I had heard from some to expect a few changes in the new English translation of the Roman Missal, even in the ordinary texts that have been published for some time now. And sure enough I have noticed several of them. Two of them are a bit disappointing to me, I must say.
Misereatur – The “absolution” formula that the priest says after the Confiteor or the Kyrie Litany in the latest version reads: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins and bring us to everlasting life. But the first draft read: May almighty God have mercy on us and lead us, with our sins forgiven, to eternal life. I preferred the first draft for two reasons. First it better translates the Latin: misereatur nobis omnipotens Deus et, dimissis peccatis nostris, perducat nos ad vitam aeternum (may almighty God have mercy on us and having forgiven our sins, lead us to life eternal). Secondly the first draft better distinguished the absolution formula said at Mass from the absolution in Confession.
Introduction to the Penitential Rite – There is also a slight difference in the introduction to the Penitential Rite but it is very slight: “that we may” becomes “and so”
St. Joseph – In the Roman Canon there has been a change in reference to St. Joseph. The First Draft referenced him as and blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin whereas the latest version simply says, and blessed Joseph her spouse. This too is disappointing since the Latin clearly says, sed et beati Joseph ejusdemVirginis sponsi (the spouse of the same Virgin). It is said that Pope John XXIII insisted on this wording to indicate that she remained a Virgin though married to Joseph.
In primis quae tibi – There is another minor change in the Te Igitur. The first draft said, which we offer you first of all whereas the final draft says which we offer you firstly.
There may be other changes too I just quickly looked and found these. Let me know if you find more. Though I am a bit disappointed, especially in the one about St. Joseph, let me be clear to state that I am very happy to receive this wonderful new translation.
I want to give two thumbs up for good old fashioned experience, just experiencing life to its top…..just having an experience! Too often in today’s hurried age, and also in this time of frantic 24 hour news cycles, we rush past experience to analysis. Too often we insist on knowing immediately what something “means” and what to think about it. This rush to think and analyze often happens before the experience is even over. And, of course, analyzing something before all the data is in leads to limited and poor analysis. Two old sayings come to mind:
Don’t Think…Look! – We miss so much of life when we retreat into our brains for immediate analysis. I recently went to an art exhibit called the “Sacred Made Real” and as you walk in they hand you a thick pamphlet describing each work. This is fine I thought but before I read a word I wandered through and gazed upon each marvelous work first. Some of the works were mysterious to me, “Who was this?,” I thought. But the mystery was part of the experience. Later I went back and read on each work. I also noticed many people buried in their little pamphlet barely looking at the actual artwork, beyond an occasional glance. Most of their time was spent reading. There were others who had headphones on which provide a better look but still fills your head with information too soon. Another variant on this saying is “Don’t Think….Listen!” So often when listening to others. They may get a few words or a sentence out and zap, our mind lights up as we think how to answer them and we miss most of the experience of what they are saying to us.
Do just do something, stand there. – In all of our activism we seldom savor life. Few people take a Sabbath rest anymore. Few eat dinner with their family. Few even know how to chill and just relax. Even many vacations are packed with activities and destinations which allow little real to actually experience what one is doing. I live near the U.S. Capitol and observe how some people are so busy taking pictures of the Capitol, I wonder if they ever really “see” or experience the Capitol.
I’d like to focus this insight of the importance of real experience on the Liturgy. And rather than give lots of discursive commentary I’d like to give some random “snapshots” and ponder our need to get back to experience more purely and simply.
It’s First Communion, or perhaps a wedding. As children come down the aisle, or perhaps the bride, hundreds of cameras and cell phones are held aloft, annoying flashes go off creating a strobe effect. People scramble to get into better positions for a picture. In recent years I have had to forbid the use of cameras. The Bride and Groom are permitted to hire a professional photographer, and we also permit one professional photographer to take pictures at First Holy Communion and Confirmation. But otherwise I instruct the assembled people that the point of the Liturgy is to worship God, to pray and to experience the Lord’s ministry to us. I insist that they put away their camera and and actually experience the Sacrament being celebrated and the mysteries unfolding before them.
Some months ago I was privileged to be among the chief clergy for a Solemn High Pontifical Mass in the Old Latin Form at the Basilica here in DC. The liturgy was quite complicated to be sure. We rehearsed the day before and as the rehearsal drew to a close I said to whole crew of clergy and servers, “OK, Tomorrow during the Mass, Don’t forget to worship God!” We all laughed because it is possible to get so wrapped up in thinking what is next and what I have to do, that we forget to pray! The next day I told God that no matter what, I was here to worship him. I am grateful that he gave me a true spirit of recollection in that Mass. I did mix up a minor detail, but in the end, I experienced God and did not forget to worship him. Success. Thank you Lord!
The Mass is underway in a typical Catholic Parish. Something remarkable is about to happen, the Lord Jesus is going to speak through the Deacon who ascends the pulpit to proclaim the Gospel. Yes, that’s right, Jesus himself will announce the Gospel to us. As the Deacon introduces the Gospel all are standing out of respect. And 500 hundred pairs of eyes are riveted……on the Deacon? No! For many their eyes are riveted on a missalette. Half way through the Gospel the Church swims with the sound of hundreds of people turning the page of their missalettes, one or two of them drop them in the process. Sadly, most lose the experience of the proclamation of God’s Word with their heads buried in a missalette. They may as well have read it on their own. Some will argue that this helps them understand the reading better. But the Liturgy is meant to be experienced as a communal hearing of the Word proclaimed. And as for understanding, “Don’t think…..Listen!” Understanding and reflection comes later. In the homily the Lord will speak to us of something and give us what we need to hear and He will grant understanding. It’s all part of the “experience.”
I celebrate a good number of Wedding Masses in the Old Latin Form. Some years ago a couple prepared a very elaborate booklet so that people could follow along and understand every detail of the Old Latin Mass. Of itself, it was a valuable resource. They asked me, prior to the Mass to briefly describe the booklet and how to use it. I went ahead and did so but concluded my brief tour of the book by saying, “This is a very nice book and will surely make a great memento of today’s wedding. But if you want my advice, put it aside now and just experience a very beautiful Mass with all its mystery. If you have your head in a book you may miss it and forget to pray. Later on you can read it and study what you have experienced.” In other words, “Don’t think….Look!”
In the ancient Church the Catechumens were initiated into the “Mysteries,” (the Sacraments of Initiation) with very little prior instruction as to what would happen. They had surely been catechized in the fundamental teachings of the faith but the actual details of the celebration of the Sacraments were not disclosed. They were Sacred Mysteries and the disciplina arcanis (the discipline of the secret) was observed. Hence they simply experienced these things and where instructed as to their deeper meaning in the weeks that followed in a process known as mystagogia. Hence, experience preceded analysis, understanding and learning. And the very grace of the experience and the Sacraments provided the foundation for that understanding.
Well, I realize that this post will not be without some controversy. Let me be clear about one point, Catechesis is important but so is experience. And if we rush to analyze and decode everything we miss a lot. I have taught on the liturgy extensively in this blog (here: http://blog.adw.org/tag/mass-in-slow-motion/ ) and will continue to do so. There is a time to do so, but there is also a time just to be still and experience what God is actually doing in every liturgy, indeed, in every moment of our life.
Two thumbs up and three cheers for experience.
I realize that some further distinctions out to be made but I want to leave that for you who comment. Have at it.
The Feast of the Transfiguration is ultimately about vision. The Lord brought Peter, James and John up a high mountain in order that they might come to see. Even the word that describes this day bespeaks vision. It is from the Latin Transfiguratione. Trans means “across” and by extension “change” and figura, means “shape” or “form.” The suffix “ation” takes a verbal action and makes it a noun. Putting it all together transfiguration means a process by which Christ changed form or appearance. Christ gave them a glimpse of his true glory, he allowed them to see across (trans) to the other shore, to the true glory of Christ.
So the Feast of the Transfiguration is about vision. Have you seen the glory of Christ? Have you glimpsed God’s glory? Have you looked across to the other shore? It is so essential for us to have this experience! Otherwise the discouragements and disappointments of life can easily overwhelm us. Only when we glimpse the glory and experience the joy of God can we truly say, by experience that our sufferings are more than worth it; That the sufferings of this world cannot even been compared to the glory that waits (Rom 8:18); that our momentary afflictions are producing for us a weight of eternal glory beyond compare (2 Cor 4:17). Have you glimpsed the glory of God and Is this something you even expect to experience in your life? We ought to asked for this wondrous gift for it is essential for us.
Now of course, heavenly visions are not something we order like pizza. We can and must ask God for this vision but we must also understand that there are things God does to give us this vision, to make this vision grow and sharpen. Notice in the Gospel for today’s Mass four basic ways in which God ushers in this vision, clarifies it, grants it and helps it grow:
The CLIMB– Jesus took Peter, John, and James and went up a mountain to pray. The other Gospels describe this as a “high” mountain. Tradition assigns Mt Tabor as the place of the Transfiguration. This is no small hill! It is indeed quite a climb to the top. I have visited there twice and, after the long drive to the top in buses with special transmissions designed for the climb, the view of the Jezreel Valley is like being up in an airplane. It probably took the four of them the better part of a day, maybe two to get to the top on foot. They must have been hardy men for such a climb. Consider too that they had to carry water and other provisions up with them. Now the point is, the vision they will experience comes only after a hard and difficult climb. It is true fact in my life and your too, I am sure, that suffering and difficulty usually gives new vision, opens new vistas, brings deeper understanding. Suffering is not something we enjoy to be sure, but it is part of the climb. There is an old Gospel song that says, “I’m coming up on the rough side of the mountain!” The paradox announced by the song is that it is easier to climb on the rough side of the mountain. That’s where the climbing is to be had. That’s where the progress is possible. The smooth side provides little footing and is more dangerous. We like a smooth and pleasant life, but in fact, it is a more dangerous climb. Now at the top there is a vision to be had! But to get us there the Lord often has to have us climb and bring us up the rough side of the mountain. This is what it often takes to give us vision.
The CLARIFICATION – While he was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. Now I have chosen the word clarification to do double duty here. One the one had it refers to brilliant glory shining forth from Christ. Clarus in Latin means “bright” and hence clarification refers to his shining splendor. But I also use the word clarification in the more common English sense which means to make clear. Now notice that Moses and Elijah are present and conversing with the Lord. Moses and Elijah are historical persons to be sure but they also represent the Law and the Prophets. In other words they represent Scripture. Part of what the Lord needs to do for us to give us heavenly vision is to teach us his Word. As we grow in knowledge of Scripture, our vision grows, our understanding deepens, and we see things differently. Immersion in the Scriptures disposes us for heavenly vision. Notice too how Moses and Elijah (personifying Scripture) give the vision for what Christ is about to do in his final journey to Jerusalem. The vision is of a new Exodus. Just as Moses led the ancient people out of slavery in Egypt by the Blood of the Lamb at Passover and the parted waters (baptism) of the Red Sea. So now Jesus would lead his people out (exodus) from slavery to sin by the blood of the Lamb (Jesus is the Lamb of God) and the Baptismal waters flowing from his parted and pierced side. Do you see what Scripture does? It gives us vision. It sheds light on the meaning of our life. Scripture is our story and it shows again and again how God can make a way out of no way, that He can do any thing but fail. Do you want to see the heavens open and the glory of God be revealed? Then immerse yourself in scripture. Through Scripture God clarifies all things.
The CONTEMPLATION – Peter and his companions had been overcome by sleep, but becoming fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. As they were about to part from him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good that we are here; let us make three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” But he did not know what he was saying. And now comes the vision! Through the difficult climb and suffering, and after being immersed in God’s word, God often grants us this vision. When we see his glory we become fully awake. So great is this glory that they do not know what to say! Those who have every really experienced a glimpse of God’s glory know that the experience cannot be reduced to words. It is ineffable, unsayable, unspeakable! There is an old saying: “Those who know, do not say, Those who say, do not know.” Peter is babbling at this point and thinks to build booths or tents to capture this glory. He probably had in mind the Feast of Booths wherein the Jewish people remembered the great Exodus, the time in the Desert and the giving of the Law. It was one of the great festivals of the year. And hence Peter’s suggestion is a way of saying, “Let’s celebrate this!” “Let’s extend the time in a week-long feast!” But Peter needs to understand that this is but a brief glimpse. There are still troubles ahead and another mountain to climb (Golgotha). But for now the vision is wonderful. So to for us who are privileged to get a glimpse of glory. It does not mean we are fully in heaven yet. For us too there are other mountains to climb, valleys to cross. But oh the glimpse of glory, do not forget it. Let it sustain you in difficult times and it must have sustained Jesus in his passion.
The COMMAND – While [Peter] was still speaking, a cloud came and cast a shadow over them, and they became frightened when they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my chosen Son; listen to him.” – And now comes the great glory cloud (the shekinah) that overshadows them. This vision has been wonderful but God has more than bright lights to show them. The vision he confers gives direction as well as light. His direction is clear: “Listen to my Son.” Not only does this instruction complete the vision but it also ensures greater visionin the future. If we obey Jesus Christ, we will see greater and greater things (Jn 1:50). If we follow him he will lead us to the light and we will see all things by it. But note this, where Jesus leads is not always easy. In order to obey the Father’s command that they listen to Jesus, they are going to have to accept Christ’s instruction that they follow him to Jerusalem and the cross. Only in this way will they see all things by the light of Easter glory.
Do you want to see? Then be willing to make the climb with Jesus. He gives vision if we climb. He gives vision if we are immersed in his Word, which is Scripture and Church Teaching. But his greatest vision lies ahead if we but take up our cross and follow him through his passion death and resurrection. Happy feast of the Transfiguration. May God grant us vision.
For many years, growing up, my usual image of St. Paul was of a bold preacher and teacher who went from town to town powerfully teaching and preaching on Christ. I imagined people mesmerized as he preached and took on his opponents.
In the years since seminary however I have altered my view just a bit based on Scriptural descriptions of Paul. I have no doubt that he was a brilliant theologian. He was reputed to have been one of the greatest students of one of the greatest Rabbis of that time, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). I have no doubt as to his zeal for Christ and that this zeal must have been reflected on his face as he preached and taught. But it would seem that Paul was not considered a remarkably gifted preacher. Consider the following texts from Scripture along with some commentary by me in RED.
Now I myself, Paul, urge you through the gentleness and clemency of Christ, I who (you say) am humble when present in your midst, but bold toward you when absent…..(2 Cor 10:1) The key element of this passage is that people regard Paul as rather humble and quiet in person but in contrast quite bold and assertive in his letters. This does not paint the picture of a fearsome and bold preacher.
For someone will say, “His [Paul’s] letters are severe and forceful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” (2 Cor 10:10) Here is clearer evidence that some (surely not all or most) though of Paul’s presence and preaching as weak and of no account. The Greek phrase λόγος ἐξουθενημένος (logos exouthenhmenos) translated here as “speech contemptible” can also be translated as “words or speech of no account”, or “a word or speech to be despised” Now, of course, Paul himself is reporting this and may be overstating the perception of his preaching out of a kind of humility. But, here again, is more evidence that Paul may not have been a highly gifted or bold preacher, at least from a worldly perspective.
For I think that I am not in any way inferior to these “superapostles.” Even if I am untrained in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; in every way we have made this plain to you in all things (2 Cor 11:5-6) The exact identity of the “superapostles” is debated but there is wide consensus that Paul does not mean here the Apostles chosen by Christ. Rather he likely refers to itinerant preachers who were well known for their oratorical skills. Some of them may have been Judaizers who opposed Paul. But it would seem that these skilled orators could draw a crowd. Perhaps they are like the revivalists of today. Here too is more evidence that Paul was not possessed of great oratorical skill. He seems to admit this but refuses to admit that he is inferior to anyone in the knowledge of the faith.
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the cleverness of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning…..(1 Cor 1:17). Again Paul admits of no clever oratorical skill but actually underscores his lack of eloquence to emphasize that the power is in the Cross of Christ.
On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight…..Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” Then he went upstairs again and broke bread(Acts 20:7-11) 🙂 Note that Luke describes Paul as preaching “on and on.” The sermon seems to have put the young Eutychus right to sleep and he, sitting in a window sill, fell three flights to his death. Paul runs down and raises him from the dead. (All in a night’s work!) He then returns to complete the Mass. A humorous and touching story in many ways but one that also illustrates that perhaps Paul could go on and on and be soporific.
So it would seem that Paul was not possessed of great oratorical skill. This may surprise us given his astonishing missionary accomplishments. But we must avoid superficiality in understanding the power of God’s Word. The power is in God. The battle is the Lord’s. We may all prefer to listen to great orators who can bring the house down. But God can write straight with crooked lines. He can make a way out of no way. If God could speak through Balaam’s donkey (cf Num 22:21), maybe he can speak through me too. Maybe he can speak through you.
Avoiding Superficiality – As a priest, I strive to work very hard to develop my skills. I think the people of God deserve this. But in the end none of us should ignore that God can speak in and through the humblest people and circumstances. Paul may not have had all the rhetorical skills we think he should have had. But he was possessed of many other gifts. He was a brilliant theologian, had amazing zeal and energy, was committed to walk thousands of miles and endure horrible sufferings if only he could proclaim Christ crucified and risen. He was also a natural leader and one of the most fruitful evangelizers the Church has ever known. We rather highly prize oratorical skill and personality. But there is obviously more to evangelizing effectively than eloquence and personality.
Our TV based media centered culture has come to focus primarily on personality and word-smithing. The ability to communicate is surely a great gift but there are many others as well. In prizing certain gifts over others we risk superficiality and injustice. The Church needs all the gifts.
What gifts do you have that God can use?
This song says, “If you can use anything Lord, you can use me.”
Author’s note: I am away this week preaching a retreat for priests in Connecticut. I may post some new material this week but I also thought in my absence to re post some of my older articles that some newer readers may have missed. Here is one I posted back in Sept 2009:
I received my First Holy Communion in 1968 on my knees at the altar rail in our parish church of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in a suburb North of Chicago called Glenview. I received from a very elderly pastor, Fr. Dussman, whose hands shook from Parkinson’s. It was an awesome and fearsome event. I was more nervous since Father’s hands shook and receiving communion from him could be a challenge, especially for the first time.
I remember well how seriously we took Church in those days. We had special Church clothes (always a coat and tie), special Sunday shoes and approaching the altar rail was something quite wonderful but very formal: hands folded before the chest, fingers straight, right thumb crossed over left. Kneeling and waiting for the priest and altar boy to pass by was a time of anticipation, a kind of distracted prayer, alert and ready, don’t make the priest wait! Suddenly a altar boy slid a Paten under your chin. Head back, tongue out (not too far!) just over the lower lip! The priest spoke in an ancient language (Latin). Only years later did I learn exactly what he said. I am sure the Sisters taught me but I couldn’t remember(I was only 7 going on 8): Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam (May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ guard your soul unto life eternal). And suddenly there he was, Jesus in Holy Communion. Pretty awesome, very special, beyond my comprehension but no doubt this was holy, this was serious and sacred.
But little did I know I was at the end of an era. Within a year strange things began to occur that I did not understand, things that did not comport with my training. I remember my mother telling me that we were going to a special youth mass. I had heard of a school mass, but not a youth Mass. We got there early and I noticed something that confused me. “Mom!” I whispered, (you always whispered in Church in those days), “What are those drums doing there? Right in front of the Mary Altar, behind the rail too, were electric guitars, a drum set and chairs. Then out came these guys I had never seen before, a couple of them were wearing jeans too (a major no-no in the old days). After Church my mother asked me if I liked it. I said no and she was surprised. “But Mom, I don’t know those songs and they were so loud.” I was confused. The sisters said we should dress well, be very quiet in Church so others could pray and only talk or sing when it was time to do that. It all seemed “a violation of my training.” But an era had ended. Something was taking its place. Little by little the familiar gave way to the new. The transition was at times startling, at times exciting.
I do not write this post to “bash” the liturgical changes. Just to document an experience. I have become quite accustomed to the “new” Mass. I am also privileged to say the Traditional Latin Mass. I guess I am blessed to enjoy the best of both worlds. I am proud of the glory of the new Mass as it is celebrated in my parish. We have a wonderful gospel choir which also does classical very well. There is great joy at every Mass. I am also so happy to be able to celebrate ancient Latin Mass that reminds me of the joy of my youth (quilaetificat juventutem meam). I merely document here, I leave the judgements to you my faithful readers.
The following video depicts a Mass in the year 1969. It is from an Elvis movie entitled “Change of Habit.” What an amazing little video for me! It’s just as I remember it as the changes set it. Notice the still strong presence of traditions: people all dressed up for Church, nuns in traditional habits, the priest at the high altar facing east. But notice too the guitars and “informality” of the musicians. The music is up front not back in the choir loft. And many struggle to understand the new lay of the land. It was 1969. It was the end of an era.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan is often read by many in a rather single manner to mean that we ought to be more generous to those in need or that we ought to not neglect those who suffer. Perhaps too, that racial and ethnic boundaries must be overcome as we broaden what it means to consider some one a neighbor. All of this is fine enough, there are plenty of social justice themes at work here to permit such a reading and they ought not be neglected. But as is always the case with scripture, there is more at work here than the merely obvious interpretation. In effect the whole passage before us goes a long way to show some of the deeper drives we have regarding the pride and self-righteousness, along with a stubborn tendency we have to reduce holiness to something “manageable” and merely human. Let’s take a look.
1. There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test him and said, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25) – On the face of it this question is absurd. It is rooted in self-justifying notions. What must I DO to obtain eternal life….The simple fact is that we cannot save ourselves. We do not have the resources to obtain eternal life. No amount of human flesh power could even come close to paying the debt we owe. We do not have a rocket ship powerful enough to fly to heaven. We have no ladder tall enough to climb there. The lawyer’s flawed question sets him up for a series of misunderstandings about salvation and the absolute need for grace. Because he thinks that eternal life is somehow in his power to obtain it he looks more and more foolish as the interaction goes on.
2. Jesus said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” He said in reply, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” He replied to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.” (Luke 10:26-28) In way Jesus is humoring him and drawing him out. The man has suggested that salvation is in his power to accomplish. So, in effect Jesus says to him, “Since you think such a thing is possible, explain to me how you think so with your legal background.” The lawyer quotes the great Shema, the summary of the whole law contained in Deuteronomy 6. Now there is nothing wrong with the Law, and so Jesus says, “You have answered rightly.” But what IS wrong is thinking that this law is within my own unaided flesh power to keep. To love God with our whole heart, mind, being and strength is a remarkable call that should not be taken lightly or reduced a few ritual tokenary things. The honest truth is that most human beings do not love God this way and NO human being apart from grace even stands a chance of getting close. The human mind and heart apart from grace have been so wounded as to make such a law unattainable. The fact is not only do human beings (apart form grace) not love God with their whole heart, they barely give him leftovers. The usual human approach is to serve myself and the world and then, from whatever is left, I’ll throw a few scraps to God. I’ll pray, if I have time left over at the end of my busy worldly day. I’ll read scripture if it doesn’t interfere with my watching of the sports event or soap opera. I’ll put money in the collection plate after I pay my mortgage, Sears bill, magazine subscriptions and see what is left over. I’ll follow the teachings of God so long as they don’t interfere with my politics or worldview. So God barely gets leftovers from most people and that includes many who describe themselves as religious. For us to think we, by ourselves, are really going to pull off loving God with our whole heart, mind, being and strength or even come close is absurd on the face of it. And we haven’t even considered loving our neighbor yet! Jesus answers the lawyer (probably with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek) “Do this and you will live.” 🙂 He might as well have told him to leap a tall building in a single bound or to define the universe and give three examples. Does the lawyer really have any idea what it means to “do this?!” Surely not, as we see next.
3. But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29) And now we surely have reached the endgame of legalism and trying to be justified by our own flesh power. In effect the Lawyer says, “OK, if I have to love my neighbor as myself, let’s keep the meaning of neighbor as minimal and manageable as possible.” In other words if there are too many neighbors running around, with the requirement that I love them as myself, I might not be able to pull the thing off. So let’s dumb down and minimize what and who is meant by neighbor. This is what the flesh does. It salutes God’s law but doesn’t really take it seriously. The usual tactic of the flesh is to argue about meaning (e.g. the famous, “That depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.”) and then to minimize the observance as much as possible by all sorts of legalistic minimalism. Hence the lawyer seeks to quibble over a precise definition of “neighbor” and keep that category as small and minimal as possible. He has to do this because he wants to accomplish the Shema on his own, by his own merit and power.
4. Jesus doesn’t take the bait and goes on to tell the well known parable of the Good Samaritan. With it he devastates the concept of a small manageable notion of neighbor. Neighbor cuts across national, ethnic, religious and political boundaries to encompass…..everyone. Jesus will not accept the reductionist demands of the flesh and its legalism.
5. He also sets aside another form of reductionism in the parable, that of religious reductionism. A priest and Levite pass also and refuse to help to victim by the roadside. Perhaps they were afraid, perhaps they had concerns about blood which would render them unclean and unfit for Temple duties. But whatever their reasons they also represent the human tendency to think we can buy God off by religious observances. If I go to Church, pay my tithes, and say a few prayers I can check off the “God box,” consider myself righteous and to have met all my duties. It becomes all too easy to walk past the needy, to walk past injustice, to tolerate evil, to remain silent and protect my hide and ego and all the while think God won’t mind because I sat in the pew last Sunday. This is just another form of reductionism and the Lord’s parable makes it clear that he is not impressed. We can’t buy God off. We ought to be in Church every Sunday, financially support the word of God, pray and so one. There is no excuse for not doing these things. But they are not the end of faith, they are the beginning of faith. If I really sat in the pew last Sunday to any real effect that I cannot walk on past the needy, ignore injustice, tolerate evil or remain silent in the face of error.
6. Thus in the end the love of God and neighbor are expansive loves that go beyond the ability of the unaided flesh to do. Without the healing of grace we are simply too selfish, greedy, egotistical, thin-skinned, resentful, envious, bitter, lustful and revengeful to even come close to loving God and our neighbor the way that is described. We have to stop playing games with God’s Word and stop trying to explain it in a way that makes it manageable. God’s word means what it says. And, with our unaided flesh it is impossible to fulfill it.
7. What then are we to do? Seek lots of grace and mercy. This parable is about more than caring for the poor. It is also about the absolute need for grace. Only with tons of grace and mercy do we even stand a chance in coming close to what the Shema sets forth. Only God can really give God the love he deserves. Only God can really love the poor as they ought to be loved. That is why we have to die to our self and allow Jesus Christ to live his life in us. He does this through the sacraments fruitfully received, through faith mediation on his Word and through prayer. Those who faithfully attend Mass and regularly receive communion worthily, those who confess their sins frequently and fruitfully receive the graces of that sacrament, those who faithfully and thoughtfully meditate on God’s Word, begin to experience a transformation that enables them to love. They receive a new heart and a new mind, the heart and mind of Christ. As Christ lives in them they see the Shema come alive, they begin to love God above all things and their neighbor as their very self. And it is not they who do it. It is Christ who does it in them.
8. What must I do to inherit eternal life? I must decrease and Christ must increase (Jn 3:30). I must die so that Christ may live in me (Gal 2:19-20).
It has been a very exhausting but fulfilling weekend here in Washington. Yesterday saw the ordination of eight men to the priesthood for the Archdiocese. This took place at the Basilica. Then receptions, and today the first Masses and more receptions.
I was privileged to preach the First Mass of Fr. John Reutemann. It was a beautiful Mass. I was also pleased to see that he has kept a custom that had recently been lost in the western Church. He presented the manutergium to his mother.
“What,” you may ask, “Is the manutergium?” The manutergium (from the Latin manu+tergium = hand towel) was a long cloth that was wrapped around the hands of the newly ordained priest after the Bishop anointed his hands with the sacred Chrism (oil). The purpose was to prevent excess oil from dripping onto vestments or the floor during the remainder of the ordination rites. (In the picture to the right, the newly ordained priest has his hands wrapped with the manutergium).
The use of the manutergium was discontinued in the current Rite of Ordination. Currently, the newly ordained steps aside to a table after his hands are anointed and uses a purificator to wipe away any excess oil. While it is not technically called the manutergium nor is it exactly the same in design or usage, (for the hands are not wrapped by it), nevertheless this is still a cloth used to wipe away the excess Chrism (oil).
Manutergium redivivus! In recent years many newly ordained have carefully set aside these purificators in a bag with their name on it so that they may retain this purificator and present it to their mother. The same word has been retained for the cloth (manutergium).
According to tradition, the mother of a priest is to keep this precious cloth in a safe place. Upon her death this cloth is placed in her hand as her body lies in the casket. It serves as a reminder that one of her sons is a priest. She, according to tradition has this as a special glory, and is to present this manutergium to the Lord at her judgement. Although there is no free ticket to heaven, it is a special honor to have borne a son who became a priest. As I said, Fr. Reutemann presented his manutergium to his mother.
My own story – I also presented the manutergium to my mother 21 years ago. It was very rare in those days for a priest to do so, but I had read of this tradition and was taken by it. I carefully set aside the cloth I had used to wipe my hands in a bag with my name and asked a seminarian friend of mine who was serving the mass to “guard it with his life!” He did so and proudly handed it to me after the mass having acquitted well his sacred duty. At my first Mass I presented it to my mother.
Five years ago my mother died very suddenly. I wondered if we could find the manutergium in her effects. Sure enough there it was carefully stored in her dresser. I sadly but proudly placed it in her hands at the funeral home and she carried it to her grave. I wept as the casket was closed, but the last sight I had was of my mother carrying that maniturgia to present to the Lord. I pray the Lord well considered it as my mother appeared before him for the great judgment we must all face.
A beautiful tradition from the Lost Liturgies file. Magnificently, this tradition is reviving as many younger priests practice it in a new but similar way.
This video shows the anointing of the priest’s hands in the Current Rite of Ordination. As the Bishop anoints the hands of the priest he says: The Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Father anointed with the Holy Spirit, empower, guard and preserve you, that you may sanctify the Christian people and offer sacrifice to God.
In the Gospel for today’s Mass the Lord gives us the most familiar prayer of all, the “Lord’s Prayer.” It is a prayer shared by and prized by all Christians. Few if any have not committed to memory. Yet hidden within the Lord’s prayer is a mysterious word that both Greek and Biblical scholars have little agreement over or even a clear understanding of in terms of its precise meaning. I call it “hidden” only because most Christians do not read Greek and are unaware of the difficulties and debate surrounding the word. They simply accept that the most common English translation of the Our Father as undisputed. To them the problem is hidden.
The mysterious word occurs right in the middle of the prayer: τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον (ton arton hēmōn ton epiousion) which is rendered most usually as “give us this day our daily bread.” The problematic word is epiousion. The difficulty is that the word seems to exist nowhere else in ancient Greek and that no one really knows what it means. Even the Greek Fathers who spoke and wrote Greek as their mother-tongue were unaware of it’s exact meaning. It occurs no where else in the Bible (with the exception of the parallel passage in Luke’s version of the Our Father in Luke 11:3). It appears nowhere in wider Greek literature, whether Christian or Pagan. The early Church Father Origen, a most learned and well read man, thought that Matthew and Luke, or the early Church had “made up” or coined the term.
So, frankly, we are at a loss as to the exact and original meaning of this word! It’s actually pretty embarrassing when you think of it. Right there in the most memorable text of Christendom is a word whose meaning seems quite uncertain.
Now, to be sure, over the centuries there have been many theories and positions as to what this word is getting at. Let’s look at a few.
Grammatical Analysis– The Greek word seems to be a compound word from epi+ousios. Now epi means over, above, beyond, in addition to, or some similar superlative. Ousious refers to the substance of something. Hence, to put these words together we have something amounting to supersubstantial, or super-essential.
The Eucharist – Some of the Greek and Latin Fathers thought is clearly referred to the Eucharist and surely not to ordinary food or bread. Origien for example cites how Jesus rebuked the people in John 6 for seeking bread that perishes rather than the Bread which endures unto eternal life which is Jesus’ flesh and which he will give us. (cf Origen On Prayer 27.2) St. Cyprian too, while admitting that “bread” can be understood simply, goes on to advance that the bread referred to here is more certainly Christ himself in the Eucharist (cf. Treatise on the Lord’s Prayer, 18).
Ordinary and daily bread – St. John Chrysostom however favors a notion that the bread for which we pray is only “bread for today: Just enough for one day….Here Jesus condescends to the infirmity of our nature….[which] does not permit you to go without food….I require necessary food not a complete freedom from natural necessities….It is not for wastefulness or extravagant clothing that we pray, but only for bread and only for bread on a daily basis so as not to worry about tomorrow (Gospel of Matthew Homily 19.5)
Bread for tomorrow – St. Jerome says, The word used by the Hebrews to denote supersubstantial bread is maar. I found that it means “for tomorrow” so that the meaning here is “give us this day our bread for tomorrow” that is, for the future (Commentary on Matthew 1.6.11). Many modern scholars favor this understanding as well.
Supernatural bread – But St. Jerome also says in the same place: We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures (ibid). In this sense he also seems to see it linked to the Eucharist. When he translated the text into Latin as the Pope had asked him to do he rendered it rather literally: panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie (give us today our supersubstantial bread). If you look up the text of Matthew 6:11 in the Douay Rheims Bible you will see the word “supersubstantial” since that English text renders the Vulgate Latin quite literally.
Every good thing necessary for subsistence – The Catechism of the Catholic Church adopts an inclusive approach: Daily” (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of “this day,” to confirm us in trust “without reservation.” Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence. Taken literally (epi-ousios: “super-essential”), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the “medicine of immortality,” without which we have no life within us. Finally in this connection, its heavenly meaning is evident: “this day” is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day. (CCC # 2837) As such the Catechism attempts no resolution to the problem but simply indicates that several interpretations are possible and non-exclusive to one another.
So when we have a Greek word that is used no where else and when such important and determinative Fathers struggle to understand it and show forth rather significant disagreement, we are surely left at a loss. It seems clear that we have something of a mystery.
Reverencing the Mystery – But perhaps the Lord intended that we should ponder this text and see a kind of multiple meaning. Surely it is right that we should pray for our worldly food. Likewise we should pray for all that is needed for subsistence, whether just for today or for tomorrow as well. And surely we should ask for the Bread of Life, the Holy Eucharist which is the necessary Bread that draws us to eternal life and which (Who) is over and above all earthly substances.
So there it is, the hidden and mysterious word in the middle of the Our Father. Most modern translations have settled on the word “daily.” For the record, the Latin Liturgy also uses the word daily (quotidianum). But in truth no one word can capture what is said here. The Lord has left us a mystery to ponder. I know many of you who read here are learned in Greek, Latin, the Fathers, and scripture scholarship and I am interested in your thoughts. This article is incomplete and has not covered every possible facet of the argument. I leave that you, all who wish to comment.
