St Alphonsus is a doctor of the Church.
We’re not juxtaposing one saint against another. That would be totally inappropriate. While one group would argue that St. Alphonsus is a Doctor of the Church St. Bonaventure, who is also a Doctor of the Church argued that St. Francis was The Mirror of Perfection and it was accepted by the Church and thus he is called on the Solemnity of St. Francis. St. Pius V described him as the saint of saints. St. Pius X referred to him as the Perfect Christian.
But what makes both men very important to the Church along with others who have taken up the task of working on the Church’s liturgy through the centuries is not that one is superior to the other in knowledge or faith, but that each of them comes to the celebration of the Eucharist through a very unique path. Both paths are valid in the eyes of the Holy Mother Church.
For this reason, the Church has never taken a position in favor of the one and against the other.
For example, while the Church after St. Pius V demanded that secular priests celebrate the Gregorian mass, it specifically left his encyclical open ended for religious orders. The only religious who were bound to the celebration of the Gregorian mass were those who belonged to religious congregations, which St. Alphonsus was. He was not an exempt religious, because he was never in solemn vows. The Congregation of the Redeemer makes simple vows. When it comes to liturgy they follow the general diections of the Church. Such is not the case for religious orders.
The reason for this is because many of the founders of religious orders, such as St. Benedict, St. Francis, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Dominic and the Canons Regular of St. Augustine already had a form of the Roman liturgy in place for their community that preceeded the Gregorian mass and Breviary and the Church deemed that it was fully efficacious.
Now, if the simplicity of a Dominican, Franciscan or Carmelite liturgy and Divine Office is as efficacious as the High Mass of the Gregorian form, that would mean that the solemnity of the celebration is not the essence of grace, but the disposition of the soul to be nurtured by the Word of God and the Eucharist. The prayerfulness of the liturgy sheds grace on the soul that is prepared to receive it, as does the proclamation of the Word and the Eucharistic sacrifice. Prayer, Word and Sacrifice are present in all forms of Catholic liturgy, Eastern and Western.
Take for example, the Church would never have allowed the Benedictines to celebrate the Liturgy of the Hours with great solemnity while the Franciscans never chant, always read, never recite the Liturgy of the Hours in choir, but always before the Blessed Sacrament. Nor would the Church have allowed the Carthusians the celebration of both the Liturgy of the Hours and the Liturgy of the Mass in huts, to this day, rather than in a proper monastic choir and Church.
If we look at what the Church allows and the different degrees of external solemnity, we find there are differences. Let’s take it one step further. Our Eastern brothers and sisters celebrate an even more solemn liturgy of the Eucharist and Liturgy of the Hours than we have in the West.
The Church is a most loving and protective mother. She would no allow such differences for so many centuries, were she not convinced that all the subtle and the not so subtle difference (such as East and West) or EF and OF were fully beneficial to the soul that is prepared to benefit from the liturgy of the Eucharist and the Hours.
When speaking liturgy we cannot separate the two, for both are the work of the Church.
The Church is a good and holy mother. Liike all mothers, she protects her children. Like in any family, there are moments in history and personalities who make different contributions, but this does not make one contribution superior to that of another.
If we have a child who is an artist and another who is a brain surgeon, are they the same? No. Is one’s contribution to society superior to that of the other? No. The world needs both beauty and healing.
This is the case that we began with when speaking of how St. Francis put together the original Roman Missal and how St. Alphonsus comments on the low mass and high mass. Both have made a contribution to the Church. Are they the same? No. Is one contribution superior to the other? No.
St. Francis contribution comes from his personal relationship with Christ through Scripture. St. Alphonsus contribution comes from his personal relationship with Christ through reason. Two different approaches to Christ yield two perspectives, but just as scripture and reason are not in conflict, neither are the two perspectives. Neither saint would pull rank on the other. That’s why the Church allows both to stand.
When we cite a saint, we must make sure that we know their life well. Their words alone, without the context of their lives and knowledge of their journey can easily lead us to misunderstand them.
We don’t want to do with the saints what Protestants do with the scriputures, start pulling citations out of context. That does more harm than if we left it alone. Trust me. I know what I’m speaking about.
Fraternally,
JR
