It’s not constant, but this week we’ve kept ETWN on in our home to watch the coverage of the passing of Pope Emeritus Benedict.
Last night, before grace, we prayed for the repose of his soul with little doubt that this philosopher-king has been granted entry into the Eternal. After we prayed, I couldn’t help to notice how different things were this time.
I’ve lived through the passing of four Popes: Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and now Pope Benedict. The difference now, however, is the absence of anticipation of who will be Peter’s successor.
I’m not saying that’s good or bad. Just different.
I remember crying after hearing that Pope John Paul II died. His papacy had such an impact on my life. Maybe that’s why I cried? But I also felt a paternal loss. I cried at the passing of my hometown parish priest, Monsignor James McDonald, and I cried again, recently, when our present parish priest, Fr. Tom Morrette, announced that he was being transferred.
Each time, I felt like my dad had died all over again. However, I didn’t cry when I heard the news about Pope Benedict’s death. As much as I was connected with Pope John Paul II and the other two priests, I identified more with Pope Benedict.
An avid reader of all things Catholic, I felt a much greater connection to the works of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger than the writings of Saint John Paul the Great, which greatly inspired me. And while the election of Pope John Paul II surprised and captivated me (along with the rest of the world), I felt so connected to Cardinal Ratzinger that I predicted his election as Pope and subsequently, defended him throughout his papacy — though he truly needed no defending.
Yet, even though I feel like we have suffered a great loss with his passing, I didn’t cry. I didn’t cry and haven’t cried because I am still torn over the fact that he resigned.
I understand that he was wanting to retire before his election as Holy Father and that, he felt that was getting too old to continue as Pope. Maybe, if I am blessed with old age, and make it to 85, I’ll have a stronger understanding. But right now, I don’t.
Let me make it clear. I’m not judging Pope Benedict XVI. I’m just torn.
Should the successor of Peter be allowed to quit? Priests and bishops are required to retire. Why not Popes?
According to news reports, Pope Francis has a letter of resignation prepared. This is not a Benedictine trend continued by Pope Francis. Pope Paul also had one as did Pope Pius VII and Pius XXII, both were concerned about being kidnapped; and Pope John Paul II wrote two. [1]
The Apostle John, who according to St. Epiphanius lived to 94, appeared to pass the reigns to his successors in his old age.
Though not the Pope at the time, the office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head. (CCC 1444). So, passing on the keys has to fall under Apostolic Tradition?
So then, what present-day lesson are we supposed to take from this “new” tradition in the reign of Peter? Always the teacher, with Joseph Ratzinger, there always is a lesson somewhere. What is it?
Has he prepared us for a world where the position of the Holy Father is fraught with danger? Where the concern of kidnapping that Popes Pius VII, XXII, and maybe even John Paul II felt become real and possibly constant? Or maybe it’s something simpler? Something paternal and not so apocalyptic?
Fathers, in many of our child-like eyes, appear somewhat invincible like kings who reign mightily until the end.
However, a father’s job is actually a short-lived task. It is to raise strong, faithful Christians and prepare them for adulthood. Most dads, though available when needed, inwardly hope for an early retirement. One enjoyed in comfort with their beloved spouse. He is not a King. For that matter, either is the Pope. He’s a Prime Minister at best.
There is only one True Father and one Reigning King, Jesus Christ Our Lord.
That being the case, then our dearly departed brother Joseph and spiritual father and teacher, Benedict, has carried out his role as Holy Father faithfully and was greeted at the Gate of St. Peter with the heavenly proclamation we all long to hear, “Well done, Faithful Servant.”
So then, why am I still torn? Maybe, just maybe, I’m not ready to cry again.
As a writer, James’s appearances include Newsweek, The Inside Success Show, Bob Salter (CBS Radio), Mike Siegel, Mancow, Megyn Kelly, and more.
Beyond writing, James worked with At-Risk youth in Southern California for over six years. His contributions to the classroom — featured on local television and in the LA Daily News and the Los Angeles Times’ Burbank Leader — earned him the honors of “Teacher of the Year”. James was also twice honored by a CASDA Scholar as the teacher who had the greatest influence on that student. As an educator, James also appeared twice on America Live with Megyn Kelly.
Today, James lives in New York where he continues to teach — and write. Besides his books, you can follow his musing on this blog Corporation You.
If you dig deep into the Vatican II documents, I feel there is nothing that any devout Christian wouldn’t agree with. In fact, my buddy often reads the Vatican II documents to his congregation — which is a non-denominational congregation with a weekly service with little remnants of the Latin Rite liturgy.
How Vatican II was implemented, on the other hand, may be another story — and most likely not the work of the Holy Spirit.
Archbishop Karol Wojtyla appeared to properly prepare the Polish during the implementation of Vatican II — which is probably why the Polish people are so faithfully loyal and reverent. (Though I’m obviously biased). Pope Benedict XVI believed giving priests “options” in Mass was possibly a mistake. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he stated in an interview in “L’homme Nouveau,” he thought that the door [was] left open to a false creativity on the part of the celebrants. And though the press has focused mainly on Pope Francis limiting the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), he also spoke about abuses in the “New Order” Mass and the need for Masses to be uniformly reverent.
In his letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes, his motu proprio restricting the celebration of the TLM, Pope Francis wrote, “At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that ‘in many places, the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions.’” [1]
Then there’s the other end of the spectrum on religious rituals.
Many believe they are a hindrance. Some of my closest Christian brothers and sisters completely denounce rituals of any kind. However, they somehow ignore the fact that their worship services are somewhat programmed with weekly familiarity. They also tend to ignore the fact that the celebrations of Christmas and Pascha (Easter) are rituals, deeply rooted in ancient tradition.
So where does that leave things in regard to rituals?
Many of us have had or are in careers where certain steps seem trite or ritualistic, but in the larger scheme, if removed, could cause havoc or possibly a fatal flaw down the road. Think of surgeons, airplane pilots, law enforcement officers, and the daily rituals or safety checks and precautions they carry out routinely throughout the day.
Ritualism, for the sake of ritualism, has little spiritual value — yet, it can still prevent serious error or possible death.
However, knowing why the rituals were put in place and knowing their importance, leads to greater understanding and an elevation of one’s performance. This not only applies to both a person’s career — but to one’s spiritual life, as well. So, rituals — especially spiritual rituals — are important!
Sacred rituals given to us by ancient tradition are a gift to be treasured, preserved, and passed on.
As a writer, James has been featured on The Inside Success Show, Bob Salter (CBS Radio), Mike Siegel, Mancow, and more.
Beyond writing, James worked with At-Risk youth in Southern California for over six years. His contributions to the classroom — featured on local television and in the LA Daily News and the Los Angeles Times’ Burbank Leader — earned him the honors of “Teacher of the Year”. James was also twice honored by a CASDA Scholar as the teacher who had the greatest influence on that student. As an educator, James also appeared twice on America Live with Megyn Kelly.
Today, James lives in New York where he continues to teach — and write. Besides his books, you can follow his musing on this blog Corporation You.
It’s not necessarily a hit-piece on those who enjoy the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). However, it didn’t paint the TLM movement in a positive light, either.
Born after Vatican 2, I never experienced the Latin Mass in my youth. However, I remember witnessing some of the changes in my parish, such as moving the altar forward, replacing the crucifix with a statue of the Risen Lord. As a cradle Catholic, I just went along with the changes and gave it little thought … until one day, I traveled abroad.
Well, I really didn’t travel abroad. I traveled to Canada. Québec, actually. Montréal to be precise.
During my stay, I attended Sunday Mass at chapelle Notre-Dame-de-Bon-Secours, “Our Lady of Good Help”, in the district of Vieux Montreal.
The Chapel was breath-taking and I waited with bated breath for Mass to begin.
Everything seemed to be exactly like what I experienced in my local parish in the States — until everyone began speaking.
Not that I’m a francophobe. I just felt removed — not a part of the parish. Sadly, I didn’t feel “catholic.” In fact, I really didn’t feel “Catholic” either. For the first time, I understood why the Latin Rite was in Latin for so long.
Years passed since I attended a Traditional Latin Mass. My wife and I had recently moved to California. My wife, who was Lutheran at the time, leaned trad. (Actually, she leaned Orthodox … Russian Orthodox.) Since we often attended different services at the time, we both found common ground with the Mass of the Ages.
Though my wife truly enjoyed it, I again felt removed. I didn’t feel “catholic” (lowercase c) However, I did feel “Catholic.”
After that Sunday, I returned to attending Mass at my parish, Saint Finbar.
It was a multicultural parish in Burbank, California. Founded by Irish, the congregation now also included Latino, Filipino, and Vietnamese parishioners. For the first time as a Cradle Catholic, St. Finbar’s gave me a sense of “being catholic”. The Masses and music were reverent. The Sanctus and the Agnes Die were sometimes sung.
One priest eloquently sang the entire Eucharistic prayer.
I remember the first time I heard it, I rolled my eyes. Is this going to be like Godspell, I remember saying to myself, fearing a contemporary music abuse of the Novus Ordo. It was Southern California and Burbank was in Hollywood’s backyard. However, to my surprise, it was moving. So moving, I would intentionally skip his Masses, from time to time, to make sure that I was attending Mass for the right reason, the Eucharist alone.
Later, as a fundraiser, the parish music ministry put out a CD of their liturgical performances, which included the Eucharist prayers. I would often listen to these recorded prayers when stuck in traffic or on my way to work.
The only negative thing I can say about this “experience” was that many of the Masses were in the native tongues of the parishioners. Except for Holy Days of Obligation and Soup Fridays during Lent, the Church Community of St. Finbar rarely gathered together as one Catholic community.
Yet, the parish never lost its true sense of being “catholic.”
On one of those Sundays where I had no choice but to attend a Mass in Spanish, I never felt removed from the Mass. In fact, I often preferred the Spanish Mass. The celebration didn’t seem to end. It flowed out of the Church and went forth to the veranda outside the church. Music played as families handed out loaves of bread to anyone in need. It was beautiful.
However, it was helpful that I understood Spanish. Then it happened…
It was Easter Sunday and I was outside the church assisting as part of the Greeting Committee. I felt that I didn’t meet my Sunday obligation and picked up a bulletin to see when the next English-speaking Mass was scheduled.
“Have you ever attended a Vietnamese Mass?” one of the greeters asked me.
“No, they’re usually on Wednesday,” I added.
“There’s one following this Mass,” she continued. “Stay behind and attend. It’s beautiful.”
So, I did.
I had never experienced such a beautiful Liturgy. The entire Mass was sung, from beginning to end, by both the Priest and the Collect. I stood in the back, watching with great awe. And even though I did not understand a word of it, I was captured by its elegance, grace, and reverence — especially for the Eucharist.
I didn’t realize it then, but I was forever changed.
Years have passed and my wife and I moved back to New York after starting a family. Though we started attending Mass together, nothing matched the feeling about being “catholic” that I experienced at St. Finbar.
In an effort to better evangelize, my present parish has embraced a less traditional model of worship taken from the pages of the book Rebuilt.
Though our Pastor had greatly improved the reverence experienced at Mass, few parishioners appear equally reverent. We are among the few who improve our wardrobe during Mass, often receiving comments (all good) on our boys’ attire and manners.
Last year, I approached my pastor and expressed our possible need to go elsewhere. I’m not a big fan of “Church shopping”, but something had to change.
Speaking of my thoughts about attending a TLM, I harkened back to my Easter Sunday experience and said, “I’d rather go to a Church where my kids didn’t know what was going on and everyone else did than be at a Church where they knew what was going on and those around them don’t.”
Of course, I was referring to the holiness of the Mass.
Since there was not a Diocesan Traditional Latin Liturgy close enough to attend, I confessed that we attended a Saturday Liturgy at the SPX church in our area. After a long conversation, too long to discuss, out of loyalty to the Church, he kindly asked me not to attend an SPX Mass, but understood my reasons for wanting to go to a Traditional Mass.
“They’re good people,” he said. “But some of the things they say about the Pope….”
“There’s a picture of the Pope on the wall when you walk in,” I added.
“Pope Francis?” he asked shockingly.
Yes, I nodded.
“Before I was a priest,” he suggested. “I would often worship with my eyes closed at Mass.”
“I do already,” I added with a smile. “Before you were here, the cantor would start the Lamb of God while people were still shaking hands during the Sign of Peace. I’d close my eye so no one could interrupt me while I focused on the Agnes Dei . One time, a woman in the pew in front of me kept smacking my shoulder while I was praying — just so I would shake her hand.”
We both chuckled and moved on to more kinder and gentler topics, like my wife and my boys. Out of respect to our pastor, I submitted to his authority and continued to worship at our local parish.
On Father’s Day, ironically, our pastor shockingly announced that he was being transferred to a new parish. We were away that weekend, as we are most weekends in the summer, attending Mass at the parish by our summer camp.
Without an appointment, I visited him at the Rectory and luckily arrived at a time where he did not have an appointment.
In short, we revisited my original concern — specifically with the Rebuilt program.
“If you ever left, our backup plan was at St. Ann’s,” I said with a chuckle in my voice.
St. Ann’s is Catholic Church in the rural town where I work. Her pastor was well-known for his orthodoxy and reverence. The altar servers still use patens during the reception of Holy Communion, which is rarely seen today in a Novus Ordo Mass.
“But,” I added. “They transferred him (St. Ann’s pastor) too.”
Though our out-going had nice things to say about the incoming pastor, he gave me his blessing to move on if we felt the need.
“You have to go where you’re fed,” he said. Of course, he met “go where you are fed” within the Catholic Church.
And that was the answer I was looking for. That’s the answer we’re all looking for! To be fed!
I felt lost in the Mass in Quebec, not because I did not speak French. It was because it appeared perfunctory. I felt disconnected with the Traditional Mass in L.A., not because I didn’t understand the Latin. I do. It was because it appeared methodical.
Now, I’m not saying all the Masses in Quebec are perfunctory. Nor am I saying all the TLM are methodical. Nor am I saying that all Vietnamese Masses are life-changing.
I am saying that a Mass done correctly is life-changing.
So, how do you know when a Mass is done correctly? Trust me, you’ll know. You’ll feel it and see it. You’ll see all the participants: the priest and the people in the pews, the readers and cantors, all the ushers and musicians reverently partaking in the Supper of the Lamb, fully focused on the Source and Summit of our faith, “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).
It doesn’t matter what form it’s in. It doesn’t matter what language it is in. It doesn’t matter if it is illicit. All that matters is that the faithful come together with Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, as God’s Temple. (1 Cor 3:16)
Being “catholic” does not mean that we worship using the same words and music. On any given day (or from Sunday Mass to Mass in larger parishes) one can go to a Mass in Latin Rite Church, in which I belong, and experience a difference in song or celebration.
The New Order Latin Rite is also divided into an ordinary and extraordinary form. That’s not very universal.
Further, within the Latin Rite, there are some other Latin liturgical traditions, such as the Ambrosian (habitually celebrated in the Archdiocese of Milan), the Mozarabic (celebrated in a more restricted manner in Toledo in Spain), and that of the city of Braga in Portugal which is permitted in that diocese but not widely used. [1] Pope Paul VI celebrated the Ambrosian Rite.
Even in the Traditional Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, which has garnered so much attention lately because of Pope Francis’s MotoPropio “Traditionis Custodus“, one can experience a High Mass or Low Mass.
The list of liturgical differences goes on and on. Change the music and the sense and feel of a Mass changes completely. Just by having a different priest and a different homily, the true universality of the Mass is removed.
“In the liturgy, above all that of the sacraments, there is an immutable part, a part that is divinely instituted and of which the Church is the guardian, and parts that can be changed, which the Church has the power, and on occasion the duty, to adapt to the cultures of recently evangelized peoples.” (CCC 1205)
What makes the Catholic Church truly catholic is not only the immutable part in the rubric of its Masses. What makes the Church truly catholic is the power of the Church to adapt to the cultures of recently evangelized peoples.
People are going to go where they are being fed. We all have cultural and social needs and desires. Rebuilt works for just as many people as the TLM does. That’s why “[t]he celebration of the liturgy, therefore, should correspond to the genius and culture of the different peoples. (CCC 1204)
The Catechism states: “In order that the mystery of Christ be ‘made known to all the nations . . . to bring about the obedience of faith,’ (Cf. SC 37-40) it must be proclaimed, celebrated, and lived in all cultures in such a way that they themselves are not abolished by it, but redeemed and fulfilled: It is with and through their own human culture, assumed and transfigured by Christ, that the multitude of God’s children has access to the Father, in order to glorify Him in the one Spirit” (CCC 1204)
It seems to me that the more reverent liturgies we have, the more catholic the Church becomes. In the end, that’s what truly makes the Church “Catholic”.
Most American Christians believe that all Christians celebrate Easter on the same day. In fact, 2016, one of the U.S. presidential candidates, wrote this:
This weekend, Christians of every denomination remember the most transformative event in history – Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection – the ultimate sacrifice that redeemed the whole world.
The fact is not every Christian denomination celebrates Christ’s resurrection on the same Sunday. This year, for the majority of Americans, we celebrate Easter on April 9th. However, our Orthodox brothers and sisters, celebrate the resurrection a week later. (April 16th to be exact.)
This is the closest the two Easters have been in some time. Next year, the See of Peter and all his off-shoots will celebrate Easter on March 31. The autonomous or autocephalous Orthodox Churches will celebrate Easter (or Pascha) on May 5 in 2024.
So, why are there two Easters?
Historically, the early Church did not have a set-date for Easter. In fact, not every Christian remembered Christ’s resurrection on Sunday.
The Catholic Encyclopedia informs us, that according to Irenaeus, “St. Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome c. 150 about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance.”[1]
“…the second stage in the Easter controversy centers round the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Granted that the great Easter festival was always to be held on a Sunday, and was not to coincide with a particular phase of the moon, which might occur on any day of the week, a new dispute arose as to the determination of the Sunday itself. The text of the decree of the Council of Nicaea which settled, or at least indicated a final settlement of, the difficulty has not been preserved to us, but we have an important document inserted in Eusebius’s “Life of Constantine” (III, xviii sq.). The emperor himself, writing to the Churches after the Council of Nicaea, exhorts them to adopt its conclusions and says among other things: “At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. . . in the city of Rome and in Africa, throughout Italy and in Egypt. . . with entire unity of judgment.” [2]
As already stated, we don’t have the exact words of the great council, but we may safely infer from scattered notes that the council ruled:
that Easter must be celebrated by all throughout the world on the same Sunday;
that this Sunday must follow the fourteenth day of the paschal moon;
that that moon was to be accounted the paschal moon whose fourteenth day followed the spring equinox;
that some provision should be made, probably by the Church of Alexandria as best skilled in astronomical calculations, for determining the proper date of Easter and communicating it to the rest of the world.
This was not a perfect solution. But it appears, by 525 AD all the Christian communities of the world were celebrating the Resurrection of Our Lord on the same Sunday.
So, what happened?
Why do Russian and Orthodox Christians celebrate Easter or Pascha, on one Sunday and everybody else celebrates the Resurrection of Our Lord on another Sunday?
Well, the Gregorian calendar happened — kinda.
According to Wiki: TheGregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar, is internationally the most widely used civil calendar. It is named for Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in October 1582.
Wiki states: The calendar was a refinement to the Julian calendar amounting to a 0.002% correction in the length of the year. The motivation for the reform was to bring the date for the celebration of Easter to the time of the year in which it was celebrated when it was introduced by the early Church. Because the celebration of Easter was tied to the spring equinox, the Roman Catholic Church considered the steady drift in the date of Easter caused by the year being slightly too long to be undesirable. The reform was adopted initially by the Catholic countries of Europe. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox countries continued to use the traditional Julian calendar and adopted the Gregorian reform after a time, for the sake of convenience in international trade. The last European country to adopt the reform was Greece, in 1923.
Blah, blah, blah-blah, blaaaah!
However, the Orthodox Church vigorously opposes the use of the Gregorian calendar, writes Fr. Jon Magoulias, a Greek-Orthodox priest at the Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church in Modesto, California.
This, he informs us, resulted in the West and East celebrating all Church feast days on different dates, the Orthodox celebrations always falling thirteen days behind the Western. [3]
In 1923, Fr. Jon Magoulias continued, an inter-Orthodox congress was held in Constantinople attended by representatives of some, but not all, Orthodox churches. This congress made the very controversial decision to follow a revised calendar that was essentially the same as the Gregorian calendar, for all things except the celebration of Pascha, which continued to be calculated according to the original Julian calendar. The result being that today the Orthodox celebrate most feast days, like Christmas, Epiphany and the rest, at the same time as Western Christians and only Pascha and the feast days that are connected with it like Pentecost and the Ascension, are dated according to the Julian calendar and celebrated on different dates. [4]
Fr. Magoulias stated that for Orthodox, it is important to maintain the teachings and traditions of the Church intact and pure [5] — and I would argue, for Catholics, this applies as well.
But remember, I said the problem was that “the Gregorian calendar happened — kinda.” Well, the kinda is kinda important.
Well, Catholics believe Easter Sunday formula handed down by the First Ecumenical Council, held in Nicea in 325 AD is: The first Sunday which occurs after the first full moon (or more accurately after the first fourteenth day of the moon) following the vernal equinox. For Orthodox Christians, the formula is this: Pascha is to be celebrated on the first Sunday, after the first full moon, following the first day of Spring (March 21 on the Julian calendar), but always after Jewish Passover — and that’s the kinda that makes all the difference!
Because of this difference, Christians celebrate the most Holiest of our Holy days on different days. By doing this, it appears to me, that we are acting more like they who divided His garments by casting lots than those followers who near the cross of Jesus stood.
Personally, I think holding on to the tradition of the Julian calendar is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. We know it was an inaccurate measuring tool. It’s definitely not Divine. So, why continue to use it?
I understand that Orthodoxy can also point to Canon VII of the Holy Apostles to counter any argument against the Julian calendar.
For those unfamiliar, Canon VII states: If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed. However, in the same breath, Canons XLV and LVX of the Holy Apostles respectively state: “Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them” and “If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated.”
To that I ask: “How close are these Canons adhered to today by Orthodox clergymen or laymen alike today?” (For the record: My Lutheran wife and I often hold hands in prayer and my kid’s dojo is held in the hall of a synagogue. Just saying.)
Now, I would never ask anyone to compromise their beliefs, but there has to be some wiggle room here. It’s also not my intent is not to pick on our Orthodox brothers and sisters — alone.
To Catholics, I ask you to answer this: Is there 100% certainty that you got the Easter formula correct? It appears that the formula was never written down. Even the Colonel’s fried chicken recipe and secret recipe for Coca Cola are written down somewhere. And since even the followers of the Apostle John got the formula wrong and later adjusted their practice, maybe we can conclude our date formula for Easter does not meet the standard of “an infallible Church teaching”?
Maybe?
The Good News (pun intended): Christians of every denomination did remember the most transformative event in history – Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection – uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem in 2017.
The bad news is this isn’t going to happen again until 2034! We need to change this. There’s only one person who can initiate this change: Pope Francis.
Source: Günther Simmermacher | Pixaby
Here’s several ways you can address a letter to him.
His Holiness, Pope Francis PP. / 00120 Via del Pellegrino / Citta del Vaticano
His Holiness Pope Francis / Apostolic Palace / Vatican City
His Holiness Pope Francis / Vatican City State, 00120
Do not write “Italy” on the envelop as the country. The Vatican is considered its own independent nation
If we don’t unify now, after 2017, Christians will not celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus the Christ on the same day and at the same time throughout the world until 2034. Maybe that’s why the enemy is having such an easy time as of late. Think about it.
Icon of Sts. Peter and Andrew that Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras gave to Pope Paul
Most American Christians believe that all Christians celebrate Easter on the same day. In fact, 2016, one of the U.S. presidential candidates, wrote this:
This weekend, Christians of every denomination remember the most transformative event in history – Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection – the ultimate sacrifice that redeemed the whole world.
The fact is not every Christian denomination remembers Christ’s resurrection on the same Sunday. In fact, this year, for the majority of Americans, we will celebrate Easter on April 21. However, this year, our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters, will celebrate the resurrection a week later on April 28.
So, why are there two Easters?
Historically, the early Church did not have a set date for Easter. In fact, not every Christian remembered Christ’s resurrection on Sunday.
The Catholic Encyclopedia informs us, that according to Irenaeus, “St. Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome c. 150 about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance.”[1]
“…the second stage in the Easter controversy centers round the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Granted that the great Easter festival was always to be held on a Sunday, and was not to coincide with a particular phase of the moon, which might occur on any day of the week, a new dispute arose as to the determination of the Sunday itself. The text of the decree of the Council of Nicaea which settled, or at least indicated a final settlement of, the difficulty has not been preserved to us, but we have an important document inserted in Eusebius’s “Life of Constantine” (III, xviii sq.). The emperor himself, writing to the Churches after the Council of Nicaea, exhorts them to adopt its conclusions and says among other things: “At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. . . in the city of Rome and in Africa, throughout Italy and in Egypt. . . with entire unity of judgment.” [2]
As already stated, we don’t have the exact words of the great council, but we may safely infer from scattered notes that the council ruled:
that Easter must be celebrated by all throughout the world on the same Sunday;
that this Sunday must follow the fourteenth day of the paschal moon;
that that moon was to be accounted the paschal moon whose fourteenth day followed the spring equinox;
that some provision should be made, probably by the Church of Alexandria as best skilled in astronomical calculations, for determining the proper date of Easter and communicating it to the rest of the world.
This was not a perfect solution. But it appears, by 525 AD all the Christian communities of the world were celebrating the Resurrection of Our Lord on the same Sunday.
So, what happened?
Why do Russian and Orthodox Christians celebrate Easter or Pascha, on one Sunday and everybody else celebrates the Resurrection of Our Lord on another Sunday?
Well, the Gregorian calendar happened — kinda.
According to Wiki: TheGregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar, is internationally the most widely used civil calendar. It is named for Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in October 1582.
Wiki states: The calendar was a refinement to the Julian calendar amounting to a 0.002% correction in the length of the year. The motivation for the reform was to bring the date for the celebration of Easter to the time of the year in which it was celebrated when it was introduced by the early Church. Because the celebration of Easter was tied to the spring equinox, the Roman Catholic Church considered the steady drift in the date of Easter caused by the year being slightly too long to be undesirable. The reform was adopted initially by the Catholic countries of Europe. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox countries continued to use the traditional Julian calendar and adopted the Gregorian reform after a time, for the sake of convenience in international trade. The last European country to adopt the reform was Greece, in 1923.
Blah, blah, blah-blah, blaaaah!
However, the Orthodox Church vigorously opposes the use of the Gregorian calendar, writes Fr. Jon Magoulias, a Greek-Orthodox priest at the Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church in Modesto, California.
This, he informs us, resulted in the West and East celebrating all Church feast days on different dates, the Orthodox celebrations always falling thirteen days behind the Western. [3]
In 1923, Fr. Jon Magoulias continued, an inter-Orthodox congress was held in Constantinople attended by representatives of some, but not all, Orthodox churches. This congress made the very controversial decision to follow a revised calendar that was essentially the same as the Gregorian calendar, for all things except the celebration of Pascha, which continued to be calculated according to the original Julian calendar.
The result being that today the Orthodox celebrate most feast days, like Christmas, Epiphany and the rest, at the same time as Western Christians and only Pascha and the feast days that are connected with it like Pentecost and the Ascension, are dated according to the Julian calendar and celebrated on different dates. [4]
Fr. Magoulias stated that for Orthodox, it is important to maintain the teachings and traditions of the Church intact and pure [5] — and I would argue, for Catholics, this applies as well.
But remember, I said the problem was that “the Gregorian calendar happened — kinda.” Well, the kinda is kinda important.
Catholics under the See of Peter believe Easter Sunday formula handed down by the First Ecumenical Council, held in Nicea in 325 AD is:
The first Sunday which occurs after the first full moon (or more accurately after the first fourteenth day of the moon) following the vernal equinox.
For Orthodox Christians, who no longer recognized the Pontiff as first among equals, the formula is this:
Pascha is to be celebrated on the first Sunday, after the first full moon, following the first day of Spring (March 21 on the Julian calendar), but always after Jewish Passover. (This year, Passover or Pesach begins at sundown on April 19th (Nisan 14) and will continue for 7 days until Friday, the 26th of April.)
And, that’s the kinda that makes all the difference!
Because of this difference, Christians celebrate the most Holiest of our Holy days on different days. By doing this, it appears to me, that we are acting more like they who divided His garments by casting lots than those followers who near the cross of Jesus stood.
Personally, I think holding on to the tradition of the Julian calendar is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. We know it was an inaccurate measuring tool. It’s definitely not Divine. So, why continue to use it?
I understand that Orthodoxy can also point to Canon VII of the Holy Apostles to counter any argument against the Julian calendar.
For those unfamiliar, Canon VII states:
If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed. However, in the same breath, Canons XLV and LVX of the Holy Apostles respectively state: “Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them” and “If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated.
To that I ask: “How close are these Canons adhered to today by Orthodox clergymen or laymen alike today?” (For the record: My Lutheran wife and I often hold hands in prayer and my kid’s dojo is held in the hall of a synagogue. Just saying.)
Now, I would never ask anyone to compromise their beliefs, but there has to be some wiggle room here. It’s also not my intent is to pick only on our Orthodox brothers and sisters.
To Catholics, I ask you to answer this: Is there 100% certainty that you got the Easter formula correct?
It appears that the formula was never written down. Heck, even the Colonel’s fried chicken recipe and the secret recipe for Coca Cola are written down somewhere.
And since even the followers of the Apostle John got the formula wrong and later adjusted their practice, maybe we can conclude our date formula for Easter does not meet the standard of “an infallible Church teaching”?
Maybe?
Since sharing the same Pascha in 2017, Christians will not celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus the Christ on the same day and at the same time throughout the world until 2034.
Wikipedia defines Crowdfunding as the practice of funding a project or venture by raising monetary contributions from a large number of people. Crowdfunding is a form of crowdsourcing and of alternative finance. The USCCB calls for the New Evangelization, a ‘re-proposing’ of the Gospel in a special way.
Combine these two trends with a bit of apostolic succession and a pinch of infallibility and you have Crowdfunding for Christ or simply Missio.
Launched by Pope Francis, Missio offers you a direct connection with his Missions and with those helping our mission family. Missio is an opportunity to choose how to put your faith into action, and a way to answer the call to each one of us who are baptized to be missionaries ourselves, through prayer and sacrifice, in word and deed.
Missio offers you a place to encounter the Missions whenever and wherever you are.
Every project on Missio is led by a change-maker half a world away. These change-makers, many of them religious Sisters and priests, offer help to the most vulnerable communities of our world. They provide essential education and health care, social outreach and advocacy, and pastoral service. In every moment, they also offer spiritual comfort to the suffering and marginalized.
The Five-Finger Prayer has been around for a while. It was reportedly written by the Archbishop of Argentina, Cardinal Bergoglio, a guy you might know as Pope Francis.
1. The thumb is the closest finger to you. So start praying for those who are closest to you. They are the persons easiest to remember. To pray for our dear ones is a “sweet obligation.”
2. The next finger is the index. Pray for those who teach you, instruct you and heal you. They need the support and wisdom to show direction to others. Always keep them in your prayers.
3. The following finger is the tallest. It reminds us of our leaders, the governors and those who have authority. They need God’s guidance.
4. The fourth finger is the ring finger. Even that it may surprise you, it is our weakest finger. It should remind us to pray for the weakest, the sick or those plagued by problems. They need your prayers.
5. And finally we have our smallest finger, the smallest of all. Your pinkie should remind you to pray for yourself. When you are done praying for the other four groups, you will be able to see your own needs but in the proper perspective, and also you will be able to pray for your own needs in a better way.
FILE – This March 14, 1963 file photo shows Harper Lee, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, “To kill a Mockingbird.” Publisher Harper announced Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2015, that “Go Set a Watchman,” a novel Lee completed in the 1950s and put aside, will be released July 14. It will be her second published book. (AP Photo, File)
Wow, we lost two great writers, Harper Lee and Umberto Eco, in one day. They authored “To Kill A Mockingbird” and “The Name of the Rose”, respectively. Both classics! Not only were these two awesome books, the movies translated from these books are two of my favorites.
I went on the air just just after Harper Lee’s death was announced. Before discussing the Pope and Donald Trump, the host Jack Riccardi on 550-KTSA AM CBS News Radio in San Antonio and I begin our conversation addressing the loss of Harper Lee.
This morning, I told my wife that I was going to write a blog about the “Brother of the Prodigal Son.” Then, this afternoon, a publicist contacted me and asked if I wanted to jump into the so-called feud between Pope Francis and Donald Trump.
Based on the position of the quotes in the headlines, my first thought was “this is going to be bull.” Isn’t this the same guy who said, “Who Am I to judge?”
So, I thought, there’s just three possibilities: Either Pope Francis was misquoted then or is being misquoted now or the Pontiff was misquoted both times. (The latter being the most probable.)
The New York Times version of the article was embedded in the email. Immediately I read the first line of the article:
ABOARD THE PAPAL AIRLINER — Inserting himself into the Republican presidential race, Pope Francis on Wednesday suggested that Donald J. Trump “is not Christian” because of the harshness of his campaign promises to deport more immigrants and force Mexico to pay for a wall along the border.
Though the New York Times states that Pope Francis is “inserting himself in the Republican presidential race”, the reality is when asked if Catholics should vote for Donald Trump, “Pope Francis” CBS News reported, “wasn’t willing to advise Catholics on whether to vote for Donald Trump at all.” So, it’s the NY Times who is inserting Pope Francis into the GOP race — for obvious reasons.
Yup, I was right. This is pure bull. So I replied:
It’s BULLSHIT! Pope didn’t say it. He wouldn’t say it. There’s an effin wall around Vatican City! He said “A person who thinks ONLY about building walls … is not Christian…. We must see if he said things in that way and I will give him the benefit of the doubt.”
Is that better 🙂
Immediately, my Catholic guilt kicked in and I again replied:
Sorry. This is a lose-lose. But thanks for thinking of me. I’m sure this going to be HUGE.
The publicist replied:
Its OK, I want you to say, As a Catholic, I think………….
It’s humbling when the publicist acts with more grace than the inspirational author who s/he’s trying to promote. With that, I replied with this quote:
As a Catholic, I think the Pope doesn’t have the right to involve himself in the politics of nations — he has a moral obligation. With that said, I don’t believe the headlines that the Holy Father said Mr. Trump “was not Christian.” He wouldn’t say it. Heck, there’s a wall around the Vatican. Pope Francis said “A person who thinks ONLY about building walls … is not Christian…. We must see if he said things in that way and I will give him the benefit of the doubt.” In other words, the Pope said of Donald Trump, “Who Am I to judge?”
Would I love the publicity for my book? Heck yes! But I’m not willing to toss the Pope, Donald Trump, or anyone, for that matter, under-the-bus just to sell a few books. That’s not what my book Corporation YOU: A Business Plan for the Soul is about. It’s about lifting up others and in turn, lifting oneself up. It’s about “Making Yourself Great!” Gee, why does that sound familiar?
Hmmmm, I guess, in a way, I did write about the Prodigal Son and his brother today.
Corporation YOU 