What happened to Epiphanytide?, or The hypocrisy of the Liturgical Renewal

The public Epiphany of Christ

“One of the weaknesses of the postconciliar liturgical reform can doubtless be traced to the armchair strategy of academics, drawing up things on paper which, in fact, would presuppose years of organic growth. The most blatant example of this is the reform of the Calendar: those responsible simply did not realize how much the various annual feasts had influenced Christian people's relation to time […] they ignored a fundamental law of religious life.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Feast of Faith, 81-82 (published by Ignatius Press).

The Reformed Novus Ordo Calendar is extremely cautious about respecting the principle of the consecration of time – for this reason, there has been great emphasis on celebrating the Liturgy of the Hours at the “canonical hours,” i.e. praying Morning Prayer in the morning and Evening Prayer in the evening. It was this zeal to sanctify the day which lead the Church to explicitly forbid the ancient practice of celebrating Morning Prayer immediately after the Christmas midnight Mass (though it is perfectly acceptable to pray Night Prayer after midnight on any day of the year).

Indeed, this great concern of the now-a-days Church is particularly manifest at Christmas. For example, while Canon Law allows a priest to celebrate three Masses on Christmas day (CIC 951.1), the General Instruction of the Roman Missal clarifies that this permission is given “provided that the Masses are celebrated at their proper times of day” (GIRM 204) – three Masses on Christmas, but they must be at midnight, at dawn, and during the day (we are left to wonder what happens if the papal midnight Mass begins at 10pm).

However, with all this focus on the sanctification of time, the reformed plan of the Novus Ordo calendar simply butchers the season of Christmas – and follows this by the destruction of Epiphanytide.

The Lord has no need of our thanksgiving, and yet...

28^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Luke 17:11-19

Jesus said in reply, “Ten were cleansed, were they not? Where are the other nine? Has none but this foreigner returned to give thanks to God?”

In the account of the cleansing of the ten lepers, of whom only one (the Samaritan) returns to give thanks, our Savior may at first appear to be dejected or hurt that the other nine have not thanked him. What shall we say to this – Is it possible that the Lord of heaven and earth, the King of the universe needs the thanksgiving and worship of man?

God does not rely on his creation

The forth weekday preface states: Lord, “you have no need of our praise, yet our desire to thank you is itself your gift. Our prayer of thanksgiving adds nothing to your greatness but makes us grow in your grace.” We must insist that man’s worship of God does not increase God’s glory absolutely, nor does God require that worship for his own benefit.

Is private property natural?

25^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Luke 16:1-13

“If you are not trustworthy with what belongs to another, who will give you what is yours?”

The Church has given us the parable of the dishonest steward in conjunction with a most challenging portion of the book of the prophet Amos. The prophet condemns those who would take advantage of the poor and who would rather purchase luxuries than assist the poor in their need (Am 8:4-7). From this perspective, our Lord’s parable takes on an aspect of social justice which might not at first be noticed. We are to imitate the steward not in his dishonesty, but in his generosity in forgiving debts and distributing the material goods at our disposal. Moreover, this is the interpretation which many of the Father’s of the Church had given this parable: As the dishonest steward distributed the goods which his master gave him, so too we are to generously distribute to the poor the material goods we have been given by God (cf. Ambrose, Basil, Theopholis, Augustine, Gregory the Great, John Chrysostom, and others).

However, there is a more fundamental question which this parable raises: If the goods we possess are from God and if the Lord calls our material possessions “what belongs to another,” we ask whether there is any room for private property. Is private property natural? Do we have a right to possess material goods as our own? The answer St. Thomas Aquinas (and the Church’s Magisterium following him) gives to this question is most enlightening.

The eternity of hell

Justice the founder of my fabric mov'd:
To rear me was the task of power divine,
Supremest wisdom, primeval love.
Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
All hope abandon, ye who enter here. 

21^st Sunday in Ordinary Time, Luke 13:22-30

After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying, ‘Lord, open the door for us.’ He will say to you in reply, ‘I do not know where you are from. […] Depart from me, all you evildoers!

With these words, Christ reveals to us the eternity of hell – there will be no forgiveness after death for the sinner who has died in unrepentant mortal sin. No plea for mercy will then be heard and none will come to the aid of the damned, but their punishment will last for all eternity and there will be no end to their misery.

What is it that makes hell to be eternal? Is it God’s justice? Does God deny the damned the grace necessary for repentance? Are the wicked so abstinent as to refuse God’s grace? We shall see that the human soul, after death, becomes immutably fixed on either good or evil, such that no change of course is possible – not even God could bring a soul out of hell, there no grace is efficacious!

Like a thief in the night

19^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Luke 12:32-48

“Be sure of this: if the master of the house had known the hour when the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come.”

(Based on the commentary on Matthew xxiv by Cornelius a’ Lapide)

Some in the early Church considered the thief to be Satan. Thus St. Hilary says that the parable of the thief “shows that the devil is very watchful to take from us our goods, and to plot against the houses of our souls, that he may dig through them whilst we are careless, and given up to the sleep of our own devices; and he would pierce through them with the darts of enticements. It behooves us, therefore, to be prepared, because ignorance of the day sharpens the intense solicitude of expectation ever suspended.” However, this does not seem to coincide with what follows, since our Savior compares his coming to that of the thief. Therefore, it is better to say that the thief is a metaphor for Christ in his coming.

Stealing from the poor

18^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Luke 12:13-21

The rich man of this Sunday’s Gospel is blessed with a bountiful harvest. Rather than thanking God for this gift, he hoards the grain in his barns – his heart is possessed by his possessions. At the moment of death, the Lord calls him a fool, for he was not rich in what matters to God.

The Fathers of the Church, and St. Thomas Aquinas following them, see in this parable a strong teaching of social justice. Their teachings have in turn been integrated into the Social Doctrine of the Church. Here we will consider St. Thomas’ exposition of the doctrine as well as several important quotations from the Church Fathers.

The common destination of all goods and right to private property

We must first affirm that man has a right to own private property. All men have a natural right to make use of material goods. According to positive human law, men also have a right to private property – this is necessary for the good order of society and the proper care of the goods themselves, it also serves as a means of restraining greed and inciting toward generosity (a man can give alms only if he has some property of his own).

However, it is equally clear in the Church’s Tradition, as expressed by the Fathers of the Church and magisterial teachings, that the right to private property is subordinate to the universal destination of all goods. That is, the right to private property cannot be extended to the point of depriving others of the basic material necessities of life. Every man has the right to the material necessities of life – when he is deprived of these, while another has excess wealth, a grave injustice has occurred.

The Greatest Vocation

16th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Luke 10:38-42

The episode of Martha and Mary is probably the most well known story of the two women. Moreover, it is also most likely the most well known dinner party our Lord attended (presuming that the wedding feast in Cana was much more than a simple “dinner party”).

The final phrase of the Gospel account – “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.” – led many of the Church Fathers, and also St. Thomas Aquinas, to consider the relation between the active and the contemplative lives.

Martha, of course, represents the active life. Mary, the contemplative life. Studying this narrative, theologians have pondered: What is the greatest vocation? I will here present the answer of St. Thomas Aquinas in condensed form, with some small applications to our own day. (See ST II-II, qq.179-184)

Jesus, The Good Samaritan

15th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Luke 10:25-37

The Parable of the Good Samaritan contains the narrative of salvation history, beginning with the Fall of Adam and continuing through the founding of the Church even until the Second Coming of our Savior and the Day of Judgment.

The following interpretation is based on the Catena Aurea of St. Thomas Aquinas (Luke 10:29-35).

Jesus replied,
"A man fell victim to robbers
as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. 

A man, this refers to Adam (the name means man). Fell victim to robbers, this is the fall of Adam, which was hastened by the temptation of the evil one. Likewise, all who have sinned since Adam, fall to the temptation of Satan and his wicked angels who are robbers. Adam is said to have fallen as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, for Jerusalem is a symbol of paradise, Jericho a symbol of the fallen world. Jerusalem is a sign of sinless-ness and immortality, Jericho signifies mortality and death. Adam first turned away from God, thus he was unable to resist the temptations of the evil one.

What's New About The New Commandment?

5^th Sunday of Easter, John 13:31-33a,34-35

“I give you a new commandment: love one another.” –It may seem that this commandment to love is not new. Even under the Old Law, the Jews were commanded to love God above all (Deut. 6:5) and to love their neighbor as themselves (Lev. 19:18).

There are, in fact, three particular reasons why this commandment is said to be new:

First, because of the newness, the renewal, it produces. This newness is from charity, the charity to which Christ urges us.

Secondly, this commandment is said to be new because of the cause which produces this renewal; and this is a new spirit. There are two spirits: the old and the new. The old spirit is the spirit of slavery; the new is the spirit of love. The first produces slaves; the second, children by adoption. The spirit sets us on fire with love because "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5).

Thirdly, it is a new commandment because of the effect it established, that is, a New Covenant. The difference between the New and the Old Covenant is that between love and fear. Under the Old Covenant, this commandment was observed through fear; under the New Covenant it is observed through love. So this commandment was in the Old Law, not as characteristic of it, but as a preparation for the New Law.

The Good Shepherd Must Be God

4^th Sunday of Easter, John 10:27-30

In these verses our Savior concludes his Good Shepherd discourse in which he as so clearly expressed his immense love for us, and it is most striking that this discourse of love should conclude with our Lord’s strongest affirmation of his divinity: “The Father and I are one.” Reflecting on this passage we see that the Good Shepherd must not be a mere man, but must truly be the omnipotent God.

The parable of the Good Shepherd is meant to prove the great love which Christ Jesus has for us, his faithful ones. He tells us that he will protect us from the wolf, Satan and all evils; that he will call us to the verdant pastures of eternal life; and, what is more, he assures us that under his protection no one can do us any true harm.

“No one can take them out of my hand” — In today’s Gospel he now proves what he had said above about the dignity of his sheep, namely, that no one can snatch them from his hand. His reason is this: “No one can snatch what is in the hand of my Father; but the Father's hand and mine are the same; therefore, no one can snatch what is in my hand.” Precisely because our Shepherd is one with God, because he is God himself and Lord of all, he is our Savior—he is able to save us because his love is all-powerful.

Why Jesus did not walk on water

3^rd Sunday of Easter, John 21:1-19

John 21:4, “When it was already dawn, Jesus was standing on the shore; but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.” –The Lord had walked upon the water before his death upon the Cross, why does he now remain on the shore and not go out to meet the disciples in the boat?

If we consider this episode more closely, we will notice its similarity with another story: that of the call of St. Peter (Luke 5:1-11). At that time, as here after the Resurrection, the Lord stood on the shore and commanded that St. Peter should cast his net over the side. Then, as here, the disciples caught a great multitude of fish and realized that it was the Lord.

Comparing this gospel account of our Lord appearance to the disciples after his Resurrection with these two other accounts (the call of St. Peter and the walking on water) will serve to bring forth its mystical meaning.

The Disciples Caught 153 Fish

The 3^rd Sunday of Easter, John 21:1-19

John 21:11, “So Simon Peter went over and dragged the net ashore full of one hundred fifty-three large fish.” --Many saints and exegetes have wondered; Why does St. John specify that exactly 153 fish were caught? What is the significance of this number?

Indeed, there is great diversity of opinion in this matter, but one thing that all agree on is this: the great catch of fish signifies that salvation is open to all and that the Church will encompass men from every nation, place, class, and time. The Fathers of the Church (and especially St. Augustine) were very interested in numbers, particularly in the various combinations of numbers which make up other numbers. In our consideration of the number 153 there are 5 core numbers to keep in mind: 100, 50, 10, 7, and 3. These numbers were used by the Fathers of the Church to explain the mystical meaning of this text.

The faith of doubting Thomas

We often call him “doubting Thomas,” but if we look more closely at the Gospel account, we might learn something new about the great faith of this holy apostle.

John 20:26-29

Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

St. Thomas the apostle was nick-named Didymus, which means “the twin” and St. Thomas Aquinas offers an interesting explanation of this: the name “twin” could be taking from the apostle’s doubting. Indeed, one who doubts is mid-way between two opinions: while holding to one, he fears that the other might perhaps be true. Thus, the apostle’s mind was as a twin, struggling between two competing ideas—Had Christ risen, or was he dead? (Commentary on John 20.5)

The Passion (II)

Holy Week

“In mortal sadness, in entire forsakenness, in that desolation expressed in the twenty-first Psalm, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ Christ kept perfect mastery over himself, complete abandonment to the divine will, and a profound peace that found expression in his last words.” (Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Love of God and the Cross of Christ)

St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that, while Christ suffered the most intense sorrow and pain in the Passion, he nevertheless experienced also the greatest joy of beatitude trough the beatific vision (ST III, q.46, a.8). Indeed, while it is impossible for a man to be both happy and sorrowful at the same time about the same thing, it is not impossible that one should be happy on one account and sorrowful on another even at the same time.

Moreover, the beatitude of Christ’s soul actually increased the sorrow and pain which he suffered. For Christ was sorrowful at the sins of men and he knew these sins most perfectly through the beatific vision and infused knowledge—thus, upon the Cross, Christ knew each sin which had ever or would ever be committed and he knew who would abandon him and how many would die in mortal sin rather than receive his grace; and all of this caused the greatest sorrow in his soul. Again, the beatitude of Christ’s soul increased the physical pain which he suffered, since his physical senses were most perfect and in no way dulled by sin.

The Passion (I)

Palm Sunday. Luke 22:14-23:56.

A meditation of the Crucifixion, by St. Thomas Aquinas:

Summa Theologicae III, q.46, a.5. Whether Christ endured all sufferings?
Human sufferings may be considered under two aspects. First of all, specifically, and in this way it was not necessary for Christ to endure them all, since many are mutually exclusive, as burning and drowning; for we are dealing now with sufferings inflicted from without, since it was not beseeming for Him to endure those arising from within, such as bodily ailments, as already stated (Q. 14, A. 4). But, speaking generically, He did endure every human suffering. This admits of a threefold acceptance.

First of all, on the part of men: for He endured something from Gentiles and from Jews; from men and from women, as is clear from the women servants who accused Peter. He suffered from the rulers, from their servants and from the mob, according to Ps. 2:1, 2: "Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord and against His Christ." He suffered from friends and acquaintances, as is manifest from Judas betraying and Peter denying Him.

Mercy and Justice

The Fifth Sunday of Lent: John 8:1-11
Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. But early in the morning he arrived again in the temple area, and all the people started coming to him, and he sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

“They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him.”—The scribes and Pharisees thought to accuse him of being opposed to the Law if Christ should forgive the woman, or, if he should order her to be stoned, they would accuse the Lord of being cruel and harsh. But they presumed Christ would forgive her as St. Augustine says, “They saw that he was very gentle; they said therefore among themselves, ‘If he rules that she be let god, he will not observe that righteousness which the Law enjoins. But not to lose his (character for) gentleness, by which he has already won the love of the people, he will say that she ought to be released. And we shall find occasion to accuse him.’ But the Lord in his answer both observed justice and did not forego his gentleness” (Cornelius a’ Lapide, Commentary on John).

Contrition and Confession

Fourth Sunday of Lent: Luke 15:1-3, 11-32

“His son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.’ [But his father said,] ‘Let us celebrate with a feast, because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.’”—By this we see that contrition must lead to confession of sin, which sin is forgiven by divine absolution.

Penance, as a sacrament, is composed of matter and form. The matter of this sacrament is nothing less than the contrition and confession of the penitent (sins being the remote matter). The form is the absolution granted by the priest (ST III, q.84, a.1, ad 2). We will consider the matter supplied by the penitent. In this regard, penance is twofold, external and internal. Internal penance is that by which one grieves for a sin one has committed. As man should always be displeased at having sinned, so man should experience some sorrow for his past sins throughout his whole life, even after they have been sacramentally absolved (ST III, q.84, a.8). This sorrow need not always be in act, but should at least be an habitual sorrow for sin and a resolve to avoid future sin (ST III, q.84, a.9). External penance is that by which a man shows external signs of sorrow for sin, confesses his sins to a priest and makes satisfaction (ST III, q.84, a.8).

The Fear of God

Third Sunday of Lent. Luke 13,1-9.

Some people told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with the blood of their sacrifices. Jesus said to them in reply, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were greater sinners than all other Galileans? By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did! Or those eighteen people who were killed when the tower at Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than everyone else who lived in Jerusalem? By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!” And he told them this parable: “There once was a person who had a fig tree planted in his orchard, and when he came in search of fruit on it but found none, he said to the gardener, ‘For three years now I have come in search of fruit on this fig tree but have found none. So cut it down. Why should it exhaust the soil?’ He said to him in reply, ‘Sir, leave it for this year also, and I shall cultivate the ground around it and fertilize it; it may bear fruit in the future. If not you can cut it down.’”

“But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!”—Hearing of these terrifying events, our Lord uses this occasion to draw his listeners to repentance. He does this through inciting fear in their hearts, lest a similar calamity should befall them; or what is worse, lest, dying in sin, they should be punished with the fires of hell. So, Cornelius a’ Lapide interprets the passage: “Christ made a wise use of this occasion, and drew from it an argument to rouse them to repentance, lest a similar vengeance should fall upon them.” He then adds, “God, then, orders these events for the chastisement and correction of man, that others, seeing their neighbors killed by the fall of a tower or some other sudden accident, may fear lest something similar happen to themselves, and so may repent and reconcile themselves to God, lest they be overwhelmed by His judgments and condemned to Gehenna” (Commentary on Luke).

The Transfiguration of Christ: Part I

Second Sunday of Lent. Luke 9:28b-36.

"Jesus took Peter, John, and James and went up the mountain to pray. While he was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. Peter and his companions had been overcome by sleep, but becoming fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. As they were about to part from him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good that we are here; let us make three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” But he did not know what he was saying. While he was still speaking, a cloud came and cast a shadow over them, and they became frightened when they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my chosen Son; listen to him.” After the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. They fell silent and did not at that time tell anyone what they had seen."

“His face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white.”—This proves the reality of the transfiguration of Christ our Lord.

Objections: 1. It would seem that the transfiguration of Christ’s body was only imaginary and not real. 2. It would seem that this clarity is not the clarity of glory, since Christ’s body was not then made immortal, nor was this clarity permanent.

The Temptation of Christ

First Sunday of Lent. Luke 4: 1-13 Filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the desert for forty days, to be tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they were over he was hungry. The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, One does not live on bread alone.” Then he took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant. The devil said to him, “I shall give to you all this power and glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I may give it to whomever I wish. All this will be yours, if you worship me.” Jesus said to him in reply, “It is written: You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him alone shall you serve.” Then he led him to Jerusalem, made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written: He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you, and: With their hands they will support you,lest you dash your foot against a stone.” Jesus said to him in reply, “It also says, You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.” When the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from him for a time.

Parallel passages: Mt 4,1-11. Mk 1,12-13. (Quotations: Dt 8,3; 6,13; 10,20; Ps 90,11)