It is true that the "Christmas Shopping Season" seems to start earlier and earlier each year. By some accounts Christmas merchandise has appeared on retail shelves as early as late August. Such early sightings of tinsel and mistletoe have raised a predictable lament among some who are rightly concerned about the "reason for the season"
While I certainly empathize, I would like to suggest that there is no necessary correlation between the "shopping season" and the "Christmas season." In other words, we are not forced to celebrate Christmas early because retailers do.
Whether we admit it or not, all of us (who celebrate Christmas) feel the pressure to shop for Christmas gifts, and all of us will. And though year after year our churches warn us about the commercialization of Christmas, etc., we still find ourselves "making a list and checking it twice" while the pastor is yet speaking and then rushing from the church to the mall to get it all done!
I believe my mom had the right idea. She would do her Christmas shopping in July. By August all the presents were wrapped and "hidden" away until Christmas. With the "shopping" part of Christmas done months ahead of time, our family had the leisure to pay more attention to the "reason for the season," as was our wont.
As Christmas approached we still shopped for Christmas items, but more for fun stuff -- decorations and such.
So rather than curse the retailers perhaps we should be thanking them, so that when Christmas comes we can spend more time thanking Him.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Holy Cards, Coffee, and the Temple - to those who have a problem with church gift shops
A short thought. Even before my wife, Leone, took over the operation of the Café at the Ave Maria Gift Shop at the Cathedral Basilica, I heard many negative comments about the operation of both the gift shop and the café within the Cathedral building.
Critics most often cite the scripture story where Jesus drives out the buyers and the sellers from the temple as evidence that there should be no business undertakings in a church.
My first thought would be if Monsignor Benavente and Archbishop Apuron have no problem with it then perhaps we should reconsider our negative positions in the light of proper Church authority. Perhaps a polite inquiry would be the Christian thing to do.
However, I find it a bit funny how quickly Catholics can become scripture scholars when we need to back up a personal opinion. Never mind that we have no idea where to find it in the Bible…or perhaps even where to find a Bible!
For your reference the passage can be found at Matthew 21:12-13:
The real issue is whether or not the gift shop and café is included in the “temple” proper – the “house of prayer”.
The answer is NO. The gift shop and the café are not “in” the “temple”. They are attached to it in the same way that the bathrooms, the radio station, the Catholic Cemeteries office, the parish office, and the soon to be completed museum, are attached to it. But the temple, the place of prayer, is not intruded upon by any of these other offices or places of activity.
Rather than fret over the “buying and selling” I would be more concerned over Jesus’ desire that His Father’s house be a “house of prayer”. Given the amount of conversation and visiting that goes on before and after our Masses within “the temple”, and even as we go to and from Holy Communion, I would say that we have much more to be concerned about in offending the Father in that regard than the folks selling coffee and holy cards next door.
Critics most often cite the scripture story where Jesus drives out the buyers and the sellers from the temple as evidence that there should be no business undertakings in a church.
My first thought would be if Monsignor Benavente and Archbishop Apuron have no problem with it then perhaps we should reconsider our negative positions in the light of proper Church authority. Perhaps a polite inquiry would be the Christian thing to do.
However, I find it a bit funny how quickly Catholics can become scripture scholars when we need to back up a personal opinion. Never mind that we have no idea where to find it in the Bible…or perhaps even where to find a Bible!
For your reference the passage can be found at Matthew 21:12-13:
Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those engaged in selling and
buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of
those who were selling doves. And he said to them, "It is written: 'My house
shall be a house of prayer,' but you are making it a den of thieves."
The real issue is whether or not the gift shop and café is included in the “temple” proper – the “house of prayer”.
The answer is NO. The gift shop and the café are not “in” the “temple”. They are attached to it in the same way that the bathrooms, the radio station, the Catholic Cemeteries office, the parish office, and the soon to be completed museum, are attached to it. But the temple, the place of prayer, is not intruded upon by any of these other offices or places of activity.
Rather than fret over the “buying and selling” I would be more concerned over Jesus’ desire that His Father’s house be a “house of prayer”. Given the amount of conversation and visiting that goes on before and after our Masses within “the temple”, and even as we go to and from Holy Communion, I would say that we have much more to be concerned about in offending the Father in that regard than the folks selling coffee and holy cards next door.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
How I Would Have Answered the Question - and what Fr. Pacwa didn't hear
A lady called into Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s EWTN radio program and related her quandary as to where she should spend more of her time: with her ailing mother and brother or with her husband who neglects her.
Apparently the woman’s mother, who she said was 87, was bedridden and staying at her sister’s house. And her brother had suffered a stroke and was confined to a convalescent home.
She mentioned that her husband was resentful of her spending time with her mother and her brother but that she preferred to spend time with them rather than her husband because of the neglect she felt at home. The woman described her husband in terms that brought to mind a picture of a sloppy couch potato who offered her neither attention or affection.
Because of this she said she felt “more comfortable” with her immediate family than at home where “there is nothing” and was calling to get Fr. Mitch’s advice.
One other thing that she said is of some importance. She mentioned that she had wanted to give some of their personal possessions away (presumably to help the poor) but that her husband was angrily opposed. Why that statement is important I shall get to in a minute.
I was a bit surprised and not a little disappointed in Fr. Mitch’s reply to the woman who I thought had given him all kinds of unintentional clues as to the real problem.
Fr. Mitch first chastised the husband’s behavior and advised the woman to, in effect, tell her husband to straighten up or go to hell. He next advised her to make a list of pros and cons about her quandary and to pray about it (in the fashion of the Ignatian process of discernment) and to choose (as Ignatius instructed) whatever she felt would give greater glory to God.
As per the woman’s relation of the details, this appeared to be not just a decision about “how much time” to spend with her ailing relatives versus time with her husband, but actually leaving her husband to tend to her relatives.
Granted, it’s not easy for a radio talk show host to properly direct someone in the context of a call where in fact the issue calls for a more in depth discussion and discernment of a deeply personal dilemma. And actually that’s what Fr. Mitch should have done anyway: refer her to her parish priest, confessor, or counselor.
However, given his on air answer, I must protest as follows:
“A man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home”. The first responsibility is to her marital vow. This is the time when she is actually being called to live through the “for better or for worse” that she vowed when she knelt before Christ (in the person of the Priest) and said so.
Yes, the scripture also says “Honor thy Father and Mother”. BUT! By her own words she had related that neither her mother nor brother was uncared for. The mother was staying at her sister’s house and the brother was in a convalescent home.
She kept recalling how comfortable she was being with her mother and how much the mother appreciated her being there, and how she and her sister were getting along so great, and how peaceful things were at her sister’s house versus her own home where “there was nothing”.
The husband wasn’t forbidding the wife to spend time with her relatives. He was complaining because she spent so much time doing so.
Without knowing all the details I feel rather confident in assuming that the woman, quite naturally, is finding personal fulfillment in being “needed”, being important, being “somebody”.
She probably has lived through many years of unhappiness in her marriage (she said they had been married for 37 years) and is feeling unappreciated and unfulfilled.
What she doesn’t know is that her husband on the other hand is exhibiting all the signs of being just as unappreciated and unfulfilled and neglected as she is. If the man didn’t care about his wife he wouldn’t care where she spent her time. But he wants her home. Yes, to a selfish and even seemingly controlling degree, but its quite natural for a man in despair to act that way.
He is neglecting himself and ignoring her as a way of fighting back, of revenging the neglect that he himself has probably felt for just as many years as his wife. He sees his wife’s “do-good-ism” (the visits to the sick, the giving away of possessions) for what it probably really is which is her way of filling in her need to be wanted, a substitute for him.
Male pride being what it is keeps him from sharing this with her, though it’s probably more a result of a lack of understanding on his part as to what he’s really going through than just meanness.
My advice to the woman would have been to put first things first. I would have said:Now’s the chance to live your vows. To love the unlovable. To Kiss the “leper”, so to speak. To say “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”
That’s what marriage is for! This is where the perfection of the spouses happens – when we must face the “worse” part of the “for better or worse”. Up to that point you have only had eros and never agape. Christ is waiting there in the “agape”. It is He who loves the unlovable through you. He is waiting to act but needs your body and your will.
There is no discernment at this point. There is sheer act and response to the command to love “until death do you part”. This is not the time to make a list of pros and cons. You give yourself to your husband in this way as your sacramental vows require and God will take care of your mother and your brother. He will make the time for you to visit and care for them if that be His will. But first, He is waiting for you to do the thing that you don’t want to do but that you indeed had VOWED to do.
Oh, but what about that nasty slob of a husband? I can hear some of the women who may read this getting angry. Here’s what the Church says: As long as you are not being physically abused you are required to stay in the game. The fact that he is a couch potato and doesn’t brush his teeth does not justify your neglect of him no matter how repulsive. “Kiss the leper”. God will provide. Either you and I believe that or we believe nothing and our good works will pile up like bricks on our backs till they crush us. This is where Faith becomes real, this is the opportunity of the Cross, this is where the word becomes flesh: His word, your flesh. Now go home and love him.
(By the way, of course the Church commands the same for husbands.)
Apparently the woman’s mother, who she said was 87, was bedridden and staying at her sister’s house. And her brother had suffered a stroke and was confined to a convalescent home.
She mentioned that her husband was resentful of her spending time with her mother and her brother but that she preferred to spend time with them rather than her husband because of the neglect she felt at home. The woman described her husband in terms that brought to mind a picture of a sloppy couch potato who offered her neither attention or affection.
Because of this she said she felt “more comfortable” with her immediate family than at home where “there is nothing” and was calling to get Fr. Mitch’s advice.
One other thing that she said is of some importance. She mentioned that she had wanted to give some of their personal possessions away (presumably to help the poor) but that her husband was angrily opposed. Why that statement is important I shall get to in a minute.
I was a bit surprised and not a little disappointed in Fr. Mitch’s reply to the woman who I thought had given him all kinds of unintentional clues as to the real problem.
Fr. Mitch first chastised the husband’s behavior and advised the woman to, in effect, tell her husband to straighten up or go to hell. He next advised her to make a list of pros and cons about her quandary and to pray about it (in the fashion of the Ignatian process of discernment) and to choose (as Ignatius instructed) whatever she felt would give greater glory to God.
As per the woman’s relation of the details, this appeared to be not just a decision about “how much time” to spend with her ailing relatives versus time with her husband, but actually leaving her husband to tend to her relatives.
Granted, it’s not easy for a radio talk show host to properly direct someone in the context of a call where in fact the issue calls for a more in depth discussion and discernment of a deeply personal dilemma. And actually that’s what Fr. Mitch should have done anyway: refer her to her parish priest, confessor, or counselor.
However, given his on air answer, I must protest as follows:
“A man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home”. The first responsibility is to her marital vow. This is the time when she is actually being called to live through the “for better or for worse” that she vowed when she knelt before Christ (in the person of the Priest) and said so.
Yes, the scripture also says “Honor thy Father and Mother”. BUT! By her own words she had related that neither her mother nor brother was uncared for. The mother was staying at her sister’s house and the brother was in a convalescent home.
She kept recalling how comfortable she was being with her mother and how much the mother appreciated her being there, and how she and her sister were getting along so great, and how peaceful things were at her sister’s house versus her own home where “there was nothing”.
The husband wasn’t forbidding the wife to spend time with her relatives. He was complaining because she spent so much time doing so.
Without knowing all the details I feel rather confident in assuming that the woman, quite naturally, is finding personal fulfillment in being “needed”, being important, being “somebody”.
She probably has lived through many years of unhappiness in her marriage (she said they had been married for 37 years) and is feeling unappreciated and unfulfilled.
What she doesn’t know is that her husband on the other hand is exhibiting all the signs of being just as unappreciated and unfulfilled and neglected as she is. If the man didn’t care about his wife he wouldn’t care where she spent her time. But he wants her home. Yes, to a selfish and even seemingly controlling degree, but its quite natural for a man in despair to act that way.
He is neglecting himself and ignoring her as a way of fighting back, of revenging the neglect that he himself has probably felt for just as many years as his wife. He sees his wife’s “do-good-ism” (the visits to the sick, the giving away of possessions) for what it probably really is which is her way of filling in her need to be wanted, a substitute for him.
Male pride being what it is keeps him from sharing this with her, though it’s probably more a result of a lack of understanding on his part as to what he’s really going through than just meanness.
My advice to the woman would have been to put first things first. I would have said:Now’s the chance to live your vows. To love the unlovable. To Kiss the “leper”, so to speak. To say “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”
That’s what marriage is for! This is where the perfection of the spouses happens – when we must face the “worse” part of the “for better or worse”. Up to that point you have only had eros and never agape. Christ is waiting there in the “agape”. It is He who loves the unlovable through you. He is waiting to act but needs your body and your will.
There is no discernment at this point. There is sheer act and response to the command to love “until death do you part”. This is not the time to make a list of pros and cons. You give yourself to your husband in this way as your sacramental vows require and God will take care of your mother and your brother. He will make the time for you to visit and care for them if that be His will. But first, He is waiting for you to do the thing that you don’t want to do but that you indeed had VOWED to do.
Oh, but what about that nasty slob of a husband? I can hear some of the women who may read this getting angry. Here’s what the Church says: As long as you are not being physically abused you are required to stay in the game. The fact that he is a couch potato and doesn’t brush his teeth does not justify your neglect of him no matter how repulsive. “Kiss the leper”. God will provide. Either you and I believe that or we believe nothing and our good works will pile up like bricks on our backs till they crush us. This is where Faith becomes real, this is the opportunity of the Cross, this is where the word becomes flesh: His word, your flesh. Now go home and love him.
(By the way, of course the Church commands the same for husbands.)
Monday, August 20, 2007
"Tacking On"? - The Last Gospel and the Prayer to St. Michael
In a recent e-letter, Karl Keating of Catholic Answers attempts to explain some of the differences between the "new" Mass and the "old" Mass - the Novus Ordo and the "Tridentine" Mass.
Keating does a fair job of it but in expressing his preference for the new (1970) and much expanded Lectionary and his non-preference for the "Last Gospel" and Prayer to St. Michael, found at the end of the "old" Mass, I am moved to reflect and respond.
I would certainly not fault Mr. Keating for desiring more readings. However, I'm curious as to why we don't seem to ask the question as to why for approximately 1970 years or at least for the last 500 or so years since the Council of Trent, a more expansive use of Scripture in the Lectionary was not employed.
To simply insert more Scripture readings because it seems like a good idea begs the question about the wherewithal of our forefathers who had given us what we had up to and including the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII.
I choose to believe that the Mass we had prior to the Novus Ordo was not a hodge-podge of centuries of "tack-ons" as we are sometimes led to believe, but a ritual, finely tuned and rightly ordered by centuries of use, the devotion of billions, and an organic development that could have only proceeded via the Holy Spirit directly from John's vision of Heavenly Worship in Revelation. The lack of a more extensive lectionary was not a 2000 year oversight.
I do not question the authority of the Church to expand the Lectionary, but I do not believe that the more limited Lectionary of the old Mass was a result of apathy or neglect. There was a reason for it.
Sadly, I don't know the reason or where to find it. But I can speculate. Here would be my points:
1. The change in the Lectionary flowed from the change of emphasis in the Mass. We may continue to say that the focus of the Mass is Christ, but in practice we know that the emphasis is on the community, more particularly on the "full, conscious, and active participation" of that community which "is to be desired above all else". As we all know those words - unqualified and generic - have led us down a path that the present Pope feels impelled to correct.
2. There is no mistaking the emphasis in the Old Mass. It is in word, practice, position, and posture, Christocentric in every way. The Old Mass does not attempt to encompass a Bible Study. It is not the forum for a great exposition of Scripture. The readings chosen for the Old Mass and the readings used for so many centuries were those readings that best served the theology and the action of the re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery.
3. It is also assumed with the Old Mass that the Mass itself was just one part of a larger Liturgical Day - a day punctuated and accented by many readings from Scripture known as the Divine Office. In times past this consciousness of the liturgical day was so preponderant that folks didn't refer to the hours of the day by numbers but by their liturgical names: matins, none, vespers, etc. Even the days were known by their feast names and not the pagan names we now use to refer to them.
4. The New Mass, in its attempt to meet the challenge of the modern age, in a way admits defeat in the world and says okay since you're not going to read the Scriptures for yourselves we'll read it for you at Mass. The Mass is then made to serve another new master: Bible study (the first new one being community building).
Note: I used to say that I didn't believe this (the scattered emphases of the new Mass) to be the intention of its designers, but I'm not so sure anymore. At any rate, intended or not, the effect is the same.
It is quite obvious by my above "personal opinions" that I am not all that cracked up about the expansion of the Lectionary. I have nothing against it but I would rather we relearn to incorporate the Scripture into our days as was once done.
"Tacking On"
Keating's other concern is the supposed "tacking on" of the Last Gospel and the Prayer to St. Michael which seem to be added to the Old Mass.
For those who don't know, in the Old Mass, after the final blessing, the priest would go to the left side of the Altar and read the "Last Gospel" which consisted of John 1:1-14:
Again, I would ask those who consider this to be "tacking on" to "rely not on their own understanding" but to investigate the mind of the Church that included and preserved these practices.
I would also point out that the Mass is, in effect, at least up until the Novus Ordo, a result of two millennia of "tacking on". Prayers and actions came to be added to the Mass as the Christian community entered more deeply into its mystery. Truly, anything other than what Jesus actually said at the Last Supper in the Gospels can be considered a "tacking on".
For the modern Mass-goer who, by the time of the final blessing, already has one foot in the parking lot, the "addition" of another reading after everything seems to be over, and then followed by even more prayers, would, of course, be a jolt and an annoyance. But even for a more sincere person I would suspect that there would arise some question as to this seemingly out of place adding of not only a Gospel at the end of Mass, but the same Gospel at the end of every Mass.
It shouldn't take a liturgical expert to deduce that if this same Gospel was repeated at the end of every Mass for the last 800 or more years that perhaps our Church had deemed it important to do so and we should at least know the reason why.
The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that the Last Gospel was a "pious devotion" added to the liturgy about the 12th century. (By the way the final blessing was also a "pious devotion" added to the liturgy…and we still have that.) However, the question still intrigues me as to why it was added and why THAT particular Gospel passage.
Since I can't find anything to answer my question I will feel free to speculate.
The first heresy against Christianity was the refusal to accept Christ for who He said He was. We find the first instance of this in the Gospels (the Sanhedrin, etc.). This "first heresy" persisted throughout the centuries and persists today. (And in the case of Islam may well bode horrific repercussions that we can't even begin to imagine.)
One can imagine that innumerable disputes over the person and nature of Christ continued to proliferate after his death, resurrection, and ascension. But in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, it exploded into what came to be called "Arianism", which temporally and spiritually shook the young Church to its core. Arianism taught that Jesus was not God.
Because of the damage done by this heresy and the damage it continued to do, I believe that our wise fathers incorporated (not tacked on) John 1 to the end of every Mass in order to combat Arianism and its derivative heresies and to drill into Christians the truth of who Christ was and is.
(Also, we have to remember that the word Mass comes from the Latin "missa" which means "the sending". Since the beginning of Christianity this "sending" included the definite possibility of death. (It still does of course in so many parts of the world.). It was essential that the faithful be reminded again and again why and for who they were dying. We are still sent out to die, if only perhaps to die to sin.)
Today more than ever we have need of the Last Gospel. The success of the novel "The Da Vinci Code" which employs this same heresy, and the harm it caused many Catholics is a dire indicator of the state of Catholic knowledge and understanding of the true person of Christ.
Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are two of the fastest growing sects in the world with the majority of their recruits coming from the ranks of Catholics. Both JW's and Mormons are descendants of Arius. But the threat from these two sects is insignificant when given the much greater threat of Islam.
Islam also rejects Jesus as God, but rather than walk to the next door and knock to find a more sympathetic ear, Islam teaches that you should lose your ear and your head with it.
The thought of what we are into (war with Islam - though we still call it a "war on terror") is not only beyond my understanding (for now) but cataclysmic to a frightening degree. (My friend Robert Morgan is writing a book on it which I hope will come out soon.) Meanwhile, let us read John 1 ourselves at the end of each Mass and at our breakfast and dinner tables so that we and our children will know the answer to the question: "Who do you say that I am?" when we are finally asked.
And as per the "tacking on" of the Prayer to St. Michael at the end of the Old Mass… Well God himself employs the help of this Archangel in casting out Satan (Rev 12)… maybe… well, you figure it out.
Keating does a fair job of it but in expressing his preference for the new (1970) and much expanded Lectionary and his non-preference for the "Last Gospel" and Prayer to St. Michael, found at the end of the "old" Mass, I am moved to reflect and respond.
I would certainly not fault Mr. Keating for desiring more readings. However, I'm curious as to why we don't seem to ask the question as to why for approximately 1970 years or at least for the last 500 or so years since the Council of Trent, a more expansive use of Scripture in the Lectionary was not employed.
To simply insert more Scripture readings because it seems like a good idea begs the question about the wherewithal of our forefathers who had given us what we had up to and including the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII.
I choose to believe that the Mass we had prior to the Novus Ordo was not a hodge-podge of centuries of "tack-ons" as we are sometimes led to believe, but a ritual, finely tuned and rightly ordered by centuries of use, the devotion of billions, and an organic development that could have only proceeded via the Holy Spirit directly from John's vision of Heavenly Worship in Revelation. The lack of a more extensive lectionary was not a 2000 year oversight.
I do not question the authority of the Church to expand the Lectionary, but I do not believe that the more limited Lectionary of the old Mass was a result of apathy or neglect. There was a reason for it.
Sadly, I don't know the reason or where to find it. But I can speculate. Here would be my points:
1. The change in the Lectionary flowed from the change of emphasis in the Mass. We may continue to say that the focus of the Mass is Christ, but in practice we know that the emphasis is on the community, more particularly on the "full, conscious, and active participation" of that community which "is to be desired above all else". As we all know those words - unqualified and generic - have led us down a path that the present Pope feels impelled to correct.
2. There is no mistaking the emphasis in the Old Mass. It is in word, practice, position, and posture, Christocentric in every way. The Old Mass does not attempt to encompass a Bible Study. It is not the forum for a great exposition of Scripture. The readings chosen for the Old Mass and the readings used for so many centuries were those readings that best served the theology and the action of the re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery.
3. It is also assumed with the Old Mass that the Mass itself was just one part of a larger Liturgical Day - a day punctuated and accented by many readings from Scripture known as the Divine Office. In times past this consciousness of the liturgical day was so preponderant that folks didn't refer to the hours of the day by numbers but by their liturgical names: matins, none, vespers, etc. Even the days were known by their feast names and not the pagan names we now use to refer to them.
4. The New Mass, in its attempt to meet the challenge of the modern age, in a way admits defeat in the world and says okay since you're not going to read the Scriptures for yourselves we'll read it for you at Mass. The Mass is then made to serve another new master: Bible study (the first new one being community building).
Note: I used to say that I didn't believe this (the scattered emphases of the new Mass) to be the intention of its designers, but I'm not so sure anymore. At any rate, intended or not, the effect is the same.
It is quite obvious by my above "personal opinions" that I am not all that cracked up about the expansion of the Lectionary. I have nothing against it but I would rather we relearn to incorporate the Scripture into our days as was once done.
"Tacking On"
Keating's other concern is the supposed "tacking on" of the Last Gospel and the Prayer to St. Michael which seem to be added to the Old Mass.
For those who don't know, in the Old Mass, after the final blessing, the priest would go to the left side of the Altar and read the "Last Gospel" which consisted of John 1:1-14:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."The prayer to St. Michael was said at the foot of the article at the end of an extra series of prayers which included 3 Hail Mary's and the Hail Holy Queen.
Again, I would ask those who consider this to be "tacking on" to "rely not on their own understanding" but to investigate the mind of the Church that included and preserved these practices.
I would also point out that the Mass is, in effect, at least up until the Novus Ordo, a result of two millennia of "tacking on". Prayers and actions came to be added to the Mass as the Christian community entered more deeply into its mystery. Truly, anything other than what Jesus actually said at the Last Supper in the Gospels can be considered a "tacking on".
For the modern Mass-goer who, by the time of the final blessing, already has one foot in the parking lot, the "addition" of another reading after everything seems to be over, and then followed by even more prayers, would, of course, be a jolt and an annoyance. But even for a more sincere person I would suspect that there would arise some question as to this seemingly out of place adding of not only a Gospel at the end of Mass, but the same Gospel at the end of every Mass.
It shouldn't take a liturgical expert to deduce that if this same Gospel was repeated at the end of every Mass for the last 800 or more years that perhaps our Church had deemed it important to do so and we should at least know the reason why.
The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that the Last Gospel was a "pious devotion" added to the liturgy about the 12th century. (By the way the final blessing was also a "pious devotion" added to the liturgy…and we still have that.) However, the question still intrigues me as to why it was added and why THAT particular Gospel passage.
Since I can't find anything to answer my question I will feel free to speculate.
The first heresy against Christianity was the refusal to accept Christ for who He said He was. We find the first instance of this in the Gospels (the Sanhedrin, etc.). This "first heresy" persisted throughout the centuries and persists today. (And in the case of Islam may well bode horrific repercussions that we can't even begin to imagine.)
One can imagine that innumerable disputes over the person and nature of Christ continued to proliferate after his death, resurrection, and ascension. But in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, it exploded into what came to be called "Arianism", which temporally and spiritually shook the young Church to its core. Arianism taught that Jesus was not God.
Because of the damage done by this heresy and the damage it continued to do, I believe that our wise fathers incorporated (not tacked on) John 1 to the end of every Mass in order to combat Arianism and its derivative heresies and to drill into Christians the truth of who Christ was and is.
(Also, we have to remember that the word Mass comes from the Latin "missa" which means "the sending". Since the beginning of Christianity this "sending" included the definite possibility of death. (It still does of course in so many parts of the world.). It was essential that the faithful be reminded again and again why and for who they were dying. We are still sent out to die, if only perhaps to die to sin.)
Today more than ever we have need of the Last Gospel. The success of the novel "The Da Vinci Code" which employs this same heresy, and the harm it caused many Catholics is a dire indicator of the state of Catholic knowledge and understanding of the true person of Christ.
Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are two of the fastest growing sects in the world with the majority of their recruits coming from the ranks of Catholics. Both JW's and Mormons are descendants of Arius. But the threat from these two sects is insignificant when given the much greater threat of Islam.
Islam also rejects Jesus as God, but rather than walk to the next door and knock to find a more sympathetic ear, Islam teaches that you should lose your ear and your head with it.
The thought of what we are into (war with Islam - though we still call it a "war on terror") is not only beyond my understanding (for now) but cataclysmic to a frightening degree. (My friend Robert Morgan is writing a book on it which I hope will come out soon.) Meanwhile, let us read John 1 ourselves at the end of each Mass and at our breakfast and dinner tables so that we and our children will know the answer to the question: "Who do you say that I am?" when we are finally asked.
And as per the "tacking on" of the Prayer to St. Michael at the end of the Old Mass… Well God himself employs the help of this Archangel in casting out Satan (Rev 12)… maybe… well, you figure it out.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
God's Entrails (or how to reach young men)
Every morning, if you pray the Liturgy of the Hours, we say the "Benedictus", Zachary's exclaim and prophecy at the birth of his son John (the Baptist).It's a very beautiful and powerful canticle and its one of the few biblical texts of any length that I have committed completely to memory.
The topic of interest concerns the last few verses which read thus:
And you my child shall be called prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord to prepare his way to give His people peace and knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins. In the tender compassion of our God the dawn from on high shall break upon us and shine on those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death and to guide our feet into the way of peace. (Luke 1: 76-79)
(Just in case you're wondering which translation of the Bible this comes from, it doesn't. It's a product of the International Committee on the Use of English Texts)
Out of curiosity I often will look up biblical passages that I am reading in other versions of the Bible. As good students of our Faith we should have a variety of translations and good Catholic commentaries that aid us in deepening our study of Sacred Scripture.
One particular translation I like to refer to is the Douay Rheims. Few folks have heard of it but it has been around since the 16th century and for many years was the only Catholic translation in English. I like it because it is a close literal translation of our Church's official version of Scripture which is the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome.Thus, when I read the DR translation, though some of its passages may seem a little archaic, I know I'm getting a pretty close translation of what the Church holds to be true and authentic.
This does not negate the authenticity of other Church approved translations, but until the Church changes its official translation to something else, I'll stick with Jerome when I want to look deeper into Sacred Texts.Well, pardon all that background, but it's important to have that information for the sake of our "word for the day".
And that word is "tender", as in the "tender compassion of our God". The NAB, which we use in the Liturgy, translates it "tender mercy", but "tender" is still there.
The Latin Vulgate uses this phrase: "per viscera misericordiae Dei nostri". Let's do a word for word translation minus "viscera" (which is the word of interest")
So we have "through the compassion (mercy) or our God"But what of "viscera"? As we have seen, our modern versions translate it as "tender".
Viscera is also a word in English. Whenever we come across a word in our own language that is the same word in an antecedent language, it means that the word is so strong and specific in its meaning that it defies translation, and should attract our interest and inspection, especially when we find such words in Scripture.
A case in point is the word "Hallelujah". Ever wonder what that really means or what language that is? It comes from two Hebrew words: "hallel" "to praise" and "yah", which is the shortened form of Yahweh, the name of God.
Now we certainly can say, "Praise God" and we do, but when we really want to praise God, we say "Alleluia" or "Hallelujah" when we want the extra "umph"! Anyway, point is that some words just lose something in translation so we end up keeping the original word though we might anglicize it a bit.
Now, back to "viscera". The English definition is: "The soft internal organs of the body, especially those contained within the abdominal and thoracic cavities." In other words, your "guts", your "entrails".
So God's mercy and compassion is from His "guts", from His "viscera", from his "entrails", or "intestines" even! Wow! That's powerful!
Guys, ever get kicked in the ________(tender parts)? Well that's just the beginning of how much God "hurts" for us. The Douay Rhiems actually translates "viscera" as "bowels". Here's what it says: "Through the bowels of the mercy of our God". Wow!!
I probably won't change the way I say the "Benedictus" since I have it memorized, and at my age (over 50), if you change a word in something you've memorized you'll forget the whole thing! But I will say that after this short discovery and investigation, I will have a renewed and deepened appreciation for how much God loves me.
But perhaps this is once again instructive on how important translations are to our Faith formation. We complain how people today, especially kids, don't pay attention to God the way they should. And we wonder what has happened to our present generation, why we don't practice the Faith the way our parents and ancestors did.
We blame television and all the other products of technology that keep us busy, but perhaps it has something to do with how the Faith is presented. We hear no end of "God loves you", but, if we're honest, those words are increasingly irrelevant to our self-obsessed society.
We are not allowed to write off the wayward and go back to our little self-absorbed devotional enclave. "Go and teach!" said He as His last instruction. But what to do? Well, perhaps it's time we start looking at the official version of Catholic scripture and see what it has been saying for over 1600 years.
As a man (and once a boy) I am highly moved by the image of a God who loves me with his guts, from his bowels! Yes, my innermost parts are certainly "tender", but I believe the use of the word has the effect of making God soft, at least in the eyes (and hearing) of young men whose hormones are just beginning to scream for manly expression.
Perhaps that's why we see young men turning to fights, to sexual impurity, to foul language, to whatever they think makes them more of a man. Why turn to a God who is typified as "tender" (though He is that too of course) when everything about you (a young man) is rough and tough, and guess what, centered (at least in adolescence) around the bowels.
Perhaps it's time to re-present the God of the Bible who loves us from his bowels - since that is what it ACTUALLY says.
By the way, I have no formal education in this field. I just have an excellent book called the PRACTICAL COMMENTARY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE which was used as a tool for catechesis in Germany and in England for many years. Its original intended audience was grade school but when you read it you'll have an appreciation for how much more well-informed and literate people were 100 years ago.
I am going to write a separate article on this but the thing I love about it is that the formula for instruction follows the pattern of Jesus who, when instructing the masses, would often first tell a story (parable), then elicit the lesson, and then instruct those who heard Him to apply that which they had just learned.
This book does exactly that and uses the stories from Scripture as the beginning point of catechesis. If it was good enough for Jesus then it's good enough for me.
God Bless You (from His bowels)
The topic of interest concerns the last few verses which read thus:
And you my child shall be called prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord to prepare his way to give His people peace and knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins. In the tender compassion of our God the dawn from on high shall break upon us and shine on those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death and to guide our feet into the way of peace. (Luke 1: 76-79)
(Just in case you're wondering which translation of the Bible this comes from, it doesn't. It's a product of the International Committee on the Use of English Texts)
Out of curiosity I often will look up biblical passages that I am reading in other versions of the Bible. As good students of our Faith we should have a variety of translations and good Catholic commentaries that aid us in deepening our study of Sacred Scripture.
One particular translation I like to refer to is the Douay Rheims. Few folks have heard of it but it has been around since the 16th century and for many years was the only Catholic translation in English. I like it because it is a close literal translation of our Church's official version of Scripture which is the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome.Thus, when I read the DR translation, though some of its passages may seem a little archaic, I know I'm getting a pretty close translation of what the Church holds to be true and authentic.
This does not negate the authenticity of other Church approved translations, but until the Church changes its official translation to something else, I'll stick with Jerome when I want to look deeper into Sacred Texts.Well, pardon all that background, but it's important to have that information for the sake of our "word for the day".
And that word is "tender", as in the "tender compassion of our God". The NAB, which we use in the Liturgy, translates it "tender mercy", but "tender" is still there.
The Latin Vulgate uses this phrase: "per viscera misericordiae Dei nostri". Let's do a word for word translation minus "viscera" (which is the word of interest")
- per = through
- misericordiae = mercy, or really mercy from the heart, or pity, or compassion
- Dei = God
- nostri = our
So we have "through the compassion (mercy) or our God"But what of "viscera"? As we have seen, our modern versions translate it as "tender".
Viscera is also a word in English. Whenever we come across a word in our own language that is the same word in an antecedent language, it means that the word is so strong and specific in its meaning that it defies translation, and should attract our interest and inspection, especially when we find such words in Scripture.
A case in point is the word "Hallelujah". Ever wonder what that really means or what language that is? It comes from two Hebrew words: "hallel" "to praise" and "yah", which is the shortened form of Yahweh, the name of God.
Now we certainly can say, "Praise God" and we do, but when we really want to praise God, we say "Alleluia" or "Hallelujah" when we want the extra "umph"! Anyway, point is that some words just lose something in translation so we end up keeping the original word though we might anglicize it a bit.
Now, back to "viscera". The English definition is: "The soft internal organs of the body, especially those contained within the abdominal and thoracic cavities." In other words, your "guts", your "entrails".
So God's mercy and compassion is from His "guts", from His "viscera", from his "entrails", or "intestines" even! Wow! That's powerful!
Guys, ever get kicked in the ________(tender parts)? Well that's just the beginning of how much God "hurts" for us. The Douay Rhiems actually translates "viscera" as "bowels". Here's what it says: "Through the bowels of the mercy of our God". Wow!!
I probably won't change the way I say the "Benedictus" since I have it memorized, and at my age (over 50), if you change a word in something you've memorized you'll forget the whole thing! But I will say that after this short discovery and investigation, I will have a renewed and deepened appreciation for how much God loves me.
But perhaps this is once again instructive on how important translations are to our Faith formation. We complain how people today, especially kids, don't pay attention to God the way they should. And we wonder what has happened to our present generation, why we don't practice the Faith the way our parents and ancestors did.
We blame television and all the other products of technology that keep us busy, but perhaps it has something to do with how the Faith is presented. We hear no end of "God loves you", but, if we're honest, those words are increasingly irrelevant to our self-obsessed society.
We are not allowed to write off the wayward and go back to our little self-absorbed devotional enclave. "Go and teach!" said He as His last instruction. But what to do? Well, perhaps it's time we start looking at the official version of Catholic scripture and see what it has been saying for over 1600 years.
As a man (and once a boy) I am highly moved by the image of a God who loves me with his guts, from his bowels! Yes, my innermost parts are certainly "tender", but I believe the use of the word has the effect of making God soft, at least in the eyes (and hearing) of young men whose hormones are just beginning to scream for manly expression.
Perhaps that's why we see young men turning to fights, to sexual impurity, to foul language, to whatever they think makes them more of a man. Why turn to a God who is typified as "tender" (though He is that too of course) when everything about you (a young man) is rough and tough, and guess what, centered (at least in adolescence) around the bowels.
Perhaps it's time to re-present the God of the Bible who loves us from his bowels - since that is what it ACTUALLY says.
By the way, I have no formal education in this field. I just have an excellent book called the PRACTICAL COMMENTARY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE which was used as a tool for catechesis in Germany and in England for many years. Its original intended audience was grade school but when you read it you'll have an appreciation for how much more well-informed and literate people were 100 years ago.
I am going to write a separate article on this but the thing I love about it is that the formula for instruction follows the pattern of Jesus who, when instructing the masses, would often first tell a story (parable), then elicit the lesson, and then instruct those who heard Him to apply that which they had just learned.
This book does exactly that and uses the stories from Scripture as the beginning point of catechesis. If it was good enough for Jesus then it's good enough for me.
God Bless You (from His bowels)
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
"Church" - etymology of
For some reason I have always been interested in words, particularly words that are related to our Faith, their origin, and how they are used. So I thought I'd share some of these words with you from time to time. If nothing else, it may help you win a Catholic trivia contest someday!
Today's word is "church". Where does that word come from? Why do we use it It's a word that is used alot but it's sort of a strange word and doesn't seem to be related to any other English word.
Our word "church" is the english version of the German word "kirche". An older spelling is "kirika" which descends from two Greek words: "kyrios" and "oika" Kyrios means master or lord and "oika" means house. Together the ancient Greek word is "kyriake" or the lord's house or the master's house. Thus our word "church" and the way we use it means the "Lord's house".
We are familiar of course with "Kyrios"as we still pray "Kyrie eleision" or "Lord, have mercy".
No, I'm not a Greek scholar, I just have a good dictionary on my pda that shows the etymology of words.
Today's word is "church". Where does that word come from? Why do we use it It's a word that is used alot but it's sort of a strange word and doesn't seem to be related to any other English word.
Our word "church" is the english version of the German word "kirche". An older spelling is "kirika" which descends from two Greek words: "kyrios" and "oika" Kyrios means master or lord and "oika" means house. Together the ancient Greek word is "kyriake" or the lord's house or the master's house. Thus our word "church" and the way we use it means the "Lord's house".
We are familiar of course with "Kyrios"as we still pray "Kyrie eleision" or "Lord, have mercy".
No, I'm not a Greek scholar, I just have a good dictionary on my pda that shows the etymology of words.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
God or the Girl...? - A different look at religious vocations
A&E recently put out a program called “God or the Girl” which follows four guys who are in the process of discerning a vocation to the Catholic Priesthood.
The program may be helpful for some who may also be in the same state of discernment, but the program, in my opinion, falls short in two areas.
First, because it’s “television”, it’s framed as a type of reality show or a kind of “Discovery Channel” episode. There is little emphasis on the sacred and, as can be expected from a television approach to the topic, there is more emphasis on giving up sex; thus, the title: God (no sex) or the girl (sex).
It would be easy to criticize the makers of the flick for the “soaping” (as in soap opera) of what should be a deeply personal sacramental process of discernment. But I believe that “where there’s smoke there’s fire” and I think it always instructive to first look in the mirror to see “whither comes the error?”
At the risk of gross generalization and naïve simplification for the sake of brevity I will state here two problems:
1. The trite and adolescent approach of the program’s approach to sacramental discernment is not just a result of a quest for “good TV” but a direct embodiment of a parallel trivialization and minimization of the sacred Priesthood especially in the American Church.
2. Vocations to the religious life will suffer wherever the decision is framed as a choice between God and anything else, be it a girl, a boy, or a telephone book for that matter. As a matter of fact I believe that vocations to the religious life will suffer wherever the choice is framed as a “decision” at all.
The main point of this small treatise is point 2, but as for point 1, no less than John Paul II and our current Pontiff, Benedict, have weighed in heavily and often on the necessity of delineating between the “ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of all believers” and the danger inherent in the blurring of that delineation.
Part of that danger is the inevitable difficulty in attracting vocations to a life role that appears to differ little in form and function from what the average lay person can do anyway. Lay people get to be on the altar, wear robes, handle the sacred species, sport the title of minister, and in some cases even preach.
Combine this with the decades long “sidelining” of the “Sacred Presence”, the emphasis on the “communal meal” aspect of the Mass versus the “Holy Sacrifice”, the negation of the word “Priest” in preference for more neutral terms such as “presbyter” or “Presider” (the natural result of ridding the Mass of the word “sacrifice” – ‘sacrifice” necessitates the presence of a “Priest), and the fact that nearly 2/3 of American Catholics no longer believe in the “Real Presence” (surprise, surprise), then what’s the point? Might as well get “God AND the Girl!”
With the backdrop of an emasculated Sacred Priesthood the “decision” naturally devolves down to “God OR the Girl” for the only thing unique at this point about the priesthood is “celibacy”.
I’ll leave the solution to the problem to finer minds than my own. Not being a Priest I have little authority to speak to the matter. However, being a married man of 20 years and the father of 10 children I believe I can speak to the "other" vocation.
First, the choice between the Priesthood and Marriage is never a choice between God or the girl, or the boy! The choice between these two sacramental vocations, both properly preceded by the appropriate adjectival syntax “Holy” – as in “Holy Orders” and “Holy Matrimony” is first, foremost, and fully a choice for God, PERIOD!
It is my opinion, that until we can again frame these life roles in their full sacred sense there will continue to be more harm done to each. Perhaps you have noticed that as vocations to the Priesthood have declined so have vocations to Marriage (as in the Sacrament of Marriage as understood and taught by the Church).
Both Marriage and the Priesthood were ordained by God to serve His purposes. There’s never a case of “either/or”. It’s always, as we Catholics love to congratulate ourselves on being: “both/and”. Thus a great Priest is one who would make a great husband and father. And a great husband and father is one who would make a great Priest. Either way, it’s a complete “choice” for God who infuses the grace needed to live completely and fully the sacramental life to which He has called us and formed us for.
The program may be helpful for some who may also be in the same state of discernment, but the program, in my opinion, falls short in two areas.
First, because it’s “television”, it’s framed as a type of reality show or a kind of “Discovery Channel” episode. There is little emphasis on the sacred and, as can be expected from a television approach to the topic, there is more emphasis on giving up sex; thus, the title: God (no sex) or the girl (sex).
It would be easy to criticize the makers of the flick for the “soaping” (as in soap opera) of what should be a deeply personal sacramental process of discernment. But I believe that “where there’s smoke there’s fire” and I think it always instructive to first look in the mirror to see “whither comes the error?”
At the risk of gross generalization and naïve simplification for the sake of brevity I will state here two problems:
1. The trite and adolescent approach of the program’s approach to sacramental discernment is not just a result of a quest for “good TV” but a direct embodiment of a parallel trivialization and minimization of the sacred Priesthood especially in the American Church.
2. Vocations to the religious life will suffer wherever the decision is framed as a choice between God and anything else, be it a girl, a boy, or a telephone book for that matter. As a matter of fact I believe that vocations to the religious life will suffer wherever the choice is framed as a “decision” at all.
The main point of this small treatise is point 2, but as for point 1, no less than John Paul II and our current Pontiff, Benedict, have weighed in heavily and often on the necessity of delineating between the “ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of all believers” and the danger inherent in the blurring of that delineation.
Part of that danger is the inevitable difficulty in attracting vocations to a life role that appears to differ little in form and function from what the average lay person can do anyway. Lay people get to be on the altar, wear robes, handle the sacred species, sport the title of minister, and in some cases even preach.
Combine this with the decades long “sidelining” of the “Sacred Presence”, the emphasis on the “communal meal” aspect of the Mass versus the “Holy Sacrifice”, the negation of the word “Priest” in preference for more neutral terms such as “presbyter” or “Presider” (the natural result of ridding the Mass of the word “sacrifice” – ‘sacrifice” necessitates the presence of a “Priest), and the fact that nearly 2/3 of American Catholics no longer believe in the “Real Presence” (surprise, surprise), then what’s the point? Might as well get “God AND the Girl!”
With the backdrop of an emasculated Sacred Priesthood the “decision” naturally devolves down to “God OR the Girl” for the only thing unique at this point about the priesthood is “celibacy”.
I’ll leave the solution to the problem to finer minds than my own. Not being a Priest I have little authority to speak to the matter. However, being a married man of 20 years and the father of 10 children I believe I can speak to the "other" vocation.
First, the choice between the Priesthood and Marriage is never a choice between God or the girl, or the boy! The choice between these two sacramental vocations, both properly preceded by the appropriate adjectival syntax “Holy” – as in “Holy Orders” and “Holy Matrimony” is first, foremost, and fully a choice for God, PERIOD!
It is my opinion, that until we can again frame these life roles in their full sacred sense there will continue to be more harm done to each. Perhaps you have noticed that as vocations to the Priesthood have declined so have vocations to Marriage (as in the Sacrament of Marriage as understood and taught by the Church).
Both Marriage and the Priesthood were ordained by God to serve His purposes. There’s never a case of “either/or”. It’s always, as we Catholics love to congratulate ourselves on being: “both/and”. Thus a great Priest is one who would make a great husband and father. And a great husband and father is one who would make a great Priest. Either way, it’s a complete “choice” for God who infuses the grace needed to live completely and fully the sacramental life to which He has called us and formed us for.
The Crisis of Religious Illiteracy - and how Hildrebrand can help!
One need not read the recent book by Boston University professor Stephen Prothero “Religious Literacy” to see the problem. Just visit a parish CCD program or Catholic school near you and ask the Confirmation class to name the first commandment. According to a recent survey (see Zenit.org 2007-04-23 “Religious Illiteracy”) only 5% will be able to answer correctly. (1)
In 1997, the US Council of Catholic Bishops established a Protocol for Assessing the Conformity of Catechetical Materials with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It should be noted that this assessment tool was designed not to search for the best in catechetical resources, but to detect those resources that did not meet the lowest requirements. (But even so, the USCCB does not restrict their use.)
The fact that only one catechetical series passed the initial review (Faith and Life published by Ignatius Press) says much about the magnitude of the problem. But lack of proper educational resources is only part of the dilemma.
One could argue that the instructors need more education. But a review of the Religious Education departments of most dioceses will reveal more people with more letters after their names than ever before. Today, there are more resources, more instructors, more funds, more programs, and more advice from more advisors than ever. And yet the result is inarguable; the evidence: absolutely damning. It’s getting worse. As a matter of fact, the decline in religious literacy is almost proportionate to the increase in the resources dedicated to reverse it.
So how can Hildebrand help? Hildebrand, better known as Gregory VII, reigned as Pope from 1073 to 1085. That’s quite a while ago. So why should we look to him?
Gregory VII is famous for what came to be called the “Gregorian Reform” which is probably best known for its support of clerical celibacy as a way of improving the moral level of the clergy. But Gregory also tackled simony, to which many of the woes of the 11th century Church could be traced. Simony, which is the buying and selling of church offices, was part of a larger problem of lay domination within the Church.
In How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, the author, Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.d., recounts that:
In 1997, the US Council of Catholic Bishops established a Protocol for Assessing the Conformity of Catechetical Materials with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It should be noted that this assessment tool was designed not to search for the best in catechetical resources, but to detect those resources that did not meet the lowest requirements. (But even so, the USCCB does not restrict their use.)
The fact that only one catechetical series passed the initial review (Faith and Life published by Ignatius Press) says much about the magnitude of the problem. But lack of proper educational resources is only part of the dilemma.
One could argue that the instructors need more education. But a review of the Religious Education departments of most dioceses will reveal more people with more letters after their names than ever before. Today, there are more resources, more instructors, more funds, more programs, and more advice from more advisors than ever. And yet the result is inarguable; the evidence: absolutely damning. It’s getting worse. As a matter of fact, the decline in religious literacy is almost proportionate to the increase in the resources dedicated to reverse it.
So how can Hildebrand help? Hildebrand, better known as Gregory VII, reigned as Pope from 1073 to 1085. That’s quite a while ago. So why should we look to him?
Gregory VII is famous for what came to be called the “Gregorian Reform” which is probably best known for its support of clerical celibacy as a way of improving the moral level of the clergy. But Gregory also tackled simony, to which many of the woes of the 11th century Church could be traced. Simony, which is the buying and selling of church offices, was part of a larger problem of lay domination within the Church.
In How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, the author, Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.d., recounts that:
“Pope Gregory had little chance of reversing the decadence within the Church if
he lacked the power to name the Church’s bishops - a power than in the eleventh
century was being exercised by the various European monarchs instead. Likewise,
as long as laymen could name parish priests and abbots of monasteries, the
multiplication of spiritually unfit candidates for these offices would only
continue.” (2)
Today we don’t have a problem with monarchs appointing bishops, but we do have a problem with “lay domination”. However, in contrast to the problem of the 11th century, the “lay domination” of today is not, for the most part, a power move by the laity but, at least in the case of religious instruction, the inevitable result of the pastor’s abdication of his teaching chair.
The fact that 99.99% of the materials used in parish religious instruction were found to be defective by the time the USCCB got around to reviewing them is pretty profound evidence that the real problem is not the publishers (who for the most part only print what sells) but the pastors.
The pastor, regardless of who he appoints, is the “father” of his parish family and ultimately its guardian. It is he (not the DRE) who stands guard at the gate of the parish garden with the flaming sword of truth and bars the way against any “unclean thing”.
The pastor can no more delegate his role as primary teacher than he can delegate his sacred orders. It doesn’t matter if a lay person has more letters after his or her name. In the Catholic Church there is no authority to teach in the name of the Church other than that which is given from above through the line of Sacred Orders.
The laity must and will serve the Church. But in the absence of authentic authority as embodied by a visible (and audible) pastor, the well-meaning but leaderless laity will dissipate into personal theologies, politics, and private agendas.
The Catholic Church is built on a particular vertical (and visible) alignment of authority (Pope-Bishops- Priests-Laity). It’s the “spine” you might say. Absent any of the “vertebrae” and we have a broken back and a paralyzed body. A paralyzed body will atrophy. Thus the visible evidence from the above mentioned studies.
I want to emphasize the “visible” part of this because it’s what makes the Catholic Church Catholic. The “invisible church” is the stuff of Protestantism. The true Church of Christ is a VISIBLE Church, a city set on a hill (Mt 5:14) The Church is visible through all its members but particularly through those upon whom the sacred orders have been conferred (which is why our late Pope - and probably our current one - have so laboriously insisted upon the wearing of the appropriate and distinguishing religious or clerical garb).
A quick memory for the sake of example: Our parish pastor visited our class weekly. I can still see him dressed in meticulous clerics and entering the classroom in a particularly regal way. The effect was immediate respect and we all would stand and say in unison: “Good morning Father Smith”(not his real name, and no, we did not address him by his first name). Yes, we had been trained to do so, but he had been trained to act and dress in a way that elicited that type of respect, not just for him, but for all that his collar represented. Though we didn’t know it consciously, his presence and how he presented himself helped us intuit the Church that we were a part of. By the way, Father “Smith” never taught a class. His presence and THE WAY he presented himself did that for him.
There’s a saying: “What you do speaks so loudly that what you say I cannot hear” - another way of saying “Actions speak louder than words”. Today we have no end of words. What we lack are examples, models, action. I don’t mean just charitable works and the like, but folks whose very bearing proclaims the dignity, authority, and truth of the Church. Can anyone doubt that such a message exudes from the present occupant of Peter’s chair despite his small and mild stature? (By the way, I don’t think he owns a polo shirt.)
Just one more side note: We didn’t have any special program for adult catechesis. Father took care of that in his sermons which were full of instruction, history, and the examples of the saints. He also celebrated Mass in an extremely solemn and reverent way so we didn’t need a separate class to teach us about the Real Presence. He didn’t need a choir either. I can still hear his voice filling up the huge sanctuary with the strains of “Holy God We Praise Thy Name".
It’s interesting to note that most of the studies and efforts as per the improvement of religious literacy seem to focus mostly on the instructional materials, the “program” (the words). This emphasis is symptomatic of the actual problem. Religious instruction, historically and catechetically, has never been the domain of the “program”, but the province of pastor and parent: the pastor as teacher to his flock, and parent, especially the father, in the mold of the pastor, as teacher to his.
The fact that so few parents are involved in the religious education of their children, let alone fathers, is perhaps the best evidence of the need for “Father” to be once again be seen as “Teacher”. Perhaps we will begin to see fathers “father” when Father “fathers’. (Please remember that I am only dealing with a priest’s pastoral duty to teach and not his other duties.)
I cannot end this little analysis without addressing the main objection that most pastors will have had by the second paragraph: overwork, too busy, no time, this or that person is more qualified, burn out…whatever you want to call it.
I cannot answer for them, but as the father of ten children, living and working in a place where the nearest relative is 7000 miles away, I can answer that Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments of His Church, has provided all that is necessary for me (and my spouse) to fulfill our God given primary duties to our children.
The challenge is the constant effort to continually identify WHAT those “primary duties” are, for in doing them I will find the channels of grace “filled to overflowing”. It’s only when I lose sight of those priorities that I become “weary in well-doing”.
I would submit that there can be no greater command than the last one:: “go and TEACH”. In obeying that command, pastor and parent will find all the grace they need to fulfill it.
(1) Though the Zenit article documents a study done in Ireland, the results are indicative of the level of Religious literacy throughout the western Church as evinced by Prothero’s book which the article also mentions.
(2) See How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph. D., Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2005, pg. 189
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Why do I have to go to Mass on Sunday?
I have never seen or heard the answer I’m about to give you. A search of this question on the internet will reveal a myriad of explanations and a multitude of words that are a mixture of reason, the 3rd commandment, history, and church law. A personal query of fellow Catholics, be they clergy or lay folks, will reveal similar results. The one thing all the answers have in common is that they are ineffective as evidenced by the overall continuance of declining Mass attendance (at least in the West).
One of the reasons why I believe the answers for this question and many others about the Catholic Faith are ineffective is because we long ago eliminated Apologetics as a discipline in Catholic formation. Apologetics is the science of explaining things in a convincing way. With the “I’m okay, you’re okay” approach to catechesis (and just about everything else) Apologetics is cast aside.
But how odd that in an “age of reason” we would eliminate the study of how to give a reason! How ironic is it that we would abolish the discipline that is designed to give an answer just as we enter upon a generation that is demanding answers! Should we then be surprised at the empty pews?
A simple survey of Catholic literature (I have to say it) prior to Vatican II will show a massive dedication to the exposition and explanation of the Faith in the most minute and pain staking detail. A similar survey of Catholic literature hence will show a massive dedication to everything BUT “the exposition and explanation of the Faith in the most minute and pain staking detail”.
The fact that the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its accompanying Compendium are post Vatican II products is not a refutation of what I just said but truly a validation. The compilation and publication of the current Catechism and its companion works is a direct attempt by our Popes to rescue the clear good sense of the Church in all its stark and unflinching truth from the swirling milieu of subjective catechetics and theological relativism. The terse question/answer format of the just released “Compendium to the Catechism” even more severely ratifies the Church’s negative assessment of the current state of Catholic formation and the need to speak with (I have to say it) pre-Vatican II clarity (a la Baltimore Catechism).
All of the foregoing needed to be said before I can give an answer to the question “Why do we have to go to Mass on Sunday?” for HOW to answer the question is just as important as the answer itself, for it is not the answer that will effect the desired result (getting a person to Mass – or keeping him there), but the REASON for the answer, the “apologia”.
I have never had the opportunity to approach Apologetics as a science…wasn’t offered where I went to school! Hmmm. But in the course of desperately trying to explain my Catholic Faith to people who hated the Catholic Faith and who accepted no authority other than the Bible, I hit upon the ridiculously brilliant idea of actually explaining my Catholic Faith from the Bible, even “their” Bible. And guess what? It actually works for Catholics too.
In other words, you can’t just give an answer; you have to give an answer that’s in the Bible. And ALL the answers to questions concerning the Catholic Faith ARE in the Bible because the Holy Spirit has seen to it; and the “Bible” IS in fact a Catholic Book.
Here’s your answer (from the Bible).
At the Last Supper, regardless of whether or not you believe that what occurred was in fact the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus COMMANDS His Apostles to do what He just did with the words “do this”.(the clearest scripture on this is 1 Cor 11: 23-25).
Now the bottom line is this. When you hit the end of the line in this life, you are going to go to one of two places: to Glory or to “everlasting fire”. (Purgatory is not a final destination – and those there are assured of Heaven. We’ll cover that another time.) Those who go to Heaven will simply be those who DID what He said to do. And those who go to the other place will be those who refused to do what He said to do.
So that’s why it’s not about your being able to “commune” with God better on a golf course or at the beach. It’s not about how YOU can better praise God in the quiet of your own home. It’s not about YOU at all!. It’s about HIM and it’s about DOING what He said to do. And He said to “do this”. And there’s only one place I know where that happens, and that’s at the Catholic Mass (I’ll discuss other church’s so-called communion services later).
Now the next question is “Why on Sunday?” and “Why every Sunday?” The answer is in Acts 20: 7 in these words: “On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread…” A continued reading of the New Testament reveals that the words “break bread” clearly refer to a re-presentation of the Lord’s Supper and the carrying out of His last command to “do this”.
And WHEN were they doing this? “ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK”, on SUNDAY. The fact that the words “first day of the week” are used clearly indicates that this was a weekly thing. In other words, the first Christians understood the last command of Christ as a command to be a re-presentation of the Lord’s Supper (what we now call “Mass” – I’ll discuss why we call it “Mass” later) on the first day of every week.
Now, there’s only one place I know that does the “do this” on the first day of EVERY week and that’s at the Catholic Mass. So the question then becomes: you can obey the command of Christ or you can disobey. It’s your choice: the sheep or the goats. Take your pick.
I may not “get anything out of Mass” (and teachers please stop saying “well you have to put something into it”). I may in fact be severely irritated at Sunday Mass (I often am). I may not “want to go” (I rarely do). I may think that I could get closer to God in some sort of private devotion (I always do). But the bottom line is that IT’S NOT ABOUT ME. It’s about HIM. And it’s about DOING WHAT HE SAID. So that’s why I do it. And that’s why you BETTER do it. Your choice: sheep or the goats.
Tim Rohr
April 21, 2007
One of the reasons why I believe the answers for this question and many others about the Catholic Faith are ineffective is because we long ago eliminated Apologetics as a discipline in Catholic formation. Apologetics is the science of explaining things in a convincing way. With the “I’m okay, you’re okay” approach to catechesis (and just about everything else) Apologetics is cast aside.
But how odd that in an “age of reason” we would eliminate the study of how to give a reason! How ironic is it that we would abolish the discipline that is designed to give an answer just as we enter upon a generation that is demanding answers! Should we then be surprised at the empty pews?
A simple survey of Catholic literature (I have to say it) prior to Vatican II will show a massive dedication to the exposition and explanation of the Faith in the most minute and pain staking detail. A similar survey of Catholic literature hence will show a massive dedication to everything BUT “the exposition and explanation of the Faith in the most minute and pain staking detail”.
The fact that the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its accompanying Compendium are post Vatican II products is not a refutation of what I just said but truly a validation. The compilation and publication of the current Catechism and its companion works is a direct attempt by our Popes to rescue the clear good sense of the Church in all its stark and unflinching truth from the swirling milieu of subjective catechetics and theological relativism. The terse question/answer format of the just released “Compendium to the Catechism” even more severely ratifies the Church’s negative assessment of the current state of Catholic formation and the need to speak with (I have to say it) pre-Vatican II clarity (a la Baltimore Catechism).
All of the foregoing needed to be said before I can give an answer to the question “Why do we have to go to Mass on Sunday?” for HOW to answer the question is just as important as the answer itself, for it is not the answer that will effect the desired result (getting a person to Mass – or keeping him there), but the REASON for the answer, the “apologia”.
I have never had the opportunity to approach Apologetics as a science…wasn’t offered where I went to school! Hmmm. But in the course of desperately trying to explain my Catholic Faith to people who hated the Catholic Faith and who accepted no authority other than the Bible, I hit upon the ridiculously brilliant idea of actually explaining my Catholic Faith from the Bible, even “their” Bible. And guess what? It actually works for Catholics too.
In other words, you can’t just give an answer; you have to give an answer that’s in the Bible. And ALL the answers to questions concerning the Catholic Faith ARE in the Bible because the Holy Spirit has seen to it; and the “Bible” IS in fact a Catholic Book.
Here’s your answer (from the Bible).
At the Last Supper, regardless of whether or not you believe that what occurred was in fact the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus COMMANDS His Apostles to do what He just did with the words “do this”.(the clearest scripture on this is 1 Cor 11: 23-25).
Now the bottom line is this. When you hit the end of the line in this life, you are going to go to one of two places: to Glory or to “everlasting fire”. (Purgatory is not a final destination – and those there are assured of Heaven. We’ll cover that another time.) Those who go to Heaven will simply be those who DID what He said to do. And those who go to the other place will be those who refused to do what He said to do.
So that’s why it’s not about your being able to “commune” with God better on a golf course or at the beach. It’s not about how YOU can better praise God in the quiet of your own home. It’s not about YOU at all!. It’s about HIM and it’s about DOING what He said to do. And He said to “do this”. And there’s only one place I know where that happens, and that’s at the Catholic Mass (I’ll discuss other church’s so-called communion services later).
Now the next question is “Why on Sunday?” and “Why every Sunday?” The answer is in Acts 20: 7 in these words: “On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread…” A continued reading of the New Testament reveals that the words “break bread” clearly refer to a re-presentation of the Lord’s Supper and the carrying out of His last command to “do this”.
And WHEN were they doing this? “ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK”, on SUNDAY. The fact that the words “first day of the week” are used clearly indicates that this was a weekly thing. In other words, the first Christians understood the last command of Christ as a command to be a re-presentation of the Lord’s Supper (what we now call “Mass” – I’ll discuss why we call it “Mass” later) on the first day of every week.
Now, there’s only one place I know that does the “do this” on the first day of EVERY week and that’s at the Catholic Mass. So the question then becomes: you can obey the command of Christ or you can disobey. It’s your choice: the sheep or the goats. Take your pick.
I may not “get anything out of Mass” (and teachers please stop saying “well you have to put something into it”). I may in fact be severely irritated at Sunday Mass (I often am). I may not “want to go” (I rarely do). I may think that I could get closer to God in some sort of private devotion (I always do). But the bottom line is that IT’S NOT ABOUT ME. It’s about HIM. And it’s about DOING WHAT HE SAID. So that’s why I do it. And that’s why you BETTER do it. Your choice: sheep or the goats.
Tim Rohr
April 21, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Virginia Tech Massacre - What's wrong?
Just a quick reflection on what’s going on at Virginia Tech. Couldn’t sleep last night so was listening to the radio (internet radio) about 2 am and heard the “convocation” at Virginia Tech. The President, the governor of Virginia, all the school authorities, etc. spoke. Every one of them quoted Scripture. Every one of them mentioned “prayer”. One school official even read a whole part of Ecclesiastes (A time for sowing, a time for reaping, etc.)
What happened to the so-called separation of Church and State? What happened to prayer not being allowed in schools and the display of religion, specifically the Christian religion, not being allowed in public places? Rush Limbaugh had it right when he commented:
As individuals there’s not much we can do to change the stupid, God-forsaking policies or our public institutions. But no one can keep us from praying in our homes. Let us build up the Church of the Home. Let us make it a sanctuary of prayer, a holy place. We will sanctify the world from the inside out.
On another note though, I would encourage you not to fall for the media’s characterization of this event as a “tragedy”. It’s NOT a “tragedy”, it’s an “atrocity”. (They did the same thing with 9-11.)
A “tragedy” is a life lost in a car accident, an earthquake, tornado, or hurricane. Calling this a “tragedy” skews the responsibility for the act. Calling this an “atrocity”, which it is, nails the responsibility to the perpetrator and his singular act of will.
It is a ‘tragedy” for those who have lost a loved one, but the event as a whole is an “atrocity”. This may not seem all that important, but the word “atrocity” answers the great “why” that everyone else is asking. While the rest of the world cries to heaven for an answer, we need look no further than one who “roams the earth seeking the ruin of souls”. And as a nation we should not be shocked. With 43 million unborn babies dead since 1973, we long ago built a throne for Satan to rule.
On Sunday April 24th 1994, Pope John Paul II recommended this prayer be used by all Catholics as a prayer for the Church when he said:
What happened to the so-called separation of Church and State? What happened to prayer not being allowed in schools and the display of religion, specifically the Christian religion, not being allowed in public places? Rush Limbaugh had it right when he commented:
though it’s good that we should come together and pray when things like this happen that maybe we should come together and pray BEFORE these things happen so that maybe they WON’T happen.
As individuals there’s not much we can do to change the stupid, God-forsaking policies or our public institutions. But no one can keep us from praying in our homes. Let us build up the Church of the Home. Let us make it a sanctuary of prayer, a holy place. We will sanctify the world from the inside out.
On another note though, I would encourage you not to fall for the media’s characterization of this event as a “tragedy”. It’s NOT a “tragedy”, it’s an “atrocity”. (They did the same thing with 9-11.)
A “tragedy” is a life lost in a car accident, an earthquake, tornado, or hurricane. Calling this a “tragedy” skews the responsibility for the act. Calling this an “atrocity”, which it is, nails the responsibility to the perpetrator and his singular act of will.
It is a ‘tragedy” for those who have lost a loved one, but the event as a whole is an “atrocity”. This may not seem all that important, but the word “atrocity” answers the great “why” that everyone else is asking. While the rest of the world cries to heaven for an answer, we need look no further than one who “roams the earth seeking the ruin of souls”. And as a nation we should not be shocked. With 43 million unborn babies dead since 1973, we long ago built a throne for Satan to rule.
On Sunday April 24th 1994, Pope John Paul II recommended this prayer be used by all Catholics as a prayer for the Church when he said:
"May prayer strengthen us for the spiritual battle we are told about in the Letter to the Ephesians: 'Draw strength from the Lord and from His mighty power' (Ephesians 6:10). The Book of Revelation refers to this same battle, recalling before our eyes the image of St. Michael the Archangel (Revelation 12:7). Pope Leo XIII certainly had a very vivid recollection of this scene when, at the end of the last century, he introduced a special prayer to St. Michael throughout the Church. Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world."'
Amen.
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Lost in Translation - The Last Word on Divorce
The Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and the events of Lent are still fresh in our mind. Actually on Guam, if you listen to Catholic Radio, you get to experience Holy Week twice since we are on a one-week delay as regards programs generated in the states and rebroadcast here. And while tuned in to a particular episode of Catholic Answers I heard an interesting discussion on the Seven Last Words of Christ.
I have come to realize as of late the significance of these Last Words. The final words of any dying person always merit grave attention, but how much more so in the case of the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity, particularly since in order to utter those words Jesus had to push himself up on the nails through his feet which surely increased his incomprehensible agony.
Generations upon generations have meditated upon these “seven last words”. Great meditations have been written and momentous musical settings composed. It has been pointed out that the whole of Divine Revelation could be summed up in these Seven Last Words: all that God wants us to know of Himself is revealed in those dying moments.
If it stands to reason that if the Seven Last Words of Christ merit the deepest attention then perhaps the very Last Word would merit it all the more.
“It is finished”, said He…or did He? Most modern translations of Scripture use the word “finished”, but the official Catholic Scripture text does not. The “official Scripture text” (1) of the Catholic Church is the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome.
There are several reasons to give more weight to the Vulgate than to more modern translations:
1. The man who authored the Vulgate translation became a canonized saint. The NAB, RSV, NJB, etc., valid and useful translations though they may be, cannot make the same boast of its authorship.
2. The Vulgate is the only translation to be authorized by the Church with the force of an anathema. (2)
3. St. Jerome was 1600 years closer to the sources than any modern translation. (Jerome lived in the 5th century.)
4. Modern translators had to learn the languages of the original scriptures whereas Jerome actually spoke Greek and was very familiar with Hebrew (though he did need some help with Chaldeic).
The list could go on. But the important thing is that the Church actually says what the Vulgate says and the Vulgate does not say “It is finished”. The Vulgate says “consummatum est”, “It is consummated”.
It is true that the original Greek word (tetelestai) could be translated as “finished”, but there are several Latin words that could mean “finished” including the word “finis” from where we get our English word. It is thought that the ancient dismissal “Ite Missa est” actually included the word “finita” or “Ite, missa est finita” which translates literally “The Mass is ended (finished)” which is what we say in English anyway.
So the question is WHY did Jerome select “consummatum ” and not another word that could clearly mean “finished”?
The Church has always proclaimed the deep and true meaning of “consummatum est”, but in our modern sexually confused times it has take seven years of lectures by Pope John Paul II and another 25 years of reflection and study by the ablest of scholars to once again hand us the deepest meaning of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
The Theology of the Body reminds us that we are created for marriage, the marriage of the Apocalypse, where Christ, looking as a Lamb that was slain, marries his bride, the Church. Earthly marriage is a foreshadowing of that heavenly marriage.
On the cross, Christ initiates the wedding feast of Heaven by bodily giving Himself to His bride, The Church. This is why Paul exhorts husbands to “love your wives as Christ loved the Church”. And this is why in order for a marriage to be valid it must be “consummatum”!
A quick etymological investigation of the word is instructive: “con” = together, “summa” = highest (as in summit). Literal translation: the highest coming together, the pinnacle, the summit of union. There is nothing higher. And indeed, there was nothing higher than the sacrifice of Christ, the consummation of His Body for His Bride. Christ gave His All down to the last drop of blood and water…completely expiated, wrung out, “consumed” by love for us.
It is also instructive to note that the word “consummate” is also used to describe that which is most “exquisite”, “precious”, “wonderful”. (e.g. “He is a consummate violinist..”)
“Consummate” can also be translated as “complete”, which is perhaps closer in some sense to the word “finished”. But “complete” in this sense would not mean “done”, “no more to do”, but “complete” in the sense of “without flaw” or “perfect”.
In any event, the “more relatable” word “finished”, as we can see from the above discussion, is a sad and rather limp expression compared to the full meaning of the word Jerome chose (and which our Church still officially uses).
Once again the riches of our Faith are more impoverished, not because we don’t know Latin, but because translators have chosen their wisdom over Jerome’s and over that of the Church.
The words “It is finished” have caused much confusion and dissension on the apologetic front because our Protestant brethren like to use those words to proclaim the “finished work of Christ” as meaning “no more to do”, or that we can “add nothing”. This is all very ridiculous of course otherwise there would be no need to obey Christ’s instruction to take up your cross and follow Me (Mk. 8:34), or to heed the warning to “persevere to the end” (Mt. 10:22).
When understood in the context of the wedding feast of the Lamb, we see that Christ is just beginning His marriage, just as a couple upon consummating their marriage is beginning theirs.
It’s interesting to speculate how the radical rise in the rate of divorce (amongst other contemporary ills) has coincided with the release of these new translations. Hmmmm.
1 Bible Versions and Commentaries by Colin Donovan STL
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
2 But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema (Council of Trent - Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures)
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. (Council of Trent - Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of the Sacred Books)
I have come to realize as of late the significance of these Last Words. The final words of any dying person always merit grave attention, but how much more so in the case of the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity, particularly since in order to utter those words Jesus had to push himself up on the nails through his feet which surely increased his incomprehensible agony.
Generations upon generations have meditated upon these “seven last words”. Great meditations have been written and momentous musical settings composed. It has been pointed out that the whole of Divine Revelation could be summed up in these Seven Last Words: all that God wants us to know of Himself is revealed in those dying moments.
If it stands to reason that if the Seven Last Words of Christ merit the deepest attention then perhaps the very Last Word would merit it all the more.
“It is finished”, said He…or did He? Most modern translations of Scripture use the word “finished”, but the official Catholic Scripture text does not. The “official Scripture text” (1) of the Catholic Church is the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome.
There are several reasons to give more weight to the Vulgate than to more modern translations:
1. The man who authored the Vulgate translation became a canonized saint. The NAB, RSV, NJB, etc., valid and useful translations though they may be, cannot make the same boast of its authorship.
2. The Vulgate is the only translation to be authorized by the Church with the force of an anathema. (2)
3. St. Jerome was 1600 years closer to the sources than any modern translation. (Jerome lived in the 5th century.)
4. Modern translators had to learn the languages of the original scriptures whereas Jerome actually spoke Greek and was very familiar with Hebrew (though he did need some help with Chaldeic).
The list could go on. But the important thing is that the Church actually says what the Vulgate says and the Vulgate does not say “It is finished”. The Vulgate says “consummatum est”, “It is consummated”.
It is true that the original Greek word (tetelestai) could be translated as “finished”, but there are several Latin words that could mean “finished” including the word “finis” from where we get our English word. It is thought that the ancient dismissal “Ite Missa est” actually included the word “finita” or “Ite, missa est finita” which translates literally “The Mass is ended (finished)” which is what we say in English anyway.
So the question is WHY did Jerome select “consummatum ” and not another word that could clearly mean “finished”?
The Church has always proclaimed the deep and true meaning of “consummatum est”, but in our modern sexually confused times it has take seven years of lectures by Pope John Paul II and another 25 years of reflection and study by the ablest of scholars to once again hand us the deepest meaning of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
The Theology of the Body reminds us that we are created for marriage, the marriage of the Apocalypse, where Christ, looking as a Lamb that was slain, marries his bride, the Church. Earthly marriage is a foreshadowing of that heavenly marriage.
On the cross, Christ initiates the wedding feast of Heaven by bodily giving Himself to His bride, The Church. This is why Paul exhorts husbands to “love your wives as Christ loved the Church”. And this is why in order for a marriage to be valid it must be “consummatum”!
A quick etymological investigation of the word is instructive: “con” = together, “summa” = highest (as in summit). Literal translation: the highest coming together, the pinnacle, the summit of union. There is nothing higher. And indeed, there was nothing higher than the sacrifice of Christ, the consummation of His Body for His Bride. Christ gave His All down to the last drop of blood and water…completely expiated, wrung out, “consumed” by love for us.
It is also instructive to note that the word “consummate” is also used to describe that which is most “exquisite”, “precious”, “wonderful”. (e.g. “He is a consummate violinist..”)
“Consummate” can also be translated as “complete”, which is perhaps closer in some sense to the word “finished”. But “complete” in this sense would not mean “done”, “no more to do”, but “complete” in the sense of “without flaw” or “perfect”.
In any event, the “more relatable” word “finished”, as we can see from the above discussion, is a sad and rather limp expression compared to the full meaning of the word Jerome chose (and which our Church still officially uses).
Once again the riches of our Faith are more impoverished, not because we don’t know Latin, but because translators have chosen their wisdom over Jerome’s and over that of the Church.
The words “It is finished” have caused much confusion and dissension on the apologetic front because our Protestant brethren like to use those words to proclaim the “finished work of Christ” as meaning “no more to do”, or that we can “add nothing”. This is all very ridiculous of course otherwise there would be no need to obey Christ’s instruction to take up your cross and follow Me (Mk. 8:34), or to heed the warning to “persevere to the end” (Mt. 10:22).
When understood in the context of the wedding feast of the Lamb, we see that Christ is just beginning His marriage, just as a couple upon consummating their marriage is beginning theirs.
It’s interesting to speculate how the radical rise in the rate of divorce (amongst other contemporary ills) has coincided with the release of these new translations. Hmmmm.
1 Bible Versions and Commentaries by Colin Donovan STL
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
2 But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema (Council of Trent - Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures)
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. (Council of Trent - Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of the Sacred Books)
Monday, March 05, 2007
Fasting - How not to do it
It is quite common these days to hear about alternatives to fasting that include such recommendations as: “fasting from criticism”, “fasting from the use of foul language”, “fasting from rude behavior”, and “fasting” from whatever other bad habits can be named.
I’ve received several emails in this regard and have heard not a few references to this type of “fasting” from Catholic media sources.
However, while the giving up of bad habits is a worthwhile recommendation I personally would hesitate to label these otherwise laudatory ambitions as “fasting”.
Here’s why:
“Fasting” is the voluntary act of giving up something that is otherwise a “good”; thus the Church’s allowance for the dispensation of the rules regarding fasting in the case of age or health.
While the intent of “fasting” is to facilitate greater interior conversion which would hopefully include the forgoing of bad habits, it is probably not correct to redefine fasting as the act of forgoing something one should not be doing in the first place. In other words, the elimination of bad habits is the desired “effect” of fasting, but it is not fasting.
The other problem from such a “re-definition” of the practice of “fasting” is what do you do when the fast if over…go back to your bad habit?
So clearly, the Church has a very specific definition of fasting that is deeply rooted in Scripture and the historical discipline of the Church.
Well, just a thought. Have a blessed Lent.
I’ve received several emails in this regard and have heard not a few references to this type of “fasting” from Catholic media sources.
However, while the giving up of bad habits is a worthwhile recommendation I personally would hesitate to label these otherwise laudatory ambitions as “fasting”.
Here’s why:
“Fasting” is the voluntary act of giving up something that is otherwise a “good”; thus the Church’s allowance for the dispensation of the rules regarding fasting in the case of age or health.
While the intent of “fasting” is to facilitate greater interior conversion which would hopefully include the forgoing of bad habits, it is probably not correct to redefine fasting as the act of forgoing something one should not be doing in the first place. In other words, the elimination of bad habits is the desired “effect” of fasting, but it is not fasting.
The other problem from such a “re-definition” of the practice of “fasting” is what do you do when the fast if over…go back to your bad habit?
So clearly, the Church has a very specific definition of fasting that is deeply rooted in Scripture and the historical discipline of the Church.
Well, just a thought. Have a blessed Lent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
