Sunday, June 25, 2017

Divine Worship: The Ordinariate Form of the Roman Rite

Divine Worship Mass at Westminster Cathedral on January 11, 2016
Photo: Ordinariate Expats Blog, used by permission.
Recently, His Excellency, Steven Lopes, Bishop of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, gave an address at the Liturgical Institute at the University of St. Mary at the Lake in Mundelein, Illinois. This was on June 21, 2017. Here is a short excerpt...
Let me begin by articulating something of a thesis statement. I would like to state at the outset that our Ordinariate liturgy is often misunderstood and therefore not described correctly. 
Because our liturgy shares many traditional elements and gestures in common with the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, it is thought to be a type of “subset” of that form: “the Extraordinary Form in English” as it is sometimes called. But this is neither accurate nor, honestly, helpful. For one thing, the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, a principal source for the Ordinariate Missal, is older than the Missal of Saint Pius V, and has its own origins in the Sarum Missal, a variant of the Roman Rite going back to the eleventh century. My first goal today is for you to understand Divine Worship on its own terms, to see the historical and ritual context out of which it develops, and in that light to recognize how it might contribute to the ongoing renewal and development of the Roman Rite. 
And so my thesis: Divine Worship is more than a collection of liturgical texts and ritual gestures. It is the organic expression of the Church’s own lex orandi as it was taken up and developed in an Anglican context over the course of nearly five-hundred years of ecclesial separation, and is now reintegrated into Catholic worship as the authoritative expression of a noble patrimony to be shared with the whole Church. As such, it is to be understood as a distinct form of the Roman Rite. Further, while Divine Worship preserves some external elements more often associated with the Extraordinary Form, its theological and rubrical context is clearly the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. That I situate Divine Worship within the context of the Ordinary Form becomes a fact more discernable when one considers the dual hermeneutic of continuity and reform, which informs the project. 
read the full address here
So, based on Bishop Lopes' explanation of Divine Worship, it is NOT the Traditional Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite) in English, and it does a disservice to both Divine Worship and the Extraordinary Form to call it that. Rather, it is an entirely new form of the Roman Rite, neither Ordinary nor Extraordinary, but is more closely situated within the context of the Ordinary Form. Therefore, it can most accurately be described as the "Ordinariate Form of the Roman Rite" or the "Anglican Form of the Roman Rite."

Personally, I prefer the term "Ordinariate Form" over "Anglican Form," not only because Bishop Lopes appears to prefer it, but also because it reduces confusion, not among Anglicans but among regular diocesan Roman Catholics. For some reason, whenever the word "Anglican" is mentioned, the thought "Protestant" registers in their minds. Immediately what follows is a myriad of questions such as...
  • Well, is it Catholic or Protestant?
  • Is this really Catholic at all?
  • What? Now their letting the Anglicans in without becoming Catholic?
  • Shouldn't these Anglicans just convert and become Catholic?
  • Is this liturgy just for Anglicans or can Catholics come too?
  • If Catholics go to this mass, do they become Anglicans?
  • etc.
I think the problem here is that the words "Anglican" and "Protestant" have been too closely associated with each other for far too long in the Catholic collective consciousness. This is why I go with the more innocuous term "Ordinariate Form of the Roman Rite."

It's a shame really, because I do like the word "Anglican" and to me, it sounds more descriptive of what Divine Worship really is. So while I still do think the terms "Anglican Form" and "Ordinariate Form" are technically interchangeable, my experience dealing with diocesan Roman Catholics tells me to go with "Ordinariate Form" for the time being. It lowers resistance, reduces questions and breaks through the communication barrier. 

So Divine Worship really is the third form of the Roman Rite -- the Ordinariate Form of the Roman Rite, written in Sacred English and containing therein the specific prayers and rubrics particular to the Anglican Patrimony for the last 1,000 years. These are based in the 11th century Sarum Missal, a Catholic liturgy used exclusively in England for 500 years prior to the English Reformation. In fact, the original 1549 Book of Common Prayer (a Protestant text) was based heavily on this medieval Catholic liturgy. So what we have in Divine Worship is the Catholic Church reclaiming a form of liturgy that was rightly hers to begin with. It is a form of liturgy that is in fact older than the Traditional Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) in its origin.

I think its important for us to get a proper understanding of this. The Roman Rite now has three forms...
  1. The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (always in Latin)
  2. The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (many vernacular translations)
  3. The Ordinariate Form of the Roman Rite (always in Sacred English)
Each form has its own particular prayers and rubrics that are specific to its kind, and each form is unique. As Bishop Lopes says, the Ordinariate Form of the Roman Rite finds itself in a closer context to the Ordinary Form, because it's part of the dual hermeneutic of continuity and reform.

Now that being said, who would appreciate Divine Worship? Traditional or Contemporary Catholics? I think its a mistake to assume one or the other. In fact, Divine Worship has a little in there for both groups. I think anyone who is Catholic would have good reason to appreciate Divine Worship. The truth is, I've seen Contemporary Catholics both like it and dislike it. I've also seen Traditional Catholics both like it and dislike it. It's really a matter of taste, and in truth, its not for everyone. Nevertheless, anyone is free to look into it and find out for himself.

Shane Schaetzel is an author of Catholic books, and columnist for Christian print magazines and online publications. He is a freelance writer and the creator of ' -- Apologetics and random musings from a Catholic in the Bible Belt.'

A Catholic Guide
to the Last Days
for Protestants

Friday, June 23, 2017

We Are Rome - Europe Is Our Future

The American Nations as They Exist Today
These are Nations Based on Culture

In the early second century, I'm sure it would have been hard for anyone in the Mediterranean coast lands to imagine the fall of the Roman Empire. Rome had reached the zenith of it's power and influence. It's territory stretched from as far north as Britain, to as far south as Egypt, from the coasts of Spain, to the Persian Gulf. Not only did it have no equal in military strength (it was an ancient superpower), but nothing compared to it culturally either. Rome was, at that time, the unparalleled "standard" of civilisation.

But in just two centuries, all of that would come to an end. The empire was divided in half, voluntarily, between the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Byzantine Empire. The Empire in the West officially fell in AD 480. In the East, it lasted until AD 1453. The Western Empire enjoyed a brief resurgence under Christendom as the "Holy Roman Empire," which lasted from AD 800 to AD 1806, but none of that compared to the glory that once was Rome.

During the 2016 election cycle, I came to a startling conclusion. Looking back on the last sixty years of American history in the 21st century, I saw striking parallels with the early days of the Roman Empire. While I'm certainly not the first to see such parallels, I think I'm one of the few to pinpoint exactly where we are in that parallel history.

I see American history as progressing along much faster than Roman history. We're going through similar experiences, but at a much faster pace. For example; the American Civil War could be comparable to Roman-Gallic Wars that created the early territories of the empire. Since the end of the Second World War, however, America has been gradually heading toward an imperial state. It's run mainly by an oligarchy of banks, money cartels, oil companies and large corporations. Yet, like all empires, power is slowly consolidating into one man -- the President of the United States.

For decades the oligarchy (comparable to the ancient Roman Senate) has held a restraining leash on the president, preventing him from gaining too much power, and simultaneously controlling many of the decisions he makes. The democratic process is very easy to understand once you know who funds it. You see, presidential campaigns are very expensive to run, but not to worry, there are a handful of big-money donors who will be more than happy to foot the bill. It's just business you see, because all they expect to get out of it is a good return on their investment. Thus, the presidential winner is already bought and paid for before he ever puts his hand on the Bible and takes the oath of office. However, in this last election, with the emergence of Donald Trump, I recognised a paradigm shift should he win. Donald Trump is comparable to Julius Caesar in the American-Roman comparison. He is attempting to "Make America Great Again" by wrestling the office of the presidency away from the banking-corporate oligarchy. It does not matter if he succeeds or not. Nor does it matter if he survives his presidency. Because you see, he has set a new paradigm. Future presidents, in order to gain the support of the people, will have to prove that they're willing to stand up to the oligarchy. That means the president will need more power, and he will get it. If Congress doesn't give it to him, the people will demand it. Trump has just become the first, in an upcoming dynasty, of American Caesars.

Right now, in the first year of the Trump administration, Americans on the Right are going through their honeymoon period. Granted, it's a honeymoon the Leftist mainstream media and liberal judges would like to cut as short as possible, but it is a honeymoon nonetheless. The mantra of "Make America Great Again" is just a Right-wing version of the Left's "Hope and Change." Ultimately, both mean nothing, other than to serve as rallying cries around the change of power from one hand to the next. In the end, "Make America Great Again" will prove just as empty as "Hope and Change" did. The only real change we're seeing now is the rise of billionaire presidential candidates, who parallel the military Caesars of ancient Rome. The ancient Caesars conquered their enemies on the battlefield. The modern Caesars (Billionaire Presidents) will have vanquished their enemies in the business world. Americans, like Romans, will love them for it, and elevate them to the highest office of the land. Who's to say we won't someday see a President Jeff Bezos, or a President Bill Gates, or a even a President Mark Zuckerberg! It's all within the realm of possibilities now. These are the American Caesars. For these are the undisputed power brokers in American politics today. There will be a long line of them, and they will show the world the glory of the American Empire before it eventually and inevitably must fall.

So the good news is this. As bad as everything seems, I think the United States of America is going to stick around for a while, at least another several decades. I also think it's possible to take the Republic back, if the states will step up to the plate and rob Washington DC of federal powers through a Convention of States. So don't think for a second that we are prisoners of fate. We are not. We Americans can change our future, if we're up for it, and only time will tell if we are.

Regardless however, I think all good things come to an end eventually, and America is no different. I believe one of the reasons why so many Americans, particularly religious Americans, are convinced we are living in (or near) the end of the world is because, like the people of previous civilisations, we cannot imagine a world beyond what currently exists. A good number of American Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, equate the fall of America with the end of the world, and in that sense they are no different than the ancient Jews concerning the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. They could not imagine a world without the Temple, and so they assumed the destruction of the Temple would signal the end of the world.

Yet history tells us another story. History tells us that life goes on. Empires rise and empires fall. In God's eyes, it's all just a puff of smoke or a leaf in the wind. As far as the real end of the world, Jesus told us that will come in God's timing not ours. We cannot gauge the the end of time by the political affairs of this empire or that. Yes, we are given signs to look for, but none of those signs are dependent on the success or failure of any man-made empire.

The United States is, and has been for a long time, a political empire. The American Civil War established that beyond the shadow of a doubt. Any political union that one may easily enter, but not so easily leave, is by definition an empire. The case of the recent Brexit from the European Union proves that the EU is not yet an empire, because Britain could unilaterally leave. However, the American Civil War proved that this is not possible for any American state. No state could ever leave the American Union (USA) without gaining permission from at least 27 other states in a Constitutional Amendment, and even then it's sketchy as to whether or not Washington DC would still allow it. After all, Washington DC controls the army, so who's to say that the president won't nullify a state secession even if it's granted permission by 27 states? Yes, there is no question that America is an empire, but it has been one only with a puppet emperor (president) for a century and a half. Trump (America's Julius Caesar) will soon change that, and we'll finally get an emperor with some teeth. If not him, then the one who follows him for sure, just like Augustus was the undisputed "emperor-god" of Rome, following the adored (and hated) Julius who wanted the same adoration for himself. If Trump gets what he wants, then he will establish unquestionable American imperialism. If he doesn't, then the one who follows him will. Like I said, only a Convention of States can stop this domino effect now. Only that can return us to something a little closer to the Republic envisioned by America's Founding Fathers.

All empires, and republics, come to an end eventually. What follows them is what I find to be most interesting. The word "nation" is a bit misunderstood in American vernacular. We tend to think of "nations" as political entities. But in fact, the word "nation" is defined as: "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." This means that multiple nations can inhabit one country or political union. Political statehood or empire is not the same as a nation. Nations are common peoples. States or empires are political jurisdictions. They are not always one in the same. Case in point, the Roman Empire was made up of numerous nations. Each nation consisted of people who spoke different languages, practised different religions, and identified with different cultures. The same is true with the American Empire (USA). Don't believe me? Go ask the members of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma what they think. They'll tell you their people constitute a separate and distinct nation within the political jurisdiction of the United States, regardless if their members live on the reservation or not.

Common sense will tell you this as well. A native of New England is entirely different than a native of Arkansas. Granted, we all speak the same language (English) but New Englanders and Arkansans are radically different when it comes to culture and worldview. The question however is this: is this cultural difference really defined by state lines? In other words, is an Northern Arkansan really all that different from a Southern Missourian? Is a New Englander really all that different from a Michiganite? On the West Coast, is an Oregonian really all that different from a Washingtonian? Etc. I think the answer should be fairly obvious. National boundaries are all together different from state jurisdictions. In other words, when it comes to culture, state borders really mean nothing. What really matters is who your parents are and how you were raised. That determines your language, religion, culture and worldview -- your real nationality!

The above map shows twelve distinct North American nations, based entirely on the actual definition of a nation. These consist of groupings of large numbers of people based on language, religion, culture and worldview. When we talk about the United States, Canada and Latin America, this is who we really are. We speak three major languages: English, Spanish and French. That is our linguistic heritage. However, when it comes to religion, culture and worldview, it breaks down into even greater details, and more distinct characteristics. For example, while the Francophone people are pretty much contained to one province of Canada (with a small colony in Southern Louisiana), the Anglophone people and the Hispanophone people are divided into more than one subset "nations" based upon culture and worldview. The Hispanophone people are divided into two "nations" in North America: El Norte (meaning "The North") and the more southern Spanish Caribbean peoples. Meanwhile, the Anglophone people are probably the most divided, consisting of no less than seven distinct "nations."

Right now these "nations" really don't mean a whole lot outside of academic interest and regional pride. It's fascinating to study, and it does help us understand election patterns in the United States, but under our current political reality, they don't mean all that much. In the United States, we all consider ourselves "Americans" and so long as the empire remains, that is exactly what we shall be. Yet when the American Empire (USA) falls, and someday it will because history demands it, what will North America become? I think the above map gives us a good idea of what a Europeanised North America might eventually look like. Just as the Roman Empire fell, and fractured into multiple nation-states based entirely on the nationalities of its parts, so too the American Empire (USA) will one day do the same. Will there someday be a Nation of Appalachia, a Nation of Dixie (Deep South), a Nation of Cascadia (Left Coast), a Nation of New England (Yankeedom), a Nation of Midland, and a Nation of El Norte? I couldn't say. Knowing that requires a crystal ball, and I don't presently own one. But some of these peoples already identify themselves in distinct ways. For example; a number of people in my area of the Ozarks have identified themselves as Ozarkians for a long time, and in doing so, they don't just mean the area they live in, but rather an actual identity of some kind. Still yet, a growing number of Ozarkians are starting to identify themselves more with their ancestral and cultural kinsmen from Appalachia, and there is a growing Appalachian identity movement. It even has its own flag, believe it or not...

Appalachian Flag
Produced by the Appalachian Flag Company

Personally, I wouldn't mind flying one of these beauties from my back deck as I culturally identify with Appalachia thanks to the strong influence of my mother who was raised there.

Likewise, there are many people on the West Coast identifying themselves as Cascadians, and they too have their own flag identifying the region that spans multiple states, as well as the British Columbia province of Canada. The same could be said of other regions of the United States and Canada as well.

I don't know exactly what the future holds for North America, because I can't know. I do know this however, when the United States falls (and someday it will -- guaranteed), life will go on. People will reorganise and start over, with new nations, new flags, and new governments to replace the old. This is the way of history. It's the way it's always been, and it's the way it always will be, until the end of time. I write this essay primarily for my fellow Americans, many of whom seem to be stuck in an apocalyptic mentality. The United States of America is a great union, a magnificent empire, and a grand experiment. But all good things eventually come to an end. That's just the way the world works. It may not come to an end in our lifetime, but someday it will. It helps to start thinking outside of the traditional "American identity" box, and figure out where you stand culturally. What is your real cultural nationality? Who are you really? Yes, we know you're part of the American Empire (USA) and therefore an American. I am. So is my whole family. But we are more than that. My family is Appalachian by cultural nationality. What's yours?

Shane Schaetzel is an author of Catholic books, and columnist for Christian print magazines and online publications. He is a freelance writer and the creator of ' -- Apologetics and random musings from a Catholic in the Bible Belt.'

A Catholic Guide
to the Last Days
for Protestants

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Bible Answer Man Goes on Catholic Answers -- Praises Catholicism

Hendrik "Hank" Hanegraaff
Bible Answer Man - Christian Research Institute

So let me tell you a little story about myself. Though I was baptised Lutheran, and raised an American Baptist, my family stopped going to church during my teens. This left me spiritually hungry. So at the age of 17, after the death of my grandmother, I began frantically searching for a spiritual tradition. I looked into Mormonism. I looked into the Jehovah's Witnesses. I looked into Christian Science, Armstrongism, Christian television networks, you name it I looked into it. By the age of 20, however, I settled down at a local Calvary Chapel (just six blocks away from my home in Southern California) and started listening to the Bible Answer Man broadcast on the radio. This was about the year 1990.

During that time, Hendrik "Hank" Hanegraaff ran the show with a partner, a fellow by the name of Ron Rhodes. The show was Evangelical in nature, but had a broad spectrum, recognising essential Christianity in a variety of different churches, including (believe it or not) the Roman Catholic Church. This is because the founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI), and the Bible Answer Man (BAM) broadcast, was a fellow by the name of Dr. Walter Martin. Now Dr. Martin was raised in a Catholic school. Though an Evangelical himself, he was intimately familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church. So he considered the Catholic Church as an errant church, which had gone astray, but still retained the essential elements of Christianity. Having died in the late 1980s, he left the ministry of CRI and BAM to Hanegraaff, who became the acting president. On Catholicism, Hanegraaff shared the same views as Martin. Rhodes did not. Rhodes eventually left the show, and went on to produce some anti-Catholic material and books. While Hanegraaff became the sole host of the BAM broadcast.

In the early years of my Christian re-awakening (early 1990s), I depended highly on Hank's radio show and the books he would recommend. I also began reading his books as well. I credit two people for taking my early Evangelical faith to a higher intellectual level. The first is Hendrik "Hank" Hanegraaff, and the second is Clive Staples Lewis, otherwise known as C.S. Lewis. Together, their books, combined with Hank's radio show, kicked up Evangelicalism to an intellectual level I desperately needed. I owe a debt of gratitude to both men for this.

By the late 1990s, long after I moved to the Ozarks, I followed the path of C.S. Lewis into Anglicanism, and spent a bit of time there, learning to distance myself from some anti-Catholic attitudes, as well as acquaint myself with liturgical worship and the sacraments. By the year 2000, my wife and I converted to the Roman Catholic Church, and we've remained Catholics ever since. When the Ordinariates for former Anglicans were created by Pope Benedict XVI between 2011-2012 we jumped on board and founded an Ordinariate community in Republic, Missouri -- St. George Catholic Church.

Hank Receiving Chrismation with Two Others
Throughout the years I have occasionally tuned back in to the BAM broadcast, and listened to Hank evolve on many of his personal beliefs. His venture into a Preterist interpretation of Last Days prophecy signalled to me that he was starting to trend in the same direction I was back in the late 1990s. I thought to myself that if he is trending toward a more catholic way of thinking on eschatology, I wonder if he'll start to go that way on the sacraments as well. However, some time after that I stopped listening for a while. Then just this year, in 2017, something amazing happened. Hank converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. He received the sacrament of chrismation (Orthodox confirmation) on Palm Sunday. It was at that point I knew something amazing happened, and I immediately started tuning back into the BAM broadcast to get more information. I had to use the Internet, because it wasn't long after this news had gotten out, that the local BAM radio broadcast was cancelled by the Evangelical Bott Radio Network. Thankfully, in this age of the Internet, we need not be subject to the censorship of anti-Catholics and anti-Orthodox anymore. As I listened to his explanation of his decision, and recount of his chrismation, my mind raced back to my own experience of confirmation in the Catholic Church some 18 years prior, on the Easter vigil of 2000.

Hank is now experiencing, as an Orthodox Christian, what we Catholic Christians have endured in this country for centuries. He's getting a small taste of it now, and I've written him to express my solidarity with him as a brother in Christ. The BAM broadcast has been cancelled on hundreds of Evangelical radio stations. Hank had been derided as a heretic and apostate -- accusations I am well familiar with myself as they are regularly levelled at me too. Yet he takes it all in stride and with a smile, because he has discovered our Eucharistic Lord. We Catholics would do well to learn from him on this and mimic his unwavering joy.

Now some of my Catholic readers will criticise Hank on this, chiding him for not going fully Catholic and embracing the papacy. I've even heard some people say "from heretic to schismatic" in regards to Hank. I believe this attitude is unwarranted. Here's why. As a former Evangelical I know what it's like to be on that side of the fence. I know the pressures and prejudices of that world. I lived in them. It's hard enough for Evangelicals just to overcome prejudice against liturgy and sacraments. Veneration of the Saints is extremely difficult to overcome. Invocation of the Saints in prayer is nearly impossible. Veneration and invocation of Mary requires nothing short of divine intervention from the Holy Spirit. I can easily see how an Evangelical could get past all these things, with God's help, and then get hung up on the papacy. What are we to say in such circumstances? Are we to tell the Evangelical it's an "all or nothing" deal. Are we to say, either you accept the papacy or live without the sacraments? I say no! While I encourage Evangelicals to keep studying and try to overcome their fears of the papacy, I recognise that some will just never be able to do it. For those who can't, there is Orthodoxy, and if an Evangelical has already decided to go Orthodox, I absolutely WILL NOT stand in the way. Personally, I think Catholicism would have been better, but at least with Orthodoxy I know they're getting authentic sacraments, recognised as valid by Rome, and doctrinal teaching that is vastly superior to anything out there in the Evangelical world. Let not perfection become the enemy of good. Orthodox are essentially catholic (small "c"), as all of their sacraments are recognised by Rome, including holy orders, and their churches are real "churches" in an ecclesial sense as understood by Rome. So when Evangelicals convert to Orthodoxy; that is good. It may not be perfect, but it is good. Let us recognise good for what it is. I do.

When it comes to good, the proof is in the pudding. While Hank doesn't make a habit of pointing people toward Catholicism (few Orthodox do), he does recognise the authentic Christianity of the Catholic Church, and he's given great complements to Catholicism and those within Catholicism. Just recently, Hank was interviewed as a special guest on the Catholic Answers Focus program. You can listen to it by iTunes here, or by streaming audio on the Internet here. I highly recommend you do so.

The conversion of Hank Hanegraaff to Orthodoxy was a watershed event in the Evangelical world. Unless you've been an Evangelical, you have no idea just how popular Hank is, and how dependent American Evangelicalism itself has become on the ministry of CRI and the BAM broadcast. His conversion to Orthodoxy has left (and continues to leave) a powerful impression. Already, I personally know two Evangelicals here in the Ozarks who are converting to Orthodoxy because of Hank's ministry. I have heard of several more Evangelicals here in the Ozarks looking into Catholicism now for the same reason. This is the real deal, and it's a paradigm shift in American Evangelicalism. Hank has led by example, and that example is having an impact.

Shane Schaetzel is an author of Catholic books, and columnist for Christian print magazines and online publications. He is a freelance writer and the creator of ' -- Apologetics and random musings from a Catholic in the Bible Belt.'

A Catholic Guide
to the Last Days
for Protestants