More and more in recent days, in my conversations with Priest-friends and Catholics I have known for the greater part of my life, I hear whispered concerns that the Church may be facing some very serious divisions within it ranks. Certainly, very public stories about Cardinals threatening to formally chastise Pope Francis, Bishops sniping at one another, contradictory policies regarding the divorced and remarried being admitted to the Sacraments, all these controversies have given occasion to a growing anxiety among the Catholic faithful.
In the midst of the reforms which Pope Francis has and continues to introduce, there is a rising tide of those who oppose his efforts, an amorphous grouping of very conservative minded Catholics generally referred to as members of a “Traditionalist” movement.
These “Traditionalists” comprise nothing but a fringe movement. Little is known about them other than the fact that much of their agenda seems focused upon devotion to the Tridentine Mass as well as a desire to restore the arcane trappings and rituals of the Renaissance and Baroque periods.
Like any fringe group, the Traditionalist movement is an annoyance rather than any real threat to the unity of the Church. They are, in a word, nothing but a swirl of gadflies. And so, rumors and whispers of the winds of schism blowing across the Barque of Peter are exaggerated at best.
Most Catholics are quite moderate in their willingness to welcome the advancements in doctrine and liturgy which have taken place in the half century following Vatican Council II. The overwhelming majority of those still practicing their faith do not appear to be emotionally obsessed with Baroque vestments, or Masses celebrated in a “dead” language.
In my years as an active Pastor, I cannot remember many Catholic women begging to return to the days of wearing scarves or lace head coverings to Mass. There were a few, but these ladies were either well advanced in years or emotionally fragile souls.
Pope Francis seems to have described Traditionalists very well as those who live in a world of nostalgia, those who so are dissatisfied with themselves and their lives that they long to recapture a “golden age” of Catholicsim that never was and can never be.
Traditionalist voices, at times, can be loud, distracting and disturbing. But their voices will never really be important or critical to the life of the Church.
Pope Francis knows very well how few the Traditionalists are in numbers and how self-referential and narrow-minded their focus. Unlike Benedict XVI, Francis is not prepared to indulge the tantrums and the whining of such dissidents. They represent a retreat into a clericalized triumphalism which ultimately fails the proclamation of Christ’s Gospel, and transforms the Catholic Faith into theater, or worse, into an historical curiosity. Traditionalists, sadly, are more concerned with spectacle than they are with a living faith.
Such a living faith is, as Pope Francis has described, “messy”. It is not precise or pretty. It is as chaotic as a “field hospital” where the wounded are treated and lives are saved. A living faith does not retreat behind a veil of incense or the delicacy of lace vestments. It boldly emerges into the highways and byways where real people live with all their blemishes and scars, with all their doubts and insecurities.
Consequently, are Traditionalists numerous and powerful enough, is their agenda popular enough to bring the Church to schism? No, not by any stretch of the imagination. The days of the Traditionalists are numbered. They are (no pun intended) “old news”, as old and useless as yesterday's newspaper left abandoned on a park bench.
All they bring to the altar of Christ's mercy is confusion and resentment.
Sadly, however, for some Catholics, already fragile in their faith, for those bruised and scarred by the arrogance or folly of some in Church leadership, for those wounded or scandalized by stories of the sexual abuse of children by trusted Priests and Pastors, the Traditionalist rants are just one more nail in the coffin of their dying faith in the Church.
These folks will not will not leave the mainstream Church to join their ranks with the Traditionalist fringe movement. They will simply leave. Quietly and anonymously drifting away never to be seen or heard from again. A silent but real Exodus from parish pews.
This is the real impact which Traditionalists can and may have upon the Church.
But to think that their influence is robust enough to divide the Church into the kinds of warring factions which history has recorded is to afford this fringe movement with a significance and relevance which it neither deserves or merits.
To the millions of Catholics anxious about these troubled times, I offer this simple advice: Be patient, this too shall pass.
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
MORALITY BY GEOGRAPHY: AMORIS LAETITIA - SAN DIEGO VS AMORIS LAETITIA - PHILADELPHIA
In a Pastoral Letter to Catholics in San Diego, Bishop Robert McElroy is inviting couples in irregular relationships consider whether “God is calling them to return to the Eucharist .
Young unmarried couples who are living together and older couples living in a second civil union are now being encouraged to come to the church, consider their status, and—if they find their consciences clear—receive Communion.
In consultation with a Priest, Catholics, with humility, discretion, and love for the Church and its teachings, are directed to reflect upon their level of responsibility for the failure of the first marriage, their care and love for the children of that marriage, the moral obligations which have arisen in their new marriage, and possible harm which their returning to the Sacraments might have by undermining the indissolubility of marriage.
It is important to underscore that the role of the Priest is one of accompaniment, meant to inform the conscience of the discerner on principles of Catholic faith. The Priest is not to make decisions for the believer, for as Pope Francis emphasizes in Amoris Laetitia (the Apostolic Exhortation entitled The Joy of Love), the Church is “called to form consciences, not to replace them.”
Catholics participating authentically in this discernment of conscience should keep in mind both the permanence of marriage and the teaching of the Church that “the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but medicine and nourishment for the weak.”
However, in new guidelines for the Philadelphia Archdiocese, Archbishop Charles Chaput is insisting that, in his diocese, Catholics who are divorced and remarried may receive the Eucharist only if they renounce any and all sexual activity.
“Undertaking to live as brother and sister is necessary for the divorced and civilly remarried to receive reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance, which could then open the way to the Eucharist,” the new Philadelphia guidelines state.
Archbishop Chaput acknowledges that this is a "hard teaching," but says that "anything less misleads people about the nature of the Eucharist and the Church."
The Philadelphia guidelines stress that Catholics who undergo a civil divorce should seek an annulment from a Church tribunal if they intend to remarry. Annulments "cannot be granted informally or privately by individual Pastors or Priests," the document emphasizes.
Archbishop Chaput further encourages Pastors to provide support and encouragement for all Catholics who encounter marital difficulties, and especially those who honor their marital vows even after a civil divorce. "God is faithful to them even when their spouses are not, a truth that fellow Catholics should reinforce," his guidelines say.
The document suggests that when divorced and remarried Catholics agree to abstain from sexual intercourse, while they may receive the Eucharist, "they should do so in a manner that will avoid giving scandal or implying that Christ's teaching can be set aside."
How can the average Catholic be anything but confused by such contradictory teachings and directives? It seems as though San Diego and Philadelphia are separated by more than just the physical distance they share from one another.
This disunity in the moral teaching and practice among the Bishops cannot stand the test of time.
Something as diametrically opposed as these teachings and practices are from one diocese to another can have nothing but a negative impact upon the faith of Catholics and their respect for the teaching authority of the Bishops in general.
Let us pray that the Holy Spirit will guide the Bishops and encourage them to work in unison as they seek to fulfill their responsibilities as teachers and shepherds of the souls entrusted to their pastoral care.
Young unmarried couples who are living together and older couples living in a second civil union are now being encouraged to come to the church, consider their status, and—if they find their consciences clear—receive Communion.
In consultation with a Priest, Catholics, with humility, discretion, and love for the Church and its teachings, are directed to reflect upon their level of responsibility for the failure of the first marriage, their care and love for the children of that marriage, the moral obligations which have arisen in their new marriage, and possible harm which their returning to the Sacraments might have by undermining the indissolubility of marriage.
It is important to underscore that the role of the Priest is one of accompaniment, meant to inform the conscience of the discerner on principles of Catholic faith. The Priest is not to make decisions for the believer, for as Pope Francis emphasizes in Amoris Laetitia (the Apostolic Exhortation entitled The Joy of Love), the Church is “called to form consciences, not to replace them.”
Catholics participating authentically in this discernment of conscience should keep in mind both the permanence of marriage and the teaching of the Church that “the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but medicine and nourishment for the weak.”
However, in new guidelines for the Philadelphia Archdiocese, Archbishop Charles Chaput is insisting that, in his diocese, Catholics who are divorced and remarried may receive the Eucharist only if they renounce any and all sexual activity.
“Undertaking to live as brother and sister is necessary for the divorced and civilly remarried to receive reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance, which could then open the way to the Eucharist,” the new Philadelphia guidelines state.
Archbishop Chaput acknowledges that this is a "hard teaching," but says that "anything less misleads people about the nature of the Eucharist and the Church."
The Philadelphia guidelines stress that Catholics who undergo a civil divorce should seek an annulment from a Church tribunal if they intend to remarry. Annulments "cannot be granted informally or privately by individual Pastors or Priests," the document emphasizes.
Archbishop Chaput further encourages Pastors to provide support and encouragement for all Catholics who encounter marital difficulties, and especially those who honor their marital vows even after a civil divorce. "God is faithful to them even when their spouses are not, a truth that fellow Catholics should reinforce," his guidelines say.
The document suggests that when divorced and remarried Catholics agree to abstain from sexual intercourse, while they may receive the Eucharist, "they should do so in a manner that will avoid giving scandal or implying that Christ's teaching can be set aside."
How can the average Catholic be anything but confused by such contradictory teachings and directives? It seems as though San Diego and Philadelphia are separated by more than just the physical distance they share from one another.
This disunity in the moral teaching and practice among the Bishops cannot stand the test of time.
Something as diametrically opposed as these teachings and practices are from one diocese to another can have nothing but a negative impact upon the faith of Catholics and their respect for the teaching authority of the Bishops in general.
Let us pray that the Holy Spirit will guide the Bishops and encourage them to work in unison as they seek to fulfill their responsibilities as teachers and shepherds of the souls entrusted to their pastoral care.
Monday, December 5, 2016
DIOCESE OF OSLO FINED FOR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS OF CHURCH TAX
I no sooner finished posting my last article on the subject of the church tax in Europe when I ran across this story on the Net.
The Norwegian Catholic Church has been fined for overstating the number of its members in an attempt to receive more state funding.
The church is accused of looking for immigrants with names that would suggest they were of Catholic origin and adding them to the list of members without their knowledge.
Prosecutors have given the Diocese of Oslo, responsible for keeping records of Catholics living in the country, a one million kroner (Euro 95,000) fine.
"We've never done anything illegal or received too much money," a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Oslo stated. "We have always recognized that we have made mistakes and had an unfortunate practice in parts of our registration. This was cleaned up a long (time) ago." The Church claimed that, from 2004, there was an increase in immigration from Catholic countries such as Poland and these members were not registered.
In Norway, the state finances religious groups in accordance with the number of members by way of a church tax imposed on all its citizens.
Separately from the fine, the Norwegian state is demanding the Diocese of Oslo repay the 40.6 million kroner (Euro 3.8 million), which was overpaid to it by the government.
Many believe that there should be a total separation of church in state in terms of governance and structure. I agree.
What do you think?
The Norwegian Catholic Church has been fined for overstating the number of its members in an attempt to receive more state funding.
The church is accused of looking for immigrants with names that would suggest they were of Catholic origin and adding them to the list of members without their knowledge.
Prosecutors have given the Diocese of Oslo, responsible for keeping records of Catholics living in the country, a one million kroner (Euro 95,000) fine.
"We've never done anything illegal or received too much money," a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Oslo stated. "We have always recognized that we have made mistakes and had an unfortunate practice in parts of our registration. This was cleaned up a long (time) ago." The Church claimed that, from 2004, there was an increase in immigration from Catholic countries such as Poland and these members were not registered.
In Norway, the state finances religious groups in accordance with the number of members by way of a church tax imposed on all its citizens.
Separately from the fine, the Norwegian state is demanding the Diocese of Oslo repay the 40.6 million kroner (Euro 3.8 million), which was overpaid to it by the government.
Many believe that there should be a total separation of church in state in terms of governance and structure. I agree.
What do you think?
Sunday, December 4, 2016
THE CHURCH TAX IN EUROPE
Have you ever wondered how churches in Europe have been able to survive financially when the numbers of those who attend church service is the lowest it has been in the history of European Christianity?
The answer is simple: a church tax on citizen taxpayers.
A church tax is a tax imposed on members of churches in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Sweden, some parts of Switzerland and several other countries.
We shall briefly examine the various church taxes which the civil governments in each country assess, collect and then distribute to the church of which the individual taxpayer acknowledges he or she is a member.
In Austria, any recognized religious group can collect church tax at a rate of 1.1% of total income, though currently only the Catholic Church makes use of that opportunity. The church tax is compulsory for Catholics in Austria.
In Finland, all members of either the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church (the two state churches of Finland) pay an income-based church tax of between 1% and 2%, depending on the municipality. On average the tax is about 1.4%.
In Germany, the church tax is only paid by members of the respective church. People who are not members of a church tax-collecting denomination do not have to pay it. Members of a religious community under public law may formally declare their wish to leave the community to state (not religious) authorities. The obligation to pay church taxes ends once such a declaration has been made. The church tax is an estimated 800 or 900 Euros per taxpayer.
Taxpayers in Iceland who belong to an officially registered religious group or secular humanist organization must pay a congregation tax which is collected by the state and paid to the individual's respective organization.
Taxpayers in Italy pay a mandatory 0.8% of the total income tax, and have the option to choose to whom they will assign the monies. Every taxpayer can choose the recipient of the contribution on their tax form. Regardless of whether the taxpayer expresses a preference or not, the 0.8% is already included in their tax levy.
The members of Church of Sweden pay church taxes, which vary between municipalities, but can be as much as 2%. In a recent development, the Swedish government has agreed to continue collecting from individual taxpayers the annual payment that has always gone to the church. But now the fee will be an optional checkoff box on the tax return. The government will allocate the money collected to Catholic, Muslim, Jewish and other faiths as well as the Lutherans, with each taxpayer directing where his or her taxes should go.
There is no official state church in Switzerland. However, all the 26 cantons (states) financially support at least one of the three traditional denominations – Roman Catholic, Old Catholic (in Switzerland Christ Catholic), or Evangelical Reformed – with funds collected through taxation. Each canton church tax may formally have to leave the church. In some cantons private companies are unable to avoid payment of the church tax
In all these cases, it is the civil state which collects taxes which in turn are paid to the various churches with which the individual taxpayer has acknowledged his or her affiliation.
Free will offerings, as we know them in the United States, by way of collections being taken up during Masses and other liturgical services are unheard of in Europe. And so, whether or not a particular member of a church in Europe actually practices the faith, their taxes will continue to support their respective church no matter what.
In recent years, several taxpayer initiatives have been placed on ballots throughout Europe seeking to end the church tax entirely. The Churches have steadfastly opposed such initiatives, the Catholic Church in the forefront of the opposition.
In some countries, taxpayers have been successful in being declared exempt from the payment of the church tax by opting out of their membership in a church. In some cases, by merely checking off a box on the tax return, the taxpayer can attest that he or she is no longer a member of a particular church and is thereby exempt from the tax.
The Catholic Church in Italy has insisted that no Catholic can “leave the Church” unless he or she obtains a certification from their proper Pastor and such is noted in a record maintained in the parish archives. The taxpayer then presents this certification to their local tax collector and is declared exempt from the church tax. Obviously, this is an attempt to make exemption from the church tax in Italy as complicated (and frustrating) as possible.
Perhaps the church tax system explains why the churches in Italy and other parts of Europe can continue to be financially viable when their pews are literally empty.
Here in America, as Catholic Church attendance continues to dwindle, the financial impact is beginning to be felt in almost every diocese across the country. The separation of church and state embodied in our Constitution renders any attempt to establish a church tax comparable to that of Europe a certain impossibility. How will the Church in America continue to survive financial in the face of such growing cultural secularization? Only time will tell.
Personally, I find the arrangement between the civil governments and the churches distasteful and vulnerable to corruption on either or both sides of the equation. I favor the total separation of church and state, a separation not of moral principle but of structure and governance.
These are my thoughts on the subject.
What do you think?
The answer is simple: a church tax on citizen taxpayers.
A church tax is a tax imposed on members of churches in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Sweden, some parts of Switzerland and several other countries.
We shall briefly examine the various church taxes which the civil governments in each country assess, collect and then distribute to the church of which the individual taxpayer acknowledges he or she is a member.
In Austria, any recognized religious group can collect church tax at a rate of 1.1% of total income, though currently only the Catholic Church makes use of that opportunity. The church tax is compulsory for Catholics in Austria.
In Finland, all members of either the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church (the two state churches of Finland) pay an income-based church tax of between 1% and 2%, depending on the municipality. On average the tax is about 1.4%.
In Germany, the church tax is only paid by members of the respective church. People who are not members of a church tax-collecting denomination do not have to pay it. Members of a religious community under public law may formally declare their wish to leave the community to state (not religious) authorities. The obligation to pay church taxes ends once such a declaration has been made. The church tax is an estimated 800 or 900 Euros per taxpayer.
Taxpayers in Iceland who belong to an officially registered religious group or secular humanist organization must pay a congregation tax which is collected by the state and paid to the individual's respective organization.
Taxpayers in Italy pay a mandatory 0.8% of the total income tax, and have the option to choose to whom they will assign the monies. Every taxpayer can choose the recipient of the contribution on their tax form. Regardless of whether the taxpayer expresses a preference or not, the 0.8% is already included in their tax levy.
The members of Church of Sweden pay church taxes, which vary between municipalities, but can be as much as 2%. In a recent development, the Swedish government has agreed to continue collecting from individual taxpayers the annual payment that has always gone to the church. But now the fee will be an optional checkoff box on the tax return. The government will allocate the money collected to Catholic, Muslim, Jewish and other faiths as well as the Lutherans, with each taxpayer directing where his or her taxes should go.
There is no official state church in Switzerland. However, all the 26 cantons (states) financially support at least one of the three traditional denominations – Roman Catholic, Old Catholic (in Switzerland Christ Catholic), or Evangelical Reformed – with funds collected through taxation. Each canton church tax may formally have to leave the church. In some cantons private companies are unable to avoid payment of the church tax
In all these cases, it is the civil state which collects taxes which in turn are paid to the various churches with which the individual taxpayer has acknowledged his or her affiliation.
Free will offerings, as we know them in the United States, by way of collections being taken up during Masses and other liturgical services are unheard of in Europe. And so, whether or not a particular member of a church in Europe actually practices the faith, their taxes will continue to support their respective church no matter what.
In recent years, several taxpayer initiatives have been placed on ballots throughout Europe seeking to end the church tax entirely. The Churches have steadfastly opposed such initiatives, the Catholic Church in the forefront of the opposition.
In some countries, taxpayers have been successful in being declared exempt from the payment of the church tax by opting out of their membership in a church. In some cases, by merely checking off a box on the tax return, the taxpayer can attest that he or she is no longer a member of a particular church and is thereby exempt from the tax.
The Catholic Church in Italy has insisted that no Catholic can “leave the Church” unless he or she obtains a certification from their proper Pastor and such is noted in a record maintained in the parish archives. The taxpayer then presents this certification to their local tax collector and is declared exempt from the church tax. Obviously, this is an attempt to make exemption from the church tax in Italy as complicated (and frustrating) as possible.
Perhaps the church tax system explains why the churches in Italy and other parts of Europe can continue to be financially viable when their pews are literally empty.
Here in America, as Catholic Church attendance continues to dwindle, the financial impact is beginning to be felt in almost every diocese across the country. The separation of church and state embodied in our Constitution renders any attempt to establish a church tax comparable to that of Europe a certain impossibility. How will the Church in America continue to survive financial in the face of such growing cultural secularization? Only time will tell.
Personally, I find the arrangement between the civil governments and the churches distasteful and vulnerable to corruption on either or both sides of the equation. I favor the total separation of church and state, a separation not of moral principle but of structure and governance.
These are my thoughts on the subject.
What do you think?
Saturday, December 3, 2016
A PREVIEW OF THINGS TO COME IN AMERICAN CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE?
Two Christian hospitals in Winnipeg Province have decided not to euthanize their patients nor help them kill themselves.
Pro-death advocates were quick to condemn both healthcare facilities.
Concordia Hospital, which is Mennonite, and St. Boniface, which is Catholic, have both indicated they have the agreement of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority to not provide “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAID) as euthanasia and assisted suicide are euphemistically termed in Canada.
The Mennonite hospital even took out a large advertisement in the local press stating that its administration consulted widely with health and faith organizations before opting out of any assisted suicide provisions. “Concordia believes that providing health care is a ministry assigned to us by Christ. … As such our opposition to the practice of MAID based on our ethical and moral beliefs needs [sic] has been recognized and honoured by WRHA,” the ad read in part.
A Saint Boniface hospital spokesperson issued a statement that the Catholic healthcare facility wouldn’t be providing assisted suicide: “We will not be participating in that. When asked why, the hospital representative replied, “Because we are a Catholic facility.”
Both hospitals, however, have said they will help their patients and families connect with the “Provincial Medical Assistance in Dying Clinical Team,” if requested to do so by patients or their family members.
Arthur Schafer, Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba stated it was “disturbing” that two publicly-funded hospitals refused to provide the full range of legal services.
Health authorities across Canada clearly believe that recent Supreme Court decisions support their position that faith-based hospitals can opt out of assisted suicide.
In British Columbia, several Catholic hospitals have been severely criticized for refusing to participate in euthanasia and assisted suicide but have escaped sanctions from public authorities. Michael Shea, President of the Catholic Health Alliance of Canada, representing 124 Catholic healthcare institutions across Canada, says he is unaware of any legislation requiring members to participate in assisted suicide.
One wonders if this may be just a preview of things to come in American Catholic healthcare facilities as the merchants of death are so clearly hellbent in pushing their anti-life agendas further and farther than ever.
Pro-death advocates were quick to condemn both healthcare facilities.
Concordia Hospital, which is Mennonite, and St. Boniface, which is Catholic, have both indicated they have the agreement of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority to not provide “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAID) as euthanasia and assisted suicide are euphemistically termed in Canada.
The Mennonite hospital even took out a large advertisement in the local press stating that its administration consulted widely with health and faith organizations before opting out of any assisted suicide provisions. “Concordia believes that providing health care is a ministry assigned to us by Christ. … As such our opposition to the practice of MAID based on our ethical and moral beliefs needs [sic] has been recognized and honoured by WRHA,” the ad read in part.
A Saint Boniface hospital spokesperson issued a statement that the Catholic healthcare facility wouldn’t be providing assisted suicide: “We will not be participating in that. When asked why, the hospital representative replied, “Because we are a Catholic facility.”
Both hospitals, however, have said they will help their patients and families connect with the “Provincial Medical Assistance in Dying Clinical Team,” if requested to do so by patients or their family members.
Arthur Schafer, Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba stated it was “disturbing” that two publicly-funded hospitals refused to provide the full range of legal services.
Health authorities across Canada clearly believe that recent Supreme Court decisions support their position that faith-based hospitals can opt out of assisted suicide.
In British Columbia, several Catholic hospitals have been severely criticized for refusing to participate in euthanasia and assisted suicide but have escaped sanctions from public authorities. Michael Shea, President of the Catholic Health Alliance of Canada, representing 124 Catholic healthcare institutions across Canada, says he is unaware of any legislation requiring members to participate in assisted suicide.
One wonders if this may be just a preview of things to come in American Catholic healthcare facilities as the merchants of death are so clearly hellbent in pushing their anti-life agendas further and farther than ever.
CHRISTMAS AT THE VATICAN 2016 -- THE POPE'S CHRISTMAS SCHEDULE
Continuing with some lighter fare, it appears that Christmas at the Vatican this year will be festive and colorful.
The Holy See has provided a preview of the Christmas creche which will adorn the Piazza in front of Basilica of Saint Peter.
The Nativity scene, designed by artist Manwel Grech, measures over 62-feet-wide and features 17 statues dressed in traditional Maltese clothing. A replica of a traditional "Luzzu" (a Maltese boat representing life, tradition, fish and migrants forced to flee their homes by sea) will be included in the scene.
The outdoor decorations include an 82-foot-tall Christmas tree from the Province of Trent in Northern Italy which arrived at the Vatican as Americans were enjoying their Thanksgiving celebrations. The tree will be decorated with drawings created by children across Italy some of whom will meet with the Holy Father, shortly before the tree-lighting ceremony begins. At that same gathering, Grech who designed the creche as well as civic leaders from Trent and Malta are expected to be present.
The Vatican Press Office likewise has published Pope Francis’ schedule for the Christmas Season which includes the following liturgical celebrations:
On December 12, Pope Francis will celebrate evening Mass on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Mass will include ancient liturgical hymns composed in indigenous languages, including Nahuatl, Quechua, Mapuche and Guarani. The Sistine Chapel Choir will be joined by the Latin American Choir under the direction of conductor Eduardo Notrica.
On Christmas Eve, the Holy Father will celebrate Christmas Mass at 9:30 p.m. in St. Peter's Basilica.
On Christmas Day, Pope Francis will give his Christmas blessing "Urbi et Orbi" (to the city and the world) at noon from the central balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square.
On New Year’s Eve, the Pope will preside over evening prayer and the singing of the "Te Deum" in thanksgiving for the year that is ending. The ceremony will take place at Saint Peter Basilica.
New Year’s Day, Pope Francis will celebrate a Morning Mass in Saint Peter Basilica for the World Day of Prayer for Peace and the feast of Mary, Mother of God.
January 6, the Feast of the Epiphany, Pope Francis will celebrate Mass in Saint Peter Basilica.
On January 8, the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, the Pope will celebrate Mass in the Sistine Chapel and baptize several babies.
In the evening on January 25, Pope Francis will preside over an ecumenical prayer service for the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. This service concludes the annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity celebrated universally by the Church.
We offer our prayers and best wishes asking the Lord to continue to bless the Holy Father with good health and the energy he will need to fulfill the demands of so active a schedule.
What a wonderful time of year when gentler spirits and a sense of universal brotherhood strive to capture our imagination! Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever. Amen.
The Holy See has provided a preview of the Christmas creche which will adorn the Piazza in front of Basilica of Saint Peter.
The Nativity scene, designed by artist Manwel Grech, measures over 62-feet-wide and features 17 statues dressed in traditional Maltese clothing. A replica of a traditional "Luzzu" (a Maltese boat representing life, tradition, fish and migrants forced to flee their homes by sea) will be included in the scene.
The outdoor decorations include an 82-foot-tall Christmas tree from the Province of Trent in Northern Italy which arrived at the Vatican as Americans were enjoying their Thanksgiving celebrations. The tree will be decorated with drawings created by children across Italy some of whom will meet with the Holy Father, shortly before the tree-lighting ceremony begins. At that same gathering, Grech who designed the creche as well as civic leaders from Trent and Malta are expected to be present.
The Vatican Press Office likewise has published Pope Francis’ schedule for the Christmas Season which includes the following liturgical celebrations:
On December 12, Pope Francis will celebrate evening Mass on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Mass will include ancient liturgical hymns composed in indigenous languages, including Nahuatl, Quechua, Mapuche and Guarani. The Sistine Chapel Choir will be joined by the Latin American Choir under the direction of conductor Eduardo Notrica.
On Christmas Eve, the Holy Father will celebrate Christmas Mass at 9:30 p.m. in St. Peter's Basilica.
On Christmas Day, Pope Francis will give his Christmas blessing "Urbi et Orbi" (to the city and the world) at noon from the central balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square.
On New Year’s Eve, the Pope will preside over evening prayer and the singing of the "Te Deum" in thanksgiving for the year that is ending. The ceremony will take place at Saint Peter Basilica.
New Year’s Day, Pope Francis will celebrate a Morning Mass in Saint Peter Basilica for the World Day of Prayer for Peace and the feast of Mary, Mother of God.
January 6, the Feast of the Epiphany, Pope Francis will celebrate Mass in Saint Peter Basilica.
On January 8, the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, the Pope will celebrate Mass in the Sistine Chapel and baptize several babies.
In the evening on January 25, Pope Francis will preside over an ecumenical prayer service for the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. This service concludes the annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity celebrated universally by the Church.
We offer our prayers and best wishes asking the Lord to continue to bless the Holy Father with good health and the energy he will need to fulfill the demands of so active a schedule.
What a wonderful time of year when gentler spirits and a sense of universal brotherhood strive to capture our imagination! Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever. Amen.
Friday, December 2, 2016
WAS JESUS ACTUALLY BORN ON DECEMBER 25TH?
Today, I thought I would set considerations of controversy and dispute aside and address a lighter subject more fitting to this marvelous time of year.
Now that December has begun, many are preparing to celebrate that Glorious Day on which the Son of God was born to bring the promised hope of salvation to fulfillment.
In the course of my years as an active Pastor, I was asked often whether December 25th is the actual date on which Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin in Bethlehem.
Since the exact date of Christ's Birth is not recorded in the Sacred Scriptures, many different dates have been suggested for the celebration of Christmas down through the centuries.
Even though most Christian Churches now celebrate Christmas on December 25th, there is no single explanation for the choice of this particular date which seems to have become universally accepted.
There are a number of theories about the origin of the date of Christmas, but these remain hotly debated by historians and theologians alike. The theories generally fall into the following categories.
Some scholars suggest that all Christian Churches originally celebrated Christmas on January 6th, associating the Birth of Jesus with His Baptism in the Jordan. These same scholars believe that, beginning in the 4th Century, the Western Church changed the date to December 25th to override the pagan celebration of the Roman feast day, the "Birth of the Unconquered Sun" (Natalis Sol Invictus), observed just days after the midwinter solstice when the hours of sunlight began to lengthen each day.
Since Christians in the West continued to observe pagan feasts, the Church sought to temper these idolatries and give them a Christian significance. And so, the Western Church thought it appropriate to choose December 25 to celebrate that moment when the darkness of sin was overcome by the Light of Christ's presence in the world.
Other scholars hold that Jesus was born during the Jewish Festival of Lights (Hannaka, the 25th of Kislev). Kislev is the month generally accepted as corresponding to our month of December.
There are other scholars who have proposed a theory which seems to be growing in acceptance over the past few decades.
These scholars believe that the date of Christmas actually is based upon the dating of the the death of Christ on Good Friday. The exact date of Jesus death is not stated in the Gospels. But wishing to commemorate this most sacred day, the Early Christian Church calculated that it occurred on March 25th.
It was an ancient and venerated custom to believe that the holy men and women of the Old Testament died at "an integral age", that is, on the anniversary of the date of their conception. Therefore, according to this view, since Good Friday was calculated to have occurred on March 25th, and since Jesus would certainly be thought to have died at "an integral age", the early Christian Church could only have imagined that he would have been conceived on March 25th and been born exactly 9 months later on December 25th.
Needless to say, these are theories. There may be those who disagree about the origin of the date of Christmas, but those who believe that Christ Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the World will always agree that the world has been forever changed by the Birth of the Divine Child on that first Christmas morn.
As the days of December bring us closer to Christmas Day, I pray that this Christmas and every Christmas will be a day of rebirth for all of us, God's beloved children.
Have a great Advent Season preparing for the celebration of the Birth of Jesus. God bless you.
Now that December has begun, many are preparing to celebrate that Glorious Day on which the Son of God was born to bring the promised hope of salvation to fulfillment.
In the course of my years as an active Pastor, I was asked often whether December 25th is the actual date on which Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin in Bethlehem.
Since the exact date of Christ's Birth is not recorded in the Sacred Scriptures, many different dates have been suggested for the celebration of Christmas down through the centuries.
Even though most Christian Churches now celebrate Christmas on December 25th, there is no single explanation for the choice of this particular date which seems to have become universally accepted.
There are a number of theories about the origin of the date of Christmas, but these remain hotly debated by historians and theologians alike. The theories generally fall into the following categories.
Some scholars suggest that all Christian Churches originally celebrated Christmas on January 6th, associating the Birth of Jesus with His Baptism in the Jordan. These same scholars believe that, beginning in the 4th Century, the Western Church changed the date to December 25th to override the pagan celebration of the Roman feast day, the "Birth of the Unconquered Sun" (Natalis Sol Invictus), observed just days after the midwinter solstice when the hours of sunlight began to lengthen each day.
Since Christians in the West continued to observe pagan feasts, the Church sought to temper these idolatries and give them a Christian significance. And so, the Western Church thought it appropriate to choose December 25 to celebrate that moment when the darkness of sin was overcome by the Light of Christ's presence in the world.
Other scholars hold that Jesus was born during the Jewish Festival of Lights (Hannaka, the 25th of Kislev). Kislev is the month generally accepted as corresponding to our month of December.
There are other scholars who have proposed a theory which seems to be growing in acceptance over the past few decades.
These scholars believe that the date of Christmas actually is based upon the dating of the the death of Christ on Good Friday. The exact date of Jesus death is not stated in the Gospels. But wishing to commemorate this most sacred day, the Early Christian Church calculated that it occurred on March 25th.
It was an ancient and venerated custom to believe that the holy men and women of the Old Testament died at "an integral age", that is, on the anniversary of the date of their conception. Therefore, according to this view, since Good Friday was calculated to have occurred on March 25th, and since Jesus would certainly be thought to have died at "an integral age", the early Christian Church could only have imagined that he would have been conceived on March 25th and been born exactly 9 months later on December 25th.
Needless to say, these are theories. There may be those who disagree about the origin of the date of Christmas, but those who believe that Christ Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the World will always agree that the world has been forever changed by the Birth of the Divine Child on that first Christmas morn.
As the days of December bring us closer to Christmas Day, I pray that this Christmas and every Christmas will be a day of rebirth for all of us, God's beloved children.
Have a great Advent Season preparing for the celebration of the Birth of Jesus. God bless you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)