Another Troubling Homily From The Pope

Two days ago in his daily homily, Pope Francis made some incredible statements that I think may actually be quite dangerous to those vulnerable to discouragement and depression.  From the Catholic News Agency we read, for example:

• "If, in your relationship with the Lord, you do not feel that He loves you tenderly, you are missing something, you still have not understood what grace is, you have not yet received grace which is this closeness."
• “In history and also in our lives we are tempted to transform grace into a kind of a merchandise, perhaps saying to ourselves something like, ‘I have so much grace,’ or, ‘I have a clean soul, I am graced.’"

There's so much wrong with this I scarcely know where to begin.  But let's start with the word "feel".  There's a difference between "feel" and "believe".  Feeling has to do with emotions, and we know that they aren't entirely under our control at times, thanks to original sin.  Believing, on the other hand, is an act of the will.  The Church teaches that our souls are made in God's image and likeness owing to our intellects and wills, with no mention of emotions.  I'm no philosophical expert, but I believe emotions or feelings are a lower faculty of the human nature and they must be brought into control by acts of wills.  It might be nice from time to time to have favorable feelings regarding our relationship with God; I think these are called "consolations".  However, by no means are their presence or absence any accurate indication of grace in our lives or how close we truly are to God.

Recently it was revealed that Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, after she had understood her call to found the Missionaries of Charity, never again experienced any of these consolations.  She confided this matter only to her spiritual directors.  It was a cross for her, true, but who in their right mind would say she was not "receiving grace"?

Earlier saints experienced similar things.  St. John of the Cross is said to have gone a while without such consolation.  He learned much from it and I believe that was the topic of his work, "Dark Night of the Soul".  His friend, St Teresa of Avila, was once thrown from her horse.  Being a "straight-shooting" talker, she complained to God "if this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few of them."  In the Bible, particularly the Book of Hebrews, we read of the necessity of God's discipline as opposed to consolations.  The lack of feelings can itself be a grace that causes us to love and serve God for who He is, as opposed to the warm-fuzzies that we might enjoy.

The second "bullet" hearkens back to some cracks the Holy Father made last year about traditional Catholics being "pelagian".  I saw his definition of "pelagian" and I'll gladly bear that newly-defined label.  I go to confession every 2-3 weeks.  When I walk out of that confessional, I do say "I have a clean soul, I am graced."  I say that not because I "count merchandise" but because that is what Jesus Christ, through His Church, teaches.  Should I not acknowledge the graces that He procured for me by His Passion, Death and Resurrection?  It is the same thing when I attend Mass and receive Holy Communion.  With that I do say "I have so much grace".  Not to do so would render me an ingrate.

I said in the opening of this post that I believe those words from Thursday to be dangerous to those who are prone to discouragement and even depression.  That is because they suffer from maladies of the emotions.  Were they to rely on their fragile emotions as measures for God's grace and love, as suggested by the words of His Holiness, they would be setting themselves up for spiritual disaster.  Can you just imagine someone, after a life of sin, coming back to the Church and hearing that?  They need to rely on the facts of God's teachings.  If that person goes to Confession and, with all the effort he/she can muster renders a truly honest accounting of their sins, they need to rely on the truth of the priest's absolution that they are once again in a state of grace despite any roller-coaster to which their emotions may be subjecting them.

Our feelings are way too fickle to be any measure of God's love in our lives.  I thank Him for the Sacraments and Traditions of the Church for these are the transmission of God's grace in our lives.

St John Neumann Catholic Church Bulletin - Poor Theology Of The Mass

As you read this post, please have open the bulletin insert in question; it is here, on page 5, right-hand column.  Before I proceed, I voice agreement that our devout assistance at Holy Mass is imperative to our receipt of the graces that are present at Holy Mass.  However, these graces are present owing to the nature of the Mass itself.  No other person present can impede my reception of these graces, provided that I am properly disposed.

First, what is the Mass?  Let's look at the clear, concise answer from the Baltimore Catechism.  That question, by the way, is Question 263 of the Baltimore Catechism.  The answer is - again from that catechism - The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.  Here are more questions and answers from the Baltimore Catechism delving into the nature of the Mass.

Here are some more from EWTN.  Take special note here of Question 360, and part (a) of the answer: "Christ, though invisible, is the principal minister, offering Himself in the Mass.  The priest is the visible and secondary minister, offering Christ in the Mass".  This statement of fact is why this statement from the SJN bulletin is flat-out incorrect: "Mass at St. John Neumann and in any church is the joint effort of all the people in the assembly, not just the priests and special ministers who are, first of all, also members of the assembly. Every member of the parish assembly has a serious responsibility to help make the Mass a life-giving sacramental experience. To the degree that any member of the assembly does not work to make the Mass life-giving, to that degree the sacramental signs fail and the Eucharistic sign becomes less than what it should be."  The rather modern error that seems to be the undercurrent of this paragraph is the error that the roles of clergy and the roles of laity are on a par with regard to the Mass.  That's simply incorrect.  Christ is the primary minister and the priest is the secondary minister.  That's it!  No more "ministers"!  This is why a priest can say a private Mass, by himself.  The presence of laity have absolutely no impact on the sacramental validity of the Mass.  Conversely, no priest means no Mass - no matter how many devout laity are gathered.

I just don't have time to elaborate on all the error that is contained herein.  Suffice it to say that it is absolutely false to equate the role of those who've received the Sacrament of Holy Orders with the role of the laity.  It is NOT our presence that is "the transforming energy of all sacramental celebrations".  A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace (again, from the Baltimore Catechism).  What's with this "transforming energy" new-age talk?

But in going down, we see the lists of ushers, readers, musicians, etc.  "Priest" is thrown in the laundry list, and there's no particular order.  That's simply wrong.  It is the priest who is the minister, acting as alter Christi.  No lector nor greeter can do that.

I agree that one's lack of attention can impact the grace that they are able to receive from Mass.  So too can a faulty understanding of what Mass is.