Peter Rocks!
A close non-Catholic friend and I occasionally get into discussions about the Catholic faith. About a year ago, he asked me to look a booklet titled The Facts on Roman Catholicism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. Ankerberg is a well-known Protestant Christian apologist who has a television ministry. Weldon is an author who collaborated with Ankerberg on a number of apologetic books.
A quick Internet search led me to Ankerberg's web page where I was able to purchase the 63-page booklet for five dollars. My friend expressed his preference for this tract because it presented the problems with Catholicism in a "charitable manner." I suspected I already knew basically what the booklet would say, but using it as a discussion tool seemed like a good way to further our dialogue.
As I read through the booklet, I began making notes and writing comments. Eventually, those gave birth to a 17 page reply to my friend in which I refuted all the half-truths and downright erroneous information contained in the booklet. Last week, my friend replied with a rather lengthy response of his own. It consisted of early 19th Century Protestant Scripture Commentaries by Adam Clarke and several others, most of which were directed at denying papal authority. My friend noted that these commentaries are well known and respected. What follows is a portion of my latest reply.
We can both present our evidence over and over again, but how do we get beyond this point in our discussion? We know we should be united in mind and purpose as the Bible tells us, but what happens when in all honesty and sincerity, we just disagree. How do we discern the truth? As a Catholic, I could look to Scripture and say we should take our disagreement to the Church (Matt 18: 15-18), because the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.(1 Tim 3:15) We still have a problem because we cannot agree on what Scripture means by the Church.
I'm sure Adam Clarke's Commentaries are "well known and respected" -- in Evangelical circles. The problem is that, as a Methodist writer, his commentaries always come from a Protestant point of view. That is to say, his interpretation of Scripture will never support a Catholic position with which he disagrees. For example, let's take 1 Tim 3:15 which I cited above. A Catholic would say this verse means exactly what it says. Paul is referring to "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." As Catholics, we believe Jesus, the Son of the living God, established an authoritative Church guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth (Matt 16: 13-19, John 16:13), and we can trace the Catholic Church to this origin. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. There is no mystery here. Since Clarke does not hold this position, he cannot interpret this passage literally, and must try to come up with other possibilities.
I found his commentary on 1 Tim 3:15 at http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1tim3.htm I display them here just as they appear on the webpage. Regarding to what the "pillar and ground of the truth" refers, he says the following:
[The pillar and ground of the truth.] Never was there a greater variety of opinions on any portion of the sacred Scripture than has been on this and the following verse. Commentators and critics have given senses and meanings till there is no meaning to be seen. It would be almost impossible, after reading all that has been said on this passage, for any man to make up his own mind. To what, or to whom, does the pillar and ground of the truth refer?
1. Some say to Timothy, who is called the pillar, &c., because left there to support and defend the truth of God against false doctrines and false teachers; and is so called for the same reason that Peter, James, and John, are said to be pillars, i.e. supporters of the truth of God. Gal. ii. 9.
2. Others suppose that the pillar and ground of the truth is spoken of GOD; and that ov esti, who is, should be supplied as referring immediately to qeov, God, just before. By this mode of interpretation the passage will read thus: That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, WHO IS (ov esti) the pillar and ground of the truth. How God may be fitly termed the pillar and ground of truth, requires no explanation.
3. Others think that the words should be understood of the CHURCH of the living God; and in this case the feminine relative htiv esti, which is, must be repeated immediately after ekklhsia, the Church. The house of God is the Church of the living God; WHICH (Church) IS the pillar and ground of the truth. That is: The full revelation of God's truth is in the Christian Church. The great doctrines of that Church are the truth without error, metaphor, or figure. Formerly the truth was but partially revealed, much of it being shadowed with types, ceremonies, and comparatively dark prophecies; but now all is plain, and the full revelation given; and the foundation on which this truth rests are the grand facts detailed in the Gospel, especially those which concern the incarnation, miracles, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ, and the mission of the Holy Spirit.
4. Lastly, others refer the whole to to thv eusebeiav musthrion, the mystery of godliness; and translate the clause thus: The mystery of godliness is the pillar and ground of the truth; and, without controversy, a great thing. This gives a very good sense, but it is not much favoured by the arrangement of the words in the original.
The term Eisegesis refers to Biblical interpretation that is formed in accordance with preconceived beliefs, as opposed to Exegesis, the theological study of the true meaning of Scripture. Imagine how difficult it must be to form a Biblical interpretation without allowing one's personal beliefs to enter. I read all of the commentaries on Matthew 16 that you provided. I think any reasonable critic will see some eisegesis in the exegesis. It's a bit like having a little broken glass mixed in with your peanut butter. There may be spiritual nourishment here, but one must chew it carefully.
In all fairness, were I to try to write on Matthew 16, my commentary would be biased also, but not soley based on my own personal discernment. I have no Divinely-granted authority to speak for Jesus, but neither do these commentators. What they provide is their private interpretation. We know, however, that Jesus did give SOMEBODY the power to bind and loose in His absence. Those standing in opposition to that authority need to justify their position, and having already rejected the authority and the historical Tradition, these commentators have only their personal interpretation of Scripture to fall back on. That is a pretty safe place to be because they have no one to answer to but themselves.
The commentaries by Clarke, Matthew Henry, and Jamieson Fausset and Brown are all formed to deny any indication of Peter being the first prime minister of a singular, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Not only do they express their beliefs of what Matthew 16:18 means, they go out of their way to say what it does not mean, an admission of the commentary's Catholic target. Regarding the possibility of Peter being the Rock on which the Church was founded, Henry says, "Yet if it were so, this would not serve to support the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome; for Peter had no such headship as he claims, much less could he derive it to his successors, least of all to the Bishops of Rome, who, whether they are so in place or no, is a question, but that they are not so in the truth of Christianity, is past all question." Clarke says, "That Peter is not designed in our Lord's words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice."
I ask, who here is REALLY blinded by prejudice and how can we know? What evidence do we have that Peter DID have headship, that he was the first Pope, and that there WERE successors? Most of the cited Protestant commentaries come from the 18th or 19th century when anti-catholic sentiment was running high. Why not look at commentaries from the first few centuries of Christianity written by those closest to the events of the day?
At this point, I cited excerpts from a number of early Christian writings. They date from as early as 170 A.D. to the 5th century, more than 1000 years before Luther. I divided them into three groups corresponding to the three objections mentioned above, those being that Peter had no primacy over the other disciples, that he was not the Rock on which the Church was founded by Christ, and lastly that Peter's headship was not passed on to successors. I won't list all of them here. They are too numerous. All of these quotations can be found at http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
What do these writings prove? They refute the contention that the Catholic Church somehow usurped power at a later time. They show the earliest Christians acknowledged the chair of Peter and his successors, in direct contrast to the contentions of the commentaries written some 1400 years later. They show earliest Christians were Catholic.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Monday, May 29, 2006
May another take his office
In my more than fifty-five years on this earth, I had never attended a Protestant Sunday service until today. My son, who was hired to be the organist at St. Luke United Church of Christ several years ago, will be graduating from high school this week. The congregation graciously wanted to make a presentation to him at their Sunday service, and their pastor invited us to attend.
Evan played his first Mass almost nine years ago to the day. It was Memorial Day, 1997. He was 9 years old at the time. He began taking lessons when he was five from the wife of a Lutheran minister. It seemed to come almost easy to him, and by the time he entered high school, he was a regular organist at our Catholic parish, and even directed the adult choir. All of this was done in service to the Church, so Evan would never take money for his work. Being a teenager in need of spending money, he jumped at the opportunity to make $50 per week for playing the organ at the nearby Protestant service, while continuing to play the Saturday evening Mass at our parish. Allowing him to play for a non-Catholic congregation was never an issue for us. He has become firmly ensconced in his Catholic faith, very knowledgeable for someone his age.
The people at St. Luke United Church of Christ were very friendly. We were greeted at the door by a couple of members of the congregation and their pastor. Living in a small community, we knew a few of them. They welcomed us and we felt comfortable.
The service began with the pastor at the ambo where he made a few announcements and then asked the congregation for "joys and concerns". A number of people got up to request prayers for certain friends and family members. One expressed joy at her daughter finding a job, and another man thanked God for helping him discern which job he should take. The pastor took notes and worked these joys and concerns into prayers near the end of the service where he mentioned each of the petitioners by name. It was also at this time that the presentation was made to my son.
Following the introductory prayers and an opening hymn (America, in recognition of Memorial Day), the congregation sang something similar to our Gloria. There was a "Litany for Memorial Day", another hymn (Battle Hymn of the Republic), followed by Psalm 33 and a reading from Acts 1:15-26, which became the topic for the sermon.
The reading from Acts and the sermon were of particular interest to me. We would have read that same passage from Luke's second volume had we not celebrated the Feast of the Ascension this Sunday in our diocese. It tells of the process of choosing a successor to Judas. The proceedings are lead by Peter who stood before the assembly of about 120 to express the need for filling the vacant office. Two candidates were presented and after praying for guidance, they cast lots whereby Matthias was chosen to be counted with the remaining eleven.
The pastor talked about the importance of filling that office vacated by Judas. He said the eleven probably could have continued to serve those 120 people, but that it was necessary to fill the office and all Christianity eventually spread from that ministry. As Catholics, we often cite this passage to support our belief in the existence of Apostolic Succession. Our Catholic priests and bishops of today can trace their lineage to those original twelve. We know from Scripture that Jesus promised to establish a Church, with Peter holding the keys to the kingdom. Jesus gave all twelve apostles the authority to bind and loose, and here in Acts, we see that office being passed down.
When Christians separate themselves from the authorized line of succession, they can no longer be assured of the truth. Hence we have thousands of Protestant denominations, each teaching their own interpretation of Scripture. Anyone who disagrees with this pastor's sermon can go down the street and find another pastor who teaches something more palatable.
I would like to question the pastor on the events depicted in Acts 1:15-26. If these twelve men were given the authority to bind and loose (Matt 18:18), and that authority was passed on as we see here, who holds that authority now? If the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church as we learn in 1 Tim 3:15, is it not important that we remain under the safe harbor of that Christ-given authority? In view of the lack of Christian unity we experience today, does he ever consider the possibility that many have rejected this Christ-given authority if favor of self-rule through personal interpretation?
In a discussion I was reading this week, someone asked why Protestants do not see the big picture? One person pointed out the tendency to take Scripture one passage at a time in order to prove a certain point. Another used the term cognitive dissonance to describe the ability to see what supports one's belief while ignoring that which does not. When one answers to no particular authority other than his own congregation, he is certainly free to preach whatever he believes and avoid anything which may be in opposition.
Following the sermon, the offering was collected. Up to this point, I was somewhat surprised how closely the service resembled the Liturgy of the Word in our Catholic Mass. The pastor apparently follows our Lectionary, as many Protestant denominations do, even though he omitted the seconded reading and the gospel. Were we in a Catholic Church, we would now begin the most important part of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Eucharist, where we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Here in St. Luke United Church of Christ, what followed was the Closing Hymn. You see, outside the line of Apostolic Succession, there is no priesthood, and therefore, no valid consecration.
We departed the church amid handshakes and warm wishes from many members of their congregation. There is no doubt that they love Jesus and one another. In many respects, I wish our own Catholic congregation could express the warmth and friendliness we witnessed today. Despite all these good feelings, there was something very important missing. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (John 6:53) My prayer is that one day they can be reunited with us in the fullness of the faith.
In my more than fifty-five years on this earth, I had never attended a Protestant Sunday service until today. My son, who was hired to be the organist at St. Luke United Church of Christ several years ago, will be graduating from high school this week. The congregation graciously wanted to make a presentation to him at their Sunday service, and their pastor invited us to attend.
Evan played his first Mass almost nine years ago to the day. It was Memorial Day, 1997. He was 9 years old at the time. He began taking lessons when he was five from the wife of a Lutheran minister. It seemed to come almost easy to him, and by the time he entered high school, he was a regular organist at our Catholic parish, and even directed the adult choir. All of this was done in service to the Church, so Evan would never take money for his work. Being a teenager in need of spending money, he jumped at the opportunity to make $50 per week for playing the organ at the nearby Protestant service, while continuing to play the Saturday evening Mass at our parish. Allowing him to play for a non-Catholic congregation was never an issue for us. He has become firmly ensconced in his Catholic faith, very knowledgeable for someone his age.
The people at St. Luke United Church of Christ were very friendly. We were greeted at the door by a couple of members of the congregation and their pastor. Living in a small community, we knew a few of them. They welcomed us and we felt comfortable.
The service began with the pastor at the ambo where he made a few announcements and then asked the congregation for "joys and concerns". A number of people got up to request prayers for certain friends and family members. One expressed joy at her daughter finding a job, and another man thanked God for helping him discern which job he should take. The pastor took notes and worked these joys and concerns into prayers near the end of the service where he mentioned each of the petitioners by name. It was also at this time that the presentation was made to my son.
Following the introductory prayers and an opening hymn (America, in recognition of Memorial Day), the congregation sang something similar to our Gloria. There was a "Litany for Memorial Day", another hymn (Battle Hymn of the Republic), followed by Psalm 33 and a reading from Acts 1:15-26, which became the topic for the sermon.
The reading from Acts and the sermon were of particular interest to me. We would have read that same passage from Luke's second volume had we not celebrated the Feast of the Ascension this Sunday in our diocese. It tells of the process of choosing a successor to Judas. The proceedings are lead by Peter who stood before the assembly of about 120 to express the need for filling the vacant office. Two candidates were presented and after praying for guidance, they cast lots whereby Matthias was chosen to be counted with the remaining eleven.
The pastor talked about the importance of filling that office vacated by Judas. He said the eleven probably could have continued to serve those 120 people, but that it was necessary to fill the office and all Christianity eventually spread from that ministry. As Catholics, we often cite this passage to support our belief in the existence of Apostolic Succession. Our Catholic priests and bishops of today can trace their lineage to those original twelve. We know from Scripture that Jesus promised to establish a Church, with Peter holding the keys to the kingdom. Jesus gave all twelve apostles the authority to bind and loose, and here in Acts, we see that office being passed down.
When Christians separate themselves from the authorized line of succession, they can no longer be assured of the truth. Hence we have thousands of Protestant denominations, each teaching their own interpretation of Scripture. Anyone who disagrees with this pastor's sermon can go down the street and find another pastor who teaches something more palatable.
I would like to question the pastor on the events depicted in Acts 1:15-26. If these twelve men were given the authority to bind and loose (Matt 18:18), and that authority was passed on as we see here, who holds that authority now? If the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church as we learn in 1 Tim 3:15, is it not important that we remain under the safe harbor of that Christ-given authority? In view of the lack of Christian unity we experience today, does he ever consider the possibility that many have rejected this Christ-given authority if favor of self-rule through personal interpretation?
In a discussion I was reading this week, someone asked why Protestants do not see the big picture? One person pointed out the tendency to take Scripture one passage at a time in order to prove a certain point. Another used the term cognitive dissonance to describe the ability to see what supports one's belief while ignoring that which does not. When one answers to no particular authority other than his own congregation, he is certainly free to preach whatever he believes and avoid anything which may be in opposition.
Following the sermon, the offering was collected. Up to this point, I was somewhat surprised how closely the service resembled the Liturgy of the Word in our Catholic Mass. The pastor apparently follows our Lectionary, as many Protestant denominations do, even though he omitted the seconded reading and the gospel. Were we in a Catholic Church, we would now begin the most important part of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Eucharist, where we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Here in St. Luke United Church of Christ, what followed was the Closing Hymn. You see, outside the line of Apostolic Succession, there is no priesthood, and therefore, no valid consecration.
We departed the church amid handshakes and warm wishes from many members of their congregation. There is no doubt that they love Jesus and one another. In many respects, I wish our own Catholic congregation could express the warmth and friendliness we witnessed today. Despite all these good feelings, there was something very important missing. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (John 6:53) My prayer is that one day they can be reunited with us in the fullness of the faith.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Fire the Canons!
Our Sunday bulletin for March 12, 2006 contained the following announcement:
Welcoming 125th Anniversary Witness Reflections:
(Parishioner's Name) will be speaking at all Masses this weekend as he will be sharing heart warming reflections on our Parish's 125th Jubilee Year.
We welcome (Name) to share with us stories during the "homily time" just as we would welcome other laity or ordained when they share with us stories as to what is happening in their field of mission work. In fact, the Code of Canon Law does make allowances for the laity to homilize as it states in Canon 766: "Lay persons can be admitted to preach in a church or oratory if it is necessary in certain circumstances or if it is useful in particular cases according to the prescriptions of the conferences of bishops & with due regard for can. 767, #1." Therefore, on behalf of the 125th Anniversary Committee it is with open hearts we welcome (Name) for the "particular circumstance" as our speaker this weekend as he reflects on faith stories pertaining to our Jubilee Year!
Indeed one of our parishioners delivered his talk in the place of the homily at all of Sunday Masses. A few of us in attendance who have some basic knowledge of Canon Law and also the General Instruction of the Roman Missal were puzzled. I was under the impression that homilies were restricted to priests or deacons. The answer lies in Canon Law 767, #1 to which the bulletin entry makes reference, but does not include. It says the following:
Can. 767 #1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.
It seems the "due regard for can. 767, #1" was disregarded by our pastor. He tends to take Church documents out of context in order to do justify his actions, much like some people quote Scripture out of context in order to support their own self-serving doctrines. Does he not understand or does he not care? Frankly, I am surprised he cited Canon Law at all. Perhaps he knew some would be upset that a member of the laity would be delivering a homily and thought he could fire a pre-emptive shot by finding legal support for lay preaching. It would also behoove him to read canon 767 in its entirely. Line #4 says: It is for the pastor or rector of a church to take care that these prescripts are observed conscientiously.
Our Sunday bulletin for March 12, 2006 contained the following announcement:
Welcoming 125th Anniversary Witness Reflections:
(Parishioner's Name) will be speaking at all Masses this weekend as he will be sharing heart warming reflections on our Parish's 125th Jubilee Year.
We welcome (Name) to share with us stories during the "homily time" just as we would welcome other laity or ordained when they share with us stories as to what is happening in their field of mission work. In fact, the Code of Canon Law does make allowances for the laity to homilize as it states in Canon 766: "Lay persons can be admitted to preach in a church or oratory if it is necessary in certain circumstances or if it is useful in particular cases according to the prescriptions of the conferences of bishops & with due regard for can. 767, #1." Therefore, on behalf of the 125th Anniversary Committee it is with open hearts we welcome (Name) for the "particular circumstance" as our speaker this weekend as he reflects on faith stories pertaining to our Jubilee Year!
Indeed one of our parishioners delivered his talk in the place of the homily at all of Sunday Masses. A few of us in attendance who have some basic knowledge of Canon Law and also the General Instruction of the Roman Missal were puzzled. I was under the impression that homilies were restricted to priests or deacons. The answer lies in Canon Law 767, #1 to which the bulletin entry makes reference, but does not include. It says the following:
Can. 767 #1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.
It seems the "due regard for can. 767, #1" was disregarded by our pastor. He tends to take Church documents out of context in order to do justify his actions, much like some people quote Scripture out of context in order to support their own self-serving doctrines. Does he not understand or does he not care? Frankly, I am surprised he cited Canon Law at all. Perhaps he knew some would be upset that a member of the laity would be delivering a homily and thought he could fire a pre-emptive shot by finding legal support for lay preaching. It would also behoove him to read canon 767 in its entirely. Line #4 says: It is for the pastor or rector of a church to take care that these prescripts are observed conscientiously.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Latin, RIGHT!
Someone posted a question on Steve Ray's message board about what we should call ourselves. Are we simply Catholic or are we Roman Catholic? Which term describes us best? Many expressed concern about the origin of term "Roman" Catholic, saying it arose as a slur by the English who separated from the true Church. Others pointed out the Church herself uses Roman Catholic in various documents. Some said "Catholic" says it all. And still others felt the need to be more specific by saying "Catholic, Latin Rite". One clever individual said we are actually the First Apostolic Full Gospel Church of Jesus Christ Unreformed, Roman Assembly.
All of this has nothing to do with my topic here, other than the fact it gave me the idea for my title. Last Friday evening as my family perused a restaurant menu looking for meatless dishes to comply with our Lenten abstinence, my son wondered why it is okay to eat fish on Friday when many consider fish to be meat. He got this question from one of his high school buddies and could not provide an adequate reply. I was stumped also but I knew there must be a reasonable answer, and I found one courtesy of Jimmy Akin's web page. (http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/fish_fridays.html)
All Church law is written in Latin. On Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent, we are required to abstain from eating carnis, which we translate as meat in English. In Latin, carnis literally means a land-dwelling, warm-blooded animal. Fish are neither land-dwelling nor warm-blooded, so they are not considered carnis. All carnis is meat, but not all meat is carnis. Therefore, under Church law, it is acceptable to eat fish on days of abstinence even if one considers fish to be meat.
To remain closest to our Catholic roots, we need to understand Latin. Vernacular translations employ dynamic equivalence, meaning the literal language is modified to convey the thought in wording more easily understood. This is okay, but it requires passing the text through the eyes and mind of the translator for interpretation. The resulting text has been filtered by the views of the interpreter, and therefore is no longer seen in its most pristine original form. Hymn translations are subjected to even greater alteration since words are sometimes changed to fit the music or to make it rhyme.
In the carnis example, there is no common English word that means warm-blooded, land-dwelling animal. The translators chose the word meat. It is close enough to convey the intent of the law, but not literally exact. All translations require substitution of words and ideas which may not have literal equivalents. To dynamically translate an idea correctly, the translator must correctly interpret what the author was thinking, and choose words that convey that idea as closely as possible. Subtle differences are inevitable. As writer James Kilpatrick once pointed out, the English language allows us to measure meaning by the micrometer.
Today, some forty years after Vatican II, we are still awaiting a good translation of the Latin Mass. The Vatican wants all translations to follow literally from the Latin. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy, a committee of English-speaking Bishops, has been working on a revised Lectionary for several years. They are still finding it difficult reach a consensus.
This is why so many conservative Catholics love the Latin Mass. Latin expresses Catholicism in its purest form, a form universal (i.e. catholic) to the Church in its fullness or entirety. It's our faith expressed free of another's interpretation. We may not understand every word, but we know it is original in its pristine form, and it is right.
Someone posted a question on Steve Ray's message board about what we should call ourselves. Are we simply Catholic or are we Roman Catholic? Which term describes us best? Many expressed concern about the origin of term "Roman" Catholic, saying it arose as a slur by the English who separated from the true Church. Others pointed out the Church herself uses Roman Catholic in various documents. Some said "Catholic" says it all. And still others felt the need to be more specific by saying "Catholic, Latin Rite". One clever individual said we are actually the First Apostolic Full Gospel Church of Jesus Christ Unreformed, Roman Assembly.
All of this has nothing to do with my topic here, other than the fact it gave me the idea for my title. Last Friday evening as my family perused a restaurant menu looking for meatless dishes to comply with our Lenten abstinence, my son wondered why it is okay to eat fish on Friday when many consider fish to be meat. He got this question from one of his high school buddies and could not provide an adequate reply. I was stumped also but I knew there must be a reasonable answer, and I found one courtesy of Jimmy Akin's web page. (http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/fish_fridays.html)
All Church law is written in Latin. On Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent, we are required to abstain from eating carnis, which we translate as meat in English. In Latin, carnis literally means a land-dwelling, warm-blooded animal. Fish are neither land-dwelling nor warm-blooded, so they are not considered carnis. All carnis is meat, but not all meat is carnis. Therefore, under Church law, it is acceptable to eat fish on days of abstinence even if one considers fish to be meat.
To remain closest to our Catholic roots, we need to understand Latin. Vernacular translations employ dynamic equivalence, meaning the literal language is modified to convey the thought in wording more easily understood. This is okay, but it requires passing the text through the eyes and mind of the translator for interpretation. The resulting text has been filtered by the views of the interpreter, and therefore is no longer seen in its most pristine original form. Hymn translations are subjected to even greater alteration since words are sometimes changed to fit the music or to make it rhyme.
In the carnis example, there is no common English word that means warm-blooded, land-dwelling animal. The translators chose the word meat. It is close enough to convey the intent of the law, but not literally exact. All translations require substitution of words and ideas which may not have literal equivalents. To dynamically translate an idea correctly, the translator must correctly interpret what the author was thinking, and choose words that convey that idea as closely as possible. Subtle differences are inevitable. As writer James Kilpatrick once pointed out, the English language allows us to measure meaning by the micrometer.
Today, some forty years after Vatican II, we are still awaiting a good translation of the Latin Mass. The Vatican wants all translations to follow literally from the Latin. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy, a committee of English-speaking Bishops, has been working on a revised Lectionary for several years. They are still finding it difficult reach a consensus.
This is why so many conservative Catholics love the Latin Mass. Latin expresses Catholicism in its purest form, a form universal (i.e. catholic) to the Church in its fullness or entirety. It's our faith expressed free of another's interpretation. We may not understand every word, but we know it is original in its pristine form, and it is right.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Feast or Famine
Our parish celebrated the Feast Day of our Patrons, Saints Cyril and Methodius, today with Sunday Mass followed by a Procession and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for forty hours until Tuesday evening, the actual Feast (February 14). This is our 125th year as a parish so this day also commenced preparation for our jubilee celebration on October 1st. A poorly attended carry-in dinner followed the Mass after which one of our long-time parishioners and Pastoral Council Members made a short presentation requesting memorabilia for the celebration.
Several guests at the dinner voiced memories of their days in our Catholic School which unfortunately closed in the 1970's. Some spoke about the nuns and their strict forms of discipline. We boys who lived through those days remember having our caps flung from our heads whenever we forgot to remove them upon entering church. We did not dare talk in church or misbehave in any manner. Even coughing warranted a reprimand. Eyes remained straight ahead and hands were folded in prayer position.
When a special event took place back then, much preparation took place. If a Forty-hours devotion were to occur, a number of altar boys would be selected and sent to the church to rehearse with the priest. Each boy knew his job and the liturgy would be practiced until everyone got it right. The celebrations were solemn and reverent with few distractions despite the complexity of movement. Not only were the school children quiet and well-behaved, so were their parents. The church was packed for these occasions as everyone understood the significance. During Eucharistic Adoration, altar boys in cassocks and surpluses knelt before the Blessed Sacrament during the daytime, and adult men tended overnight. As I reflected memories, I began to understand the reason for behavior I had witnessed after Mass today.
After the final blessing, Father announced that we would be processing with the Blessed Sacrament followed by singing the Tantum Ergo at the beginning of our Adoration time. He encouraged parishioners to join in the procession. Four young girls were altar servers today. It seems like only a few boys remain as active servers, but none of them were present for this special occasion. Father went through the motions of incensing the Monstrance on the altar although it did not appear that the servers had remembered to light the charcoal. The Cross and candle bearers led the procession at a pace much too fast for any semblance of solemnity. By the time about five people bothered to join the procession, the servers had already lapped half way around the church leaving them far behind.
At the completion of the procession, Father placed the Monstrance on the altar and we sang the Tantum Ergo, in English of course, because Father does not want us to sing anything in Latin. Somehow, it does not seem as reverent that way. Father then led a few prayers and after a moment of silence, he and the servers departed in silence to the Sacristy. At that point, parishioners got up and started chatting loudly in the aisles, choir members doing the same in the loft. Three parishioners tried to maintain concentration in prayer. The din continued for about ten minutes or more. A group of about six or seven stood in the center aisle conversing aloud, completely oblivious to the exposed Blessed Sacrament or those kneeling in adoration.
We are being given a precious forty hours of quiet time to interact with Our Lord and Savior in His house. If some would prefer to use this time interacting with someone else, they should do so in someone else's house. Unfortunately, very few realize who is before them. The few who understand are often those who lived through the discipline of Catholic schooling. There are exceptions, of course, but we may be experiencing the effects of a lack of Catholic education. That education, and the occasionally stern discipline that accompanies it, now must begin at the pulpit.
A sign up sheet was left in the rear of the church where parishioners could select times for adoration. The Blessed Sacrament should never be exposed unattended out of respect for Our Lord. If everyone understood His Presence, this would never be a problem. There would be lines up and down the sidewalks. While most of the daytime hours were filled, many names were repeated on the list. The vast majority of the parishioners are not willing to give an hour of time to Our Lord. One would think organizations such as the Knights of Columbus would stand guard for Eucharistic Adoration, but their numbers with a few exceptions were notably absent, as were members of other church organizations.
Being alone at night in front of the Blessed Sacrament allows much time for contemplation. In a parish of hundreds of families, why am I the only one here right now, I wondered. There are parishes that sustain perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, yet we could get enough people to spend Forty Hours. In fact, our adoration period ended up being about 35 hours due to lack of participation. The implications of this are troubling. Ponder the message we send in blowing off an opportunity to kneel in adoration. Jesus, I do not have time for you. Instead of spending an intimate hour of meditation in Your Presence, I would prefer to watch television. I went to Mass on Sunday. That's enough. I worked hard today. I'm tired.
Worst of all, we pass this indifference on to our children. Mom and Dad aren't going, so it must not be important. It is much too easy to submerse ourselves in the daily routine of secular life without setting aside time to accept the graces God has set aside to sustain us. If we do not properly instill our Catholic Faith in our children, they may never rediscover it on their own unless a personal crisis someday interupts their routine, causing a change in direction. Many personal problems are caused by choosing instant self-gratification over moral righteousness. Living a spiritual life can help us avoid life-altering mistakes.
Our parish is suffering from spiritual malnutrition. During the Pastoral Council member's presentation, he mentioned the fact that he had been a parishioner here for more than sixty years, about half the time our parish had been in existence. He also mentioned that we need to record the history of our parish during this 125th anniversary year since many of us won't be around for the next anniversary in 2031. He failed to mention the realistic possibility that our parish will not exist 25 years from now if we don't get our spiritual priorities in order.
Our parish celebrated the Feast Day of our Patrons, Saints Cyril and Methodius, today with Sunday Mass followed by a Procession and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for forty hours until Tuesday evening, the actual Feast (February 14). This is our 125th year as a parish so this day also commenced preparation for our jubilee celebration on October 1st. A poorly attended carry-in dinner followed the Mass after which one of our long-time parishioners and Pastoral Council Members made a short presentation requesting memorabilia for the celebration.
Several guests at the dinner voiced memories of their days in our Catholic School which unfortunately closed in the 1970's. Some spoke about the nuns and their strict forms of discipline. We boys who lived through those days remember having our caps flung from our heads whenever we forgot to remove them upon entering church. We did not dare talk in church or misbehave in any manner. Even coughing warranted a reprimand. Eyes remained straight ahead and hands were folded in prayer position.
When a special event took place back then, much preparation took place. If a Forty-hours devotion were to occur, a number of altar boys would be selected and sent to the church to rehearse with the priest. Each boy knew his job and the liturgy would be practiced until everyone got it right. The celebrations were solemn and reverent with few distractions despite the complexity of movement. Not only were the school children quiet and well-behaved, so were their parents. The church was packed for these occasions as everyone understood the significance. During Eucharistic Adoration, altar boys in cassocks and surpluses knelt before the Blessed Sacrament during the daytime, and adult men tended overnight. As I reflected memories, I began to understand the reason for behavior I had witnessed after Mass today.
After the final blessing, Father announced that we would be processing with the Blessed Sacrament followed by singing the Tantum Ergo at the beginning of our Adoration time. He encouraged parishioners to join in the procession. Four young girls were altar servers today. It seems like only a few boys remain as active servers, but none of them were present for this special occasion. Father went through the motions of incensing the Monstrance on the altar although it did not appear that the servers had remembered to light the charcoal. The Cross and candle bearers led the procession at a pace much too fast for any semblance of solemnity. By the time about five people bothered to join the procession, the servers had already lapped half way around the church leaving them far behind.
At the completion of the procession, Father placed the Monstrance on the altar and we sang the Tantum Ergo, in English of course, because Father does not want us to sing anything in Latin. Somehow, it does not seem as reverent that way. Father then led a few prayers and after a moment of silence, he and the servers departed in silence to the Sacristy. At that point, parishioners got up and started chatting loudly in the aisles, choir members doing the same in the loft. Three parishioners tried to maintain concentration in prayer. The din continued for about ten minutes or more. A group of about six or seven stood in the center aisle conversing aloud, completely oblivious to the exposed Blessed Sacrament or those kneeling in adoration.
We are being given a precious forty hours of quiet time to interact with Our Lord and Savior in His house. If some would prefer to use this time interacting with someone else, they should do so in someone else's house. Unfortunately, very few realize who is before them. The few who understand are often those who lived through the discipline of Catholic schooling. There are exceptions, of course, but we may be experiencing the effects of a lack of Catholic education. That education, and the occasionally stern discipline that accompanies it, now must begin at the pulpit.
A sign up sheet was left in the rear of the church where parishioners could select times for adoration. The Blessed Sacrament should never be exposed unattended out of respect for Our Lord. If everyone understood His Presence, this would never be a problem. There would be lines up and down the sidewalks. While most of the daytime hours were filled, many names were repeated on the list. The vast majority of the parishioners are not willing to give an hour of time to Our Lord. One would think organizations such as the Knights of Columbus would stand guard for Eucharistic Adoration, but their numbers with a few exceptions were notably absent, as were members of other church organizations.
Being alone at night in front of the Blessed Sacrament allows much time for contemplation. In a parish of hundreds of families, why am I the only one here right now, I wondered. There are parishes that sustain perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, yet we could get enough people to spend Forty Hours. In fact, our adoration period ended up being about 35 hours due to lack of participation. The implications of this are troubling. Ponder the message we send in blowing off an opportunity to kneel in adoration. Jesus, I do not have time for you. Instead of spending an intimate hour of meditation in Your Presence, I would prefer to watch television. I went to Mass on Sunday. That's enough. I worked hard today. I'm tired.
Worst of all, we pass this indifference on to our children. Mom and Dad aren't going, so it must not be important. It is much too easy to submerse ourselves in the daily routine of secular life without setting aside time to accept the graces God has set aside to sustain us. If we do not properly instill our Catholic Faith in our children, they may never rediscover it on their own unless a personal crisis someday interupts their routine, causing a change in direction. Many personal problems are caused by choosing instant self-gratification over moral righteousness. Living a spiritual life can help us avoid life-altering mistakes.
Our parish is suffering from spiritual malnutrition. During the Pastoral Council member's presentation, he mentioned the fact that he had been a parishioner here for more than sixty years, about half the time our parish had been in existence. He also mentioned that we need to record the history of our parish during this 125th anniversary year since many of us won't be around for the next anniversary in 2031. He failed to mention the realistic possibility that our parish will not exist 25 years from now if we don't get our spiritual priorities in order.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Parish: the thought
Last year our bishop sent a priest to meet with our Church Renovation Committee regarding various aspects of our project. While discussing how much money we could afford to spend, the priest asked us bluntly whether we were a viable parish. My immediate reaction was to answer in the affirmative, but his question bothered me later. What makes a parish viable? We have not had a priest come from our parish since my cousin was ordained some 40 years ago. Mass attendance is down. One never has to wait in line for confession except at the communal reconciliation services before Easter and Christmas. Pastoral Council positions go unfilled for lack of people willing to serve. Attempts to form study groups fail due to lack of interest. RCIA enrollees are few. Are we currently a viable parish? I don't know.
Certainly there are viable parishes around. Vocations are up in some places, but it seems these places are few and far between. The downturn can be attributed to the secular world we live in to some extent, but those few parishes who thrive exist in that same world. Why are some parishes filled with people on fire in their faith, while others seem so indifferent?
The primary responsibility for the mood of the parish has to fall on the shoulders of the pastor. The nature of Catholic worship, the Mass, leaves little time for instruction. Protestant Sunday services may consist of an hour of preaching and teaching. Catholics, if they are lucky, get a fifteen minute homily once a week. Fifteen minutes a week is insufficient to learn much of anything, yet additional opportunities for study are useless if no one attends. Somehow in those fifteen minutes, that priest has to inspire his congregation to want more. How many priests have the ability to hold the attention of their audience for fifteen minutes, let alone fill them with desire to grow in their faith?
I am reminded of what one old Monsignor once told me regarding his philosophy on limiting sermon length. He said, "The longer the spoke, the bigger the tire." Our current pastor's sermons probably average about seven to ten minutes on Sundays. The message is usually that God loves us and how great it will be to see all of our loved ones in heaven. I have never heard him mention mortal sin or the possibility that some of us might could end up in another place. Our previous pastor was quite the opposite. He reminded us frequently that we could end up in hell and gave the impression that he thought we probably would. His Sunday homilies usually lasted about twenty five minutes, during which much of it was spent yelling at us. Many of our parishioners who lived through both pastorates wonder if there isn't a happy medium somewhere. Both styles tend to be counterproductive.
Last night I watched one of Father John Corapi's sermons on EWTN. Father Corapi is one of the few great inspirational Catholic speakers who can hold an audience spellbound for an hour and leave them wanting more. He combines a solid message with a great delivery. In the course of his talk, Father Corapi mentioned that a bishop once asked him to refrain from speaking on the negative during his sermons. This did not sit well with Father Corapi who likes to tell it like it is. He said preaching is like electricity. You have to have a positive and a negative or you have no power.
Some priests apparently think they need to soften the message for fear of driving away those reluctant to conform their lives to Church teaching. Contrary to what some priests and bishops believe, Catholics want to hear the truth. Sugar-coating sermons can only create Spiritual cavities. Sincere people appreciate honesty. More than ever today, people need to be reminded that actions have consequences. Many Catholics approach the Eucharist in a state of serious sin, putting their souls in jeopardy. They must realize their salvation can be lost. To say otherwise is a Protestant notion. As Father Corapi said, accentuate the positive, but tell the truth.
Not every priest has the charisma of Father Corapi, and even he could not adequately educate a congregation preaching fifteen minutes a week. How can a priest inspire others to want more? Father Corapi, and others like him, inspire people by exuding holiness at every moment of their lives. They live and breathe Christ. Being a priest is a full time job. Priests are on duty twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred sixty five days a year, plus one more in a leap year.
The way in which a priest conducts himself creates a climate in the parish. He can emit an aura of holiness which draws people in. This holiness extends far beyond the pulpit and the walls of the church building. His collar can be a recognized in the community as a symbol of his holy office by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The presence of Christ can be felt in those who truly live the gospel. The priest should be approachable to anyone searching for serious answers. He brings others to holiness. He saves souls.
When the parish climate is conducive to holiness, people will be open to conversion. Mass attendance will increase. Participation in educational programs and parish activities will improve. People will desire the Sacraments. A good priest will recognize the fears and apprehensions of his parishioners and make them comfortable approaching him for Reconciliation. In time, this climate of holiness will spread through the community. Convert Scott Hahn speaks about being so moved by common everyday Catholics taking time out for weekday Mass. This simple act created a yearning in him to join in.
The parish climate can also drive people away. Some look for any excuse to miss Mass, to criticize the Church, and to validate their disdain for all things Catholic. A close friend of mine once told me he nearly converted to the Catholic faith many years ago, but in passing the church one evening, he saw the pastor shooting pigeons roosting on the bell tower. He believed a man of God would not shoot God's creatures. A feeble excuse for not becoming Catholic? Maybe so, but perhaps if the pastor were feeding the pigeons instead of shooting them, my friend would have stopped to talk.
Some of our separated brothers and sisters in the Fundamentalist communities do not believe in any type of gambling or drinking of alcohol. While we may not see anything wrong with doing these things in moderation, our goal for Christian Unity becomes much more difficult to achieve when they see us engaged in such activities. An Indiana State Police officer gave up his career rather than take an assignment policing a gambling casino. His strict Fundamental background prohibited him from doing anything to aid in what he perceived to be an immoral activity. Those who love Christ enough to sacrifice their livelihood are prime candidates for eventual conversion to the Catholic faith, but before that can happen, many barriers must be broken down. When a parish engages in fundraisers where gambling or alcohol is involved, it reinforces pre-conceived notions some have about the church being the whore of Babylon. Even if we see nothing wrong, such activity emits an air of impropriety for others, and therefore, should be avoided.
Throughout this past week, area newscasts were again filled with allegations of another pedophile priest and accusations of neglect in reacting by the Church hierarchy. Callers to a talk-radio station in Chicago angrily chastised the Catholic Church for allowing these things to happen. One caller, a Catholic, said the Church requirement for celibacy attracts pedophiles who find a haven in the priesthood. He encouraged Catholics to forbid their children from being altar servers. It saddens me deeply that we find ourselves in this position due to the actions of a few sick men who have defiled their priestly office. The damage they have caused their victims, their fellow priests, and all Catholics is immeasurable.
Last year our bishop sent a priest to meet with our Church Renovation Committee regarding various aspects of our project. While discussing how much money we could afford to spend, the priest asked us bluntly whether we were a viable parish. My immediate reaction was to answer in the affirmative, but his question bothered me later. What makes a parish viable? We have not had a priest come from our parish since my cousin was ordained some 40 years ago. Mass attendance is down. One never has to wait in line for confession except at the communal reconciliation services before Easter and Christmas. Pastoral Council positions go unfilled for lack of people willing to serve. Attempts to form study groups fail due to lack of interest. RCIA enrollees are few. Are we currently a viable parish? I don't know.
Certainly there are viable parishes around. Vocations are up in some places, but it seems these places are few and far between. The downturn can be attributed to the secular world we live in to some extent, but those few parishes who thrive exist in that same world. Why are some parishes filled with people on fire in their faith, while others seem so indifferent?
The primary responsibility for the mood of the parish has to fall on the shoulders of the pastor. The nature of Catholic worship, the Mass, leaves little time for instruction. Protestant Sunday services may consist of an hour of preaching and teaching. Catholics, if they are lucky, get a fifteen minute homily once a week. Fifteen minutes a week is insufficient to learn much of anything, yet additional opportunities for study are useless if no one attends. Somehow in those fifteen minutes, that priest has to inspire his congregation to want more. How many priests have the ability to hold the attention of their audience for fifteen minutes, let alone fill them with desire to grow in their faith?
I am reminded of what one old Monsignor once told me regarding his philosophy on limiting sermon length. He said, "The longer the spoke, the bigger the tire." Our current pastor's sermons probably average about seven to ten minutes on Sundays. The message is usually that God loves us and how great it will be to see all of our loved ones in heaven. I have never heard him mention mortal sin or the possibility that some of us might could end up in another place. Our previous pastor was quite the opposite. He reminded us frequently that we could end up in hell and gave the impression that he thought we probably would. His Sunday homilies usually lasted about twenty five minutes, during which much of it was spent yelling at us. Many of our parishioners who lived through both pastorates wonder if there isn't a happy medium somewhere. Both styles tend to be counterproductive.
Last night I watched one of Father John Corapi's sermons on EWTN. Father Corapi is one of the few great inspirational Catholic speakers who can hold an audience spellbound for an hour and leave them wanting more. He combines a solid message with a great delivery. In the course of his talk, Father Corapi mentioned that a bishop once asked him to refrain from speaking on the negative during his sermons. This did not sit well with Father Corapi who likes to tell it like it is. He said preaching is like electricity. You have to have a positive and a negative or you have no power.
Some priests apparently think they need to soften the message for fear of driving away those reluctant to conform their lives to Church teaching. Contrary to what some priests and bishops believe, Catholics want to hear the truth. Sugar-coating sermons can only create Spiritual cavities. Sincere people appreciate honesty. More than ever today, people need to be reminded that actions have consequences. Many Catholics approach the Eucharist in a state of serious sin, putting their souls in jeopardy. They must realize their salvation can be lost. To say otherwise is a Protestant notion. As Father Corapi said, accentuate the positive, but tell the truth.
Not every priest has the charisma of Father Corapi, and even he could not adequately educate a congregation preaching fifteen minutes a week. How can a priest inspire others to want more? Father Corapi, and others like him, inspire people by exuding holiness at every moment of their lives. They live and breathe Christ. Being a priest is a full time job. Priests are on duty twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred sixty five days a year, plus one more in a leap year.
The way in which a priest conducts himself creates a climate in the parish. He can emit an aura of holiness which draws people in. This holiness extends far beyond the pulpit and the walls of the church building. His collar can be a recognized in the community as a symbol of his holy office by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The presence of Christ can be felt in those who truly live the gospel. The priest should be approachable to anyone searching for serious answers. He brings others to holiness. He saves souls.
When the parish climate is conducive to holiness, people will be open to conversion. Mass attendance will increase. Participation in educational programs and parish activities will improve. People will desire the Sacraments. A good priest will recognize the fears and apprehensions of his parishioners and make them comfortable approaching him for Reconciliation. In time, this climate of holiness will spread through the community. Convert Scott Hahn speaks about being so moved by common everyday Catholics taking time out for weekday Mass. This simple act created a yearning in him to join in.
The parish climate can also drive people away. Some look for any excuse to miss Mass, to criticize the Church, and to validate their disdain for all things Catholic. A close friend of mine once told me he nearly converted to the Catholic faith many years ago, but in passing the church one evening, he saw the pastor shooting pigeons roosting on the bell tower. He believed a man of God would not shoot God's creatures. A feeble excuse for not becoming Catholic? Maybe so, but perhaps if the pastor were feeding the pigeons instead of shooting them, my friend would have stopped to talk.
Some of our separated brothers and sisters in the Fundamentalist communities do not believe in any type of gambling or drinking of alcohol. While we may not see anything wrong with doing these things in moderation, our goal for Christian Unity becomes much more difficult to achieve when they see us engaged in such activities. An Indiana State Police officer gave up his career rather than take an assignment policing a gambling casino. His strict Fundamental background prohibited him from doing anything to aid in what he perceived to be an immoral activity. Those who love Christ enough to sacrifice their livelihood are prime candidates for eventual conversion to the Catholic faith, but before that can happen, many barriers must be broken down. When a parish engages in fundraisers where gambling or alcohol is involved, it reinforces pre-conceived notions some have about the church being the whore of Babylon. Even if we see nothing wrong, such activity emits an air of impropriety for others, and therefore, should be avoided.
Throughout this past week, area newscasts were again filled with allegations of another pedophile priest and accusations of neglect in reacting by the Church hierarchy. Callers to a talk-radio station in Chicago angrily chastised the Catholic Church for allowing these things to happen. One caller, a Catholic, said the Church requirement for celibacy attracts pedophiles who find a haven in the priesthood. He encouraged Catholics to forbid their children from being altar servers. It saddens me deeply that we find ourselves in this position due to the actions of a few sick men who have defiled their priestly office. The damage they have caused their victims, their fellow priests, and all Catholics is immeasurable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)