Loyola's non-liturgical legacy

Today is the memoria of Ignatius of Loyola the innovative founder of the Society of Jesus. It is worth considering just how new the Jesuits were, and what a radical break they introduced with all previous religious orders and spiritualities.
There were always hermits living apart, then gradually hermits living together often around one particularly renowned spiritual master. The Church, a community, gradually learnt to favour monks, those who live and prayed in community over those often wild and extreme individuals who lived the wild and often self indulgent though penitential solitary life as hermits.
Monastic life was essentially liturgical, the prayer of monks was the recitation of the psalter, the essential training of a young monk was to teach him to memorise the psalter, and when and how to say it, indeed that is the major concern of the Rule of St Benedict, the Father of Western Monasticism.
Alongside monks were Canons, living an often slightly mitigated monastic life to serve a particularly significant Church. Again their life, though often less concerned with silence and penance, was essentially focussed on the liturgy of the hours. Friars followed, their life was essentially one of teaching and preaching but still with the liturgy, the singing of the Divine Office as the backbone of their life. There were always of course secular clergy whose prime function was to offer at least daily Lauds and Vespers for their congregations, and Mass as well on Sundays and feastdays but primarily they sang the Liturgy of the Hours for or on behalf of their people.
The most radical change that Jesuits introduced was that they were not committed to the common or public recitation of the Divine Office, even in Jesuit houses the Office was said privately, though devotions of one kind or another might be done publicly, the Church's liturgy became an entirely private affair, except possibly with the exception of Sunday Vespers but even this became a source of "devotions" a basis for Rosary, sermon, litanies and Benediction.

Before the Jesuits churches consisted of nave, chancel and sanctuary but because there was not public chanting of the Office, there was no need of a chancel with its choir stalls in their churches and they quickly disappeared from new parish churches and chapels too after the Counter-Reformation. Under Ignatius' inspiration 'liturgy' for the faithful became just the Mass. The Office was said by clergy under obligation, for early Jesuits it was a burden whereas other forms of prayer were a joy.

Another Jesuit innovation was mental prayer - unknown in ancient monastic Rules - but even among the friars, especially the Carmelites it tended towards the via negativa, whilst the Jesuits, following the example of Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises gave full scope to the imagination, 'picturing a scene' moved very quickly from the minds of Jesuits to the walls, ceilings and altar pieces of their churches.

Most importantly the Jesuit disdain for liturgy and preference for devotion brought about a serious change in western theology. In the West and in the East from the very beginning the source, the root, the matrix of theology was the sacred liturgy. The Jesuits became the first to abandon Liturgy as the basis of their theology, which accounts for the wilder excesses of counter-reformation theology and devotionalism, as well as the eccentric theology, based on secular learning, philosophies and sociology that prepared for and followed the Vatican Council.

St Ignatius and his Company of Jesus did extraordinary things for evangelisation following their foundation but their disdain for Liturgy has introduced a fault line into Western Christianity that has deeply wounded our intellectual life and it looks as if it is to continue. Pope Benedict saw the liturgy and a return to the liturgical mystogogical theology of the Fathers as healing, both for the West in particular, but also for the division between East and West, as did VII in Sacrosanctum Concillium and its general call to return to Patristic study. I am not sure whether Papa Bergoglio and most contemporary Jesuits and those who have taken up Jesuit inspired theology understand this, they think as Jesuits, not as people imbued and formed by the riches of the Liturgy. A great many Trads seem to be concerned that Francis is showing himself as antagonistic towards Benedict, I do not know if that is so but what I am convinced of is that Benedict was antagonistic towards Francis and the whole Jesuit non-liturgical  school of theology, as is anyone who cares for the Liturgy.

Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate

I have no special insight into the current situation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate apart from odd snippets of gossip and what I have read on the net. 

One thing about them is that they are Franciscan, and what we know of Franciscans from history is that they tend to split, even in Francis' own lifetime there were divisions. Francis was an inspirational charismatic leader but not that good an administrator, therefore we shouldn't be too surprised that his faithful sons and daughters exhibit the same tendency as his first followers.

There are several stories that are quite shocking about Francis' demand for obedience from his followers, for example telling a brother to bury himself to bury himself in a dunghill until he had "died to self". The FFI are a new order and they are flourishing, their founder Fr Stefano Maria Manelli however, who is certainly inspirational, has been accused of  'certain irregularities', hence his removal and replacement by a Capuchin appointed by the Holy See. 

The problem with zealous young orders is that often they lack the restraint of older moderating influences, they grow too quickly, they are charismatic. One of the problems with Manelli seems to have been his reliance on Franciscan obedience, which basically boils down to his will imposing the EF on the FFI rather than a consensus being achieved, though it could be argued that there is a consensus among the younger friars but not the older ones. The Pope's words on Pelagianism in the new religious orders certainly applies to the Legionaries of Christ and might possibly apply to the FFIs, it is the problem the early Franciscans had when they took Francis' will as trumping everything, a problem too for Blessed Theresa of Calcutta's sisters.

With the FFI it seems that some of the original friars wanted to hold onto the original charism of dedication to Mary Immaculate, Manelli seems to have tweeked this slightly by adding 'a preference for the traditional rite'. Whilst the young friars happily seemed to have embraced this decision of the founder, some of the older founding friars have objected that that was not what they had signed up to. Hence the Holy Sees demand that they return to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite from mid-August, presumably until a consensus can be arrived at.

What is beautifully Franciscan about is the docility of the Friars themselves to the Holy See.

Pray for the Friars.

Don't read Francis through Benedict

The Bishop of Rome returns from Brazil in triumph, even the western media seemed impressed. In everything he did he excelled. There was no complex theology, indeed his short addresses were not great teaching moments and in many ways predictable, which seems to be Francis' charm. His nonchalant attitude to security, his obvious delight at being with the crowds, his casual homely way, his pleasure at being disruptive himself, the almost anarchic revelling in being 'not the Pope', I mean his obvious joy on his visit to the slums, in saying he would like to visit everyone's house, to ask for a glass of water, or perhaps have a cup of coffee, actually seemed to make him appear as visiting great uncle, a friend, rather than a visiting bishop. Someone willing to listen as much as someone come to teach.

For me his lack of theology actually seemed a strong point. For the media, he seemed to say what they expected a Pope to say, a message of reconciliation. Francis preaching by smiles and hugs, even a few tears, a cup of mate, a sombrero, an indigenous headdress, casual conversations with embraces and kisses, in fact his physical openness to the world was actually much more coherent than any words he had to say. His message was simple, "to the streets, bring Christ the edges of society". Francis himself through his actions is a model of this.

Personally, I have had difficulty with the transition from Benedict to Francis, maybe because I was trying to "read Francis through Benedict" rather than seeing both as gift from God to his Church.

Francis intention seems to be simply to show human warmth as a means first to being human, then to evangelisation, Benedict actually did the same, he visited drug addicts embraced the poor, sat down and eat with the homeless, which Francis has yet to do but it was his words, his teaching we wanted. Francis really has nothing very exciting to say, it is a bit ambiguous, imprecise, often he appears to contradict on Monday what he said the previous Wednesday. His words are stream of consciousness stuff, it is his actions that are important. I think we should stop reading or hearing Francis through his predecessor but rather see his actions through the theology of his predecessors.

If we can see anything of God's Providence through Francis, perhaps God is saying enough of theology, enough words, enough discussion, now go and embrace, smile hug, show kindness, go the slums, reach out to the young, embrace the unbeliever, draw in the outsider.

On the plane back he seemed to show the same sense of reconciliation, he wants to emphasise the positive, whether it is about homosexuals who genuinely seeking Christ, or any other section of the Church. We really do not need to see that Church as a fortress keeping out the enemy but rather a ship come to rescue fallen frightened humanity. The Church does not exist for its members but for humanity, we are indeed sent to evangelise. I am beginning to see Francis as an antidote to illness of the Church since the Council, where for the past 50 years we have been looking inwards to such an extent that the world sees Christ's disciples not as a source of goodness and hope for the world but as something evil, corrupt and immoral.

Embarrassing!

I thought I had seen the ridiculous side of the Church but here is the pits.
There is nothing worst than mutton pretending to be lamb. If this is what these men think is going to inspire "the youth", heaven help us.
h/t Rorate

added later

... and yes it was used at Mass

"This" and "that"

The words of consecration "This is my body", "This is my blood" suggest an intimacy between the consecrator and that which consecrated, an intimacy necessary in other sacrament where touching and laying on of hands is necessary.
When that intimacy breaks down the distance between the priest and the bread and wine is no longer within touching distance, then more correctly "this" actually should be replaced with "that", which are not Jesus' words. But what when, for example at WYD with a million attendees, there are concelebrating priest who are unable to see the bread and wine and the priest has to take it on trust that there is bread and wine on the altar, is he really saying Mass, if not what is he doing?

Pope to drug addicts

I was very pleased that the Bishop of Rome visited a hospital for drug addicts, pleased too that he said the Church was with drug addicts and pleased that he felt able to say that though difficult it is possible to break addiction. Here, not a few of my parishioners are recovering addicts of one sort or another, faith, repentance, a sense that "there is a Power greater" than them and their dependency helps.

Never the less death by overdose, death by suicide are pretty common in Brighton amongst the young, as is the involvement of addicts in crime to feed their addiction. Prostitution, theft, broken relationships, damaged children are very much part of the lives of addicts. The whole course of drugs from there production in places like Afghanistan in the third world, through to their transportation and distribution by smugglers and dealers is about exploitation of the poor. Tin pot regimes, failing economies, organisations from the IRA to the Taliban, and various Mafias all exploit drug users, all prey on their weakness. Invariable the dealers themselves are addicts, dependant on exploiting others and encouraging theirs friends to become addicts in order to pay for their fix.

 In Portugal there is a social experiment to treat drug addiction as a 'health issue' and to decriminalise users, to treat them as victims of organised crime in need of the mercy of the State, various South American governments have been looking to follow a similar programme, Yesterday the Holy Father, like Pope Benedict when he visited another Brazilian facility for recovering drug addicts, said he was not in favour of such a course of action, he knows the South American situation better than me, but I am uncomfortable with his apparent blanket condemnation of decriminalisation.

My experience is that a habit which can easily cost a thousand pounds a week or more in Brighton, places the addict in a situation in which he or she is enthral to organised crime either pushing drugs themselves or in theft and prostitution or smuggling drugs from country to country. It is the huge expense that causes the problems. The Portuguese experiment makes drugs available on prescription which means that addiction is separated directly  from the murky underworld of crime and also means that addicts can be treated. The major success of the Portuguese experiment seems to be that addicts are not turned into pushers and dealers and the pyramid selling scheme which makes international drug crime so profitable is undercut at its root. It takes the prophet out of it.

I would have been happier if Francis had taken an overview of the international drug scene starting from the exploitation of impoverished poppy growers by local warlords. He might well be right that in South America taking a more liberal attitude to drug addiction might not work but in the rest of the world simply doing what we are doing does nothing for those whose lives are destroyed by those who make vast amounts of money from the broken damaged, frequently early ended lives of addicts. I am actually sick of the suicides, overdoses and misery in the lives of the addicts I come across.

Pray for the addicts in Brighton.

Music can drive you far from God!

Ti-tee-tum-tee tum ti... or tum ti-ti ti-ti tum..., it gives me a head ache, I hate the music at World Youth Day liturgies, it is entertainment, show tunes, it drives prayer out of my head or reduces it "Lord, stop, please", It is what I imagine Americans troops play to torture inmates at their unsavoury prison at Guantanamo.

If I was present in Rio I would tear my vestments off and run naked screaming from the basilica, clawing at my bloody ears and have to be restrained and shut in a dark room by burly nuns, most probably for months, if not years, possibly even until death, which could or could not be in a state of Grace. I will read what the Bishop of Rome has to say, it is probably going to be quite exciting.

The dreadful thing is some you will agree with me. We could fill a whole locked ward to ourselves and even have matching straight-jackets. Others might wisely counsel me to pull myself together, and stop behaving like a silly adolescent and accept the stuff as penance for the common good, and others less wisely simply assure me next time round there might be something that pleases me. Yet others might suggest that they know of a little church hidden away somewhere where not just the music but the action and indeed the whole liturgy might be more to my taste, which is equally worrying.

The great problem is that music in church has become something that actually is a matter of taste and if one doesn't share that taste it actually can drive people out and the great problem is that they can be driven so far away that the actually die far from the sacraments and the mercy of Our Mother the Church. Church music has always been controlled and frequently reformed because some music be so destructive.

To be evangelised is one thing, that is an act of Grace but to like or even be tolerant of a particular musical genre  is another thing. God can draw someone into a deep and profound desire for Him but the man with the tambourine or even sackbut or organ can drive out any desire for Communion with God in a particular community, such people can be hated even by the most pious, often by the most pious. One can switch off an irritating, even heretical, priest's homily, one of parishioners often turns on her ipod when I preach. You close your eyes to shenanigans on the sanctuary but music touches the soul, even if you try to ignore it you can't. The medieval Church and universities took up Pythagoras and the Greeks who understood  music to speak directly to the soul and could either inflame passions or to bring healing and concord to the soul. Music should be healing and therapeutic but being adolescent again, in Church, it is so often torture!

That is obviously not so here where we tend to do our best to use that great corpus of Catholic music that has been tried and tested down the ages to soothe the savage breast and draw us closer to God, that music which is designed to speak at the same time to those who want to dance and those who wanted to mourn, it is designed to support the relationship with God, not to take over from it but the problem is that most people think we use the Church's music because it is music I like. It has become a matter of taste, which is presumably why VII's intention to have some music at all liturgical celebrations has been ignored and most people prefer the 'music lovers Mass', the Missa Lecta, read Mass, with no music.

Personally I much prefer this, which I have been listening to tonight but obviously it is meant for theatre and not church: