For the last 10 years or so, I’ve been saying a votive office to Our Lady of the Immmaculate Conception on Independence Day (observed), because she is the patroness of our country. It has been a rewarding practive, and I recommend it to others.

Instead of decrying the celebrant’s licit choice of the votive mass in a self-superior tone (it smacks of a latter day version of Luke 18:11-12: “O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of American Catholics–nationalist, violent, unChristian, unreflective and dim-witted–or even like those who celebrate a votive Mass for Independence Day. I know that the Church really wants everyone to celebrate the optional memorial for Elizabeth of Portugal.”), how about simply cautioning celebrants not to turn the votive into something it’s not? Aping Tertullian on this matter is mightily grandiose – and, yes, ideological rather than Christian.

I have very decided views about the America-as-Chosen-Nation heresy. You might find out that I actually agree with you a lot. But I find your aping of Tertullian precisely the gambit most likely to make a mockery of what you supposedly champion.

I was referring to your remark about my “tone.” Of course Tertullian didn’t write about this issue, since the situation itself would have been absurd in his day. Which is precisely my point.

Trying to hijack a celebrant’s choice of licit liturgical options into a ideological death match is quite the trick, though.

Hijacking? No one’s hijacking anything. I find your unwillingness to critically reflect on our ecclesial practices dangerous.

Votive Mass of the Sacred Heart was an option, for first Friday.

And I thought of a Votive Mass of the Blessed Mother, since she is patroness of our country. That would be perfect next year, when the day falls on Saturday.

If Tertullian discussed the celebrant’s choice of optional memorials vs votive masses, I would be surprised. Please provide the citation to his discussion.

Trying to hijack a celebrant’s choice of licit liturgical options into a ideological death match is quite the trick, though. Reminds me of the development of the American national security state. As I said, ideological reactions tend to merely invert the ideology. That’s not Christian, but ideological.

If you think my tone “smells not from Christianity,” try reading some Tertullian.

Cheers,
m

Your self-righteous self-superior tone about those who might rightly remember the national day with the approved votive mass for the day smells not from Christianity but of this world as an inversion of the America-Is-A-Chosen-Nation mentality.

The Missal and its instructions do not elevate an optional memorial above a votive mass for various needs. The celebrant is free to choose.

Your point would be better made if it did not imply that there was something wrong with celebrants exercising their licit choice in this mass with regard to the choice of mass. You went far over what you needed to do to make your point, and thereby obscured meritorious cautions in your point. I call liturgical conservatives out when they do this, and, as Todd knows, I feel honor bound to call out liturgical progressives likewise, however noble the intention.

It’s very easy for the “sides” to imitate each other in ideological zeal. Ideological zeal is not Christian zeal, for it elevates ideas over people.

I assure you, I am not “using” Christianity for anything. My beliefs about the celebration of u.s. civil holidays such as July 4th flow from my faith, not the other way around. In fact, I one held very different views than I do now. It was my faith that changed my politics.

If you have a Lusophone community with a devotion to St Isabel/Elizabeth, be sure to observe the optional memorial.

St Elizabeth’s feast day is not the optional memorial as if the celebration of July 4th is the default. July 4th is an american holiday, and we are a global Church. Independence Day is an optional celebration. The default, this year, is Friday of the 13th Week in Ordinary Time.

If you have a Lusophone community with a devotion to St Isabel/Elizabeth, be sure to observe the optional memorial. After all, isn’t the progressive inclination to hew to cults of saints from the ground up? Insisting on a top-down approach uniquely here to require a memorial where liturgical law doesn’t require it strikes me as anti-progressive (but another great example of how seeming to do something progressive rather undermines other progressive principles).

Outside of that, I’d probably recommend the USCCB’s approved votive approach. Expressing love of, and prayer for, country in the overall context of gratitude to God is a perfectly Catholic Christian thing to do. The Church does not approve an antiseptic approach to dividing church and state because to do so would be to try to antiseptically compartmentalize people, who cannot be objectified that way.