The Walls of a Playground

So this video has been making the rounds on Facebook. Rather unsurprisingly, it's got a lot of positive praise. And hey, there are several moments in the video that really shine through as wonderfully orthodox.

A lot of people tend to fall into the trap of thinking that if something is said with passion and sincerity, it must be true. Which I understand, of course. Passion moves us, speaks to our hearts. But of course, once you really think about it, you realize that it is entirely possible, even probable, to be passionately and sincerely wrong.

"I hate Religion, but I love Jesus". Man, what a statement. And really, it's quite the powerful image, isn't it? Repressed men breaking free of the shackles that bind them, loosing the bonds of slavery to a corrupt institution of greedy oligarchs. Praise the Lord for delivering us from Evil!

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Mt 5:17 (ESV)

...wait, what?

Does Jesus hate Religion? He established a Church, appointed a man to be it's foundational leader, and built up a hierarchy of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. The New Testament clearly records guidelines, rules, even doctrines that were used in this early Church. The early Church Fathers continued this traditional understanding. Pope St. Clement's letter to the church in Corinth, one of the earliest extra-biblical Christian documents we know of, written even before the close of the Apostolic age, details clear rules of Apostolic succession and Hierarchical authority.

But why have Religion? Why have rules and doctrines and restrictive Dogmas? GK Chesterton put it best, I believe:
"Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the pleasure of Paganism. We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff’s edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased."
-Orthodoxy
Chapter 9

So why are we, time and time again, so attracted to the notion of breaking down those walls and exposing our souls to the "naked peril of the precipice"? What is so alluring about the New Age call to arms of "I'm not Religious, I'm Spiritual"?

The foundation of sin is Pride. In many ways, "Pride" in simply another word for sin. So what is Pride, really? Fundamentally it is the act of a person saying "I am like God". Declaring it in our words, our actions, our prayers. Man's Original Sin was the fruit of a temptation to throw off the shackles of naivety. It stands to reason then that the rebellious spirit that infected Adam and Eve would naturally run it's streak through our own souls.

Now, it's safe to say that many have lost sight of Christ through the hazy forest of rules. I'm not arguing that in any way. Are religious people sinners? Of course, we all are. Are religious people selfish, cruel, and often times blind to the Grace of God? Well yes. Again, we ALL are, more often than not.

I've made this point to a number of people in reaction to that video. And usually their response is something along the lines of "Well sure, but he makes some really good points about religion being misused", or "You're probably right, I think he might just need to clarify his stance about how people shouldn't judge other people." Which is all well and good, but for one problem. He's not making those points. That's not his intention, and he doesn't pretend it is. The words he uses are "I hate Religion", "Jesus hates Religion", "Jesus came to abolish Religion", "Religion is the infection", etc.

Make no mistake. I do not presume to judge this man's faith journey. He needs to follow whatever path God has laid out for him. But I would offer him these words of caution:

The comparison of "Religion is man seeking God, Christianity is God seeking man" is a dangerous fallacy. God found us. In fact, God never lost us. He is there, screaming down that He loves us, sacrificing His only Son to highlight that point dramatically. Religion is not man seeking God, but rather man responding to God's love. He wants us to dance with joy, to sing songs of praise, and He has given us the gift of religion, not to bind us but to keep us from falling over the precipice of our own sinful natures and into the dark abyss.

Does God speak Latin?

This blog went live in June of 2010. And here we are, making our first post now in January of 2011. Finally. I guess take from that what you will.

So I don't fully understand the Traditionalist mentality.

I mean, yes, I get it. The Novus Ordo Missae apparently lacks some of the theological beauty of the Latin Mass. I would even agree, in a limited way. Not to say that the vernacular Mass is lacking in theological beauty. Because it's not. The recent translation revisions were probably necessary, and I like them a lot. But if they were never made, it wouldn't really matter.

See, the point of the Mass is worshipful prayer. Eucharistic Adoration. The re-presentation of the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Are the rubrics important? The liturgical norms, the GIRM specifics? The way the words are spoken, and the order in which they are presented? Absolutely. Heck yes.

But let's be honest here. What do you REALLY need for Mass? A Priest, a loaf of wheat bread, and a Bible. Maybe some grape wine as well, but I don't even know of that's totally necessary. Now, I'm not saying that minimization of the liturgy should be the norm, but it makes, I think, an important point.

Words have power. We all know that. But when those words aren't fully understood, that power is stripped or, even worse, redirected in a negative way. Vatican II understood this fundamental truth, and took steps. Now, I'm not a fan of the "Keep the spirit, not the letter" mentality that was applied to many of the vernacular translations(the English in particular), but to reduce the entire council, the new Mass, and every Pope since as invalid or un-Catholic is, in my humble and oft-wrong opinion, not only an extreme and shortsightedly legalistic view, but straight-up sinful.

Plus, their arguments are always filled with silly rationalizations, non sequitur quotes from the Saints, and some impressive verbal gymnastics. Even trying to read some Traditionalist websites is an exercise in frustration. I'm looking at you, Society of St. Pius X.

Does God speak Latin? Well, I guess technically He does. But if He had to have a favorite language my money would be on Hebrew. Maybe Greek, possibly Aramaic.

Or hey, I know. How about Faith? That language of the believing heart that is, in the eyes of a God who not only loves but is Love itself, the most beautiful and passionate translation of the Liturgy there is.