visit to my present beautiful church to convince me it was the place for me. Now, Protestant friends of mine, and some Catholics, would say I was merely attracted by smells and bells and lovely windows, etc. It's not "merely" and it's not just the beauty that attracted me (though it is valid on that level, abstractly considered in isolation, and I do love those things).

No; it was the fact that this was not only objective (quite majestic and breathtaking) beauty: good aesthetics, but also architectural and liturgical tradition, which means something highly important. Tradition is good; continuity is good. Christianity presupposes that in notions like apostolic succession and development of doctrine and councils and popes building upon the thoughts of previous ones. We can't fundamentally alter what came before, and that is true in architecture (I would argue) as well as in liturgy: though the former is far more subjective and falls under the huge, complex discussion of the nature of beauty.

Beautiful architecture in a church, and beautiful liturgy ring true. It's almost like it goes beyond all rational argument. One either intuitively grasps and "gets" this or they don't. But even the ones who don't seem to get it or do, but place it far lower in the scheme of things in importance, don't argue against a beautiful, traditional church so much as they argue in favor of "settling" for ugliness and mediocrity. I think that's ultimately putting the trees before the forest: looking at a molecule in a piece of bark on one tree, rather than the beauty and totality of the whole forest. 

I have written in the past, defending expensive church buildings (a similar topic). People argued against me, saying it was a waste of money, etc. I retorted that until our society stops making expensive "temples" to mere materialism / commercialism or art for its own sake, we need not stop building a beautiful building for God, since the latter is more meaningful than the former, by far. And we have the model of the temple: God's own instructions, in that case.

It'd be one thing if society didn't spend gazillions of dollars for basically our own pleasure and amusement, or on our own houses, yachts, etc. But it does that and then tells Christians that they ought not build beautiful (expensive) worship buildings for God, and that this detracts from helping the poor. That makes no sense. If absolute poverty is the goal, then folks can do that if they wish. But they shouldn't accept all sorts of materialistic buildings and art, yet deny it to the Church. The double standard and hypocrisy is what I never stand for: "I can do this, but you (or the Church) must do something different." 

The article from Simcha Fisher, mentioned and linked above, doesn't touch the argument for beauty that I am making. One thing is about humility and avoiding pride and the other is about aesthetics and the relationship of beauty to worship and reverence. All things can be distorted. Beauty for its own sake is an idol. Beauty for the sake of glorifying and worshiping God is standard-issue Catholicism (or was till the last 50 years).

I don't go to my church building to worship the stained glass or gaze at them with rapt admiration the whole time. I worship God through them and fill up my senses. I think this is the worship experience as the Catholic Church has conceived it throughout most of her history. The beauty was part and parcel of it. No one thought to separate beauty from the Mass till this notion that "simpler is inherently better" came in, which is a modernist / Protestant (almost iconoclastic) conception at heart.

Speaking for myself, if I have the choice, I'm gonna pick the more beautiful church almost every time, because to me that is an important element in worship (and the Church agrees, which is why she constructed mostly beautiful, awe-inspiring churches, lo these past 2000 years).

Having done that, I'm loyal to my parish. I've been there 22 1/2 years: my entire time as a Catholic except for the first five months. 


* * * 

More Thoughts on Giving Alms to Homeless Beggars on the Street

[See my previous lengthy treatment]

Many times such giving (money on the street) is enabling substance abuse. What is best to do is to personally take the person out to eat and preach the gospel and Catholicism. Then you know he or she is gettin' both physical and spiritual food.

Our parish -- the priest -- used to tell us not to give to anyone who asks near the church door, for this reason. But the parish distributes food. So there are various ways to assist those who may be squandering resources irresponsibly and to fulfill our obligation to be charitable. In other words there are more choices than:

1) Give to anyone without question.

2) Don't give at all.

Those ain't the only two choices. To care about the giving being most "efficacious" and not squandered is part of charity, too: desiring the best for the person: not that they do things that don't help their sad situation.

Of course you can give the money and not think anything else about it. No one can call that "bad" in and of itself. But I think we can take it further in order to assure that it is put to the best use: which is a charitable thing, not uncharitable.

Homeless shelters operate, of course, on a similar principle. They don't just hand out money: the homeless go there: get a bed, roof over their heads, warmth on a cold night, and food. Thus, nothing is possibly wasted in that arrangement.

Just giving to a guy with a cardboard sign on the side of the road: not so. We wouldn't give someone drugs or a drink if they have those problems. So we shouldn't give them money if there is a plausible likelihood that the money will be traded for same. We can make sure that the person is receiving good things rather than possibly bad ones. And again, that's charity, not lack of same.

Someone asked: "playing devil's advocate here, where in the Gospels does Christ say to get verification before giving alms?"

That's no disproof of anything I'm saying. We can and should use wisdom and prudence in intelligently applying the principle of giving with a cheerful heart and being our brother's keeper. The Bible teaches that we give to those who have need: it doesn't spell out in exhaustive detail how we go about that. As always in Scripture (especially with Jesus) it goes back to our heart's disposition and attitude. I'm not disagreeing with giving itself: only talking about the best way to go about it.

So I appeal back to my example: everything the homeless shelter does is verified to be good, with no bad result from it, which is clearly not the case (in whatever percentage) in handing out money to someone on the street. Also, there are passages in the Bible having to do with wise use of resources, such as the parable of the talents. 

The article about John Stossel's opinions doesn't indicate whether he advocates giving in other ways than money on the street (perhaps he does). That's the difference between his analysis and mine. I'm saying, "by all means give, but try to make sure the resources are not abused in the enabling sense."

The article seems to presuppose the false dichotomy I noted above: either give cash to the beggar without question or don't give at all. There are many other choices in addition to those two, to help people in need (homeless shelters being one example of what I am advocating).

Substance abuse is very prevalent among the homeless.  See these three articles (one / two / three).

Obviously, it's imperative, if we really want to help these people, to get them into drug rehab, too. It's the equivalent of teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish. We have to attack the root of the problem (if it is substance abuse), rather than continually putting temporary Band-Aids on it without resolving underlying root causes.

Someone else said: " if I were that poor fellow, down on his luck, I could probably use the occasional stiff drink."

If not an alcoholic, sure. If an alcoholic, this is the worst thing for the person. Many homeless have substance abuse problems, which is precisely the point. Giving someone like that cash on the street is thus often enabling behavior. 


 *****

 

Thoughts in Defense of Priests Facing the Altar During the Mass Rather than the Congregation (Ad Orientem)

[from a thread on Mark Brumley's Facebook page]

I'm not legalistic at all about this, but I think it is undeniable that ad orientem makes more sense, given what is happening in the Mass.

If the prayers at Mass are directed to God (obviously prayers aren't directed towards the congregation!), then clearly it is more "natural" to face God in the Tabernacle on the altar while saying the prayers, and offering the sacrifice. That's why the Church for most of her history in most places has done it this way (just as we face the Tabernacle in eucharistic adoration). It doesn't come out of nowhere. It has a "primacy" of past history and liturgical tradition.

Like I said, I'm not legalistic or pharisaical about this; nor am I regarding communion on the tongue at an altar rail (that I myself do every week). I've noted several times in public posts how reception of the Holy Eucharist in the early Church was standing and in the hand for 6-9 centuries, depending on location. But I think arguments can be made in defense of this, without putting down the alternative.

Protestant pastors much more so "represent God to the people" because they don't have the Eucharist and are not offering the Sacrifice of the Mass, so that preaching is front and center. Those things make a huge difference. The Catholic priest is offering with the people, and an offering is towards an altar: analogous to the Old Testament priesthood that was continued in the New Testament by Christ being our high priest, and each Catholic priest being in persona Christi and alter Christus . 

A priest can still offer without facing an altar (and a Mass where that happens is just as valid), but it clearly makes more sense and continues the priestly tradition since Moses, to face the altar; offer on the altar, etc. The high priest used to face the ark of the covenant, where God was specially present; now we have Jesus present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, so there is more reason to face the altar to make the offering than there was even in the old covenant with bulls and sheep and other offerings. 

Facing the congregation thing is much more consonant with Protestant theology and tendency against sacramentalism (even by their own self-understanding). Someone said it was more consistent with the New Testament priesthood; I countered by saying that it fits in more so with Protestant pastors, who aren't priests at all.

The priest and Jesus Christ are simultaneously offering (along with all present) because the Mass is a re-presentation of the historic crucifixion: it's made present. The Mass is a sacrificial offering, which is priest and congregation together (not contradistinguished from each other, insofar as the offering is concerned: symbolized by one facing the other). Together they are offering to God, as opposed to the priest merely talking to the people, or bringing God to them (that applies much more to the Liturgy of the Word and homily [i.e., the first part of the Mass] ). That's why the liberal "dialogue" thing applied to the Mass (i.e., after the readings and homily) was beside the point from the get-go.

[see further discussion on my Facebook page]

                                                                         * * * * *

Jeremiad Against Libertarianism (or at least some highly secularized, extreme versions of it)

[from a Facebook thread on my page]
I've been saying for years that libertarianism -- at least in its extreme forms -- has more difficulties being consistent with Christianity than even left-wing political views do. Mark Shea commented on this same article: " Libertarianism is a heresy. It focuses on subsidiarity while ignoring solidarity. It's a philosophy for people with no children." I agree.

A libertarianism that entails legal drugs, moral / social neutrality regarding same-sex "marriage" or things like cohabitation, etc. (all quite fashionable among many young people, even Catholics and other Christians and/or "libertarians"), it falls short of Catholic social teaching and biblical teaching.

Subsidiarity in libertarianism is not what Catholics object to, because it's a Catholic principle. It's the extreme emphasis of it to the exclusion of solidarity (as Mark Shea noted) which is the problem.

I don't think government can or should do anything about cohabitation: but Christians certainly should. I was referring above mainly to the positions of those who are libertarians: it's this mentality of "if it doesn't harm anyone, let folks do as they wish." That's the fundamental lie: sin does harm society because it harms families and relationships, which are the basis and foundation of society. To not understand this is to miss a very basic aspect of Christianity: the communitarian one ("we are our brothers' keepers," etc.).

Libertarianism is a very mixed bag: many types, and sometimes people aren't even aware of the larger philosophical / social issues that lie behind a lot of this stuff. They just take in the philosophy from friends, etc.: which is the human tendency.

Marijuana kills brain cells and memory. That's hardly good for society.

Human laws ought to reflect natural laws. The law is supposed to sanction what is good and right, because that is best for society. Same-sex marriage will destroy society insofar as it is a perversion of the basic building-block of it and is also mortal sin in Catholic thinking. That's why it was unthinkable as a legality until very recently.  Sodomy ought to be illegal (and usually has been in most societies), and that is because it's against natural law, which good human law ought to reflect and mirror.

Contraception was illegal until 1965 in the US, though obviously not enforced. The Griswold v. Connecticut case dealt with that and brought in the notorious "right to privacy" thing that was the groundwork for legal abortion. So philosophically and ethically, this sort of libertarian or "let everyone do as they please" thinking lies directly behind the abortion holocaust.    

The churches have to teach on the wrongness of fornication and masturbation. But few do at all, and those that do at all often do it in a dumb and insubstantial way. Thankfully, there is a growing and thriving abstinence movement now where young people can hear intelligent talks about these issues, so they can make sensible choices in their lives and avoid much misery and heartbreak that come from any sin.

Homosexuality (i.e., male sexual acts) is so unhealthy because certain body parts weren't meant to be associated with certain other body parts (without getting graphic). So people get sick and die at a younger age as a result. The Bible makes the argument that it's against natural law (largely in St. Paul).The whole notion that government couldn't say anything about contraception gave us abortion. That's the fruit. Now we're gonna get societally sanctioned homosexual "marriage" leading to a perversion of the basis of society: the family.

If people want to foolishly think like this, let them ponder the actual results of it. The government says lots of things about lots of private stuff: you can't rape in private, or abuse a child, or even kill yourself. The only dispute is over which things are moral or not, so it goes back to ethics and religion to make that determination.

Thus, as society becomes more secularized, it becomes more immoral, to everyone's detriment. We see that tragically playing out now, all over the world.


* * * * *





 

Victorian King James Version: "Selection" for Philippians, with Source Information and One Illustrative Example, Explained (3:21)

Scottish Bible translator James Moffatt (1870-1944) 
Read the Introduction for an explanation of this New Testament "selection" (rather than translation).


The Letter of Paul to the
PHILIPPIANS


Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ; to all the saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. 2 Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 I give thanks to my God in every remembrance of you, 4 always in all my prayers making supplication for you all, with joy; 5 for what you have contributed to the gospel from the very first day down to this moment; 6 being confident of this very thing, that he, who has begun a good work in you, will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. 7 It is only natural for me to be thinking of you all in this way, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of my grace. 8 God will bear me witness how I yearn over you all with the tenderness of Christ Jesus. 9 And this I pray, that your charity may more and more abound in knowledge, and in all understanding; 10 that you may approve the better things, that you may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ, 11 being filled with the fruits of righteousness, through Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. 12 Now I would have you know, brethren, that what I have gone through has turned out to the advancement of the gospel.CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 3
As to the rest, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not wearisome, but to you it is necessary. 2 Beware of these dogs, these wicked workmen, the incision-party! 3 For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in the spirit; and glory in Christ Jesus, not having confidence in the flesh. 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more, 5 Being circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; according to the law, a Pharisee: 6 Concerning zeal, a persecutor of the church, blameless by the standard of legal righteousness. CHAPTER 4
So then, my dear brethren, whom I am longing to see—you who are my joy and my crown, stand fast in union with the Lord, dear friends. 2 I beg of Euodia, and I beseech Syntyche, to be of one mind in the Lord. 3 And I entreat you also, my sincere companion, help those women who have laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement and the rest of my fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life. 4 Rejoice in the Lord always: and again I say, Rejoice. 5 Let your forbearance be known to everyone; the Lord is at hand. 6 Never be anxious, but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. 7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Again, I kept track of which versions I utilized (whole verses or most of a verse):

Rheims NT: 34 verses (33% of 104 verses)
King James (AV): 33 (32%)
Moffatt 15 (14%)
Weymouth: 12 (11%)
20th Century NT 8 (8%)
Young's Literal Translation 2 (2%)

Thus, 65% (or almost two-thirds) of the work for this letter remains King James / Rheims (in roughly equal parts), with the remaining 35% is early 20th century revision of Elizabethan language in some fashion ("Victorian" language).

For Mark, chapters 1-4, the "Elizabethan" percentage was a little lower (53%) and the Weymouth / 20th Century percentage considerably higher (31% compared to 19%). So there will be some variability, but the general proportion seems clear: half or more Elizabethan, which is what I'm striving for (maintenance of the grandeur of the Olde English). Here is the grand total of all eight chapters:

King James (AV): 74 verses (29.25% of 253 verses)
Rheims NT: 73 verses (28.85%)
Weymouth: 37 (15%)
20th Century NT 29 (11.46%)
Moffatt 28 (11.07%)
Young's Literal Translation 12 (5%)

This adds up to a 58% Elizabethan proportion, and 42% Victorian. It looks, then, like it will be around 40% substantial revision of passages for the entire New Testament. That's roughly how much of the old language (in my judgment) needed to be updated, for the sake of clarity and understanding.

Now, to give readers an idea of how I'm going about this, there was one passage (Philippians 3:21) where I combined three different translations. I think, in this example, my reasoning or selection process will be pretty clear and straightforward, in accordance with my stated goals. I generally select one version for one verse. Frequently, a few words are used from a different version, for clarity's sake. Sometimes it is roughly half one version and half another. But in this (rare) case, three versions were used:

KJV: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Rheims: Who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory, according to the operation whereby also he is able to subdue all things unto himself.

Young's Literal Translation: who shall transform the body of our humiliation to its becoming conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working of his power, even to subject to himself the all things.

Victorian King James Version: Who shall transform the body of our lowness, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the operation of his power, whereby he is able to subject all things unto himself. 

The "base" (as usual in this work) is KJV (sort of like the primer paint, to which colors are then added). From Rheims (a quite similar rendering, as usual, because it often drew from KJV in the 18th century Challoner revision) came the more descriptive word, "operation" (rather than "working"), "lowness" (rather than "vile"), and the omission of the semi-archaic / not strictly necessary "even" near the end. And from Young's Literal Translation came the key descriptive words, "transform" (rather than "change" or "reform") and "his power" and "subject" (rather than "subdue"). 
The final selection also took account of the RSV and NASB versions (I mentioned in the Introduction that I would consult them). NASB contained "transform," "power," and "subject." RSV has "lowly," "power," and "subject."

This provides a clear and straightforward illustration of the "selection philosophy" I am utilizing. Front and center are beauty and tradition in linguistic expression, while maintaining literal translation and accuracy to the ears of the modern reader.

I believe I've succeeded in my task; thanks be to God, and that this New Testament offers something fresh and different: enough so to justify its creation.
                                                                             * * * * *

Books by Dave Armstrong: Victorian King James Version of the New Testament: A “Selection” for Lovers of Elizabethan and Victorian Literature

 Original Frontispiece for the Authorized "King James" Version of 1611. [work presently in progress]


Miscellaneous
Question & Answer Exchange (Facebook, 15 November 2013]

Table of Contents
[as books are completed, they will be colored in blue]

Dedication (p. 3)Introduction (p. 5) [read online; it runs 12 pages]
Matthew (p. 19) Mark [read online in its entirety; also source analysis for chapters 1-4]LukeJohnActsRomans1 Corinthians2 CorinthiansGalatiansEphesiansPhilippiansColossians1 Thessalonians2 Thessalonians1 Timothy2 TimothyTitusPhilemonHebrewsJames1 Peter2 Peter1 John2 John3 JohnJude Revelation
* * * * *
Uploaded initially on 18 November 2013.