Just as Ash Wednesday is really not focused on ashes but rather on the call to conversion, so the focus of Palm Sunday is not on palms but on a procession. The procession is not simply a dramatic reenactment of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem but a prayerful meditation on who we are as Church.
Our church’s liturgical rituals have three dimensions. They recall past events, celebrate the present reality of grace, and look to a future fulfillment. Thus, on Palm Sunday, we recall Christ’s entry into Jerusalem where he will undergo his passion and death and be raised from the death as Lord and Christ.
Our procession recalls that event, but does more than that. Our walking together reminds us that we are a pilgrim people (a term used repeatedly in the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church). We follow the cross which is the sign of our life in Christ, the cross by which we have been claimed for Christ in our baptism. We follow the cross because which is the sign of Christ’s self-giving which we are called to imitate. We carry palms in our hands because they are signs of Christ’s promise of victory over sin and death. We follow the cross, bearing palms, and enter the church, the symbol of the heavenly city where all of God’s holy ones are gathered.
Many years ago, I put together a meditation on Palm Sunday. In it we recalled many occasions when people walked in search of justice, the peasants who marched on Versailles, those who marched on the Czar’s palace, those who walked in Selma, those who marched on Washington. They were people who had a dream. Our walk through life is not energized by a dream, but by a promise, a promise made by one whose word is true because he is the Word of Truth.
While the earlier Sacramentary directed: “The procession to the church where Mss will be celebrated then begins,.” the new Sacramentary directs: “The procession to the church where Mass will be celebrated sets off in the usual way.” This is somewhat strange because the procession is not formed in the usual way.
Most church processions are formed on the basis of status or rank. Thus, the presider comes at the end of the procession, unless there is a bishop presiding, or another person who outranks the presider.
However, on Palm Sunday the procession does not form on the basis of rank. Rather, the presider, acting in the person of Christ, leads the church. The presider walks ahead of us to remind us that Christ has gone before us. He knows the troubles of our lives because he has endured them himself. We have a high priest who was tested in everyway that we are, but without sin.
Palm Sunday is not about palms but about who we are and who is our source of hope.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
The goal - Prayer
In December of next year, the Catholic Church will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the promulgation of the CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY.
To appreciate the importance of the Council’s statement that “every liturgical celebration… is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church” (#7), it is necessary to recall the situation prior to the Council. In the parish where I attended elementary school, the pastor offered a “Missa Recitata” on the first Saturday of each month. This was a Mass at which the congregation was permitted to answer the responses together with the servers. When I entered the seminary in 1954, the students were permitted to do this three mornings week. One morning a week we were permitted to sing four songs (entrance, offertory, communion, recessional).
Mass was the act of the priest. In “The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described,” by Fortesque and O’Connell which was a standard manual for priests to ensure the proper celebration of the liturgical rites, there is no listing in the index for assembly, community, laity or people. The rubrics of the pre-counciliar Missal governed only the actions of the priest.
It was a major sift on the part of the Council Fathers to describe the liturgy in terms of “Christ the priest and of His Body the Church.”
The Council document then states that “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people’ is their right and duty by reason of their baptism. In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else.” (#14)
Fully conscious and active participation has almost become a mantra of those involved with liturgy. At times, in my experience, it has almost become synonymous with activity. However the Council Fathers explain this aim when they direct that “Pastors of souls must… ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.” (#11) Fully aware, actively engaged, and enriched is another way of describing the goal. I believe this is a way of saying that the celebration of the liturgy is meant to be the prayer of the entire Church, not simply of the priest.
It is surprising how seldom the Council Fathers actually use the word prayer when speaking of participation. I don’t that this was an oversight but, rather, an assumption that all the terms used in the document, in fact, referred to prayer.
However, I think that the time has come for the goal of active participation to be clearly stated as prayer. I think that each liturgical minister needs to ask him/her self “Is what I am doing and the way I am doing it eliciting and aiding the prayer of those gathered here?”
While the goal is full conscious active participation, this is not simply activity; it is mean to be prayer. If it does not lead to prayer, it fall short.
To appreciate the importance of the Council’s statement that “every liturgical celebration… is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church” (#7), it is necessary to recall the situation prior to the Council. In the parish where I attended elementary school, the pastor offered a “Missa Recitata” on the first Saturday of each month. This was a Mass at which the congregation was permitted to answer the responses together with the servers. When I entered the seminary in 1954, the students were permitted to do this three mornings week. One morning a week we were permitted to sing four songs (entrance, offertory, communion, recessional).
Mass was the act of the priest. In “The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described,” by Fortesque and O’Connell which was a standard manual for priests to ensure the proper celebration of the liturgical rites, there is no listing in the index for assembly, community, laity or people. The rubrics of the pre-counciliar Missal governed only the actions of the priest.
It was a major sift on the part of the Council Fathers to describe the liturgy in terms of “Christ the priest and of His Body the Church.”
The Council document then states that “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people’ is their right and duty by reason of their baptism. In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else.” (#14)
Fully conscious and active participation has almost become a mantra of those involved with liturgy. At times, in my experience, it has almost become synonymous with activity. However the Council Fathers explain this aim when they direct that “Pastors of souls must… ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.” (#11) Fully aware, actively engaged, and enriched is another way of describing the goal. I believe this is a way of saying that the celebration of the liturgy is meant to be the prayer of the entire Church, not simply of the priest.
It is surprising how seldom the Council Fathers actually use the word prayer when speaking of participation. I don’t that this was an oversight but, rather, an assumption that all the terms used in the document, in fact, referred to prayer.
However, I think that the time has come for the goal of active participation to be clearly stated as prayer. I think that each liturgical minister needs to ask him/her self “Is what I am doing and the way I am doing it eliciting and aiding the prayer of those gathered here?”
While the goal is full conscious active participation, this is not simply activity; it is mean to be prayer. If it does not lead to prayer, it fall short.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Sounding a strange note
The readings for the 4th Sunday of Lent (Cycle B) are filled with compassion. The reading from 2nd Chronicles speaks of the return of the Israelites after seventy years of exile. Over 25 million people in our world today long to hear such a message.
The text from Ephesians proclaims a “God who is rich in mercy” and who “because of the great love he had for us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ.” “By grace you have been saved through faith…it is the gift of God; it is no from works, so no one may boast.”
And the gospel reading tells us that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish.”
What a strange note, then, the Collect for the Wednesday of the 4th Week of Lent strikes: “O God, who rewards the merits of the just and offer pardon to sinners who do penance, have mercy, we pray, on those who call upon you, that the admission of our guild may serve to obtain your pardon for our sins.”
Is it penance and the admission of guilt that wins pardon for our sins? Or is it the death and resurrection of Christ? Is our salvation the reward of our merit of the free gift of God? It may be possible to nuance this prayer but the Collects are meant to be proclaimed aloud and form the faith of the listener. A homily on the Collect may be helpful for a deeper understanding but should not be necessary for a proper interpretation.
The text from Ephesians proclaims a “God who is rich in mercy” and who “because of the great love he had for us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ.” “By grace you have been saved through faith…it is the gift of God; it is no from works, so no one may boast.”
And the gospel reading tells us that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish.”
What a strange note, then, the Collect for the Wednesday of the 4th Week of Lent strikes: “O God, who rewards the merits of the just and offer pardon to sinners who do penance, have mercy, we pray, on those who call upon you, that the admission of our guild may serve to obtain your pardon for our sins.”
Is it penance and the admission of guilt that wins pardon for our sins? Or is it the death and resurrection of Christ? Is our salvation the reward of our merit of the free gift of God? It may be possible to nuance this prayer but the Collects are meant to be proclaimed aloud and form the faith of the listener. A homily on the Collect may be helpful for a deeper understanding but should not be necessary for a proper interpretation.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
The Easter Proclamation
The high point in the liturgical year is the Easter Vigil. I have participated in this liturgy for the past fifty-six years. My first Easter Vigil was at seven-thirty in the morning the year before the Holy Week reform of Pope Pius XII. In the mid-sixties, the rite was translated into English and, then, there was the rite that was revised in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. And now, this year we will be using a new translation..
One of the great hymns in the Roman Liturgy is the Easter Proclamation from the Easter Vigil. Below are two translations for you to compare. The texts are interspersed to make comparison easier; one is in plain type, the other in italics.
Exult, let them exult, the hosts of heaven,
exult, let Angel ministers of God exult,
let the trumpet of salvation
sound aloud our mighty King’s triumph!
Rejoice, heavenly powers! Sing, choirs of angels!
Exult, all creation around God’s throne!
Jesus Christ, our King is risen!
Sound the trumpet of salvation!
Be glad, let earth be glad, as glory floods her,
ablaze with light from her eternal King,
let all corners of the earth be glad,
knowing an end to gloom and darkness.
Rejoice, O earth, in shining splendor,
radiant in the brightness of your King!
Christ has conquered! Glory fills you!
Darkness vanishes forever.
Rejoice, let Mother Church also rejoice,
arrayed with the lightning of his glory,
let this holy building shake with joy,
filled with the mighty voices of the peoples.
Rejoice, O Mother Church! Exult in glory!
The risen Christ shines upon you!
Let this place resound with joy,
echoing the mighty song of all God’s people!
The text in plain type is the newer translation; the one in italics is the earlier translation. The revised translation that was introduced this liturgical year is marked by its emphasis on fidelity to the Latin text, including word order and syntax, even marked by transliterations.
Since this text is meant to be proclaimed aloud, read each of these translations in a good strong voice.
One of the great hymns in the Roman Liturgy is the Easter Proclamation from the Easter Vigil. Below are two translations for you to compare. The texts are interspersed to make comparison easier; one is in plain type, the other in italics.
Exult, let them exult, the hosts of heaven,
exult, let Angel ministers of God exult,
let the trumpet of salvation
sound aloud our mighty King’s triumph!
Rejoice, heavenly powers! Sing, choirs of angels!
Exult, all creation around God’s throne!
Jesus Christ, our King is risen!
Sound the trumpet of salvation!
Be glad, let earth be glad, as glory floods her,
ablaze with light from her eternal King,
let all corners of the earth be glad,
knowing an end to gloom and darkness.
Rejoice, O earth, in shining splendor,
radiant in the brightness of your King!
Christ has conquered! Glory fills you!
Darkness vanishes forever.
Rejoice, let Mother Church also rejoice,
arrayed with the lightning of his glory,
let this holy building shake with joy,
filled with the mighty voices of the peoples.
Rejoice, O Mother Church! Exult in glory!
The risen Christ shines upon you!
Let this place resound with joy,
echoing the mighty song of all God’s people!
The text in plain type is the newer translation; the one in italics is the earlier translation. The revised translation that was introduced this liturgical year is marked by its emphasis on fidelity to the Latin text, including word order and syntax, even marked by transliterations.
Since this text is meant to be proclaimed aloud, read each of these translations in a good strong voice.
Monday, March 5, 2012
The Ministry of Reader
This past Sunday, the New Testament reading was taken from the 8th chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans: “If God is for us, who can be against us?” What a powerful statement. At the Mass, I attended the reader read clearly and intelligibly. However, there was no depth of conviction behind the reading. As I listen to readers at Mass, I find that laments, advice, stories, visions of hope all sound the same.
Reading at Mass seems to be just that, reading aloud. Yet the 1975 General Instruction of the Roman Missal says that “those who exercise the ministry of reader must be truly qualified and carefully prepared in order that the faithful will develop a warm and lively love for Scripture from listening to the sacred texts.”
The task of the reader is not to read but rather, by reading, to elicit a love for Scripture in those who listen.
The obvious question is does the reader truly love Scripture? Ministry entails much more than simply volunteering. Ministry is a call. One who would respond to that call needs to develop skills to immerse oneself in Scripture, and to engage in a spiritual journey. No true ministry can exist without continuing spiritual formation.
The most moving reading that I have heard was several decades ago. I still remember it well. There was nothing dramatic about it; it was simply a carefully read Psalm 23 at a funeral Mass. I complimented the reader afterwards and he replied that he had prayed that psalm daily for the several months, ever since he had learned that his friend had terminal cancer.
“If God is for us, who can be against us?” These words need to be read clearly; they do not need dramatic interpretation. What they do require is the conviction of faith.
Reading at Mass seems to be just that, reading aloud. Yet the 1975 General Instruction of the Roman Missal says that “those who exercise the ministry of reader must be truly qualified and carefully prepared in order that the faithful will develop a warm and lively love for Scripture from listening to the sacred texts.”
The task of the reader is not to read but rather, by reading, to elicit a love for Scripture in those who listen.
The obvious question is does the reader truly love Scripture? Ministry entails much more than simply volunteering. Ministry is a call. One who would respond to that call needs to develop skills to immerse oneself in Scripture, and to engage in a spiritual journey. No true ministry can exist without continuing spiritual formation.
The most moving reading that I have heard was several decades ago. I still remember it well. There was nothing dramatic about it; it was simply a carefully read Psalm 23 at a funeral Mass. I complimented the reader afterwards and he replied that he had prayed that psalm daily for the several months, ever since he had learned that his friend had terminal cancer.
“If God is for us, who can be against us?” These words need to be read clearly; they do not need dramatic interpretation. What they do require is the conviction of faith.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Abortion
One of the most divisive issues in American society is abortion. Unfortunately it seems that it is not possible to have any reasoned and civil discourse about this topic. And such a discussion is extremely important because, I believe, abortion does involve, not simply political issues, but important moral questions about human life and human rights.
What makes such a discussion difficult, if not impossible, is the dynamic that is pushing both sides to extreme positions.
Recently Bishop William E. Lori, the chairman of the U.S. bishops' Ad Hoc Committeee on Religious Liberty, responded to an editorial in America magazine, "Policy, Not Liberty." In his letter Bishop Lori writes:
“The March 5th America editorial takes the United States Bishops to task for entering too deeply into the finer points of health care policy as they ponder what the slightly revised Obama Administration mandate might mean for the Catholic Church in the United States. These details, we are told, do not impinge on religious liberty. We are also told that our recent forthright language borders on incivility.
“What details are we talking about? For one thing, a government mandate to insure, one way or another, for an abortifacient drug called Ella. Here the “details” would seem to be fertilized ova, small defenseless human beings, who will likely suffer abortion within the purview of a church-run health insurance program.”
The role of the drug Ella as an abortifacient is challenged by a number of writers. However, what I find most challenging is the bishop’s description of the fertilized ova as “small defenseless human beings.” Unquestionably they are human life, at least incipient human life. But “human beings?” A fertilized ovum once implanted in the womb can divide and produce twins, triplets, etc. Can a “human being” divide in two? I find the bishop’s language extreme.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Journal of Medical Ethics recently published an article which argued that the reasons used to justify an abortion also justified the termination of the life of a newborn. The authors write:
“Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion. Sometimes the two reasons are connected, such as when a woman claims that a disabled child would represent a risk to her mental health. However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself…
“A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human…
“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life…
“If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”
Another example of the difficulty in engaging is civil discourse is the adamant position of many who refuse to consider any limitation of the right of a woman to secure an abortion. Yet in India, which seems destined to be the most populated country in the world, one of the major reasons for having an abortion is to avoid giving birth to a daughter. This attitude has already created a significant demographic imbalance in China.
What is human life? At what point do we speak of a person? What is the role of civil law? How do the rights of a woman interact with other rights? How do we go about exploring any of these questions?
What makes such a discussion difficult, if not impossible, is the dynamic that is pushing both sides to extreme positions.
Recently Bishop William E. Lori, the chairman of the U.S. bishops' Ad Hoc Committeee on Religious Liberty, responded to an editorial in America magazine, "Policy, Not Liberty." In his letter Bishop Lori writes:
“The March 5th America editorial takes the United States Bishops to task for entering too deeply into the finer points of health care policy as they ponder what the slightly revised Obama Administration mandate might mean for the Catholic Church in the United States. These details, we are told, do not impinge on religious liberty. We are also told that our recent forthright language borders on incivility.
“What details are we talking about? For one thing, a government mandate to insure, one way or another, for an abortifacient drug called Ella. Here the “details” would seem to be fertilized ova, small defenseless human beings, who will likely suffer abortion within the purview of a church-run health insurance program.”
The role of the drug Ella as an abortifacient is challenged by a number of writers. However, what I find most challenging is the bishop’s description of the fertilized ova as “small defenseless human beings.” Unquestionably they are human life, at least incipient human life. But “human beings?” A fertilized ovum once implanted in the womb can divide and produce twins, triplets, etc. Can a “human being” divide in two? I find the bishop’s language extreme.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Journal of Medical Ethics recently published an article which argued that the reasons used to justify an abortion also justified the termination of the life of a newborn. The authors write:
“Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion. Sometimes the two reasons are connected, such as when a woman claims that a disabled child would represent a risk to her mental health. However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself…
“A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human…
“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life…
“If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”
Another example of the difficulty in engaging is civil discourse is the adamant position of many who refuse to consider any limitation of the right of a woman to secure an abortion. Yet in India, which seems destined to be the most populated country in the world, one of the major reasons for having an abortion is to avoid giving birth to a daughter. This attitude has already created a significant demographic imbalance in China.
What is human life? At what point do we speak of a person? What is the role of civil law? How do the rights of a woman interact with other rights? How do we go about exploring any of these questions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)