What Has Gotten Into The Drinking Water At Aleteia?

Pewsitter published today two rather dopey articles from them, straight out of "church of nice".  Both of them purport to give "meaningful" (be careful of that word "meaningful" for it is full of subjective gobblygoop) ways of preparing for Easter.  One author shares how his family prepares by turning off electrical conveniences and using only candlelight.  The other talks about "being present".   None of these concepts are bad in and of themselves - but they have nothing to do with the essential truths of Easter.

Laced throughout these two pieces is a theme of "what can we get from Easter".  In fact the second author writes, "I want to taste and touch and feel every moment of this Holy Triduum, this pause in our year, this gift that allows us to celebrate the fact that we have been saved."  Taste? Touch? Feel?  Seems rather sensual, wouldn't you say?  It certainly betrays a focus on subjective experience.  Except for the word "saved" there is no hint whatsoever regarding eternal salvation.

I've no need to tell regular readers what happened.  Christ laid down His life for us to ransom us from the power of sin.  His Precious Blood was shed for our redemption.  He rose from the dead; Scripture says that was a type of "first fruits" of salvation.  Three Sacraments were instituted: Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, Penance.  I'm sure I'm missing other important aspects, but "feeling every moment" and other "smell the flowers" stuff is not on that list.

Let's look at what's not mentioned in these two articles as ways of preparation for Easter - ways that have been promoted by the Church for hundreds of years.

1. Confession.  In the comment section of the second article, one reader does mention it.  It seems he/she wants to remind the author of that.
2. Prayer. For the first author, I wonder if family prayer was more emphasized.
3. Fasting.  There are 40 days during which that should be done, not just the last week.
4. Almsgiving.  How about prayer in front of an abortion mill?

On the surface, what these authors wrote might seem somewhat harmless.  However, if the most one can say about a given object is that "it's harmless", then I'd tend to wonder about any benefit from the same.  I don't think it's harmless at all.  To imply that such "fluffy-puff stuff" ideas are in any way on a par with authentic preparation for or significance of Easter poses serious dangers of obscuring the truth of our salvation.  Yes, we are talking about eternal salvation versus eternal damnation: truths that transcend "nice experiences".

I'd be willing to bet that similar examples of sentimentality exist.  While they may seem rather innocuous, I'd hope that no one would assume that the things suggested therein are in any manner on a par with the Catholic understanding of Lent and Easter.