On the Preparation of Altar Bread in the ciborium

I offered Mass in another parish and during communion, I discovered that there were a lot of broken pieces of the Sacred Species in the ciboria taken from the tabernacle. During the purification of the vessels, I decided to collect the broken pieces of the Sacred Species and all these filled one fourth of a ciborium (added to this would be the thick mound of Sacred Particles / "crumbs" for the uncatechized).

St. Therese as sacristan

I was saddened by this because such should show so much carelessness in the preparation of the gifts for the Mass. It seemed that the sacristan / some other minister in charge simply opened a plastic bag of altar bread and poured the contents into the ciboria without even bothering to check if the bread poured were broken or damaged. He might even have carelessly poured in the crumbs also.

Does the presence of the crumbs in the ciborium matter? So what if there were broken pieces of altar bread included in the gifts to be consecrated? I think proper attention should have been given to the preparation of the hosts not simply on account of some "pickiness" on my part but rather in the theology that goes with it.

I remember the Rev. Fr. Frederick Fermin, OP, our rector, once reprimanded me regarding the preparation of the altar bread. He insisted that the big host and the small hosts should be carefully selected. Care must be taken in the selection of the altar bread. The one in charge of this must make sure that there are no breakage in each piece.  This is because the lamb selected for the sacrifice must always be unblemished and uninjured. This is the reason why the shepherds kept watch during the night of the birthing season of the sheep. They have to make sure that each lamb born from the Temple flock would be wrapped in swaddling clothes to keep them from injuring themselves. The lambs born from the Temple flock had to be unblemished so that they can be offered in sacrifice during the Paschal feast.

If we keep in mind that the Mass is truly the Sacrifice of Christ, we will understand the necessity of carefully selecting the altar bread to be used. The "lamb" must be unblemished. The only time the Lamb is broken would be at the breaking of the bread. The ritual of the breaking of the bread is not done only to distribute and share the Body of Christ among those who take part in the sacrifice. The breaking of the bread is also the moment of destruction of the Sacred Victim. It is the moment when the Holy Sacrifice is consummated. Thus, the spotless, unblemished, uninjured Host is destroyed in an act of Sacrifice which renders God the highest act of worship.

Thus, the sacristans must be mindful of their job. I have offered Masses in convents of consecrated women and I truly appreciate how the altar bread are selected and neatly arranged in the ciborium. This care and attention for such details indicate true devotion and a real appreciation of what is about to transpire at Mass: the offering of the unblemished Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. 

The Mishandling of the Octave

I am disappointed with the way we treat the Christmas Octave. Churches are filled with people for the 9-day Simbang Gabi. There is a heavy turnout of parishioners, servers, musicians, lectors, and other ministers. Even in the Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, servers and choir members are excited over the Rorate Masses. So many candles were lit and so much incense was burned to make the days of the Rorate more solemn.

But after the Midnight Mass, everything changes. On the morning itself of Christmas day, the churches are almost empty. Maybe, it is because people have fulfilled their Christmas obligation with the Midnight Mass that they saw it unnecessary to return for Church on Christmas day. However, it becomes more disappointing beginning the Feast of St. Stephen. There, we begin to see less and less people coming to Mass. Lectors and other ministers do not report for duty. Servers were limited to the minimum (1). Even the Sacristan did not see it necessary to light all the 6 candles on the Altar nor to light the Christmas Lanterns in and outside of the Church. The Choir and Cantors are nowhere to be found. And I am not referring only to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. This year, I committed myself to a daily offering of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite throughout the octave and also until Epiphany. I was dismayed by how the octave of Christmas is being treated.

There is something wrong with our liturgical culture. So many assist Mass during the last 9 days of Advent but almost nobody will be there during the Octave. Isn't the Octave the extension of Christmas day? I recall our studies on the Liturgical Year. We were taught that the celebration of the Octave is due to the fact that the Divine Mystery commemorated on Christmas (or Easter) day is so rich that one day is not enough to celebrate it. And so the celebration is extended to 8 days. The 8 days are considered as only 1 day. Thus, the Gloria and the Creed are sung as on the day of Christmas (or Easter). And so everyday of the Octave is Christmas day (or Easter Sunday).

If this were so, why do we treat the Octave days so very badly? Have the Simbang Gabi exhausted us so much that we find it reason enough to stay at home and sleep throughout the Octave? It is as if were have been very busy preparing for the Fiesta and so we disappear and sleep off the actual festivity itself. And allow me to remind you that Advent, the Simbang Gabi, the Rorate Masses are but preparations. YES, ONLY PREPARATIONS!!!!! The Christmas (or Easter) Octave is the REAL CELEBRATION.

We have allowed the commercialism of the secular Christmas to creep into the sacred liturgy itself. We have anticipated Christmas in Advent that there seem to be nothing else to celebrate when the real Christmas came. Where are the servers? Where are the cantors? Where are the lectors? Where are the other ministers? (Where are the priests?)  If only our Lord could speak directly to us, he might say: "There were so many of you present during the preparations for my coming but when I can, everybody went out for their vacation."

Is this the way to treat the Octave days? If this were so, then I might take my vacation as well. This is no way the Octave should be treated. This is simply WRONG LITURGICAL CULTURE.

Simbang Gabi 6 (Fatima Centennial): Eucharist

Jesus, I trust in you!

Mary went in haste to the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant (John the Baptist) leaped in her womb and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.” It was truly a blessed encounter because both Elizabeth and her unborn baby John were sanctified by the Holy Spirit and this brought joy to both of them. What could be the reason for such joy and for such blessing? The reason is the hidden presence of the Lord Jesus who, at that time, was already in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Our Lady did not visit on her own accord. Rather, she brought to them Jesus. He is the lover referred to by the first reading: Hark! My lover – here he comes…here he stands behind our wall, gazing through the windows… Little did the Virgin Mary know that she was the tabernacle in whom God dwelt. Wherever she went, she brought the Lord Jesus with her. From within Mary’s womb, the Lord Jesus blessed and bestowed the Holy Spirit.

When Our Lady appeared to the children at Fatima, she said, “To prevent this (war, famine, persecution of the Church), I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart and the Communion of Reparation on the first Saturdays.” Necessary to living the Fatima message is Eucharistic reparation. The Blessed Virgin wants us to receive Holy Communion on the first Saturday of the month in reparation for the sins of mankind. On the third angelic apparition to the children in 1916, the angel prostrated himself before the Blessed Sacrament and after reciting a prayer of reparation “for the countless outrages, sacrileges, and indifferences” committed against the Eucharist, he urged the children to “make reparation and console your God.” After this, the children would spend many hours daily repeating the prayer taught by the angel and Eucharistic reparation became part of their lives.

The 1^st apparition of Our Lady of Fatima occurred on May 13, 1917, the Feast of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament. When she opened her hands on the children and communicated to them streams of intense light, the children were overwhelmed and they felt “lost in God” whom they recognized in that light. So, the children prostrated on the ground in adoration and poured out their praise of the Blessed Sacrament.

Our Lady asked that we receive Holy Communion on the 1^st Saturday of every month. The angel in 1916, gave Holy Communion to the children. He said: “Receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation and console your God.” The angel was referring to sacrilegious Communions, the desecration of tabernacles and the violation of the Sacred Hosts which occur with frightening frequency throughout the world today. Besides these heinous crimes against the Blessed Sacrament, there is also the lapse of millions of our fellow Catholics to atone for. So many Catholics no longer receive Holy Communion. We must also make amends for the repeated violation of the 3^rd Commandment: “You shall keep the day of the Lord holy.” On September 19, 1846, Our Lady appeared to 2 children in the village of La Sallete in France. There, she expressed her sorrow: “I gave you six days to work; I kept the seventh for myself, and no one wishes to grant it to me. This is what weighs down the arm of my Son so much.” That was in 1846, 170 years ago and the indifference to the Sunday Mass has worsened since then.       

Even when she was quite ill, little Jacinta would drag herself to daily Mass in the parish church of Fatima. Sometimes, Lucia would restrain her but she would answer: “I’m going for sinners who do not even go to Mass on Sundays.” If a sick little girl could do this, why can’t we?

It is a pity that we fail to understand how much joy the presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament could give us. If only we could experience what the children experienced when they were lost in the presence of God. The presence of Christ in the womb of Mary bought joy to both Elizabeth and John the Baptist. It is the same joy that is bestowed on anyone who receives communion or at least draws near the tabernacle. Many people simply do not know what they are missing. Many of us fail to recognize Jesus who is really present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament. Jesus is the joy desired by the human heart.

In this Christmas season, let us put the Mass at the center of the holy Day. The Festival is called Christmas…the Mass of Christ. The Mass is the center of Christmas because the Eucharist is the continuation of the Incarnation. Here, Christmas takes place anew: the Word becomes flesh. In this Christmas during the Centennial of Fatima, let us make a firm resolve to receive Communion every 1^st Saturday of the month in reparation for the sins of men. The Lord wants to be consoled by us in this way. Let us give him joy and allow him to give us joy so that our joy may be complete.

O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

Celebrating amdist the Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament???

I was saddened with the news that yesterday, the Blessed Sacrament was stolen from the Adoration Chapel of my former parish. It happened on the eve of the parish fiesta. I could not understand how the theft took place. There was a security guard on duty and the Blessed Sacrament was kept in a glass case which was under lock and key. Apparently, the one who had custody of the blessed Sacrament forgot to lock the case. During my pastorate, I was the only one who held the key to this glass case. Nobody could open nor close the case except me. I felt that as the pastor, I was the one responsible for the security of the Blessed Sacrament.

Throughout the day, there was nothing in the social networks about the theft. Instead, I found the pastor posting picture of the parish community eating a banquet during the parish fiesta. He even posted that the bands kept playing and the food kept coming. It was as if nothing happened. The fiesta had to go on.

I told this story to the priest who is a guest of our parish. He looked at me intently as I told the story. Then, he said: "It is like a birthday celebrant being kidnapped and yet the party has to  push through because the preparations were already made."

For the life of me, I could not understand how a parish community could still celebrate the parish fiesta on the day immediately after the desecration took place. Should not an atmosphere of sorrow and penitence take over the festivities? "The Lord has been taken away. We do not know where they have placed him." "When the Bridegroom is taken from them, it is then that they will fast."

I am sad also about the fact that the International Eucharistic Congress has just taken place and we were part of it. I thought that the International Eucharistic Congress was supposed to ignite fervor in our Eucharistic devotion. Then, why this indifference to the desecration? Why is it that it seems that the theft never took place?

In one of my former assignments, I was called to anoint a dying person during Christmas time. I had barely finished the confection of the sacrament when the relatives around the death bed started to wil. She died at that moment. Then, I saw two toddlers approaching the Christmas Tree. They turned off the Christmas lights and started taking down the decorations. The children understood. Grandma just passed away. It was definitely not time to rejoice over the holidays.

If these children were sensitive enough over the impropriety of merrymaking during a time of grief, why can't we have that same sensitivity? Have we lost our faith in the Real Presence? Do we no longer believe that the one that got desecrated was the Body of our Lord?

To me, the issue is very simple: The Lord has been taken away! Let us be sad because we do not know where they have placed him!

The Temple of God is Holy

Praised be Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!

The Lord Jesus was greatly displeased when he saw the merchants who sold animals for sacrifice and the money changers in the temple area. So displeased was he that he made a whip out of cords and drove away the merchants with their animals and overturned the tables of the money changers. This part of the life of Christ is called the cleansing of the temple. The Lord cleansed the temple of everything which does not belong to it. Consumed by zeal for the house of God, Jesus cleansed the temple of the things that hid its real identity. For many people, the temple was the place they fulfilled their religious obligations. For others, it was a venue for trade and profit, literally a marketplace. But for Christ, the temple was the House of his Father: “Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” Jesus loved the temple on account of the One who dwelt there: his heavenly Father. When he was a young 12 year old boy, unknown to Mary and Joseph, Jesus remained in the temple because “I have to go about doing my Father’s business.” Thus, by cleansing the temple of the merchants and moneychangers, Jesus showed all people that the real splendor of the temple is not in the precious stones that adorned its walls. The real splendor of the temple is its holiness which is derived from the One who dwells in it: God himself. “The temple of God is holy,” said St. Paul in the 2^nd reading.

This is what it means when we celebrate the consecration of a temple. When a temple is consecrated, it becomes a building set apart exclusively for divine service. To consecrate a temple is to offer a building to the Lord. Thus, the temple becomes holy because the God who dwells in it is holy. When we say that God is holy, we mean that God is unlike any of his creatures. Thus, when we say that the temple of God is holy, we mean that this building is unlike any other buildings. This is not a place for socials. We do not come here to meet people. We do not come here to meet the priest. We come here to meet the Lord and to enter into communion with him. Thus, at the beginning of the Mass, we are greeted with: the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you!

In this temple, the center of everybody’s attention is the Lord. The object of worship done in this place is the Lord. The orientation of this building and everyone who enters here is the presence of the Lord. Here, we cease looking at ourselves. Here, we cease looking at one another. Here, we look at the Lord who in turn, looks at us. Here, we do not talk to ourselves. Here, we do not converse with each other. Here, we engage in a loving conversation with the Lord. This loving conversation is called “prayer.” Thus, as the Lord Jesus purified the temple of everything that does not belong to God, so also we must purify this temple of everything that hinders us from being absolutely oriented to the presence of God. We must rid ourselves of everything that defiles the holiness of this house of God: all thoughts, conversations, and behaviors that do not speak of God nor reflect the holiness of the Lord. Unfortunately, we behave only between the start of the Mass and its end. Outside the Mass, we move about in this church as if it were an ordinary building. If the priest is not looking, we act as if we ignore the abiding presence of the Lord in this place. We talk and talk and talk as if the owner of this house were not here. And remember, the owner of this house is not the priest. Nor are the people who built this temple. Because this place is consecrated to the Lord, it now belongs to the Lord. Let us keep it this way. Perhaps, we should always listen to the word of the Lord as being addressed to us: “Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.” Let us be consumed by zeal for the house of the Lord. The temple of God us holy! 

Jesus, I trust in you! O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

Should we resist the precious and the sublime?

Father Z's comment on the red shoes and mozetta reflects the true humility which is demanded of the priest who should see the honorific gestures not as accorded to his person but rather to Christ in whose person he comes.

The seeming simplification of vestments and anything about the rites which Pope Francis prefers is really sending the wrong signal that the Church of the poor must have poor liturgy! I now hear people saying that the Church must veer away from its high church liturgies and perform low church rites in order to be more relevant, and even more "people-friendly". I find it disturbing that the liturgy is once again being regarded as a theater performance wherein we should look poor in order to appeal to the masses. In the present political season in the Philippines, I notice that political candidates no longer have themselves photographed in the formal barong tagalog wear but in t shirts and blue jeans. A politician (born again fundamentalist) used to put the title "bishop" before his name. Now he reverts to being called "brother". Are these for real???

Unfortunately, everybody wants to ride the "simplicity" band wagon on account of the new Pope. However, everybody seems to forget that sacred ministers are not actors who pretend to be poor in order to be relevant. Sacred ministers are, in reality, "sacramental signs" of Christ, who is seated at the right hand of the Father. We come in the name of Christ. We come in the person of Christ. In the Sacred Liturgy, the priest is Christ and Christ is the priest. The priest must have enough humility to be able to accept the fact that he is no longer his own.

I find Fr. Z's reflection very relevant to the present issue:

"The Catholic priest is simultaneously the victim offered on the altar.  All the older, traditional ceremonies of the Roman Rite underscore this foundational dimension of the Mass. If we don’t see that relationship of priest, altar, and victim in every Holy Mass, then the way Mass has been celebrated has failed.  If we don’t look for that relationship, then we are not really Catholic.  Mass is Calvary.

The use of beautiful marble in the church building, precious fabrics and metals for vestments and vessels, music that requires true art and skill to perform, ritual gestures which to worldly eyes seem to be the stuff of bygone eras of royals and the like, all underscore the fact that step by step during Holy Mass the priest is being readied for the sacrifice, which – mysteriously – he himself performs.

Back when I resisted the liturgical kissing of my hand when being handed a chain, spoon or chalice, I had made the mistake of imagining myself to be more humble by that resistance.  That was a mistake.  Ironically, my resistance to those gestures turned the gestures into being about me.  Submission to the gestures, on the other hand, erases the priest’s own person and helps him to be what he needs to be in that moment: priest, victim, alter Christus.   The trappings, the rubrics, the gestures erase the priest’s poor person.  Resisting these things runs the risk of making them all about the priest again.

In a sense, I had made the objection of Judas about the precious nard which the woman brought to the Lord.  Jesus responded that the precious stuff should be kept for His Body, which was to be sacrificed.  People who object that we should have only poor liturgy are falling into the argument of Judas.  We must submit to the precious and sublime in recognition of the truth of what is going on.   To pit the sublime and complex and precious and beautiful against the low, simple and humble is schizophrenic and not Catholic."

They are not called Acts of God for Nothing!

We have just come from remembering the tragedy of the storm Ondoy when another powerful storm Pedring hit us. The winds were so strong that we witnessed waves as high as coconut trees hitting the sea walls of Manila Bay and thus causing the flooding of Roxas Boulevard. Until now, people in Bulacan and elsewhere in the north are suffering on account of floods and yet, they have to endure another storm Quiel. Let us pray for them and also come to their aid.

Such destruction caused by an act of God may truly be a reflection of what the Prophet Isaiah said: “Now I will let you know what I mean to do with my vineyard: take away its hedge, give it to grazing, break down its wall, let it be trampled! Yes, I will make it a ruin, it shall not be pruned or hoed, but overgrown with thorns and briers; I will command the clouds not to send rain upon it.” In the parable today, the Lord said, “He will put these wretched men to a wretched death…” Why such anger? Why such destruction? It is because in spite of what the Lord has done for his vineyard, he did not receive any fruit from it: He planted the vineyard, spaded it, cleared it of stones and planted the choicest vines. “What more is there to do for my vineyard that I had not done?”

We have been talking about vineyards for the past 3 Sundays. And everytime, we hear the command to go and work in it. Hired workers, sons, tenants – we all work in the Lord’s vineyard. And as in the first reading and the Gospel parable, the Lord seeks the fruits of his vineyard, he shall also ask from us the same. What fruits will we show him? Will we be able to show him “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious”? Will we offer him fruit that is excellent and worthy of praise? Or will we yield him wild grapes? Or will we yield him nothing at all?

Perhaps, the breaking of the sea walls should be a warning to us. After all, did not the Lord say: “I will break itsw walls”? In all the destruction of nature happening around us, we should see more than just climate change or global warming. We should see them as messages coming from God. After all, these are not called “acts of God’ for nothing! These acts of God should make us reflect about the fruits that we bear…Are they commensurate to all the graces we have received from God? “Think about these things” The Lord has chosen us and therefore he expects something from us. He has chosen us to bear fruit that will last. Let us return to the Lord and seek his mercy. Let us not reject the Son of God. The Lord refers to Himself as the Stone rejected by the builders which became the cornerstone. take away the capstone and the structure collapses. St. Paul speaks of Christ as the One who holds all things together in Himself. Delete Him from the picture and everything else collapses because no one will hold all these together. Therefore, let us not reject the Son of God. Let us not reject his servants. Let us return to what we have learned and received and heard and seen in Christ so that the God of peace will again be with us.

Our Lady of La Sallete on the negligence of the Sunday Obligation and Blasphemy

on September 19, 1846, the Blessed Virgin appeared to two shepherd children Maximin and Melanie. She appeared with profuse tears falling from her eyes because of a grave message she brought mankind:

"If my people do not obey, I shall be compelled to loose my Son's arm. It is so heavy that I can no longer restrain it.

"How long have I suffered for you! If my Son is not to abandon you, I am obliged to entreat Him without ceasing. But you take no heed of that. No matter how well you pray in the future, no matter how well you act, you will never be able to make up to me what I have endured on your behalf.

"I have given you six days to work. The seventh I have reserved for myself, yet no one will give it to me. This is what causes the weight of my Son's arm to be so crushing.

"The cart drivers cannot swear without bringing in my Son's Name. These are the two things which make my Son's arms so heavy."

"...Do you say your prayers well, my children?

"Ah! my children, it is very important to do so, at night and in the morning. When you don't have time, at least say an 'Our Father' and a 'Hail Mary,' and when you can, say more.

"Only a few rather old women go to Mass in the summer. Everyone else works every Sunday all summer long, And in winter, when they don't know what else to do, they go to Mass only to scoff at religion. During Lent, they go to the butcher shop like dogs."

Kneeling no more?

Yesterday, I visited the seminary I studied in and I decided to say a prayer in the big chapel. The seminarians were just about to pray the Midday Prayer for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross. I observed one thing which disturbed me...the seminarians did not kneel at any point of the prayer. They sat through the hymn (we said it standing) and the psalms and reading. They stood for the collect and then, for the Angelus (In our time, we knelt during the Angelus during weekdays and stood for it during Sundays.) Afterwards, at the end of the prayer, some simply left while the others sat for some silent prayer. I did not see anyone kneel.

In the evening, I shared this with some members of the exorcism team. One of them said that when a seminarian kneels in prayer, he is oftentimes judged as a showoff! I am disturbed at this prevailing culture in the seminary. Now I am not at all surprised that many priests are reluctant to make acts of reverence. Perhaps, they do not like to look too pious? But then, aren't priests supposed to be pious? Shouldn't acts of reverence (like kneeling) be second nature to them? How can priests lead the faithful in acts of piety if they themselves are not pious?

The Belgian missionaries then taught us the value of piety. Towards the end of my stay in that seminary, small group Masses in the oratories became more and more fashionable and the big chapel was used less and less. I remember that the oratories did not encourage kneeling as these were in the amphitheater style. Perhaps kneeling became less fashionable also to the point that this is now seen as a sign of religious hypocrisy.

But we should kneel before the Lord. "So that at Jesus' Name, every knee should bend in the heavens, on the earth, and under the earth..." so would St. Paul say. Man becomes most a man when he kneels before his Creator!

On the devil's hatred for sacred images

Abbot Theodore Aeliotes told of a holy hermit on the Mount of Olives, who was much troubled by the demon of fornication. One day when he was sorely tempted, the old man began to complain bitterly. "When will you let me alone?" he said to the devil "be gone from me! you and I have grown old together." The devil appeared to him, saying, "Swear to me that you will keep what I am about to tell you to yourself, and I will not trouble you any longer." And the old man swore it. Then the devil said to him, "Do not worship this image, and I will not harass you." The image in question represented Our Lady, the holy Mother of God, bearing in her arms our Lord Jesus Christ. You see what those who forbid the worship of images hate in reality, and whose instruments they are. The demon of fornication strove to prevent the worship of Our Lady's image rather than to tempt the old man to impurity. He knew that the former evil was greater than fornication.

St. John Damascene, Apologia against those who decry holy images.

On Profaning Sacred Images

EVERY one must recognise that a man who attempts to dishonour an image which has been set up for the glory and remembrance of Christ, of His holy Mother, or one of his saints, is an enemy of Christ, of His holy Mother, and the saints. It is also set up to shame the devil and his crew, out of love and zeal for God. The man who refuses to give this image due, though not divine, honour, is an upholder of the devil and his demon host, showing by his act grief that God and the saints are honoured and glorified, and the devil put to shame. The image is a canticle and manifestation and monument to the memory of those who have fought bravely and won the victory to the shame and confusion of the vanquished. I have often seen lovers gazing at the loved one's garment, and embracing it with eyes and mouth as if it was himself. We must give his due to every man, St Paul says "Honour to whom honour: to the king as excelling: or to governors as sent by him," (Rom. 13.7) to each according to the measure of his dignity.

St. John Damascene, Apologia against those who decry holy images.

Act of Reparation

Crucifixion by Joey Velasco

The Cultural Center of the Philippines closed the sacrilegious exhibit referred to in the former post. Now, we need to make reparation for the dishonor to which our Lord and his Blessed Mother were subjected!

An Act of Reparation

O Jesus, my Savior and Redeemer, Son of the living God. behold we kneel before Thee and offer Thee our reparation; we would make amends for all the blasphemies uttered against Thy holy Name, for all the injuries done to Thee in the Blessed Sacrament, for all the irreverence shown towards Thine immaculate Virgin Mother, for all the calumnies and slanders spoken against Thy spouse, the holy Catholic and Roman Church. O Jesus, who hast said: "If you ask the Father anything in My Name, He will give it to you", we pray and beseech Thee for all the brethren who are in danger of sin; shield them from every temptation to fall away from the true faith; save those who are even now standing on the brink of the abyss; t0 all of them give light and knowledge of the truth, courage and strength for the conflict with evil, perseverance in faith and active charity! For this do we pray, most merciful Jesus, in Thy Name, unto God the Father, with whom Thou livest and reignest in the unity of the Holy Ghost world without end. Amen.

The Raccolta, 100.

Only the devil can think of this!

From the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

The board of the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) on Monday agreed to withdraw an art exhibit that combines religious symbols with phallic objects and which has provoked a heated debate about freedom of expression in the country.

This was disclosed by Ilocos Norte Rep. Imelda Marcos, widow of strongman Ferdinand Marcos and founder of the CCP 40 years ago, in the plenary of the House of Representatives.

The former first lady spoke after hearing the privilege speech of Manila Rep. Amado Bagatsing, who condemned the exhibit as sacrilegious and called for the resignation of the CCP board led by its chair, Raul Sunico.

Critics vandalized the art installation last week by removing a wooden penis from a poster depicting Jesus Christ.

Another sculpture showed a penis hanging from a wooden cross while another portrayed Christ as Mickey Mouse.

Mideo Cruz, who crafted the pieces, said the phallic objects were symbols of power.

Marcos said she examined the exhibit of images and figurines of saints and Jesus Christ titled “Kulo” by a group of 30 artists from the University of Sto. Tomas.

She said she went to the CCP in the morning after receiving a letter from the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines expressing shock at the exhibit and seeking her intercession in stopping it.

“It was a shameful exhibit, especially so since it was placed in the Cultural Center of the Philippines. We built that to be the sanctuary of the Filipino soul and a monument to the Filipino spirit,” Marcos said.

She said the flag at the CCP symbolized “KKK”—katotohanan, kabutihan and kagandahan—or “the true, the good and the beautiful.”

“After seeing the exhibit I was really shocked because it was not only ugly, it was not true, it was not at all beautiful because there were statues and pictures of saints and Christ with horns and with his penis up and it was really a desecration of a spiritual symbol for Catholics,” Marcos said.

“In fact, even (former) President Marcos had (been depicted with) several penises. But this is the CCP, the sanctuary of the Filipino spirit and a monument of the Filipino soul. This is not at all right. This is ugly and, above all, a desecration of a sacred symbol,” she said.

Marcos said she immediately called Sunico and asked him to take down the exhibit and also spoke with other board members on the phone to ask them to close the exhibit.

“I think I was able to convince the CCP board. The majority of them had decided that they will withdraw and take out the exhibit. It should never happen again,” Marcos said.

In his speech, Bagatsing said he also went to the CPP on Monday but was not able to see the exhibit as it was closed on Monday.

He said the organizations that bestowed awards on Cruz should reconsider and withdraw the awards.

“Where in the world can you see the images of Jesus Christ with a penis? This is sacrilegious. It’s a very obscene exhibit. I don’t think they can call this art. There is a difference between art and insanity,” Bagatsing said.

“Only a sick mind can do this. Only a devil can think of that,” he said later.

Bagatsing filed a resolution that called on the CCP board to resign for allowing “the distasteful and sacrilegious” exhibit.


CCP shuts down controversial exhibit on Imelda Marcos’s prodding

Benedict XVI on Liturgical Creativity

" (Liturgy) is not about our doing something, about our demonstrating our creativity, in other words, about displaying everything we can do. Liturgy is precisely not a show, a piece of theater, a spectacle. Rather it gets its life from the Other. This has to become evident, too. This is why the fact that the ecclesial form has been given in advance is so important. It can be reformed in matters of detail, but it cannot be reinvented every time by the community. It is not a question, as I said, of self-production. The point is to go out of and beyond ourselves, to give ourselves to be touched by Him."

Benedict XVI, Light of the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald, 156.

On the New Italian churches

Sandro Magister has this article on Modern Church Architecture in Italy http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1346722?eng=y

ROME, February 14, 2011 – The three images juxtaposed above depict a detail of the wooden door of the Roman basilica of Saint Sabina, from the 5th century; the interior of the church of Saint Stephen in the Round in Rome, also from the 5th century; and the design of a church inaugurated in Milan in 1981, the parish of God the Father.

The question must be asked: are modern buildings like the third one depicted above in continuity or in rupture with the architectural, liturgical, and theological tradition of the Church?

Various modern churches are constructed in the form of a circle. Just as it is the circle that characterizes the two ancient examples of sacred art reproduced above. But is this enough to guarantee continuity with tradition?

Or are aesthetic criteria sufficient to judge the quality of a new church?

At this start of the new year, a controversy over this has exploded in Rome and Italy. And not only among the specialists. The newspaper of the Holy See, "L'Osservatore Romano," has entered the fray, and on several occasions has severely criticized some of the most famous examples of new sacred architecture sponsored by the Italian episcopate.

*

It was started by Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the pontifical council for culture, with a "lectio magistralis" at the architecture faculty of the University of Rome "La Sapienza," reproduced in its entirety in the January 17-18 issue of the Vatican newspaper.

Ravasi came out swinging against those modern churches "in which we find ourselves lost as in a conference hall, distracted as in a sports arena, packed in as at a tennis court, degraded as in a pretentious and vulgar house."

No names. But on January 20, again in "L'Osservatore Romano," the architect Paolo Portoghesi took direct aim at the three churches that had won the national contest announced by the Italian episcopal conference in 2000, built in Foligno by Massimiliano Fuksas, in Catanzaro by Alessandro Pizzolato, and in Modena by Mauro Galantino.

Portoghesi is himself a world-famous "superstar": the Grand Mosque of Rome is one of his designs. For some time he has criticized some of the new churches built by trendy architects and praised by the hierarchy. The most famous and talked about of these include the church built by Renzo Piano in San Giovanni Rotondo, over the tomb of Padre Pio, and the one built by Richard Meier in the Roman neighborhood of Tor Tre Teste.

This time, in "L'Osservatore Romano," Portoghesi mainly goes after the church of Jesus the Redeemer in Modena, designed by Galantino. He acknowledges its aesthetic virtues, its harmony of form, its conceptual cleanness. He also acknowledges the architect's intention to "give more dynamism to the liturgical event."

But then he asks: "Where are the sacred signs that make a church recognizable?" On the outside – he observes – there are none, except for the bells, "which, however, could also be found in a city hall." While on the inside, "the iconological role is assigned to a 'garden of olives' set up in a little enclosure behind the altar, and to the 'waters of the Jordan' reduced to a little trough of standing water hemmed in between two walls and ending at the baptistry."

But the worst, in Portoghesi's view, appears during the celebration of the Mass:

"The community of the faithful is divided into two sections facing each other, and in the middle a big empty space with the altar and the ambo at opposite ends. The two sections facing each other and the wandering of the celebrants between the two ends threaten not only the traditional unity of the praying community, but also what was the great achievement of Vatican Council II, the image of the assembly as the people of God on its journey. Why look at each other? Why not look together toward the fundamental places of the liturgy and the image of Christ? Why are the places of the liturgy, the altar and the ambo, on opposite ends instead of being together? Trapped in the pews, divided into sectors like the cohorts of an army, the faithful are forced, while remaining immobile, to turn their heads to the right, then to the left. The figure of the Crucifix is placed on the side of the altar, in correspondence with the section on the left, with the inevitable result that many of the faithful cannot see it without craning their necks."

Portoghesi quotes Benedict XVI, and then continues:

"It is to be hoped that these timely statements from the chair of Saint Peter will make liturgists and architects understand that re-evangelization also passes through the churches with a small 'c', and indeed requires the creative effort of innovation, but also an attentive consideration of tradition, which has always been not mere conservation, but the handing down of a heritage to be brought to fruition."

And he concludes:

"The new church of Modena is a glaring demonstration of the fact that the aesthetic quality of the architecture is not enough to make a space a true church, a place in which the faithful may be helped to feel like living stones of a temple of which Christ is the cornerstone."

*

These criticisms were answered, in "Corriere della Sera" on February 8, by the architect Galantino and Bishop Ernesto Mandara, responsible for new churches in the diocese of Rome.

Galantino defended his architectural decisions, maintaining that he wanted to arrange the faithful "as around a table, conceptually reconstructing the last supper." And he recalled that he had developed his reflections in the 1980's in Milan, with Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini.

(An aside. The Milanese church in the illustration at the top of this page is one of the products of that climate. Planned by the architects Giancarlo Ragazzi and Giuseppe Marvelli, it was expressly conceived as "a place of encounter and prayer for the believers of all religions," devoid of specific signs both on the outside and on the inside. Movable walls can divide the interior into three compartments: the middle one for Catholic rites, and the two sides intended for Jews and Muslims. The current pastor is laboriously restoring the church to entirely Catholic use, with two crosses on the outside, with stained glass and Christian images on the inside, and with a large Christ on the cross above the altar.)

Bishop Mandara also defended his actions and those of the Italian episcopal conference:

"Probably if we look at the past we find examples of unsuccessful buildings that lend support to Cardinal Ravasi, but I am deeply satisfied with the results of recent years. The churches that have been built express very well both the sense of the sacred and that of hospitality."

On February 9, "L'Osservatore Romano" reported both of the statements of Galantino and Mandara. But it also gave another opportunity to Portoghesi, who said:

"After the Council, there were many attempts to leap forward, in various directions. The church has lost its specificity, it has become a building like the others. But recognizability is a fundamental reality, a stage of that re-Christianization of the West of which the pope speaks. As for the orientation of liturgical prayer, the people of God on its journey toward salvation cannot be static, it moves in a direction; the ideal would be to orient the church to the east, where the sun rises. We must not be afraid of that modernity which the Church itself has contributed to creating, every generation has the duty of reinterpreting the content of the past, but considering tradition as an element of strength to draw upon."

Not only that. On February 9 and the following day, "L'Osservatore Romano" returned to the issue with two erudite contributions from two experts, both intended to demonstrate the distinctive characteristics of the traditional architecture of Christian churches.

*

The first of the two statements is by Maria Antonietta Crippa, a professor of architecture at the Policlinico di Milano.

It shows how the preeminence given by Christian architecture to churches in the form of a Latin cross is inspired both by the classical period (Vitruvius, with the analogy between the proportions of the body and of the temple) and above all by the vision of the Church as the body of Christ, and of Christ crucified.

But together with the square, the circle also has a place in this architectural tradition. According to the medieval authors, the Christian churches "have the form of a cross to show that the Christian people are crucified to the world; or of a circle to symbolize eternity."

Or even of a cross and a circle at the same time. As happened in the 16th century with the prolongation of the nave of the new basilica of Saint Peter, originally with central symmetry in Michelangelo's design.

*

The second and even more important contribution, in "L'Osservatore Romano" on February 10, is from Timothy Verdon, an American art historian and priest, a professor at Princeton and director of the office for sacred art of the archdiocese of Florence.

His article is reproduced in its entirety below. And it shows how the first great churches in Rome were built, in the 4th century, precisely by adapting for Christian use two models of classical architecture: the longitudinal one of the basilica and the circular one, with central symmetry.

In Jerusalem, the church of the Holy Sepulcher built by the emperor Constantine combines both models. But also in Rome, the first great church with central symmetry, that of Saint Stephen in the Round from the 5th century – the interior of which can be seen in the illustration at the top of this page – rises from a huge rectangular courtyard.

In any case, the churches with central symmetry are not devoid of decoration, much less do they make the assembly of the faithful fold back on itself. The faithful enter them as on a path of initiation, up to the column of light that is at the center of the building and is Christ "lux mundi."

That Christ who in the contemporaneous door of Saint Sabina – see the illustration – appears at the center of the celestial circle and receives the "oriented" prayer of the woman below him, the Church crowned as his bride.

This is the great architectural, liturgical, and theological tradition of the Christian churches. Of yesterday, today, and forever.

When Religious Festivals Deteriorate

Another interesting article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

What is wrong with Dinagyang? Ask Edwin Duero - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos


"'The religiosity of the festival has long been in decrescendo,' he says. 'Just look at how they handle the image of the Santo Niño in their performances. May ginanunu sa siya, sa taming, sa bola, sa mais, sa bangkaw; bisan halu nagalu-ad sang Santo Niño [Some thrust it to the chair, to the shield, to the football, to the ear of corn, to the spear; even the monitor lizard is spitting a Santo Niño icon]—just because it’s a requirement of the choreography.'

His suggestion to give the Holy Child its pride of place—such as holding a procession bearing the image from church to church, or mounting an exhibit of antique Santo Niño icons—has been ignored by organizers.

To see how commercialization and tourism have secularized the Queen Festival of the Philippines and pushed its original religious devotion down the drain, one only has to listen to what the merrymakers are shouting the loudest in the streets. While they are shouting 'Viva Señor Santo Niño!' in the Ati-atihan and 'Pit Señor!' in the Sinulog, in the Dinagyang it is 'Hala bira!'

Protest in the Cathedral

A tourist guide, dressed as Jose Rizal, the national hero of the Philippines, entered the Manila Cathedral in the middle of a religious service. In the presence of the Apostolic Nuncio, the Cardinal Archbishop of Manila, and the other bishops and clergy, we walks up to the sanctuary with a placard with the name "Damaso" written on it. (Padre Damaso was the name of the notorious friar in Rizal's "Noli me Tangere") He shouted in protest against the Church's stand on the Reproductive Health bill. He was incarcerated for "offending religious feelings."

What really concerns me is that so many people in cyberspace and in media expressed their support for what Celdran did. They did not take offense at the fact that he violated sacred space. What he did was offensive not only because he embarrassed the members of the religious hierarchy present. It was offensive because he did not respect the sanctity of God's temple in which the Blessed Sacrament is in the tabernacle. But many (Catholics included) did not take offense. I could not understand why people would take offense at a pastor's threat to burn the Koran and find the desecration of a religious service in the Cathedral "heroic." In fact, in as much as the followers of Islam are openly against contraceptives, will Mr. Celdran take his protest into a mosque during a Friday worship service - and will he be hailed as "heroic"?

We could not help but see this coming: this religious indifference towards an obvious sacrilege. The faithful have been accustomed to Liturgy that is entertainment. We readily admit dancers and actors in our sanctuary. How could the theatrics of this protester be any different? If the liturgy has deteriorated into entertainment or into an arena to air our political sentiments, people are bound to lose any sense of propriety (to say the least) about liturgical services and sacred places. If our churches look like and function as multipurpose halls, if the tabernacle has lost its prominent place in the churches, then people are bound to treat our temples like ordinary buildings. I am sure that Celdran, in his walking tours of Intramuros, would readily enter San Agustin Church and speak at the top of his voice to his clients but he would be more cautious in entering the Golden Mosque in Quiapo. Surely, he will take off his shoes and speak in a low voice. How strange! And stranger still is the fact that many (Catholics included) would not have sensed the difference. The loss of the sense of the sacred is taking its toll.

A Description of our Times?

As early as 1832, Pope Gregory XVI was already sounding the alarm about the loss of the sense of the sacred which he attributes to liberalism. Looking at this document, we can see a clear description of our present times:

"We speak of the things which you see with your own eyes, which We both bemoan. Depravity exults; science is imprudent; liberty, dissolute. The holiness of the sacred is despised; the majesty of divine worship is not only disapproved by evil men but defiled and held up to ridicule. Hence sound doctrine is perverted and errors of all kinds spread boldly. The laws of the sacred, the rights, institutions and discipline - none are safe from the audacity of those speaking evil. Our Roman See is harassed violently and the bonds of unity are daily loosened and severed. The divine authority of the Church is opposed and her rights shorn off. She is subjected to human reason and with the greatest injustice exposed to the hatred of the people and reduced to vile servitude. The obedience due bishops is denied and their rights trampled underfoot. Furthermore, academies and schools resound with new,monstrous opinions, which openly attack the Catholic Faith; this horrible and nefarious war is openly and even publicly waged. Thus, by institutions and by the example of teachers, the minds of the youth are corruptedand a tremendous blow is dealt to religion and the perversion of morals is spread. So the restraints of religion are thrown off, by which alone kingdoms stand. We see the destruction of public order, the fall of principalities and the overturning of all legitimate power approaching. Indeed this great mass of calamities had its inception in the heretical societies and sects in which all that is sacrilegious, infamous and blasphemous has gathered as bilge water in a ship's hold, a congealed mass of all filth." (Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 15 August 1832, 5.)

Fr. Trigilio vs. Fr. Pledger

Father Trigilio does it again! Amen Father!

'Hello, wake up and smell the coffee! There is a reason why the folk Mass crowd is getting older and fewer. Young and middle-aged faithful grew up under the pastoral leadership of Pope John Paul the Great. Latin was no longer a dead or secret language. Reverence is a key component to sacred liturgy. Pedestrian services cannot compete with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Whether ordinary form or extraordinary, both are equally valid and licit and both serve the spiritual needs of those who attend them. The 'look at your neighbor' theater-in-the-round modern monstrosities posing as churches are nothing more than banal self-serve ego worship. They emphasize the immanent while the authentic churches focus on the transcendent.'

I often tell my parishioners that church is the embassy of heaven. When they cross the threshold and enter the House of God, they are on foreign soil. They have passed from the earthly Babylon into the heavenly Jerusalem. This is why stained glass depicting lives of the saints adorns the real churches while clear plain glass allows the alternate worship sites to gawk and glare at the secular world. Gymnasiums are fine for sports but not for divine worship. Sacred liturgy is about God not about man. Religion is required by the cardinal virtue of Justice. We owe God proper adoration and praise. When we pat ourselves on the back, however, it is not religion but entertainment.

Follow this link: The Black Biretta: Father Trigilio takes on 'U.S. Catholic'; Father Pfleger's church of the bizarre#links#links

The Sacred in Church Architecture

I would like to share something I have read about new liturgical architecture:

"The new style of church architecture, which is hardly new in fact, has also been influenced by the idea that what is sacred is produced by man and for man, and has lost all feeling for the sacred as such. The functionalism that is so characteristic of modern architecture, and that has become the first principle of all building, governs the design of churches as well; they are now conceived in a utilitarian spirit which, while keeping their religious use in view, does not exclude other uses either; hence, the so-called multi-purpose churches that are used as places for non-religious meetings, as concert halls, as shelters for those in strike, etc.

"The ideas of adoration, and of the sacred as something especially separated or set apart, are lost in all this. The new architecture treats the sacred as something diffused throughout the whole of reality; and hence any attempt to localize it in church buildings must be abandoned.

"...Whenever this expansion of the sacred beyond the sacred is attempted, the nature of things is violated, yet again, in a relativistic attempt to detect everything in every other thing, and so to equate everything with everything else.

"The desire to extend the sacred unlimitedly, as if there were no inherent contradiction in talking about something as sacred yet in no sense set apart from anything else, runs into particular difficulties in a Catholic context because of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. This states that there can be a uniquely special presence of God, over and above his universal presence throughout his creation. This is the sacramental presence of the God-Man, body and blood, soul and divinity, who enters the space and time of transient creatures only by means of his body, whether in its earthly or glorified state. . . The Eucharist is the thing that is sacred in its very being; from it, all sacred places, times, persons, and actions flow, and to it they all refer. It is only through the Eucharist that the Divine can be localized. Without belief in the Eucharist, a church must logically be regarded as nothing more than a place where people meet for worship and other ritual activities; it can no longer be regarded as the tabernacle of the Holy One whence all sanctification is derived.

"An over emphasis on the merely functional aspects of a church building diminishes one's sense of the sacred. A church is indeed a place where the faithful meet to pray and to take part in the liturgy, but it has a sacred character even when such functions are not being exercised within it; a sacred building, like every other artistic creation of a religious sort, exists in itself as distinct from the use which may subsequently be made of it. Si hi tacuerint, lapides clamabunt ("If these [people] kept silent, the stones would cry out" - Luke 19:40) is a saying applicable to sacred architecture; or as Ronault said, churches ought to me maisons priantes (Houses that pray), not merely places that people use for prayer, but places which themselves pray. This is true of those medieval churches in which an artist has hidden some beautiful carving or painting high up in a remote corner, away from the light, where nobody sees it, but where all by itself it still sings the glory of God for whom it was made; made by an artist content that his own name too should be similarly forgotten, that the name of God alone might be glorified."

R. Amerio, IOTA UNUM: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century, 647-650.