A Few Photos From the Old Cathedral Museum

The other week I took a few quick photos in the museum attached to the Basilica of Saint Louis, King of France, located in the shadow of the the Gateway Arch.


An old Pontifical.



An old Missal.



Map of the original Diocese of Saint Louis, from 1826 to 1837. This was the beginning of the steamboat era, when French furtrappers and Kentucky frontiersmen traded with Indians who were living free in the West, when missions were dangerous yet fruitful, and when much of the area was uncharted. This was long before the age of the Civil War, railroads, and cowboys.

Meatless Fridays

An ancient tradition of the Church is to abstain from meat on Fridays, and this is still the normative law for the Latin Church. Here is the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

Can. 1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

This is law only for the Latin Rite; Eastern Churches have their own laws regarding this. And as typical, the United States Conference of Bishops has made numerous exceptions (and exceptions of exceptions) in the Spirit of American Exceptionalism!

The American exception is that instead of abstinence from meat on ordinary Fridays, a Catholic can do "a penitential, or even a charitable, practice of their own choosing" gutting the tradition of any meaning whatsoever. But this is typical; we Americans tend not to want to do any penance at all, which is defined as "a voluntary self-punishment inflicted as an outward repentance for having done wrong" (Oxford American Dictionary). We feel as if we don't do any wrong; instead we hope we don't get caught; and we only deserve punishment if we are stupid enough to hire a bad lawyer. The underlying Enlightenment philosophy of the United States has an anthropology that claims that people are morally good and that only society makes us bad; under this system penance and even sin is unthinkable. The substitution of a charitable act is also not useful, since we are to be charitable always, while we are to be penitential only sometimes. So it seems that most American Catholics nowadays typically end up doing nothing on Fridays.

Abstention is an easy penance to remember and it helps bind the community together. But it's surprisingly difficult to do sometimes! I may get up early and have a craving for eggs and bacon (instead of just some bread and juice) but then I realized that it is Friday, and cannot. The same is true if I go out to dinner Friday night: I have to actually think a bit when looking over the menu. Fish is not considered meat, and I used to despise fish, but I've learned to be thankful for even that, and even developed a taste for it, sort of.

During Lent we still have fish fries, and on these days church basements are packed; this is excellent for binding the community together.

Not eating meat is a simple penitential act for most of us. It is a little self-denial that requires a bit of thought and planning to carry out. While denying good things for ourselves is spiritually helpful, it is also a material reminder that some people cannot afford a good diet for themselves. Abstinence is one of many penitential practices that were refined by the desert monastics of the early centuries of the Church, but it just happens to be an easy one to do and remember, especially in community.

Many religions have dietary laws, and many modern philosophies have dietary restrictions that even far exceed the dietary laws of the Old Covenant: think of holistic environmentally- and socially-conscious Vegans, for example.

But Our Lord tells us that what goes in the mouth does not harm our soul, but what comes out of it instead. The Friday Abstinence law is man-made: it is only a custom of men and can be changed by authorities at any time. It is a good custom, a helpful custom, a crucial custom, a symbolic custom, but it is only a changeable discipline and not divine law.

Consider this dilemma: you are a good Catholic who follows the discipline of the Church and follow the general norms of abstaining from meat on Fridays. On a Friday, a very good friend calls you up at the last minute and invites you to dinner party. Your friend has spent a great deal of effort putting this party together, greatly desires your attendance, and has prepared a magnificent meal. You sit down to dinner and in front of you is placed a thick, juicy, prime cut of steak—obviously your friend doesn't remember that you abstain on Fridays. What do you do?

You eat it.

Charity is divine law. It would be exceedingly uncharitable to say that you can't eat the steak that your friend prepared with much difficulty—a meal itself prepared with charity in mind. Even mentioning that you normally observe Fridays as a day of abstinence—and that you are making an exception—could be uncharitable when the party host has obviously put in much effort for your benefit.

If you are hosting a Friday dinner, then by all means serve fish, and even exclusively fish. Proudly uphold the Catholic discipline. But charity is always of highest importance: don't even think of inviting an Orthodox Jew to a party unless he explicitly knows that you are using a caterer who keeps a Kosher kitchen. Dealing with 'political' vegetarians is problematic; if you think that they will chastise other guests for eating meat, prudence would probably say that they shouldn't be invited in the first place, otherwise by all means serve a vegetable entrée just for them. While you must always be charitable, you don't need to be heroically charitable in all cases, especially when this leads to a burden on others.

Dealing with children who become vegetarians can be problematic. Well-meaning young girls, sensitive and loving animals, will often become vegetarians. If you are the parent, then you should lay down the law, but this must be done with prudence. This can be a moment of catechesis: the universal law of sacrifice, my life for yours, Christ on the Cross for us, also holds when eating meat. The animal gives up its life for us, and we should be very thankful to God for giving us this great gift, which we acknowledge by saying Grace. And she can look forward to meatless Fridays.

Always rejecting a bland uniformity, Catholicism recognizes Feast days on the calendar as days of actual feasting, which includes meat, even on Friday.

Sadducees

One of the most silly theories of the New Testament, one that most every educated Christian believes, is that in ancient Israel there were numerous Jewish sects: the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zelots, etc. These are portrayed as being just like the numerous Protestant denominations today, and indeed, this theory is a product of Liberal Historical-Critical thinking. This is ridiculous: there was only one Israel and one Temple, and the sacrifices done there were done for all.

Similarly, one can say that there is no Catholic Church. There are the sects of the Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Monarchists, Traditionalists, Germans, Romans, and so forth. But differing opinions or viewpoints of the Faith do not alter the Faith itself, which is objective, and which we try—more or less—to understand and practice. Some groups just try to understand the Faith more than others.

We know all about the Pharisees. I can fairly be called one sometimes (or even most of the time?). But as our Lord said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." The Pharisees used both scripture and tradition, had a call for universal holiness, and kept the nation of Israel together under extreme persecution. The Pharisees also considered the prophetic and wisdom writings of the Bible to be canonical. They can be fairly criticized for having too much an emphasis on man-made tradition, though, and not directly on the Law of Moses. And they have been severely criticized for delivering Christ to the Romans.

The Sadducees are quite interesting. They only accepted the Pentateuch as canonical, and not the other books that make up our Old Testament. They did not believe in the resurrection or in angels.

The Sadducees didn't believe in Israel, either. They were very close to whatever foreign power that happened to occupy Israel at the time. They encouraged the hellenization of Israel.

Their view of Scripture denied tradition; instead the Sadducees would interpret it according to their own needs. This is precisely the view of the Biblical-Historicists in the Church today: Scripture is seen as a historic document that is only relevant within the context in which is was written. The danger of this viewpoint is that it sees Scripture as irrelevant to the modern day. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that Scripture was universal; careful reason may be needed to interpret it correctly for the modern day, but the chain of tradition was used as a guide.

The religious views of the Sadducees indicated that they had a materialistic philosophy, denying the world of spirit. They were agnostics, which strictly speaking, is the view of a God who is totally unknowable and remote, and who cares nothing of humanity. To them, morality was a personal decision. This is opposed to the view of God as the creator, sustainer, and judge of the world.

By no means were the Sadducees unified; they would often argue among themselves (sometimes violently) and were boorish and rude in social interactions. Their followers were the rich and powerful. The Sadducees were hated by the people.

There are Pharisees in the Church today, but there are Sadducees also. Who in the Church today courts the rich and powerful, seeks endless enculturation, sees Scripture as a mere collection of irrelevant historical documents, and promotes moral relativism and agnosticism?

After the destruction of Israel, the Sadducees disappeared forever; only the Christians and Pharisees survived. But people like the Sadducees have been with us for a long time. The Sophists in ancient Greece have much in common with the Sadducees, and have much in common with contemporary postmodernists.

Traditional Catholics are often dismayed at some of the leadership in the Church. These leaders are just like the Sadducees of times past, more interested in power than the Faith.

The First Week in Ordinary Time -- the Readings from Sirach

After the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, the time following Epiphany has been renamed "Ordinary Time", which sounds to me to be too...ordinary. But the intent was to provide a time of 'ordered' reading in scripture, one chapter following the other in time. Not having an older version of the Divine Office (and lacking knowledge of Latin), I use the current English version, and despite its flaws, it still is a great prayer.

All wisdom comes from the Lord and with him it remains forever.

In the Office of Readings for the first week of Ordinary Time, the First Readings are from the book of Sirach.

Before all things else wisdom was created; and prudent understanding, from eternity.

The book was written by a man named Jesus [not Christ!], but it was the wisdom that he received from his father, Eleazar, who was son of Sirach. Jesus' grandson translated it from its original Hebrew into Greek. Before Vatican II, this book was called "Ecclesiasticus", since it was much used in the Church for catechesis in the moral law. Sadly, this book is unknown outside of ancient Christianity.

It is the Lord; he created her, has seen her and taken note of her.
He has poured her forth upon all his works, upon every living thing according to his bounty; he has lavished her upon his friends.

This is a book about Lady Wisdom; to the ancients of all races, wisdom is a 'she' in the cosmic sense, intuitive and knowing, not in a masculine technological and scientific sense, but instead is a deeper and higher understanding that only comes with age, careful observation of life, and contemplation.

Fear of the Lord is glory and splendor, gladness and a festive crown.
Fear of the Lord warms the heart, giving gladness and joy and length of days.

We often speak of "modern knowledge" and "ancient wisdom", but never "modern wisdom", except in the ironic sense of folly. The most harsh of modernists and postmodernists will even deny the concept of wisdom, since it is irreducible by the scientific method and cannot convince the critical skeptic, who wants to do his own will and not submit to moral authority. "Fear of the Lord" is criticized these days, as being primitive and not in consonance with the concept of the God of Love; but here we learn that the Fear of the Lord is glory, splendor, joy, and gladness! Only the wise, in the ancient sense, could know this.

He who fears the Lord will have an happy end; even on the day of his death he will be blessed.
The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord, which is formed with the faithful in the womb.

Sadly, the moderns have no concept for the Ends of things, nor for causes that pull from ahead instead of just push from behind. The seeds of wisdom are written in human nature, according to the writer; we are not blank slates.

Fullness of wisdom is fear of the Lord; she inebriates men with her fruits.
Her entire house she fills with choice foods, her granaries with her harvest.

Francis Bacon said that knowledge is power and the conquest of nature is the greatest good. But wisdom conquers the man! She is the very provider of good in this world. The use of power requires wisdom, otherwise it is chaos.

Wisdom's garland is fear of the Lord, with blossoms of peace and perfect health.

The pursuit of a society based on scientific rationality caused the twentieth century to wage wars of unprecedented carnage and led to societies filled with misery. The wisdom of the ages was cast out, being irrelevant, not progressive, unscientific, or just old-fashioned or restrictive.

Good and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are from the Lord.

How often do we forget Providence, and trust too much in ourselves.

My son, hold fast to your duty, busy yourself with it, grow old while doing your task.
Admire not how sinners live, but trust in the Lord and wait for his light;
For it is easy with the Lord suddenly, in an instant, to make a poor man rich.
God's blessing is the lot of the just man, and in due time his hopes bear fruit.
Say not: "What do I need? What further pleasure can be mine?"
Say not: "I am independent. What harm can come to me now?"

As a young man, I found the wisdom books and parables of the Bible the most compelling, and even in secular literature, I was drawn to the sayings of the wise. These sayings are not obvious or immediately reasonable, but upon hearing them, I seem to think that I've known them all along, and had only forgotten them.

The day of prosperity makes one forget adversity; the day of adversity makes one forget prosperity.
For it is easy with the Lord on the day of death to repay man according to his deeds.
A moment's affliction brings forgetfulness of past delights; when a man dies, his life is revealed.
Call no man happy before his death, for by how he ends, a man is known.

No one is a saint in this life. Each of life's deeds makes a whole man, and misdeeds can negate good. Why must we moderns judge morality on what feels good? Why have we lost our reason?

"Come to me, all you that yearn for me, and be filled with my fruits;
You will remember me as sweeter than honey, better to have than the honeycomb.
He who eats of me will hunger still; he who drinks of me will thirst for more;
He who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail."

Those who live their lives agonizing over competition and conflict often have a bitter taste in their mouths. They do not have a hunger for these things, but instead have an addiction.

Wisdom, sadly, often comes late. We too often react emotionally, and make demands like a child; we disregard reason, and instead make rationalizations for what we did and what we want to do.

Readings taken from the Liturgy of the Hours, Volume III

Modest Does Not Mean Frumpy

See this posting Trad Chic from Tradico in Radice.

The Little House on the Prairie look isn't very Catholic, but is common among traditional circles. But peasants of time past had fancy Sunday Mass clothing, even if they wore rags during the week.

Fashionable dress among everday people has declined since the early 1960s, reached its bottom during the 1970s, and hasn't come back yet. We seem to be more interested in quantity of clothing rather than quality.