Catholic Metanarrative

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Wednesday Liturgy: Layman's Gestures During Eucharistic Prayer

ROME, DEC. 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I like to join in with some of the gestures that a priest makes during the Eucharistic Prayer. For example, during Eucharistic Prayer 1, I bow my head at the words "Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven"; and I strike my breast at the words "Though we are sinners"; and I make the sign of the cross at the words "let us be filled with every grace and blessing." I feel more active in my participation by doing this, but am unsure whether these gestures of mine are appropriate. Are these gestures for the priest or president alone? -- P.H., London

A: The general principle involved in gestures that accompany prayers is that they are performed only by those who actually say the words.

Thus, for example, the whole assembly bows at the name of Jesus during the Gloria and bows, (or genuflects on Christmas Day) while commemorating the mystery of the Incarnation during the creed.

At a concelebration the usual procedure is that only the principal celebrant performs certain gestures when he alone recites the prayer. Thus, only he extends his hands for the presidential prayers and for the preface.

The other priests join in most gestures during the common prayers such as the ones mentioned by our reader for Eucharistic Prayer 1 (the Roman Canon) as they are normally recited by all the concelebrants.

There are some exceptions to this. For example, in the other Eucharistic Prayers all priests recite in unison the text from the invocation of the Holy Spirit to the commemoration after the consecration, but only the principal celebrant makes the sign of the cross over the chalice.

Likewise all priests strike their breasts at the words "Though we are sinners" even though only one usually recites the prayer.

The reason for this is that the Latin text connects the word "famulis" (servants) to "peccatoribus" (sinners) in a way that is completely lost in the current English translation. In the liturgical tradition of the Roman Canon "famulis" refers primarily to the celebrating clergy and not so much to the faithful (without implying that the only sinners in the congregation are the priests).

It was common for medieval clerics to refer to themselves as sinful servants, and they would sometimes prefix their signature with the word "Sinner." As time went on, the word was replaced with a symbol which had essentially the same meaning.

The custom of bishops to prefix a cross before their signature is probably a relic of the old symbol for denoting the person as a sinful servant.

Therefore it not liturgically correct for our reader to follow the gestures carried out by the priest during the Eucharistic Prayer, above all because these gestures usually imply the concurrent recitation of the prayer.

A blessed and holy Christmas to all.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Broadcasting the Parish Mass

ROME, DEC. 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Related to our reply to a question on broadcasting the Mass to different locales (see Dec. 11), a reader from Auckland, New Zealand, previously asked: "In a new church where the altar is plainly visible to all members of the congregation and the actions of the priest can be observed clearly, is it appropriate to use video projection to image what is happening at the altar on the wall behind to 'improve' the congregation's view of the action at the altar?"

While I am unaware of any official norms relative to this matter, I would consider it pastorally unwise and likely to be counterproductive.

Many Catholics spend countless hours sitting in front of screens of one form or another at home and work. Although Mass is above all an act of worship, it also serves as a break from the mundane and a time to get in touch with the eternal. Thus, the last thing the faithful need at Mass is more television.

By their very nature, television and cinema induce mental passivity and polarize attention and thus are more likely to impede rather than enhance active participation at Mass which consists in much more than merely seeing the action on the altar.

There is also no small danger of the priest, consciously or not, playing to the camera and being overly attentive to how he looks on the big screen.

For these reasons I believe that the use of screens should be limited to cases when they are truly necessary due to overflowing assemblies, and even then be considered as stopgap solutions.

A Buffalo, New York, reader asked: "Is it lawful to celebrate the holy Mass in advance for the purpose of televising that Mass in the future? Basically, a TV channel wants a priest, during Lent, to say the Mass from the Fifth Sunday of Easter, in order to be able to broadcast it later on. Can it be done like that? Is it not just performing something without any connection to time and place?"

The U.S. bishops' conference has issued precise guidelines for televised Masses. Referring to this situation the guidelines say:

"Live vs. Pre-recorded Celebrations

"Whenever possible, the liturgy should be telecast live. When this is not possible, consideration may be given to pre-recording the liturgy. A liturgy that is pre-recorded for delayed telecast should be taped as it is celebrated in a local worshiping community and then be telecast at a later time on the same day. Only when neither of these options is possible, should the liturgy be taped in advance in a setting other than a regularly scheduled liturgy celebrated by a local worshiping community. In order to reflect the integrity of the liturgical year, a pre-recorded liturgy should be taped on a date as close as possible to the date of the actual telecast. In order to preserve the sacred character of the liturgical celebration, only one liturgy should be recorded on a given day with the same group of people.

"Time Constraints

"The celebration of the liturgy should not be rushed, nor should elements of the liturgy be omitted. Those responsible for planning, production, and presiding need to be sensitive to the requirements of the liturgy as well as the time constraints of television. For the integrity of the liturgy, those who produce the televised liturgy should be discouraged from editing out parts of the Mass (e.g., the Gloria, one of the readings). Planning and the careful choice of options can help to keep the celebration within the particular time frame."

The full document which develops the theme more fully may be found in the Web page of the U.S. bishops' conference, at www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/tv.shtml.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Father Cantalamessa's 3rd Advent Sermon: "Spe Gaudentes -- Joyful in Hope"

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 21, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the third Advent sermon delivered today by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, Pontifical Household preacher, in the presence of Benedict XVI and members of the Roman Curia in preparation for Christmas.

* * *

1. Jesus the Son

In this third and last meditation, leaving the prophets and John the Baptist aside now, we will focus exclusively on the goal of everything: the "Son." From this point of view, the text of Hebrews suggests the parable of the treacherous tenants of the vineyard. There too God first sends his servants and then, at the end, he sends his Son, saying: "They will respect my Son" (Matthew 21:33-41).

In a chapter of his book on Jesus of Nazareth the Pope illustrates the profound difference between the title "Son of God" and that of "Son" without any added qualifications. The simple title of "Son," contrary to what one might think, is much more pregnant than that of "Son of God." The latter comes after a long list of attributions: This is what the people of Israel were called, and in a special way, their king; this is what the Pharaohs were called and the eastern sovereigns and also what the Roman emperor was to be called. By itself, then, this title would not be enough to distinguish the person of Christ from every other "son of God."

The case of the simple title "Son" is different. This appears in the Gospels as exclusive to Christ and it is with it that Jesus will express his profound identity. After the Gospels it is precisely the Letter to the Hebrews that powerfully testifies to this absolute use of the title "the Son." It appears five times in the letter.

The most significant text in which Jesus defines himself as "the Son" is Matthew 11:27. "Everything has been given to me by my Father; no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son wishes to reveal him." The exegetes explain that the saying has a clear Aramaic origin and demonstrates that the later developments that we see in this regard in John's Gospel have their remote origin in Christ's consciousness itself.

A communion of knowledge so absolute between Father and Son, the Pope notes in his book, cannot be explained except by an ontological communion, a communion in being. The later formulations, culminating in the definition of Nicaea, of the Son as "begotten not made, of the same substance as the Father," are therefore daring but consonant with the Gospel datum.

The strongest proof of the consciousness that Jesus had of his identity as Son is in his prayer. In Jesus' prayer the sonship is not only declared but lived. The way and the frequency with which the exclamation "Abba" appears in Christ's prayer attests an intimacy and a familiarity with God that does not have an equal in the tradition of Israel. If the expression has been conserved in the original language and becomes the characteristic of Christian prayer (cf. Galatians 4:6; Romans 8:15) it is precisely because people were convinced that it was the typical form of Jesus' own prayer.[1]

2. A Jesus of the atheists?

This Gospel datum throws light on a particular contemporary debate about the person of Jesus. In the introduction to his book, the Pope cites the claim of R. Schnackenburg according to which "without the rootedness in God the person of Jesus remains fleeting, unreal and inexplicable." "This," the Pope says, "is the basis of this book of mine: considering Jesus from the point of view of his communion with the Father. This is the true center of his personality."[2]

In my opinion this brings to light the problematic nature of an historical investigation of Jesus that from the beginning not only prescinds from, but excludes, faith; in other words, it calls into question the historical plausibility of that which is sometimes called "the Jesus of the atheists." Here I am not talking about faith in Christ and his divinity, but about faith in the more common meaning of the term, of faith in God's existence. This has nothing to do with the idea that non-believers have no right to concern themselves with Jesus. What I want to show, taking my cue from the claim cited by the Pope, are the consequences that follow from such a point of departure, that is, how the "pre-comprehension" of the non-believer has a much greater impact on his historical research than does the believer's -- contrary to what atheist scholars think.

If one rejects or prescinds from faith in God, it is not only the divinity of Christ that is eliminated, or the so-called Christ of faith, but also the historical Jesus tout court -- his human credibility is lost. No one can deny on historical grounds that the Jesus of the Gospels lives and works in constant reference to the heavenly Father, that he prays and teaches to pray, that he bases everything on faith in God. If this dimension of the Jesus of the Gospels is eliminated, nothing remains.

If one begins with the tacit or declared presupposition that God does not exist, then Jesus is nothing more than one of the many deluded people who prayed, worshiped, and talked to his own shadow, or the projection of his own essence, as Feuerbach would have it. Jesus would be the most illustrious victim of what the militant atheist Richard Dawkins calls "the God delusion."[3] But how do we explain then that the life of this man "changed the world" and, after 2,000 years continues to intrigue us like no one else? If a delusion is able to do what Jesus did in history, Dawkins and others had better reconsider their concept of delusion.

There is only one way out of this difficulty, that which made some headway in the context of the "Jesus Seminar" at Berkeley in the United States. Jesus was not a Jewish believer; he was at bottom an itinerant philosopher after the fashion of the Cynics;[4] he did not preach a kingdom of God, nor a coming end of the world; he was only a purveyor of sapiential maxims in the style of a Zen master. His purpose was to reawaken self-consciousness in men, to convince them that they did not need him nor another god, because there was a divine spark in them.[5] But these are the things that the New Age has been preaching for decades! This is an image of Jesus constructed according to contemporary fashions. It is true: Without the rootedness in God, the figure of Jesus remains "fleeting, unreal and inexplicable."

3. Pre-existence of Christ in the Trinity

On this point too, as with the reduction of Jesus to a prophet, the problem comes up not only in discussion with atheist scholarship; it comes up, in a different manner and with a different spirit, in theological discussion within the Church. I will try to explain in what sense. In regard to the title "Son of God" we are witnessing a kind of climbing back up the mountain in the New Testament: In the beginning it is connected with Christ's resurrection (Romans 1:4); Mark takes a step back and connects it with his baptism in the Jordan (Mark 1:11); Matthew and Luke connect it with his birth (Luke 1:35). The Letter to the Hebrews makes the decisive leap, affirming that the Son did not begin to exist at the moment of his coming among us but existed from all eternity. "Through him," it says, "God made the world"; he is the "radiance of his glory and the image of his substance." Some 30 years later, John's Gospel will consecrate this conquest, beginning with the words: "In the beginning was the Word ..."

Now, in regard to the pre-existence of Christ as eternal Son of the Father some very problematic theses have been advanced in the ambit of the so-called new Christologies. In these, it is claimed that the pre-existence of Christ as eternal Son of the Father is a mythical concept taken over from Hellenistic thought. In modern terms, this would mean simply that "the relationship between God and Jesus did not develop only in a second moment and, causally, so to speak, but exists a priori and is founded in God himself."

In other words, Jesus pre-existed in an intentional way but not in a real way; in the sense that the Father, from all eternity, foresaw, chose and loved as a son the Jesus who would one day be born of Mary. He did not pre-exist, therefore, in a way that was different from each of us, from the moment that every man, as Scripture says, was "already chosen and predestined" by God as his son, before the creation of the world! (cf. Ephesians 1:4).

From this point of view, faith in the Trinity disappears together with Christ's pre-existence. This is reduced to something heterogenous (an eternal person, the Father, plus an historical person, Jesus, plus a divine energy, the Holy Spirit); something that, besides, does not exist ab aeterno but that comes to be in time.

I will limit myself to observing that this is not a new thesis. The idea of an intentional rather than a real pre-existence of the Son was advanced, discussed and rejected by ancient Christian thought. Just as it is not true, then, that this thesis is imposed by the new conceptions we have of God, conceptions that are no longer mythological, it is also not true that the contrary idea, of an eternal pre-existence, was the only conceivable solution in the ancient cultural context and that the Fathers, therefore, had no other choice.

Photinus, in the 4th century, already knew the idea of a pre-existence of Jesus "in the mode of prevision" or "in the mode of anticipation." Against him a synod declared: "If anyone says that the Son, before Mary, existed only according to prevision and that he was not begotten by the Father before the ages to be God and to make all things come into being through him, let him be anathema."[6] The intention of these theologians was laudable: to translate the ancient datum into language accessible to contemporary man. Unfortunately, however, once again, that which gets translated into modern language is not the datum defined by the councils, but that condemned by the councils.

Already St. Anthanasius made it clear that the idea of a Trinity composed of heterogenous realities compromised that divine unity that was to be safeguarded with it. If then it is admitted that God "comes to be" in time, no one guarantees us that his growth and coming to be are finished. He who has come to be will continue along the path of becoming.[7] How much time and trouble we would be saved by a less superficial knowledge of the Fathers!

I would like to conclude this doctrinal part of our meditation on a positive note, with something that, in my opinion, is of extraordinary importance. For almost a century, since Wilhelm Bousset wrote his famous book "Kyrios Christos" in 1913, the idea that the devotion to Christ as divine was to be looked for in the Hellenistic context, and therefore a good deal after the death of Christ, has dominated the sphere of critical studies.[8]

In the ambit of the so-called third quest for the historical Jesus, the question has been taken up again from the beginning by Larry Hurtado, professor of language, literature and theology of the New Testament at Edinburgh. Here is the conclusion that he reaches at the end of an investigation of over 700 pages:

"Devotion to Jesus as divine erupted suddenly and quickly, not gradually and late, among first-century circles of followers. More specifically, the origins lie in Jewish Christian circles of the earliest years. Only a certain wishful thinking continues to attribute the reverence of Jesus as divine decisively to the influence of pagan religion and the influx of Gentile converts, characterizing it as developing late and incrementally. Furthermore, devotion to Jesus as the 'Lord,' to whom cultic reverence and total obedience were the appropriate response, was widespread, not confined or attributable to particular circles, such as 'Hellenists' or Gentile Christians of a supposed Syrian 'Christ cult.' Amid the diversity of earliest Christianity, belief in Jesus' divine status was amazingly common."[9]

This rigorous historical conclusion should put an end to the opinion, which has been dominant up until now in a certain popularized form, that holds that the divine cult of Christ is supposed to be a later fruit of the faith (imposed by law by Constantine at Nicaea in 325, according to Dan Brown in his "DaVinci Code"!)

4. Hope, the little girl

Besides the book on Jesus of Nazareth, this year the Holy Father has also given us the gift of an encyclical on hope. The usefulness of a papal document, apart from its elevated content, is that it focuses the attention of all the faithful on one point, stimulating reflection on it. In this line, I would like to make a little spiritual and practical application of the encyclical's theological content, showing how the text of the Letter to the Hebrews that we have meditated on can contribute to nourishing our hope.

In hope -- the author of the letter writes, with a beautiful image destined to become a classic of Christian art -- "we have an anchor of our life, strong and secure, which penetrates beyond the veil of the sanctuary, where Jesus has entered as precursor for us" (Hebrews 6:17-20). The foundation of this hope is precisely the fact that "in these last times God has spoken to us through his Son." If he has given us the Son, says St. Paul, "will he not give us all things together with him?" (Romans 8:32). This is why "hope does not disappoint" (Romans 5:5): the gift of the Son is the pledge and the guarantee of all the rest and, in the first place, of eternal life. If the Son is "the heir to all things" ("heredem universorum") (Hebrews 1:2), we are his "co-heirs" (Romans 8:17).

The iniquitous tenants of the vineyard in the parable, seeing the Son arrive, say to each other: "He is the heir. Let us go and kill him and we will have the inheritance" (Matthew 21:38). In his all-powerful mercy, God the Father turned this criminal design into something good. Men did kill the Son and truly received the inheritance! Thanks to that death, they have become "heirs of God and co-heirs of Christ."

We human creatures need hope to live as we need oxygen to breathe. It is said that as long as there is life there is hope; but the reverse is likewise true: That as long as there is hope there is life. Hope has been for a long time and is still now the poor relation among the theological virtues. We speak often of faith, more often of love, but very little about hope.

The poet Charles Péguy is right when he compares the three theological virtues to three sisters: two grown-ups and a little girl. They walk along the street hand-in-hand (the three theological virtues are inseparable!), the two big ones on either side, the little girl in the middle. All who see them are convinced that the two big ones -- faith and love -- drag along the little girl hope in the middle. But they are mistaken: it is the little girl hope who drags the other two along; if she stops, everything stops.[10]

We see it at the human and social level too. In Italy hope has stopped and with it confidence, drive, growth, even in economic matters. The "decline" that is spoken of is born here. Fear of the future has taken the place of hope. The low birth rate is the clearest indicator. No country needs to meditate on the Pope's encyclical as much as Italy.

Theological hope is the "thread from above" that sustains all human hopes from the center. "The thread from above" is the title of a parable by the Danish writer Johannes Jorgensen. He speaks of a spider who lowers himself from the branch of a tree with a thread that he himself makes. Positioning himself on the hedge he weaves his web, a masterpiece of symmetry and functionality. It is supported on the sides by other threads but everything is sustained in the center by the thread that he used to descend from the tree. If one of the threads on the side breaks, the spider fixes it and everything is in order, but if the thread from above breaks (I wanted to verify this once and found out that it is true), everything droops down and the spider leaves, knowing that there is nothing to be done. This is an image of what happens when we break that thread from above that is theological hope. Only it can "anchor" human hopes in the hope "that does not disappoint."

In the Bible we see real leaps of hope. One of them is found in the third Lamentation: "I am a man," the prophet says, "who has known misery and suffering ... I said: My glory is gone, the hope that came to me from the Lord."

But here is the leap of hope that turns everything upside down. At a certain point the person praying says to himself: "But the Lord's mercy is not finite; therefore I want to hope in him! The Lord never rejects but if he afflicts, he will have pity. Perhaps there is still hope" (cf. Lamentations 3:1-29). From the moment that the prophet decides to return to hope, the tone of the discourse completely changes: Lamentation turns into confident supplication: "The Lord never rejects. But if he afflicts, he will also have pity according to his great mercy" (Lamentations 3:32).

We have more reason for this leap of hope: God has given us his Son: Will he not give us all things together with him? Sometimes it is worthwhile to say to ourselves: "But God does exist and that is enough!" The most precious service that the Church in Italy can perform at this moment for the country is to help it make a leap of hope. The Church in Italy is not the only one in need of this leap of hope; the Church in the United States needs it too after what it has gone through in last years.

Last time I talked about an "aroma therapy" based on the oil of joy that is the Holy Spirit. We need this therapy to be healed of the most pernicious of all maladies: desperation, discouragement, loss of confidence in self, in life and finally in the Church. "May the God of hope fill you with every joy and peace in the faith, so that you abound in hope and the power of the Holy Spirit" (Romans 15:13). This is what the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans.

One cannot abound in hope without the power of the Holy Spirit. There is an African-American spiritual in which one just continually repeats these few words: "There is a balm in Gilead / to make the wounded whole ..." In the Old Testament, Gilead is famous for its perfumes and ointments (cf. Jeremiah 8:22). The song continues, saying: "Sometimes I feel discouraged / and think my work's in vain / But then the Holy Spirit / revives my soul again." For us, Gilead is the Church and the balm that heals is the Holy Spirit. He is the scent that Jesus has left behind, passing through this world.

Hope is miraculous: When it is reborn in a heart, everything is different even if nothing is changed. In Isaiah we read: "Even the young people toil and grow weary, the grown-ups stumble and fall; but those who hope in the Lord again receive strength and grow wings like eagles, they run without stopping and walk without tiring" (Isaiah 40:30-31).

Where hope is reborn, joy above all is reborn. The apostle says that the believers are "spe salvi," "saved in hope" (Romans 8:24) and for this reason should be "spe gaudentes" -- "joyous in hope" (Romans 12:12). They are not people who hope to be happy but people who are happy to hope; they are already happy now on account of the simple fact of hoping.

May this Christmas the God of hope, by the power of the Holy Spirit and through the intercession of Mary "Mother of Hope," grant us to be joyous in hope and abound in it.

--- --- ---

[1] Cf. J.D.G. Dunn, "Christianity in the Making, I: Jesus Remembered," Eerdmans, 2003, 746 ff.

[2] Benedict XVI, "Jesus of Nazareth," Doubleday, 2007.
[3] R. Dawkins, "God Delusion," Bantam Books, 2006.
[4] On the theory of Jesus as a Cynic cf. B. Griffin, "Was Jesus a Philosophical Cynic?" [http://www-oxford.op.org/allen/html/acts.htm].
[5] Cf. Harold Bloom's essay, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings...", published as an appendix to Marvin Meyer's edition of the Gospel of Thomas, "The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus," Harper Collins Publishers, 1992.

[6] Formula of the Synod of Sirmio of 351, in A. Hahn, "Bibliotek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln in der alten Kirche," Hildesheim, 1962, 197.
[7] Cf. Saint Athanasius, "Against the Arians," I, 17-18 (PG 26, 48).

[8] Wilhelm Bousset, "Kyrios Christos," 1913.
[9] L. Hurtado, "Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity," Eerdmans, 2003, 650.
[10] Ch. Péguy, "Oeuvres poétiques complètes," Gallimard, 1975, 531 ff.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Wednesday Liturgy: When a Church Is Desacralized

ROME, DEC. 18, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.Q: I am from Pennsylvania and due to significant demographic changes in the last couple of decades, many Catholic houses of worship have been closing, oftentimes being converted to secular (and, sadly, unseemly) purposes such as nightclubs. My question: While the Anglican usages provide for a "desacralization" of a house of worship in the book of "Incidental Services," I understand that in Roman rite there is no such rite or office, not even in the so-called Tridentine usage. My understanding is that the mere removal of the altar, relics, and other appurtenances performs this function. If this is correct, it seems at the least peculiar; if so, why would there not be such a rite? -- K.Y., Butler, Pennsylvania

A: I have not been able to find anything regarding a specific rite of relegation to profane use, probably because, until recently, a Catholic church rarely lost its consecration, even if no longer frequently used.

In the past a church would lose its consecration or solemn blessing in two principal cases.

One case was through the destruction of the greater part of its walls. But even in this case it was not desacralized if the walls were destroyed and rebuilt in several stages. Nor was it desacralized if new walls were less than the original.

Another case is if the local bishop reduces the building to profane use, as is still foreseen in Canon 1222 of the Code of Canon Law, to wit:

"§1. If a church cannot be used in any way for divine worship and there is no possibility of repairing it, the diocesan bishop can relegate it to profane but not sordid use.

"§2. Where other grave causes suggest that a church no longer be used for divine worship, the diocesan bishop, after having heard the presbyteral council, can relegate it to profane but not sordid use, with the consent of those who legitimately claim rights for themselves in the church and provided that the good of souls suffers no detriment thereby."

This relegation to profane use takes place only after the bishop issues a formal decree removing the church's dedication or consecration.

The subsequent removal of relics, altar and other items of sacred art is a consequence of this decree, but not necessarily the cause of the building losing its consecration.

In order for the decree to be valid, the bishop must first obtain the consent of any persons (juridical or physical) who can claim rights over the church. In practice this means the consent of the parish usually through the pastor unless the parish has already been suppressed.

If the church or the land on which it is built is the property of a religious institute, then the consent of the competent religious authority is also required.

In some rare cases a physical person might have a claim on a church such as a major donor whose grant was accepted on condition that the church would remain a sacred place for a certain period.

The bishop must also determine that the proposed use of the place will not be sordid. This is a prudential judgment that can vary according to time and place. But every effort should be made that no unseemly activities should be allowed in the future.

In at least one country in which the Church has had to close several relatively modern churches, it has preferred to have them demolished rather than turned over to unseemly use. This is not usually possible when closing churches that have significant architectural or historical merits.

As far as possible the artistic treasures of relegated churches should find a new home in other churches in the diocese or in other Catholic domains. This is both a sign of continuity of the faith in spite of demographic changes and an act of respect for those generations who built the original churches with so much love and sacrifice.

The beauty of no small number of modern church buildings has been greatly enhanced at relatively low cost by incorporating altars, stained glass windows, statuary, and other decorative elements from older no longer used churches.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Summary of Doctrinal Note on Evangelization

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 14, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here are the summary points for the "Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization," which was issued today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

* * *


DOCTRINAL NOTE ON SOME ASPECTS OF EVANGELIZATION

SUMMARY POINTS

I. Introduction

1. The Doctrinal Note is devoted principally to an exposition of the Catholic Church's understanding of the Christian mission of evangelization, which is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ; the word "Gospel" translates "evangelion" in the Greek New Testament. "Jesus Christ was sent by the Father to proclaim the Gospel, calling all people to conversion and faith. 'Go out into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mk 16,15)." [n. 1]

2. The Doctrinal Note cites Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter "The Mission of the Redeemer" in recalling that "'Every person has the right to hear the Good News [Gospel] of the God who reveals and gives himself in Christ, so that each one can live out in its fullness his or her proper calling.' This right implies the corresponding duty to evangelize." [n. 2]

3. Today there is "a growing confusion" about the Church's missionary mandate. Some think "that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom," suggesting that it is enough to invite people "to act according to their consciences", or to "become more human or more faithful to their own religion", or "to build communities which strive for justice, freedom, peace and solidarity", without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic faith.

Others have argued that conversion to Christ should not be promoted because it is possible for people to be saved without explicit faith in Christ or formal incorporation in the Church. Because "of these problems, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged it necessary to public the present Note." [n. 3]

II. Some Anthropological Implications

4. While some forms of agnosticism and relativism deny the human capacity for truth, in fact human freedom cannot be separated from its reference to truth. Human beings are given intellect and will by God that they might come to know and love what is true and good. The ultimate fulfillment of the vocation of the human person is found in accepting the revelation of God in Christ as proclaimed by the Church.

5. This search for truth cannot be accomplished entirely on one's own, but inevitably involves help from others and trust in knowledge that one receives from others. Thus, teaching and entering into dialogue to lead someone in freedom to know and to love Christ is not inappropriate encroachment on human freedom, "but rather a legitimate endeavor and a service capable of making human relationships more fruitful." [n. 5]

6. The communication of truths so that they might be accepted by others is also in harmony with the natural human desire to have others share in one's own goods, which for Catholics includes the gift of faith in Jesus Christ. Members of the Church naturally desire to share with others the faith that has been freely given to them.

7. Through evangelization, cultures are positively affected by the truth of the Gospel. Likewise, through evangelization, members of the Catholic Church open themselves to receiving the gifts of other traditions and cultures, for "Every encounter with another person or culture is capable of revealing potentialities of the Gospel which hitherto may not have been fully explicit and which will enrich the life of Christians and the Church." [n. 6]

8. Any approach to dialogue such as coercion or improper enticement that fails to respect the dignity and religious freedom of the partners in that dialogue has no place in Christian evangelization.

III. Some Ecclesiological Implications

9. "Since the day of Pentecost ... the Gospel, in the power of the Holy Spirit, is proclaimed to all people so that they might believe and become disciples of Christ and members of his Church." "Conversion" is a "change in thinking and of acting," expressing our new life in Christ; it is an ongoing dimension of Christian life.

10. For Christian evangelization, "the incorporation of new members into the Church is not the expansion of a power-group, but rather entrance into the network of friendship with Christ which connects heaven and earth, different continents and ages." In this sense, then, "the Church is the bearer of the presence of God and thus the instrument of the true humanization of man and the world." (n. 9)

11. The Doctrinal Note cites the Second Vatican Council's "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World" (Gaudium et Spes) to say that respect for religious freedom and its promotion "must not in any way make us indifferent towards truth and goodness. Indeed, love impels the followers of Christ to proclaim to all the truth which saves." [n.10] This mission of love must be accomplished by both proclamation of the word and witness of life. "Above all, the witness of holiness is necessary, if the light of truth is to reach all human beings. If the word is contradicted by behavior, its acceptance will be difficult." On the other hand, citing Pope Paul VI's Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, the Note says that "even the finest witness will prove ineffective in the long run, if it is not explained, justified... and made explicit by a clear und unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus." [n. 11]

IV. Some Ecumenical Implications

12. The CDF document points out the important role of ecumenism in the Church's mission of evangelization. Christian divisions can seriously compromise the credibility of the Church's evangelizing mission. The more ecumenism brings about greater unity among Christians, the more effective evangelization will be.

13. When Catholic evangelization takes place in a country where other Christians live, Catholics must take care to carry out their mission with "both true respect for the tradition and spiritual riches of such countries as well as a sincere spirit of cooperation." Evangelization proceeds by dialogue, not proselytism. With non-Catholic Christians, Catholics must enter into a respectful dialogue of charity and truth, a dialogue which is not only an exchange of ideals, but also of gifts, in order that the fullness of the means of salvation can be offered to one's partners in dialogue. In this way, they are led to an ever deeper conversion to Christ.

"In this connection, it needs also to be recalled that if a non-Catholic Christian, for reasons of conscience and having been convinced of Catholic truth, asks to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church, this is to be respected as the work of the Holy Spirit and as an expression of freedom of conscience and of religion. In such a case, it would not be question of proselytism in the negative sense that has been attributed to this term." [n. 12]

V. Conclusion

14. The Doctrinal Note recalls that the missionary mandate belongs to the very nature of the Church. In this regard it cites Pope Benedict XVI: "The proclamation of and witness to the Gospel are the first service that Christians can render to every person and the entire human race, called as they are to communicate to all God's love, which was fully manifested in Jesus Christ, the one Redeemer of the world." Its concluding sentence contains a quotation from Pope Benedict's first Encyclical Letter "Deus caritas est": "The love which comes from God unites us to him and 'makes us a we which transcends our divisions and makes us one, until in the end God is all in all (1 Cor 15:28)'."

[01795-02.01]

Father Cantalamessa's 2nd Advent Sermon

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 14, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the second Advent sermon delivered today by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, Pontifical Household preacher, in the presence of Benedict XVI and members of the Roman Curia in preparation for Christmas.

* * *

Last time, basing myself on Hebrews 1:1-3, I attempted to sketch the image of Jesus that we get when we compare him to the prophets. But between the time of the prophets and that of Jesus there is a special, pivotal figure: John the Baptist. Nothing in the New Testament illuminates the newness of Christ better than comparison with the Baptist.

The theme of fulfillment, of an epochal turning point, clearly emerges in the texts in which Jesus himself speaks of his relationship to the precursor. Today scholars recognize that these sayings are not inventions of the post-Easter community, but derive their substance from the historical Jesus. Indeed, some of them are inexplicable if they are attributed to the subsequent Christian community.[1]

A reflection on Jesus and John the Baptist is also the best way to put us in tune with the Advent liturgy. In fact, the Gospels of the second and third Sunday of Advent have the figure and message of the precursor at their center. There is a progression in Advent: In the first week the voice that stands out is the prophet Isaiah's, who announces the Messiah from a distance; in the second and third weeks it is that of the Baptist who announces the Christ as present; in the last week the prophet and the precursor give way to the Mother, who carries him in her womb.


1. The great turning point

The most complete text in which Jesus reflects on his relationship to John the Baptist is the Gospel passage that the liturgy has us read next Sunday at Mass. John, in prison, sends his disciples to ask Jesus: "Are you the one who must come or should we wait for another?" (Matthew 11:2-6; Luke 7:19-23).

The preaching of the Rabbi of Nazareth whom he himself had baptized and presented to Israel seems to John to go in a very different direction from the fiery one that he had expected. More than the imminent judgment of God, he preaches the mercy that is present, offered to all, righteous and sinners.

The most significant part of the whole text is the praise that Jesus offers of John after he had answered the question posed by John's disciples: "Why then did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet [...]. Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force. All the prophets and the law prophesied up to the time of John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one who is to come. Whoever has ears ought to hear" (Matthew 11:11-15).

One thing is made plain by these words: Between the mission of John the Baptist and that of Jesus something so decisive has happened that it constitutes a parting of the waters, so to speak, between two epochs. The focus of history has shifted: That which is important is not in a more or less imminent future but "here and now," that kingdom that is already operative in Christ. Between John's preaching and the preaching of Jesus there is a qualitative leap: The littlest one of the new order is superior to the greatest one of the old order.

The occurrence of this epochal turning point is confirmed in many other contexts in the Gospel. We only need recall such words of Jesus as: "Behold, there is one here greater than Jonah. [...] Behold, there is one here greater than Solomon!" (Matthew 12:41-42). "Blessed are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear. Truly I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see and did not see it, and longed to hear what you hear and did not hear it!" (Matthew 13:16-17). All of the so-called parables of the kingdom -- one thinks of the treasure in the field and the pearl of great price -- at bottom express the same idea, always in a new and different way: With Jesus, history's decisive hour has struck, in his presence the decision that determines salvation imposes itself.

It was this claim that brought Bultmann's disciples to break with the master. Bultmann included Jesus in Judaism, making him a premise of Christianity but not yet a Christian; he attributed the great turning point to the faith of the post-Easter community. Bornkamm and Conzelmann realized the impossibility of this thesis: The "epochal turning point" already happened in Jesus' preaching. John belonged to the premises and the preparation, but with Jesus we are already in the time of fulfillment.

In his book "Jesus of Nazareth," the Holy Father confirms this conclusion of the most serious and up-to-date exegesis. He writes: "For such a radical collision to occur, provoking the radical step of handing Jesus over to the Romans, something dramatic must have been said or done. The great and stirring events come right at the beginning; the nascent Church could only slowly come to appreciate their full significance, which she came to grasp as, in 'remembering' them, she gradually thought through and reflected on these events [...]. No, the greatness, the dramatic newness, comes directly from Jesus; within the faith and life of the community it is further developed, but not created. In fact, the 'community' would not have even emerged or survived at all unless some extraordinary reality had preceded it."[2]

In Luke's theology it is evident that Jesus occupies the "center of time." With his coming he divided history in two parts, creating an absolute "before" and "after." Today it is becoming common practice, especially in the secular media, to abandon the traditional way of dating events "before Christ" or "after Christ" ("ante Christum natum e post Christum natum") in favor of the more neutral formula of "before the common era" and "common era." It was a decision motivated by a desire not to offend the sensibilities of people and other religions who do not use Christian chronology; in that regard it should be respected, but for Christians there is no question of the decisive role that Christ's coming plays in the religious history of humanity.

2. He will baptize with the Holy Spirit

Now, as is our usual practice, we will pass from the exegetical and theological certainty that has been established to our life today.

The comparison of John the Baptist and Jesus crystallizes in the New Testament in the comparison of the baptism with water and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. "I baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Mark 1:8; Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16). "I did not know him," the precursor says in John's Gospel, "but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit'" (John 1:33). And Peter, in the house of Cornelius, says: "And I remembered the word of the Lord how, he said, 'John baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 11:16).

What does it mean to say that Jesus is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit? The expression serves not only to distinguish Jesus' baptism from John's baptism; it serves to distinguish the entire person and work of Christ from that of the precursor. In other words, in all of his work Jesus is the the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. Baptism has a metaphorical meaning here; it means to inundate, to completely cover, as water does to bodies that are immersed in it.

Jesus "baptizes in the Holy Spirit" in the sense that he receives and gives the Spirit "without measure" (cf. John 3:34), he "pours out" his Spirit (Acts 2:33) on all of redeemed humanity. The expression refers more to the event of Pentecost than to the sacrament of baptism. "John baptized with water but before many days you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit" (Act 1:5), Jesus tells the disciples, obviously referring to Spirit's descent at Pentecost that would happen in a few days.

The expression "baptize with the Spirit" therefore defines the essential work of the Messiah, which already in the prophets of the Old Testament appears as oriented toward the regeneration of humanity through a great and universal outpouring of the Spirit of God (cf. Joel 3:1ff.). Applying all of this to the life and time of the Church, we must conclude that the risen Jesus baptizes in the Spirit not only in the sacrament of baptism, but, in a different way, also in other moments: in the Eucharist, in listening to the Word and, in general, through all the channels of grace.

If we want, and have enough faith, this very chapel in which we stand can be the cenacle into which the Risen Lord enters, [despite] closed doors, breathes on our faces and says almost begging us: "Receive the Holy Spirit."

St. Thomas Aquinas writes: "There is an invisible mission of the Spirit every time there is a progress in virtue or an augmentation of grace...; when someone moves to a new activity or a new state of grace."[3] The Church's liturgy itself inculcates this. All of its prayers and its hymns to the Holy Spirit begin with the cry, "Come!": "Come, O Creator Spirit!" "Come, Holy Spirit!" And those who pray this way have already at sometime received the Spirit. This means that the Spirit is something that we have received and that we must receive again and again.

3. Baptism in the Spirit

In this context, we must say something about the so-called baptism in the Spirit that for a century has become an experience lived by millions of believers in almost all of the Christian denominations. This is a rite made up of gestures of great simplicity, accompanied by dispositions of repentance and faith in the promise of Christ: "The Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him."

It is a renewal and an activation, not only of baptism and confirmation, but of all the events of grace of one's state in life: priestly ordination, religious profession, marriage. Besides making a good confession, those who are involved prepare by participating in catechism meetings in which they are put again in living and joyful contact with the principal truths and realities of the faith: the love of God, sin, salvation, new life, transformation in Christ, charisms, the fruits of the Spirit. Everything is characterized by a profound fraternal communion.

Sometimes, however, everything happens spontaneously, outside of all formal contexts and it is like being "surprised" by the Holy Spirit. A man gave this testimony: "I was on a plane and I was reading the last chapter of a book on the Holy Spirit. At a certain point it was as if the Holy Spirit came out of the pages of the book and entered into my body. Tears streamed from my eyes. I began to pray. I was overcome by a power quite beyond me."[4]

The most common effect of this grace is that the Holy Spirit passes from being a more or less abstract object of faith, to being a fact of experience. Karl Rahner wrote: "We cannot deny that here below man can have experiences of grace that give him a feeling of liberation, open totally new horizons to him, make a deep impression on him, transform him, shaping, even over a long period of time, his deepest Christian attitude. Nothing prohibits us from calling such experiences baptism in the Spirit."[5]

Precisely through that which is called "baptism in the Spirit," there is an experience of the anointing of the Holy Spirit in prayer, of his power in pastoral ministry, of his consolation in trials, of his guidance in decisions. Before his manifestation in charisms it is thus that he is experienced: as Spirit who interiorly transforms us, gives us a taste of the praise of God, opens our mind to the understanding of the Scriptures, teaches us to proclaim Jesus "Lord" and gives us the courage to assume new and difficult tasks in the service of God and neighbor. This year is the 40th anniversary of the retreat that gave birth, in 1967, to the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church, which is estimated to have touched no fewer than 80 million Catholics in a few decades. This is how one of the people who was present at that first retreat describes the effects of baptism in the Spirit on himself and on the group:

"Our faith has come alive, our believing has become a kind of knowing. Suddenly, the world of the supernatural has become more real than the natural. In brief, Jesus Christ is a real person to us, a real person who is Our Lord and who is active in our lives. [...] Prayer and the sacraments have become truly our daily bread instead of practices which we recognize as 'good for us.' A love of Scripture, a love of the Church I never thought possible, a transformation of our relationships with others, a need and a power of witness beyond all expectation, have all become part of our lives. The initial experience of the baptism in the Spirit was not at all emotional, but life has become suffused with calm, confidence, joy and peace. ... We sang the 'Veni Creator Spiritus' before each conference and meant it. We were not disappointed. We have also been showered with charismata. This also puts us in an ecumenical atmosphere at its best."[6]

We all see with clarity that these are precisely the things that the Church needs today to proclaim the Gospel to a world that has become wayward to the faith and the supernatural. We do not say that everyone is called to experience the grace of a new Pentecost in this way. However, we are all called not to remain outside this "current of grace" that flowed through the post-Conciliar Church. John XXIII spoke, in his time, of "a new Pentecost"; Paul VI went beyond this and spoke of "a perennial Pentecost," a continual Pentecost. It is worthwhile to listen again to the words he pronounced during a general audience:

"On several occasions we have asked about the greatest needs of the Church. [...] What do we feel is the first and last need of this blessed and beloved Church of ours? We must say it, almost trembling and praying, because as you know well, this is the Church's mystery and life: the Spirit, the Holy Spirit. He it is who animates and sanctifies the Church. He is her divine breath, the wind in her sails, the principle of her unity, the inner source of her light and strength. He is her support and consoler, her source of charisms and songs, her peace and her joy, her pledge and prelude to blessed and eternal life. The Church needs her perennial Pentecost; she needs fire in her heart, words on her lips, prophecy in her outlook. [...] The Church needs to rediscover the eagerness, the taste and the certainty of the truth that is hers."[7]

The philosopher Heidegger concluded his analysis of society with the alarmed cry: "Only a god can save us." We Christians know this God who can save us, and who will save us: It is the Holy Spirit! Today something called "aroma therapy" is widely popular. It uses essential oils that emit a perfume to maintain health and as therapy for certain disturbances. The Internet is full of advertising about aroma therapy. There are perfumes for physical maladies, like stress; there are also "perfumes for the soul"; one of these is supposed to help us achieve "interior peace."

Physicians discourage this practice, which is not scientifically confirmed and which in fact, in some cases, provokes counter indications. But what I would like to say is that there is a sure, infallible aroma therapy that does not provoke counter indications: that one made up of a special aroma, the "sacred chrism of the soul" that is the Holy Spirit! St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: "A perfumed ointment ('myron') was poured upon the Lord's head to breath incorruptibility on the Church!"[8] Only if we also receive this "aroma" can we be "the sweet odor of Christ" in the world (2 Corinthians 2:15).

The Holy Spirit is a specialist above all in healing the sicknesses of marriage and family. Marriage consists in giving oneself to another; it is the sacrament of making oneself a gift. Now, the Holy Spirit is the gift made person; he is the giving of the Father to the Son and the Son to the Father. Where he comes the ability to make oneself a gift is reborn and with it the joy and the beauty of living together for husband and wife. The love of God that he "pours out into our hearts" revives every other expression of love and that of conjugal love in the first place. The Holy Spirit can truly make the family "the principal agent of peace" as the Holy Father defines it in the message for the next World Day of Peace.

There are numerous examples of dead marriages resurrected to new life by the action of the Spirit. I recently received the moving testimony of a couple which I want to show on my television program on the Gospel for the feast of the Baptism of the Lord ...

Naturally, the Spirit also revives the life of consecrated persons, which consists in making one's life a gift and an oblation "of sweet odor" to God for our brothers (cf. Ephesians 5:2).

4. The new prophecy of John the Baptist

Returning to John the Baptist, he can show us how to carry out our prophetic task in today's world. Jesus defines the Baptist as "more than a prophet," but where is the prophecy in his case? The prophets announced a future salvation; John indicates one that is present. In what sense, then, can he be called a prophet? Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel helped the people to go beyond the barrier of time; John the Baptist helps the people to go beyond the more difficult barrier of contrary appearances, of scandal, of banality and poverty with which the fateful hour manifests itself.

It is easy to believe in something grandiose, divine, when you project into the indefinite future: "in those days," "in the last days," in a cosmic framework, with the heavens that distill sweetness and the earth that opens to allow the Savior to grow. It is more difficult when you have to say: "Look! It is he!" and that of a person about whom people know everything: where he is from, what used to be his job, who is his mother and father.

With the words: "There is one among you whom you do not know!" (John 1:26), John the Baptist has inaugurated the new prophecy, that of the time of the Church, which does not consist in proclaiming a future and distant salvation, but in revealing the hidden presence of Christ in the world. In taking away the veil from the eyes of the people, he upsets the indifference, repeating with Isaiah: "See, I am doing something new! Now it springs forth. Do you not see it?" (cf. Isaiah 43:19).

It is true that 20 centuries have passed and we know many more things about Jesus than about John. But the scandal has not been removed. In John's time the scandal derived from the physical body of Jesus, from his flesh so similar to ours, except in sin. Even today it is his body that causes difficulties and scandalizes: his mystical body, so similar to the rest of humanity, included sin.

"Jesus' testimony," we read in the Book of Revelation, "is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelations 19:10), the spirit of prophecy is required to bear witness to Christ. Is this spirit of prophecy in the Church? Is it cultivated? Or do we believe, implicitly, that we can do without it, depending more on human expedients?

In 1992 there was a retreat for priests in Monterrey, Mexico, on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the first evangelization of Latin America. There were 1,700 priests and about 70 bishops present. During the homily of the concluding Mass I spoke about the urgent need that the Church has for prophecy. After Communion there was prayer for a new Pentecost in small groups scattered throughout the great basilica. I remained in the presbytery. At a certain moment a young priest came up to me in silence, knelt down in front of me and with a look I will never forget said to me: "Bend�game, Padre, quiero ser profeta de Dios!" -- "Bless me, Father, I want to be a prophet for God!" A chill went down my spine because I saw that he was plainly moved by grace.

We can with humility make that priest's desire our own: "I want to be a prophet for God." Little, unknown to anyone, it does not matter, but one who, as Paul VI said, has fire in his heart, words on his lips, and prophecy in his outlook.

* * *

[1] Cf. J. D.G. Dunn, "Christianity in the Making, I: Jesus Remembered," Eerdmans, 2003, Part 3, Ch. 12.
[2] Benedict XVI, "Jesus of Nazareth," Doubleday, 2007, 324.

[3] St. Thomas Aquinas, "Summa theologiae," I, q. 43, a. 6, ad 2.
[4] In "New Covenant," June, 1984, 12.

[5] K. Rahner, "Erfahrung des Geistes: Meditation auf Pfingsten," Herder, 1977.
[6] Testimony as reported by P. Gallagher Mansfield, "As by a New Pentecost," Steubenville 1992, 25f.

[7] General audience of 29 November 1972 ("Insegnamenti di Paolo VI," Vatican, X, 1210f.).
[8] St. Ignatius of Antioch, "Letter to the Ephesians," 17.

Rejoice! The Lord Is Near: Gospel Commentary for 3rd Sunday of Advent

Father Raniero Cantalamessa is the Pontifical Household preacher. The readings for today are Isaiah 35:1-6a, 8a, 10; James 5:7-10; Matthew 11:2-11.

* * *

ROME, DEC. 16, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Let us take the point of departure for our reflection from what Jesus says to the disciples of John to reassure them he is the Messiah: "Glad tidings are announced to the poor."

The Gospel is a message of joy: The liturgy proclaims this on the Third Sunday of Advent, which, from the words of St. Paul in the opening antiphon, has taken the name "Gaudete Sunday" -- Rejoice Sunday, the Sunday of joy. The first reading, taken from the prophet Isaiah, is a hymn to joy: "The desert and the wasteland rejoice ... They sing with joy and jubilation ... They will be crowned with everlasting happiness; they will meet with joy and felicity and sadness and mourning will flee."

Everyone wants to be happy. If we could represent the whole of humanity to ourselves, in its deepest movement, we would see an immense crowd about a fruit tree on the tips of its toes desperately stretching out its hands in the attempt to lay hold of a piece of fruit that constantly eludes it. Happiness, Dante said, is "quell dolce pome che per tanti rami / cercando va la cura de' tanti mortali" -- "that sweet fruit that mortals seek / and strive to find on many boughs."

But if all of us are searching for happiness, why are so few truly happy and even those who are happy are only happy for such a short time? I believe that the principal reason is that, in our climb to the summit of the mountain, we go up the wrong side, we decide to take the wrong way up. Revelation says: "God is love," but man has tried to reverse the phrase so that it says: "Love is God"! (That is what the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach said.)

Revelation says: "God is happiness," but man again inverts the order and says "Happiness is God"! But what happens here? On earth we do not know pure happiness, just as we do not know absolute love; we only know bits and pieces of happiness, which often become mere passing stimulation of our senses. Thus, when we say, "Happiness is God," we divinize our little experiences; we call the works of our own hands or our own minds "God." We make happiness into an idol. This explains why he who seeks God always finds joy while he who seeks joy does not always find God. Man is reduced to looking for quantitative joy: chasing down ever more intense pleasures and emotions, or adding pleasure to pleasure -- just as the drug addict needs bigger and bigger doses to obtain the same level of pleasure.

Only God is happy and makes happy. This is why a psalm says: "Seek joy in the Lord, he will fulfill the desires of your heart" (Psalm 4). With him even the joys of the present life retain their sweet savor and do not change into anxiety. I am not only speaking of spiritual joys but all honest human joy: the joy of seeing your children grow, work brought happily to conclusion, friendship, health regained, creativity, art, leisure and contact with nature. Only God was able to draw from the lips of a saint the cry "Enough joy, Lord! My heart can hold no more!" In God is found all of that which man usually associates with the word "happiness" and infinitely more, since "eye has not seen nor ear heard nor has it entered the heart of man that which God has prepared for those who love him" (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:9).

It is time to proclaim with greater courage the "glad tidings" that God is happiness, that happiness -- not suffering, deprivation, the cross -- will have the last word. Suffering only serves to remove obstacles to joy, to open the soul, so that one day we can receive the greatest possible measure.

[Translation by Joseph G. Trabbic]

Friday, December 14, 2007

Article: Be fruitful and multiply. Now

BARBARA KAY

I’ve just celebrated a significant birthday. How significant? Hint: I am now eligible to buy the orange bus tickets instead of the fuchsia ones, and the orange ones cost less.

The elder Barbara Kay

Also, it seems the government wants to lift the financial burden of my cappuccino budget from my shoulders.

I’m glad I’m not a Baby Boomer ( just missed the wave). If I were, I’d perhaps be playing tennis through pain, or still bravely imagining that a Spandex top featuring deep cleavage is an appropriate fashion choice. Happily I’m from the old school, where 100 isn’t the new 90 and so forth. I yam what I yam, as Popeye would say, and what I yam not is young.

I’ve decided I’m an “elder,” which has an agreeable cross-cultural ring and, unlike the word “old,” which conveys fatigue and superannuity, conjures up one with a few social aces still up her sleeve, and enough little grey cells left to distinguish a hawk from a handsaw.

To my delight, a crucial youthful projection of an older self materialized: That is to say, I yam also wise. That’s because I actually learned from experience — my own and the experience of intellectually trustworthy others. I can distinguish the transient from what endures. I can’t be conned or flattered into compliance with dubious projects. I’m like a homing pigeon in choosing the people and ideas and institutions worth spending my increasingly precious time on. I do not suffer fools gladly or otherwise anymore. (Strung end to end, my gladly suffered fools of yesteryear would girdle the globe.)

You can’t imagine what a convenience and a timesaver wisdom is. I recommend it. When you are wise, every minute of your day is productive in one way or another. Your priorities fall instinctively into place.


Speaking of priorities, a Montreal poet once wrote, “I wouldn’t sell you my child for a million dollars and I wouldn’t give you two cents for yours.” Even though this was a time when a million dollars was real money, what she meant of course was that only one thing in life is truly priceless.


Speaking of priorities, a Montreal poet once wrote, “I wouldn’t sell you my child for a million dollars and I wouldn’t give you two cents for yours.” Even though this was a time when a million dollars was real money, what she meant of course was that only one thing in life is truly priceless.

Which brings me to my point: Some wisdom can be procured through one’s own experience; some other kinds, such as if and when to have children, are timesensitive, and must be taken on faith from wise elders like me.

So may I just say — well, actually I believe the Charter of Rights allows people of my age to give unsolicited advice whenever the fancy takes them — that in the unlikely event that you, reader of this column, are a twenty-something woman, here is some wisdom gleaned from experience that you will never get nowadays from male authority figures (they wouldn’t dare!) or even from most other women: Nothing you ever achieve in that precious career of yours will amount to a hill of beans beside the accomplishment of raising decent and constructive children.

Don’t wait too long. Voluntarily courted infertility is an “if-only” nightmare. Repeat after me: My fertility will peak before the age of 25. By 35, I’m a gambler. By 40, I’m playing the Lotto.

There is no single Mr Right. When you decide it’s the Right Time, you’ll find him. If you start looking at men as potential fathers rather than lovers, you’ll end up living harmoniously according to nature’s, not feminists’ plan.

My well-educated female cohort turned out a raft of highly successful Canadians in business, professional and cultural life. Most are still active in their careers, but the tension-filled slog to the top is over. When we meet socially, they don’t want to tell me about their latest accomplishment. They’re accustomed to who and what they are (or have made their peace with who and what they aren’t). What stimulates them now are the unfolding dramas of their childrens’ lives and — if they’re lucky enough to have them — their grandchildren’s.

You will be where I am sooner than you think. You can change your policy on fools at any age, but in biological matters, time is a ruthless arbiter. The most poignant of Shakespearean laments is “O Time, turn backward in thy flight.” Here endeth the wisdom for today.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Barbara Kay "Be fruitful and multiply. Now." National Post, (Canada) 12 December, 2007.

Reprinted with permission of the author, Barbara Kay, and the National Post.

THE AUTHOR

Barbara Kay is a Montreal-based writer. She has been a Comment page columnist (Wednesdays) in the National Post since September, 2003. She may be reached here.

Copyright © 2007 National Post

Article: Messing with the Mass: The problem of priestly narcissism today

PAUL VITZ & DANIEL C. VITZ

Priests and seminarians should be made aware of the danger of inserting one's personality into the sacred liturgy.

Since Vatican II the Mass has fallen victim to various kinds of irregularities. This issue has been much discussed from various perspectives, but in this article we will examine a previously neglected aspect of the situation — namely, the psychological reasons why priests have introduced these changes. We will not deal with theological explanations for why the Mass has been subject to liturgical experimentation, nor will we discuss liturgical rationales for such innovations. Instead, we will focus on the psychology of the priest and those assisting at the liturgy — that is, on the psychological motives as distinct from theological and liturgical reasoning.

We propose that the primary motivation behind many of these changes derives from underlying narcissistic motives — that is, extreme self love — found in many people in contemporary culture. This is especially the case with the relatively small changes introduced in an idiosyncratic way into the Mass. We first summarize and describe the nature of this narcissism, then apply it to the situation found among priests.

American Narcissism

Beginning in the 1970’s, a number of major social critics noted and criticized this country’s increasingly narcissistic — that is, self-preoccupied — character. Tom Wolfe’s article “The Me Decade” opened this critique, and many others followed it. Perhaps the most extensive treatment was Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism. The first book-length critique of American’s narcissism was written by one of the present authors (PCV), Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship (1977, 1994). Vitz explicitly addressed the basic anti-Christian (though not the anti-Catholic) significance of contemporary cultural narcissism. Robert Bellah and colleagues’ Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life in 1985 continued such critiques. We briefly summarize here key points made by these authors to allow their insights to be applied to the psychology of many American priests.

Lasch emphasized the decline of the “sense of historical time.” (p. 1) Narcissism as a mental framework is easier for individuals and societies when they are no longer connected to the past. It is the past that provides a framework for judging contemporary behavior as good or bad, as appropriate or inappropriate, as traditional or novel. The historical past, with its heroes and its lessons, is a person’s link to family and cultural traditions; it provides norms of behavior and moral strictures. Lasch makes it clear that as the past has faded from American consciousness, the capacity for narcissistic self-indulgence has grown substantially.


The self, for many, has become the absolute center of values and preoccupation. Such an attitude is a form of idolatry.


Lasch also noted how American society has begun to lose its confidence in the future — something truer still of Europe. This rejection of the future began to become widespread in the 1960’s with the fear of overpopulation. Many began to argue for “zero population growth”, and considered that the future of the world would be better with far fewer human beings. There was also a loss of hope for the future of humanity and traditional social organizations. This same phenomenon is readily discernible with respect to Western culture generally including the American nation. Modern critiques of Western society as exploitive, imperialistic, and even culturally inferior became widespread in the intellectual communities of the United States and Europe. From our colleges, universities and seminaries this general attitude spread out to become commonplace among America’s professional or “governing” class. A related critique of religion itself arose at the same time — and in the same places. Science, technology and secular life were generally assumed to be desirable and inevitable, and religion — part of the embarrassing Western culture anyway — was doomed to disappear. Christianity in any recognizable form was judged as having no future. The evaporation of hope for the future on all these fronts, along with the decline of belief in the relevance of tradition, meant that the “now” was what mattered. Having cut loose from the past and having little confidence in the future, we have allowed the present moment to dominate our consciousness.

Examples of the preoccupation with the present — “now” — at the expense of the lessons of the past and concern for the future abound. Consumer society, with its obsession with consumption, and its encouragement to incur debt with a disregard for future consequences, is perhaps the most obvious example. The glorification of transient sexual gratification and sensory pleasures is another commonplace example of this peculiarly contemporary focus on the present. The entertainment industry feeds — and feeds on — preoccupation with the present moment. This mindset promotes narcissism, because persons firmly wedded to their tradition and mindful of their future have inherent restraints on personal self-indulgence and gratification. Such persons instead draw gratification from continuing an admired past and projecting it in a positive way toward a hopeful future. In short, the “now” and narcissism go hand in hand.

Vitz, in his treatment, identifies the self-psychology of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow and other psychologists as a central causal factor, especially in these psychologists’ preoccupation with self-actualization and self-fulfillment. He also notes how this psychological narcissism morphed into the New Age emphasis on spiritual narcissism: “When I pray, I pray to myself.” The self, for many, has become the absolute center of values and preoccupation. Such an attitude is a form of idolatry, obviously related to the traditional vices of pride and vanity, and well summed up in the truly ancient temptation — “You shall be as gods.” Of course, most of today’s self-oriented American narcissists do not go quite so far, but there is a strong temptation for individuals today to agree with the Burger King erstwhile motto — “Have it your way.”

The narcissism discussed by Lasch was refocused in Bellah et al’s well-known Habits of the Heart. This book primarily identified American individualism and the autonomous self as the cultural culprit underlying America’s social fragmentation, loneliness and personal alienation. Although American individualism is not quite the same thing as narcissism — in some ways it is more moderate — Bellah et al conclude, “in the end, its [individualism’s] results are much the same” as narcissism or egoism. Bellah agrees with Lasch that with American individualism, “people come to ‘forget their ancestors,’ but also their descendents, as well as isolating themselves from their contemporaries.”

Narcissism of a General Psychological Type

The preceding summary has interpreted narcissism primarily within a cultural or social framework. However, a psychological definition of narcissism is also relevant. Genuine clinical narcissism, such as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), is a relatively uncommon major disorder and is not of concern here. Instead, our focus is on the more moderate narcissistic traits found in many individuals today. Five characteristics are relevant, all part of narcissistic personality disorder as described in the DSM-lV-R description of NPD. (Words from the DSM are in Italics.)


An excessive need for admiration and praise and with this comes an equally excessive need to avoid criticism. Often this is associated with obvious attention seeking behavior. These narcissistic traits are frequently found in those who introduce and participate in liturgical innovations.


  1. Requires excessive admiration; with this comes extreme sensitivity to criticism. Such criticism often leads to social withdrawal or an appearance of humility. Often this is associated with obvious attention seeking behavior. These narcissistic traits are frequently found in those who introduce and participate in liturgical innovations.

  2. A sense of entitlement, of unreasonable expectations of favorable treatmentand ofautomatic compliance of others with one’s suggestions and expectations is another narcissistic trait. An attitude of the “rules don’t apply to me” comes with this sense of entitlement — for example the rubrics of the Mass don’t really require me to follow them.

  3. A belief that they are superior, special or unique and expect others to recognize this; that they should only associate with other people who are special or of high status. For priests this may show by extreme needs to associate with high ranking clergy or with liturgical experts.

  4. Another narcissistic characteristic is showing arrogant,haughty behaviors and attitudes. At times priests show this in their liturgical style, emphases or innovation or when criticized for such innovations. Such attitudes often underlie the very assumption that one has the right to change the liturgy.

  5. A lack of empathy, that is, an unwillingness to recognize oridentify with the feeling and needs of others. This is sometimes shown by contempt or anger toward those who are offended by changes in the liturgy — often changes that have no real canonical support.

All of the above don’t need to be present in a given individual for the general narcissistic personality of the person to be clear, but any of these traits to an extreme or any two or more as obvious, would be enough to identify a “narcissistic type.”

Catholic Expressions of Clerical Narcissism

Lasch, Vitz and Bellah never touch on the Catholic Church in the works cited above, but their points apply to the situation of the Church in the United States over the last several decades. Setting aside the important underlying theological issues, we can see deeply rooted psychological motives behind the American priests who “individualize” the Masses they celebrate, placing their “personal stamp” on the liturgy. These priests play fast and loose with the rubrics of the mass, transform the “very brief” introduction after the greeting of the people, as authorized by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, into another homily. Some even individualize the prayer of consecration, and in numerous other ways seek to make the Divine Liturgy conform to their own tastes and views.

Much of this change was long attributed to the “Spirit of Vatican II”, but in fact, our point is that the secular and narcissistic spirit of the times lies beneath these liturgical irregularities. This secular spirit, as described by Lasch, was explicitly self-indulgent and self-aggrandizing. The rationale of those who “personalize” the liturgy is clearly one that rejects the Church’s history and tradition — just as society in general has rejected its past. This is easily seen in the frequent neglect and sometimes even explicit disparagement of the Church’s liturgical tradition by those who should be most closely wedded to the Church — priests.

These abuses also reflect a real disconnect with the Christian future. The future is a central focus of the liturgy as properly understood. The liturgy reflects the longing for God that we hope to realize at our deaths, but perhaps even more importantly the Mass presages the Last Judgment to be visited upon all mankind. At its heart, the Divine Liturgy is an expression of hopefulness for the future, and is an earthly manifestation of our ultimate goal — Heaven. The Mass should take us out of the present — should have a transcendent timelessness — and should also give us an awareness of the long traditions of the Church which precede us. Unfortunately, the congregation in many of today’s liturgies leaves the Mass with little awareness of the liturgy’s meaning for both the Church’s past and their eternal future. The Mass was just a transitory emotional experience, and easily forgotten.

The common contemporary focus on being “relevant” is a straightforward articulation of making the Mass focus on the “now” with a serious neglect of where the Mass came from and where it is leading us. To be relevant is to be involved in the present, commonly at the expense of the past as well as the future. In fact, most of the innovators would argue that a “relevant” liturgy is one that speaks to the people “now”, rather than serving as a fixed reference point in a confused and changing world. The “now” is also an expression of narcissistic preoccupations. Indeed, it is difficult to disentangle the connection between narcissism and “relevant” liturgy: focusing on the “now” breeds narcissism, and narcissism creates a preoccupation with “relevance” and the “now.” We turn now to some specific examples of our thesis.

In 1990 Thomas Day, in Why Catholic Can’t Sing, gave some clear examples of the narcissistic phenomenon in the Catholic liturgy — a phenomenon that he calls “Ego Renewal.”

“It is Holy Thursday and we are at the solemn evening mass in a mid-western parish. The moment comes for the celebrant of the Mass, the pastor, to wash the feet of twelve parishioners, just as Christ washed the feet of the apostles at the last Supper. During this deeply moving ceremony, the choir sings motets and alternates with the congregation, which sings hymns. Finally, this part of the liturgy comes to a close with the washing of the last foot. The music ends; you can almost sense that the congregation wants to weep for joy. Then, Father Hank (this is what the pastor wishes to be called) walks over to a microphone, smiles, and says, “Boy, that was great! Let’s give these twelve parishioners a hand.”

A stunned and somewhat reluctant congregation applauds weakly. Father Hank continues….

One by one, Father Hank goes down the row of twelve parishioners; each one gets a little testimonial and applause. With that job out of the way, Father Hank, visibly pleased with himself, resumes the liturgy, while the congregation, visibly annoyed, contemplates various methods of strangulation.”

This is a narcissistic example of “personalizing” the liturgy, and Day points out that “Father Hank’s” antics, far from being selfless, are fundamentally intended to draw attention to himself. Any psychologist would be aware of Father Hank’s underlying insecurity and consequent need for personal affirmation, and we can see this same psychology on a lesser scale when the celebrant leaves the sanctuary to shake hands with the laity during the sign of peace or nods and glad-hands his way through the congregation during the recessional as though he were a local politician running for office. Day displays acute awareness of the narcissism underlying many liturgical problems, and as noted aptly refers to it as “Ego Renewal.” A similar, real-life example of this personalizing of the liturgy in a way that detracts from its spiritual significance occurred at a large Mass, attended by the junior author, in which the main celebrant introduced each of over twenty other concelebrants at the start of the mass, inviting applause for each as they were introduced.

With rare exceptions the introduction of applause within the Mass is a display of the ego needs of the priest or priests who are modeling the mass on show business and on public demonstrations of emotional support at the expense of Christ and an attitude of reverence.

Changing the rubrics sometimes panders to the narcissism both of the congregation and the priest, such as when the celebrant states to the congregation, “the Lord is with you” instead of blessing them, “the Lord be with you.”

Lest the reader think that the cited examples belong to the 1980’s and 90’s, here is a fall 2006 example from a good sized diocese noted in the January 2007 First Things. A Halloween Mass in a parish that we will leave nameless “featured musicians decked out as devils and people in demon costumes distributing the Eucharist. I stopped watching the widely available video of the Mass at the point when the pastor introduced the Lord’s Prayer with the words, “As goblins and ghouls…,” and so I missed the part where, reportedly, he arrayed himself as the purple dinosaur Barney to conclude the ceremony.” The obvious narcissistic points are that this Mass was videoed for distribution, and that the pastor appeared in the costume of a well-liked media dinosaur. (What does a dinosaur costume say about his attitude toward the priesthood and the Church?) There is also, of course, a more sinister theme in this “performance” — one that suggests an association between narcissism and heresy.


It is important for priests to keep in mind that most Catholics go to Mass to encounter Jesus Christ, and not to come into contact with the particular psychology of the celebrant. Furthermore, they go for something that is not present in the popular culture — a sense of the sacred (and a recognition of the need for humility).


Most changes and additions to the Mass are not as lengthy or obvious to the man in the pew as the above examples. Nevertheless, they can be just as disturbing, and equally unsound theologically. On one occasion the junior author noticed that the words of consecration had been altered by the priest during a daily Mass in a major cathedral. After Mass he approached the priest and politely asked about the changes, and was told that they were “just a little thing that I always do.” Another example occurred when this same priest so modified the words of the Mass that the congregation lost its place and didn’t realize its cue to say the appropriate responses. Still another example, involved a priest who memorized the gospel each week and then recited it from memory rather than reading it. This novelty drew considerable attention to the priest, of course, and many lost the gospel message by concentrating on the performance. Likewise, a priest was reported to us who mimed the homily, again drawing undue attention to him and his performance. Imitating Christ’s self-forgetfulness and humble heart are the antidotes for these tendencies.

The laity is recruited to narcissism as well today. The mass is presented as a celebration of the assembled faithful themselves rather than a celebration of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. This is part of the motivation behind applause elicited from the laity. Perhaps the most obvious example of narcissism in the laity assisting at the mass occurs in the realm of “music ministry.” Day focuses particularly on this aspect in Why Catholics Can’t Sing; one notable aspect of this phenomenon is the moving of the choir from the choir loft and onto the sanctuary, where they are better able to “perform” to the congregation and to be seen an applauded. Indeed, there is a growing sense that the music at mass is more a performance than anything else.

One of the unanticipated results of priests customizing the liturgy — changing it on their own authority to suit their particular predilections — is that the laity sometimes follows suit. Following the American consumer mentality of “having it your way,” is potentially available to the lay faithful, not just to priests. If every priest is pope, why not every layman a pope as well? When the priest says, “The Lord is with you”, what is to stop the man in the pew from saying: “I know, amen.” After all, the laity has their own narcissistic needs that could easily show themselves in disruptive ways during Mass. Some of the laity’s narcissism already shows up in the way they often insist on controlling the mass and prayers at weddings and funerals. These services are increasingly custom-made by lay insistence.

It is important for priests to keep in mind that most Catholics go to Mass to encounter Jesus Christ, and not to come into contact with the particular psychology of the celebrant. They go for something that is not present in the popular culture — a sense of the sacred and a recognition of the need for humility. We do not want to come away from the Mass being affirmed in where we are, we want to be drawn toward where we long to be — closer to Christ and to Heaven.

Given the tendency toward “ego renewal”, self-esteem and self-aggrandizement, priests and seminarians should be made aware of the danger of inserting one’s personality into the liturgy. This tendency toward narcissism needs to be addressed especially in the context of the Mass celebrated versus populum — facing the people. Regardless of one’s view with regard to the respective merits of the mass being celebrated ad orientem or versus populum, there can be little question that the temptation to grandstand is much greater when the celebrant is facing the congregation. Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, recently commented on this issue, saying, “If the priest is not very disciplined, he will soon become a performer. He may not realize it, but he will be projecting himself rather than projecting Christ. Indeed, it is very demanding, the altar facing the people.”

Since the narcissistic or vain needs of many priests lie behind their peculiar and idiosyncratic changes in the liturgy, it is time for these unprepossessing and non-theological factors to be more widely recognized in Catholic seminaries and in the Catholic community at large. We will let Cardinal Arinze have the last word on this issue when he says the liturgy “is not the property of one individual, therefore an individual does not tinker with it.”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Paul Vitz & Daniel C. Vitz. "Messing with the Mass: The problem of priestly narcissism today." Homiletic and Pastoral Review (November 2007).

Reprinted with permission of the authors, Paul Vitz and Daniel C. Vitz.

THE AUTHOR

Prof. Paul Vitz received his Ph.D. in Psychology from Stanford University (1962) and for many years was a professor of psychology at New York University, where he is now professor emeritus. Currently he is Professor/Senior Scholar at the Institute for Psychological Sciences (IPS) in Arlington, VA. This is a free-standing, fully accredited graduate program, awarding the Doctor of Psychology degree in clinical psychology. The program trains psychologists within an orthodox Catholic perspective.

Dr. Vitz's work is focused on the integration of Christian theology and psychology, breaking from the secular humanism and post-modern relativism prevalent today. His books include: Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship; Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscious; Modern Art and Modern Science: The Parallel Analysis of Vision; and Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism. He and his wife live in Manhattan; they have six children, and they are now expecting their tenth grandchild. This is his second contribution to HPR. Paul Vitz is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Brother Daniel C. Vitz is studying for the priesthood with a new order founded in Argentina, the Institute of the Incarnate Word, at their American seminary (the Fulton Sheen House of Formation) just outside of Washington, D.C and is also a graduate student at Catholic University of America’s School of Philosophy. He is a native New Yorker, a former Navy officer, and the oldest son of Paul and Evelyn Vitz.

Copyright © 2007 Paul and Daniel C. Vitz

Article: Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words

EDWARD P. SRI

Mary’s command to the servants at Cana — "Do whatever he tells you" (Jn. 2:5) — represents her last recorded words in the Bible. And they serve as much more than an exhortation to obedience.

They echo the Old Testament spousal covenant of love between Yahweh, the divine Bridegroom, and Israel, His bride.

Mary and Mount Sinai

First, Mary’s words recall the typical response for covenant obedience in the Old Testament. For example, the theme of doing whatever God tells you appeared three times when Israel established its covenant with Yahweh at Mount Sinai. When Moses first announced to the Israelites their mission and the duties of being God’s chosen people, the whole congregation responded, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do" (Ex. 19:8). And when God established this covenant with Israel in a ritual ceremony at Sinai, Moses solemnly announced the words of the Lord to the people, and the congregation twice responded, "All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do" (Ex. 24:3, 7).

Similar words were repeated later in Israel’s history when they renewed their covenant as they settled in the Promised Land (Josh. 24:24) and when they began to rebuild Jerusalem after their exile in Babylon (Neh. 5:12). Thus, at the pivotal moments in Israel’s history — the covenant at Sinai, entering the Promised Land, the restoration of Jerusalem — doing whatever God says is paramount and is closely associated with covenant obedience.

This sheds light on Mary’s words at the wedding feast of Cana. At the dawn of the messianic era, a new turning point in Israel’s history has arrived. As the Messiah is about to perform His first miracle and thereby launch His public ministry, we once again encounter the theme of doing whatever God says. Mary tells the servants, "Do whatever he tells you," and with these words she echoes Israel’s profession of faith at Sinai. Mary "personifies in a certain manner the people of Israel in the context of the covenant" and stands as a faithful representative of Israel.1

Joseph and Jesus

Second, Mary’s words find a close parallel with what Pharaoh said about Joseph in the Book of Genesis. During the severe famine in Egypt, Pharaoh put Joseph in charge of storing up the wheat harvest in the plentiful years before the famine and distributing it once the food crisis arrived. When the starving people cried for provisions, Pharaoh told them, "Go to Joseph; what he says to you, do" (Gen. 41:55) — an expression almost identical to what Mary would later say at Cana.

This Biblical connection between doing whatever Joseph says and doing whatever Jesus says is quite significant, for there are several parallels between Joseph and Jesus in these two scenes. Just as Joseph overcame a lack of food during the famine with his storehouses of grain, so Jesus overcomes a lack of wine at the wedding by changing a large volume of water into wine. Just as Joseph is presented as having the Spirit of God in him at the beginning of his work (Gen. 41:38), so Jesus is described as having the Spirit upon Him at the start of His ministry (Jn. 1:32). Just as Joseph was 30 years old when he began to store up the grain for the people (Gen. 41:46), so Jesus is 30 years old when He provides the wine for people at the wedding feast (see Lk. 3:23). And just as Pharaoh’s words about Joseph — "what he says to you, do" — came when Joseph enters into his reign, so Mary’s words — "do whatever he tells you" — come when Jesus begins His public ministry with the first miracle in His kingly mission.

The Third Passover


John Paul II said these first two Passover miracles — involving wine at Cana and bread in the wilderness — anticipate the greatest miracle which would take place on the third Passover: the changing of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.


Mary’s words also contain Eucharistic significance. This can be seen when we consider how John’s Gospel is structured around three Passover feasts that span the course of three years.

Each of the three Passovers in John’s Gospel occasions a miracle involving bread or wine or both. The first Passover comes near the time of the wedding feast at Cana (see Jn. 2:13 and preceding verses), when Jesus changes water into wine in a time of need. The second Passover brings a second miracle in which Jesus provides an abundance in a time of need: the multiplication of loaves to feed the 5,000 (Jn. 6:4). In his general audience on March 5, 1997, John Paul II said these first two Passover miracles — involving wine at Cana and bread in the wilderness — anticipate the greatest miracle which would take place on the third Passover: the changing of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Jesus performed this miracle near the time of the Jewish feast of Passover (cf. Jn. 2:13), as he did in multiplying the loaves (cf. Jn. 6:4). He thus showed his intention to prepare the true paschal banquet, the Eucharist. His desire at the wedding in Cana seems to be emphasized further by the presence of wine, which alludes to the blood of the New Covenant, and by the context of a banquet. In this way . . . Mary obtained the miracle of the new wine which prefigures the Eucharist, the supreme sign of the presence of her risen Son among the disciples.

In the wider context of John’s Gospel, therefore, Mary’s command at Cana may have Eucharistic undertones, for the "good wine" that Mary leads the servants to is itself a foreshadowing of the supernatural wine of the Eucharist.

Trust Without Hesitation

Now let’s consider how Mary’s command "Do whatever he tells you" has profound effects on the servants, inspiring them to trust Jesus in a radical way. Just put yourself in the servants’ shoes. Jesus tells them to take the six stone jars for the Jewish rites of purification, fill them up with water, and draw some out to present to the steward of the feast. These stone jars would have been used for ritual washings of hands (and possibly feet). Astonishingly, Jesus tells the servants to fill up these very jars with water and then present their contents to their boss for serving as drink for the guests.

This would take a lot of faith! Imagine what the servants are thinking: "Fill up these jars? With water? And serve it to the guests? How is this going to solve the problem?" From a human perspective, Jesus’ plan does not make any sense. Yet first and foremost, Jesus is asking the servants not to understand His plan, but to trust Him.

Similarly, we may not always grasp Jesus’ work in our lives. We may not see clearly where the Lord is leading us. Yet, as John Paul II reminded us in his general audience on February 26, 1997, Mary’s command "Do whatever he tells you" challenges us to trust Him without hesitation not only when it makes sense to us, but "especially when one does not understand the meaning or benefit of what Christ asks."

Mary Inspires Prompt Obedience

With this background, we can see how Mary’s words "Do whatever he tells you" inspire the servants to tremendous faith. John’s Gospel, in fact, highlights how the servants respond as faithful disciples, promptly following Christ’s commands, no matter how mysterious those commands might appear to be.

Jesus gives two orders to the servants. First, He tells them, "Fill the jars with water." John’s Gospel immediately points out that the servants not only obeyed Christ’s command, but did so perfectly: "And they filled them up to the brim" (Jn. 2:7). Second, Jesus tells them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast," and John’s Gospel notes "they took it" (Jn. 2:8). Notice how John’s Gospel goes out of its way to tell us that the servants did exactly as they were told.

Jesus The Servants

"Fill the jars"
"They filled them" (Jn. 2:7)
"Take it to the steward" "They took it" (Jn. 2:8)2

Clearly, these servants followed Mary’s exhortation, "Do whatever he tells you." As such, they are portrayed as faithful disciples, obedient to Christ’s words.3

The Return of the Bridegroom


In the future era when God would rescue Israel from its enemies, there would be a great feast of wine (Is. 25:6) with wine overflowing in abundance (Amos 9:13-14; Joel 2:24; 3:18). In light of this background, the large quantity of wine at the feast in Cana would signal that the Old Testament prophecies about the messianic era are coming to fulfillment.


Finally, Mary’s words "Do whatever he tells you" spoken in the context of a wine miracle and a wedding feast help reveal Jesus as the messianic Bridegroom coming to renew His marriage covenant with His bride, Israel.

Consider the rich symbolism of wine for the ancient Jews. First, the prophets used wine imagery to foretell the restoration of Israel and the coming of the Messiah. In the future era when God would rescue Israel from its enemies, there would be a great feast of wine (Is. 25:6) with wine overflowing in abundance (Amos 9:13-14; Joel 2:24; 3:18). In light of this background, the large quantity of wine at the feast in Cana would signal that the Old Testament prophecies about the messianic era are coming to fulfillment.

Second, wine also had marital symbolism, as it celebrated the joyful union of bride and groom in the Song of Solomon (Song 1:2, 4; 4:10; 5:1; 7:9; 8:2). Thus the centrality of wine in the context of a wedding feast at Cana would bring to mind the love between husband and wife.4

This has important implications, for in the Old Testament, God’s covenant with Israel was described as a marriage relationship. Yahweh was the divine Bridegroom, who married His bride, Israel, in the covenant at Sinai. When Israel was obedient to the covenant, she was described as a faithful spouse. But later, when Israel broke covenant with Yahweh and began worshipping other gods, she was seen as an unfaithful wife, an adulterer, or even a harlot (see Jer. 2:1-2; 3:1-12; Ezek. 16; Hos. 2).

Nevertheless, the prophet Hosea announced that Yahweh would remain faithful to Israel even though she was unfaithful to Him. In fact, God one day would woo Israel’s heart back to Him and renew their relationship in a marriage covenant that would endure forever (Hos. 2:19-20).

In the first century, Jews were longing for their Messiah to come and for their divine bridegroom to heal and restore their covenant of love just as Hosea had foretold. That Jesus chose to have His first miracle provide an abundance of wine in the context of a wedding feast is intentional. It signals that the messianic Bridegroom has finally arrived to usher in the great feast and reunite Himself to His bride, the fallen people of Israel.

Mary and the Bride’s Heart


Mary’s words reflect the heart of a bride in love with her bridegroom. Representing the faithful of Israel, Mary invites the servants, the disciples, and all of us to run after our Bridegroom’s desires, ardently seeking to fulfill whatever He wants of us.


John’s Gospel goes out of its way to highlight this marriage symbolism, using the word "marriage" itself twice in the opening three verses of this story (Jn. 2:1-3). With this emphasis on the marriage, one would expect to read about the bride and groom. But strikingly, the narrative tells us nothing at all about the newlyweds themselves. Instead, the two main characters in the focus of this story are Mary and Jesus.

This is why some have suggested that Mary and Jesus serve as the symbolic bride and groom, heralding the restoration of the marriage covenant between Israel and Yahweh as Hosea once foretold. With Jesus, this is clear. Jesus is identified in the Gospel of John as the messianic Bridegroom (Jn. 3:29) and He is the main actor at the wedding at Cana, providing the messianic wine in the context of a marriage feast.

We already have seen how Mary represents Israel in this account, echoing Israel’s loving response to Yahweh when the covenant was first established at Mount Sinai. By saying "Do whatever he tells you," Mary recalls Israel’s original words of spousal covenant fidelity — vows that had been severely broken through centuries of sin and idolatry, but ones that are now being restored as the messianic Bridegroom begins His public ministry with His first miracle.

In this light, "Do whatever he tells you" should not be seen as a legalistic call to tediously obey an all-powerful master. Rather, Mary’s words reflect the heart of a bride in love with her bridegroom. Representing the faithful of Israel, Mary invites the servants, the disciples, and all of us to run after our Bridegroom’s desires, ardently seeking to fulfill whatever He wants of us.

Endnotes:

  1. I. de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant, p. 190. See also A. Serra, "Bibbia," in Nuovo Dizionario di Mariologia, ed. S. De Fiores & S. Meo (Milano: Edizioni San Paolo, 1986), p. 253.
  2. See I. de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant, p. 190.
  3. Significantly, John’s Gospel presents them not as mere slaves, but as servants in the sense of disciples. Instead of using the Greek word for slaves (doulois), John’s Gospel describes these men as servants (diakonois), a Greek word which in John’s Gospel refers to the true disciples of Jesus. For example, in John 12:26, Jesus speaks of His faithful disciples when He says, "If anyone serves [diakonei] me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant [diakonos] be also." Thus we can see that Mary’s command "Do whatever he tells you" has a powerful impact. Mary stirs the servants to respond like model disciples, giving prompt obedience to Jesus. See I. de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant, p. 190.
  4. See I. de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant, p. 194.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Edward P. Sri. "Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve." Lay Witness (July/August 2007).

This article is reprinted with permission from Lay Witness magazine.

Lay Witness is a publication of Catholic United for the Faith, Inc., an international lay apostolate founded in 1968 to support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.

THE AUTHOR

Dr. Edward (Ted) Sri is assistant professor of theology at Benedictine College in Atchison, KS, and a frequent contributor to Lay Witness. Edward Sri is the author of Mystery of the Kingdom, The New Rosary in Scripture: Biblical Insights for Praying the 20 Mysteries. His latest books is Queen Mother based on his doctorial dissertation and which is available by calling Benedictus Books toll-free at (888) 316-2640. CUF members receive a 10% discount.

Copyright © 2007 LayWitness