Category: Liturgy

Posted on

What was the Golden Year of the Liturgy?

I recently had an interesting discussion with a traditional Catholic who questioned me about a Traditional Latin Mass Wedding I did. He seemed concerned that the couple was permitted to be married at the foot of the altar. In other words they were inside the altar rail, along with their best man and maid of honor.

He said that such a thing was not allowed, and that the presbyterium (sanctuary) was only for the clergy and servers.

I explained that it was a long practice of the Church, at least in America, that a bride and groom who were both Catholic would be married inside the rail, at the foot of the altar, and that they would kneel inside the rail for the duration of the nuptial Mass. (See photo of my parent’s 1959 wedding at upper right).

He did not seem impressed with my explanation an countered that the “problems” had begun in the 1950s and even as early as the 1940s. He further explained that the liturgical movement was already exerting influence and introducing “aberrations” into the liturgy. He thus reiterated that I had done something wrong.

Sadly our conversation ended and I didn’t get the chance to ask him the question I really wanted to ask: “What was the golden year of liturgy? When was everything, according to him, done “right?” When was the year when there were no aberrations?” When were the rubrics “pure” and when was the liturgy free of what he considers improper allowances, such as a couple being married inside the rail? Apparently the 1950s were not that time for him. Then what was?

I have been saying the Traditional Latin Mass for all 23 years of my priesthood, long before most priests were widely permitted to say it. I had permission of the Archdiocese from day one to assist with traditional Catholics in this manner, under the tutelage of the Pastor of St. Mary’s in Washington DC. In “those days” there weren’t a lot of resources and many of the rubrical books that have since come back into print were hard to find. Thus I learned a lot from Fr. Aldo Petrini and some of the other “old guys.”

Under their instruction I learned not only the rubrics, but also the customs of the “old days” wherein certain permissions existed, by way of indult or custom, to do some aspects of the Sacraments in English. Among the customs of the time was that, though the faithful were generally not allowed in the Sanctuary, weddings, confirmations, and even First Communions were conducted at times within the rails:

  1. Click HERE to see a mid 1950s photo of a Cardinal Archbishop confirming on the steps of the High altar.
  2. Click HERE to see a 1952 photo of First Communion at the altar steps.
  3. Click HERE to see another photo of a wedding in 1927 with the couple inside.

Were these “abuses?” I am not enough of a rubricist to know. I just know and (obviously) have evidence that they were done.

As for weddings there was the custom of doing mixed marriages only in the rectory. But somewhere in the 1950s permission was granted to move these to the Church, but outside the rail and without Mass.

Click HERE to see a photo of a 1960 Wedding conducted outside the rail since of the couple was not Catholic.

At any rate my question remains. What was the golden age of the Mass? What year did the “troubles” begin as traditional Catholics see it? Was it 1963, 1955, 1945? Perhaps even earlier?

Please understand, I ask these questions not without sympathy for the traditional view. It is clear that in the late 1960s a floodgate opened where liturgical change occurred in a way that was in no way organic and there was a great rupture of continuity. And, although I am quite comfortable with the Ordinary Form of the Mass, I also love the Extraordinary Form, and am sympathetic to the concerns of the traditional Latin Mass community.

That said, at times I wince when a kind of particularism sets up within sectors of the Traditional Mass community. And it is odd, when I, a priest who has celebrated the Latin Mass for 23 years, am dressed down by someone who is denouncing something that was clearly done long before the liturgical changes from the Council.

It is too easy for us to savage one another over such things. A layman was telling me recently how he got the evil eye from some pew mates when he made the responses to the priest along with the servers. Those sorts of changes had also come along in the 1940s when clergy started to encourage the faithful to be more involved in the Mass. But once again, it would seem changes of that sort were “too late” to be authentic for some. Hence, though we use the Missal of 1962, it would seem that 1962 is not the year for some.

It was common 25 years ago for Traditional Catholics to call the old Mass the “Immemorial Latin Mass.” And the phrase was used to suggest that the Mass had been unchanged for centuries. Of course any serious study of the Mass reveals that it had undergone not insignificant changes all along and there there were not a few local customs, especially around the reception of the Sacraments. Though, to be fair, the changes were organic, not the rupture with tradition we experienced in the late 1960s.

But again, I wonder, what was the “Golden Year” when traditional Catholics agree all was as it should be. I ask this question sincerely, not rhetorically. But I DO ask it with some sadness for there can often be what I consider an unkindness that can be exhibited by some who wish to restrict things, where freedom is allowed, even within the old norms.

I fear at times that we, who love tradition, fail to manifest the joy and glad hearts that should bespeak those who know the Lord and love the beauty of the Extraordinary Form. We should seem more as people in love with God and the beauty of God, than as technocrats arguing each point. There is a place for precision, but there is an even greater need for joy and mutual love.

How would you answer my question?

Here is a video that, while filmed in 1982, depicts a Mass from the 1940s and shows the bridal party within the sanctuary. Again illustrating the common and widespread practice.

Posted on

Concerning the obsession for photos at Liturgies – A Consideration of a Liturgical and Pastoral Problem

Consider the scene. The Bishop has taken his place at the entrance to the sanctuary. He is prepared to confirm some twenty children. It is a sacred moment, a Sacrament is to be conferred. The parents are in deep prayer thanking the Holy Spirit who is about to confirm their children for mission….. Oops, they are not!

Actually, they are fumbling with their cell phone cameras. Some are scrambling up the side aisle to “get the shot.” Others are holding the “phone” up in the air to get the blurry, crooked shot. The tussling continues in the side aisle as parents muscle to get in place for “the shot.” If “the shot” is gotten, success! If not, “woe is me.” Never mind that a sacrament has actually been offered and received, the point was “the shot,” the “photo-op.”

Consider another scene. It is First Holy Communion. Again, the children are assembled.  This time the parents have been informed that a single parishioner has been engaged to take shots and could they please refrain from amateur photography. This is to little avail, “Who does that deacon think he is telling me to refrain, denying me the shot!?” The cell phones still stick up in the air. Even worse, the parish photographer sends quick word via the altar server, “Could Father please slow down a bit in giving the children communion? It is difficult to get a good shot at the current (normal) pace.” After the Mass the photographer has two children along side, could Father perhaps “re-stage” the communion moment for these two since, in the quick (normal) pace of giving Communion, their shot was bad, as the autofocus was not able to keep up…”Look how blurry it is Father.”

It would seem the picture is the point.

I have seen it with tourists as well. I live just up the street from the US Capitol and it is fascinating to watch the tourists go by on the buses. Many of them are so busy taking a picture of the Capitol (a picture they could get in a book, or find on the Internet), that I wonder if they ever see the Capitol with their own eyes.

The picture is the point.

Actually I would propose, it is NOT the point. Real life and actual experience are the point. Further, in the Liturgy, the worship and praise of God, the experience of his love, and attentiveness to his Word is the point. Cameras, more often than not, cause us to miss the point. We get the shot but miss the experience. Almost total loss if you ask me.

At weddings in this parish we speak to the congregation at the start and urge them to put away all cameras. We assure the worried crowd that John and Mary have engaged the services of a capable professional photographer who will be able to record the moment quite well. “What John and Mary could use most from you now are your prayers for them and expressed gratitude to God who is the author and perfecter of this moment.” Yes, we assure them, now is the time for prayer, for worship and for joyful awareness of what God is doing.

Most professional photographers are in fact professional and respectful and know how to stay back and not become a part of the ceremony but to discretely record it. It is rare that I have trouble with them. Videographers still have a way to go as a group, but there are many who I would say are indeed professional.

Pastorally it would seem appropriate to accept that photos are important to people to make reasonable accommodations for photos. For major events  such as weddings, confirmations, First Communions and Easter Vigils, it seems right that we should insist that if photos are desired, a professional be hired. This will help keep things discrete, and permit family and others to more prayerfully experience the sacred moments. Infant Baptisms are a little more “homespun” and it would seem that the pastor should speak with family members about limiting the number of amateur photographers, and be clear about where they should stand.

That said, I have no photos of my Baptism, First Communion or Confirmation. I have survived this (terrible) lack of “the shot” quite well. Frankly, in the days I received these sacraments, photos of the individual moment were simply not done in the parishes I attended. Some parishes did have provisions for pictures in those days. The photo at upper right is of Cardinal O’Boyle at St. Cyprian’s in Washington DC in 1957. But as for me, I do have a photo of me taken on my way to Church for First Communion, but there is no photo of me kneeling at the rail. I am alive and well. There are surely photos of my ordination. But I will add, the Basilica and the Archdiocese were very clear as to the parameters. Only two professional photographers were allowed, (My Uncle was one of them them) and the place where they worked was carefully delineated.

Hence, pastoral provisions are likely necessary in these “visual times”  which allow some photos. Yet as St. Paul says regarding the Liturgy: But let all things be done decently, and according to order (1 Cor 14:40).

A final reiteration: Remember the photo is not the moment. The moment is the moment and the experience is the experience. A photo is just a bunch of pixels, lots of 0’s and 1’s, recorded by a mindless machine and printed or displayed by a mindless machine. A picture is no substitute for the actual experience, the actual prayer, the actual worship that can and should take place at every sacred moment and it every sacred liturgy.

And here is some very rare footage of a nuptial mass. It is of my parents in May 1959. What makes it rare is that it is film, not mere pictures and that it is filmed from the sacristy. My parents told me years ago that they presumed it was filmed by a priest who alone in those years could get access to the sacristies and other back areas.

Posted on

On the Giving and Receiving of Holy Communion: Some norms to recall.

Recently here in the Archdiocese of Washington there was an issue regarding the denial of Holy Communion to a certain individual, which caused no little debate among the faithful. I am NOT going to reopen that case here, and ask all readers to please recall that, no matter what you may think, you do not have all the facts, and I do not wish to rehearse the (partial) specifics of the whole affair.

That said, a number of us priests asked for a review of the norms of the policies of the Church and the Archdiocese in these sorts of situations, and the Archdiocese responded at a convocation of the all the priests, which discussed many matters, this one among it. (At the same convocation we also discussed the specifics of the lawsuit initiated by the Archdiocese and other Catholic groups and diocese against the Administration).

I am grateful that the Cardinal and his senior staff responded in a concise and clear manner. For, it is a fact that these sorts of situations, wherein, Communion must be withheld, are both delicate and complicated. It is always helpful to know the norms, and review them frequently since there are times when a priest must deal quickly with situations that arise, and having command of the norms is immensely helpful.

Frankly, we do not always get every situation right. Being human, our judgment is sometimes flawed. But to the degree that we have reviewed and pondered the collected wisdom of the Church, and have a grasp of the basic policies, we stand the chance of avoiding mistakes either of excess or defect.

All that said, here are some norms and policies that were presented to us from a variety of sources.

From the Sacramental Norms of the Archdiocese (promulgated 1/25/2010; 6.41.1-6.41.6) (I have included a few remarks of my own in red) :

  1. Any baptized person, not prohibited by law, can and must be admitted to Holy Communion (cf Canon # 912).
  2. Full participation in the Eucharist takes place when the faithful receive Holy Communion. Yet care must be taken, lest they conclude that the mere fact of being present during the liturgy gives them a right or obligation to receive Communion. Even when it is not possible to receive Communion, participation at Mass remains necessary, important, meaningful and fruitful. (cf Pope Benedict Sacramentum Caritatis # 55)
  3. A person who is to receive Holy Eucharist, is to abstain for at least one hour before Holy Communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine (cf Canon 919.1)

From the USCCB Guidelines (also referenced in ADW Liturgical norms and policies):

  1. Those who receive Holy Communion should not be conscious of grave sin.
  2. Should have fasted for one hour.
  3. And, if there is no reasonable opportunity for confession, the person should make and act of perfect contrition, which thereby includes the intention of confessing to the priest as soon as possible. (For it sometimes happens that, in current circumstances where most receive Holy Communion, that to abstain would raise difficult questions and possibly result in a person announcing publicly that they are in mortal sin. To avoid this, the Church does allow this act of perfect contrition, which obviously includes the intent to seek the Sacrament of Confession to be valid).

The recipient of Holy Communion also makes declarations by presenting himself for Holy Communion:

  1. That he or she is a Catholic.
  2. That he or she accepts the teaching of the Catholic Church in toto and is not consciously or intentional dissenting from known doctrines or dogmas, from whatever the Church professes and believes to be revealed by God. (For Communion means cum (with) + unio (union), and thereby is more than a “me and Jesus” thing, it involves a union with the Church his Body and Bride. Dissenters and those in schism who cannot make this declaration of union, thus should not claim communion when there is a significant lack of union either by dissent or schism).
  3. That he or she is not conscious or gave or serious sin.

Therefore a strong responsibility falls on the one coming forward to receive Holy Communion. Since priests and deacons cannot know the state of each person in most circumstances, the fundamental responsibility is on the one who comes forward to receive. For, as St Paul says, Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor 11:27-29). Note that Paul and Scripture place the responsibility primarily on the communicant, rather than an (non-omniscient) clergy.

Therefore, the minister of Holy Communion is to:

  1. Presume the integrity of the persons presenting themselves for Holy Communion.
  2. Trust in this fact is to be presumed unless proven clearly, otherwise.
  3. It may be the case that one, whom the Minister (priest, deacon, or extraordinary minister), sees come forward has in fact been to confession, and/or renounced previous sinful practices. I was once told of a situation wherein a person who had been in an invalid marriage, in fact, had the marriage validated. Yet, on coming forward was told by the priest to stand aside. Though the couple was reconciled to the Church, the minister of Communion presumed their incapacity and dismissed them. This caused embarrassment and anger.  When in doubtful situations, however, the priest ought to give Communion and perhaps seek counsel, and to counsel the person later.

On the prohibition of Holy Communion to Public Sinners.

  1. Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted, after the imposition or declaration of the penalty, and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion (Canon # 915).
  2. Thus, if a person has been publicly excommunicated (rare today!) They are to be denied Holy Communion if they come forward. There are other forms of excommunication (often called Latae Sententiae (or automatic) excommunications) that are more secret and unknown to the general public. For example, if one procures abortion they are automatically excommunicated. But such an excommunication is usually not publicly known and the Minister who may know of this, third hand or simply in a counseling situation, ought not deny Communion only based on that. For confidentiality is to be preserved even if it is outside the Seal of Confession (which can never be violated). In cases such as this, where an excommunication is not publicly declared, the Minster of Communion, ought not publicly deny Communion, but speak privately to the person to ensure that the Latae Sententiae excommunication is, or has been, lifted in the Confessional setting.
  3. But if one is clearly and publicly been excommunicated they should be publicly refused Holy Communion. (Rare today!)
  4. Further, if a person publicly attempts to use Holy Communion for purposes beyond the Spiritual intent, they can be denied. (For example, a troublesome group known as “Act-up” has sometimes disrupted Catholic Masses, coming forward in public ways, often wearing symbolic insignia or “stoles” and demanded Holy Communion. They are rightly refused Holy Communion for they deny its significance by their action, and politicize the reception of Communion, calling it a right rather than a privilege, and a confession of the true faith. Thereby they publicly forfeit the presumption that they approach communion worthily or with proper disposition of faith).

Canon 915:

  1. Prohibits the reception of Holy Communion to those who are excommunicated.
  2. Permits the public denial of Holy Communion to those whose sin is grave, and manifest, and in which they are obstinately persevering in the sinful state.
  3. Therefore note, as others have, three criteria must be met. For a person may be in grave sin, and the priest must  know this outside the confessional. But unless the sin is manifest, i.e. a sin the priest knows, and one which is clearly known by most of the congregants, and unless he is sure they have not repented and received absolution prior to this Holy Communion, he ought not publicly deny the Sacrament. He may wish to confer with the person discretely and confidentially later to give further counsel, but he ought not otherwise deny the Sacrament unless he is sure their sin is grave, manifest and unrepented.

As I hope you can see, the primary burden of discernment in these matters falls in the recipient of Holy Communion. As Scripture says, Let a man examine himself…..

Those looking for showdowns at the altar rail or communion station ought to realize that Church law and policies, as well as prudential judgments, frown on such things. Priests and other ministers of Holy Communion need to remember they are not omniscient, and may authentically be mistaken in their assessment of those who approach the Sacrament.

Hence, doubts are to be resolved in favor of the communicant. Where there are concerns on the part of the minister of Holy Communion (i.e. a priest or deacon), he ought to approach the communicant privately and discretely and either give counsel, or clarify the facts. If an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion has doubts they should consult with the priest or pastor. Confrontations and showdowns at the moment of Communion should be avoided, and should be very rare, if the norms are proclaimed and followed.

There are some who may wish to applaud if Communion is denied to certain people in a public way. But confrontations “at the rail” usually flow from  a failure of catechesis, and/or a failure to follow policy in more remote and discrete settings such as the confessional, the pulpit and the catechetical setting . Denials and showdowns are to be lamented not celebrated. And thought they do rarely happen, the goal is to avoid them altogether.

These norms  along with a wider appreciation of their purpose may help in avoiding errors either by the clergy or by the faithful. Ultimately the norms for the worthy reception of Holy Communion and all the Sacraments , flow from a reverence that God is Holy, that He and his Sacraments are neither to be mocked, nor to be necessarily withheld from the faithful who desperately need them.

Perhaps it is well to end with a passage from St. Paul about Holy Communion:

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.  That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions (1 Cor 11:27-35)

OK, comments are open. But let me be clear, we are not going to rehash the whole affair of a certain priest here in the Archdiocese who was in the news two months back. Let me clear that comments are not open to bishop-bashing and to pontificating about an event wherein not all the facts are even public. If you choose to mention the case too specifically I reserve my right to edit, or to refuse the comment altogether. This post is about catechesis, especially as we move forward toward the Feast of Corpus Christi. Let’s look ahead, not back.

Posted on

A Hidden, Mysterious, and Much Debated Word in the Our Father

It is no doubt 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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)
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

In the end, an unresolved mystery – 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.

Posted on

Some things you may not know about the composer Antonio Vivaldi

One of my favorite composers is Antonio Vivaldi (1678-1741). While I love his secular pieces such as the Four Seasons, I am especially found of his Church music. It is so light, so bright and tuneful, and Vivaldi loved to go up and down the musical scale, varying the theme a half pitch at a time.

Ah Vivaldi, he is right up there with Handel, Bach and Mozart. I consider him to be an especially Catholic treasure given his large body of sacred Latin Liturgical music.

Just a few things about Vivaldi, that I’d like to share, things you may or may not know:

1. Vivaldi was a Catholic priest. He was ordained in 1703 at the age of 25, in Venice. However, it would seem the active priesthood did not suit Vivaldi. Within a year he asked to be excused form the daily celebration of Mass, due to a “tightness of the chest,” which he complained of his whole life. Most scholars think this is a reference to asthma, though there may have been other causes including heart related matters. But a deeper reason may lie in the fact the he was pressured to become a priest. In those days, going to a seminary was often the only way a poor family had to ensure free schooling for a son. Music seems to have been his passion. While it is hard to gauge the accuracy of the story, it is noted in some of his biographies that he would sometimes leave the altar to go into the sacristy and write down a musical idea that had come to him!

2. He spent most of his musical career working in an orphanage for girls. While this may seem an odd and unfruitful place for a composer, actually it was not. The “Ospedali” where he worked was one of four well endowed orphanages in Venice, some for girls, some for boys. And the residents were largely made up of “illegitimate” children of Venetian noblemen who conceived these children in their (sadly common) dalliances. The noblemen funded orphanages like these to care for such children of theirs. In Venice these homes developed a reputation for fine music, as the children were trained in music from the earliest years and concerts were a way the orphanages also raised money. At the Ospedali della Pieta where Vivaldi worked, some of the girls stayed on well into adulthood and continued to perform there. The video below shows what such a setting was like, and how Vivaldi would give performances, secular and liturgical with “his ladies.”

3. Not all found Vivaldi’s music as outstanding as many of us do today – An Italian Playwright of the time Carlo Goldoni writing in his memoirs described Vivaldi as “This priest, an excellent violinist but a mediocre composer…” Yet, to be fair, Vivaldi had his fans and patrons, and earned a decent living selling copies of his many concertos, operas, and Church works.

4. In 1720 Vivaldi began living with a woman, Anna Giraud. Though to be fair, he always insisted she was only with him as a housekeeper and friend. Further, her sister also shared the house. Vivaldi trained Anna to sing and she had an excellent reputation as a singer. Vivaldi stayed with her till his death. Were they more than friends? It is hard to say, but why not take Vivaldi at his word?

5. Vivaldi works all but disappeared from the scene after his death in 1741, and were not heard regularly or known widely again until the 1950s. In this sense he was an opaque luminary. The expression “opaque luminary” refers to people who shine brightly in their own time, but who, after their death are largely unknown. And until 1950 the name, Antonio Vivaldi was largely unknown.

6. Vivaldi’s  works came back to light beginning in 1926 when the Salesian Fathers wished to sell a large number of “old volumes” in their archive and invited Dr. Alberto Gentili, professor of music history at the National Library of Turin to assess their value. Many of the 97 volumes contained Vivaldi manuscripts, along with other rare music. And thus Vivaldi Music once again came to light. The second World War slowed the process of compiling and collecting the full library from other sources, but the hunt was now on, and in 1951 concert goers in England were among the first to hear this newly rediscovered baroque master. Since then Vivaldi has taken his place with Bach and Handel, and is considered quite equal among them. He with them, paved the way to Mozart.

7. Vivaldi died in 1741 at age 63. The cause was said to be “internal fire” which was probably yet another reference to the asthma that plagued him all his life.

Yes, Vivaldi, the gift of his music is great.

In this video, is depicted the manner in which Vivaldi would have had his Church music performed.Note that it is all women who sing and play, (For Vivaldi worked at the “orphanage” for girls). Period musical pieces are also used and it is performed in the Church of the Pietà in Venice, Vivaldi’s church in Venice, attached to the Ospedali where Vivaldi largely worked. This is the movement from the now famous Gloria in D. The text is Domine fili, unigenite Jesu Christe. Most of us who have sung this piece are used to it in an SATB arrangement, but here, for historical purposes, it is sung by all women. Note the candles too!

Posted on

The Seating Plan at the Last Supper

Most of us who live now think of the Last Supper in terms that are familiar to us. In our imagination Jesus and his apostles sit around a square table on chairs. Jesus is a the center and his apostles arrayed around him. The famous painting of Leonardo Da Vinci (See right) is uppermost in most modern minds when thinking of the Last Supper.

But the real Last Supper was different in many significant ways.

Some of the following I am about it present is still a matter of debate other aspects of it are undisputed.

1. Jesus and the Apostles did not sit on chairs at a table. Rather they reclined on ground or on mats and pillows, leaning on their left elbow (leaning either forward or on their left side) and eating with their right hand. Their legs were stretched out behind them. (See picture at left, click to get a bigger size) This was the typical fashion for eating in the ancient world. That they reclined to eat is made plain in the Gospel of Mark: While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me–one who is eating with me (Mk 14:18).

This setting also explains some things that seem strange to us moderns. First of all why did John lean back on Jesus’ chest to ask him a question? (Jn 13:25; 21:20) This would be strange and physically awkward in a modern upright table setting. But reclining on one’s side on a mat meant you had to lean back to talk to the person next to you. Thus, while many see the act as a tender one, it may also have had a practical dimension.

There is also explained another strange scene (to us moderns) where Jesus is reclining to eat in the home of a Pharisee and and a woman begins to anoint his feet (Luke 7:38). In a modern upright table setting this would mean she’d have to be under the table. Strange indeed! But in the ancient setting, the posture was such that one’s feet were behind and thus the woman could approach Jesus from behind and begin to anoint his feet without his prior knowledge.

2. The Place of honor in modern western settings at a typical long rectangular table is either at the center or at one end. Everyone is seated upright and facing in to the center and can generally see all the others well. However, in the ancient meal setting the table was “U” shaped, either as a half circle, or with 90 degree arms. Instead of sitting at the center of the table (as in DaVinci’s painting above) the host or honored guest sat at one corner. Further, everyone sat on one side on the outside of the table allowing the inside of the table to open for servers.

The picture to the right is from a very early mosaic in Ravenna, probably made well before the 5th Century. At this early time, artists still had access to more of the memory of the actual practices at the time of Jesus and thus depicts the Last Supper as it was more likely arranged. Notice that Jesus is at the head of the corner and his disciples are arrayed in a sloping ark behind and sloping to his left. This was the usual setting for the ancient meal and especially something as formal as a passover meal.

It would seem however, for John to have been able to lean back on Jesus’ chest to ask him the question, that Jesus would have to been on the opposite side of the “table” from that depicted in the Ravenna mosaic. But we still get the basic point of what ancient meal settings looked like.

3. It would seem (though this is debatable) that the place of second honor was at the other end of the U shaped table on the opposite corner. This would help explain why Peter is not at Jesus’ immediate side and has to motion to John across the room to lean back and ask Jesus a question (Jn:13:24-25). Since Peter would like have had the other place of honor it makes sense that he would be across the room and unable to ask Jesus himself.

Here too the Ravenna Mosaic seems instead to picture Peter right next to the Lord, which would not comport with the likely biblical evidence that John was in fact to the Lord’s right. But the mosaic does capture well the reclining at a U shaped low table.

Thus the whole setting of the Last Supper was rather a different setting that most modern people imagine. Leaning on elbows and eating with one hand would all be very awkward to us. But I suppose they’d think what we do strange as well. Nevertheless, the ancient practice, DaVinci and modern notions notwithstanding was that people reclined to eat.

The following clip is a humorous scene from the Passion of the Christ. Mary is puzzled over Jesus making a tall table to eat at. She cannot imagine that anyone would want to eat sitting up. She says, “This will never catch on!”

Posted on

Ashes to Armaments Dust to Detonation – A Brief Essay on What NOT to do with Cremated Remains

Cremation, though permitted by the Church, often presents pastoral problems for the Church. For, as experience shows, many people treat cremated remains (aka, cremains) in ways that would be unthinkable in terms of the more complete body. Some of the most common practices involve scattering the ashes on the ground, pouring them in rivers or seas, or scattering them from planes. All of these sorts of practices are forbidden by the Church to Catholics. There are other problems we will talk about below.

But recently, one of the most absurd things I have ever heard in terms of cremated remains appeared in USA Today. Here are some excerpts of the article:

By Mari Darr Welch, for USA TODAY

Officers Thad Holmes and Clem Parnell have launched Holy Smoke LLC, a company that will, for a price, load cremated human ash into shotgun shells, and rifle and pistol cartridges.

It’s the perfect life celebration for someone who loves the outdoors or shooting sports, Parnell says….

“This isn’t a joke. It’s a job that we take very seriously,” he said. “This is a reverent business. We take the utmost care in what we do and show the greatest respect for the remains.” It has established myholysmoke.com to promote the service and traffic on it has been growing, Holmes says.

For $850, one pound of ash will be loaded into 250 shotgun shells. The ash is mixed in the cups that hold the shot, not the powder.The same amount of ash will fill the bullets of 100 standard caliber center-fire rifle rounds or 250 pistol rounds…

“Some people have been concerned that a small amount of ash will remain in the animal that is shot with the ammunition, Holmes said. “But it’s just carbon, and a small amount at that. You don’t have anything to worry about.” The animal should be killed quickly by the shot, to prevent any possibility of spreading the ashes in the animal’s blood, he says. The area around where the animal was struck should not be consumed…. The full article is here:

Sigh…Where to begin. It is interesting that the proprietors have to assure us this isn’t a joke. For indeed, it seems just that, a sick joke. And then things descend to the absurd when we are also instructed to thoroughly clean the meat of the animal killed by cremains laden bullet.

Some bad jokes come to mind, to wit: Joe really lived to hunt, now he’s dying to hunt. Joe would really be blown away by this…etc., add your own. But remember, as the proprietors assure us, “this is a reverent business” and thus all joking is inappropriate.

And so it is, but so is loading human ashes into shotgun shells and bullets and shooting away. Simply calling something a reverent business does not make it so.

Again the Church allows cremation so long as the reason for doing so is not contrary to the faith (e.g. denying the resurrection of the Body). But pastorally there are challenges presented to the Church in the way people routinely treat ashes.

Granted, most of the “scattering” practices are not as absurd and irreverent as shooting animals with them. Many in fact consider various scatterings as reverent. But the bottom line for the Church is that cremains, though in ash form, are still what remains of the body. And we should no more scatter them than we would scatter body parts about.

Reverent burial or placement in a mausoleum are the only proper destination for cremated remains. Thus, not only is scattering not considered appropriate, but so is the practice of some of retaining the ashes in their home.

Yet another problem encountered by cremation is the practice of delaying the burial indefinitely. I often find that the burial of cremated individuals is not scheduled the day of the the funeral. When I ask as to the specific date I often get a lot of vague answers. I am beginning to conclude that I will not schedule the funeral until the burial is also scheduled. For too often Uncle Joe is waiting in the closet to be buried.

To conclude, a new cremation regulation, dated March 21, 1997, was granted by the Holy See as an addition, or indult, to the Order of Christian Funerals.

The instructions indicate the cremated remains should be treated with the same respect we give to the body of deceased person. The remains are to be placed in a worthy vessel which then is carried and transported with the same respect and attention given to a casket carrying a body.

Their final disposition is equally important, say the instructions: “The cremated remains should be buried in a grave or entombed in a mausoleum or columbarium [a cemetery vault designed for urns containing ashes of the dead]. The practice of scattering cremated remains on the sea, from the air, or on the ground, or keeping cremated remains in the home of a relative or friend of the deceased are not the reverent disposition that the Church requires.” The instructions also state that, if at all possible, the place of entombment should be marked with a plaque or stone memorializing the deceased.

Posted on

A Thoroughly Watered Down Text Signifying Almost Nothing. A Brief Rant on the (RNAB) Translation of the Epistle from Last Sunday

Pardon another post from the Pet Peeve file, or is it the “Lost Opportunities File,” or is it simply the “FAIL!” File?

Avoid immorality? I must say that I had decided to preach out of the first reading on the Call of Samuel this past Sunday, so I had not carefully reviewed the Epistle (1 Corinthians 6).  Thus when the lector spoke the words “Avoid immorality,” I must say, I winced, and reached for a misalette. It couldn’t be, could it? Yes it was: 1 Corinthians 6:18; but with all the meaning and oomph surgically removed by a translator who seemed to want to hide the true and very specific meaning of the text.

Vague! “Avoid immorality?” It may as well have said “Do good and avoid evil.” Nothing could be more vague.

For the record the Greek text is Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν (Pheugete ten porneian) which is accurately and easily translated: Flee fornication (sexual immorality). It is a powerful admonition in the Greek, and just about every other English version of the Bible, except the Revised New American Bible (RNAB). I checked twenty other translations, and they all say “Flee fornication” or “Flee sexual immorality.”

Why on earth do we continue to use in the Catholic Lectionary a translation of this passage that is so vague and inferior? Even if the RNAB continues to be the basis of the Catholic Lectionary, could not future additions correct a passage like this; a passage, with its clarion call to chastity that is so necessary to hear in this sex saturated culture?

There are two fundamental problems with this translation.

In the first place, πορνείᾳ (porneia) (which is a specific reference to sexual immorality) is translated vaguely as “immorality.” I have written more extensively on this problem throughout the Epistles of the RNAB here: RNAB gets Porneia Wrong. But let it suffice here to say that “immorality” is far too vague.

Immorality can mean practically any sin. If I were to say, “That group is immoral,” I could mean almost anything from it being greedy, or racist, or violent, or just promoting some sinful activity. Frankly sex is not the first thing that comes to mind when the word immorality is encountered.

But πορνείᾳ (porneia) is a specific word referring to sexual immorality. Usually it refers to pre-marital sex (fornication), but sometimes it may be used to refer to other sexual sins, depending on the context, like incest or adultery.

So problem one is that “immorality” is so vague as to be inaccurate.

In the second place “avoid” (as in “avoid immorality) is profoundly weak as a translation of Φεύγετε (pheugete) which means, quite simply, “Flee!” It is a present, active, imperative verb in the second person plural. As an imperative it is thus a command, and merits the exclamation point: You (all) flee!

Strong’s Greek dictionary of biblical terms defines the verb as “to flee, escape or shun.

One might argue that “avoid” captures the word “shun” which is the third meaning. No it does not. “Shun” is a strong word, “avoid” in English is exceedingly more vague. “Avoid” says, “other things being equal, you ought to steer clear of this, if it is not too much trouble.”  “Avoid” is friendly advice. “Shun” indicates a strong detestation.

Flee, which is the first first meaning is an unambiguous command of warning, one which calls for immediate action due to something that is more than a small threat.

This Greek verb φεύγω (pheugó) is used 29 times in the new Testament (see here) and in no case is “avoid” the best or proper translation. In fact to use “avoid” would yield often times unintelligible, sometimes comical results. Consider some of the following verses and mentally try to substitute the word “avoid”

  1. The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream saying Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt (Matt 2:13)
  2. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism he said unto them O generation of vipers who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come (Matt 3:7)
  3. And they that kept [the pigs] and fled into the city and told every thing and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils (Matt 8:33)
  4. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place whoever reads let him understand  Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains (Matt 24:16)
  5. the disciples left [Jesus] and fled. (Matt 26:56)
  6. the woman fled into the wilderness (Rev 12:6)

In other words “fled” or “flee” is the first, and best translation of the Greek verb φεύγω (pheugó), followed by “escape.” “Avoid,” just doesn’t capture what is being said.

Pastorally, this is a lost moment for Catholics with the translation “Avoid immorality.” Not only is the meaning obscure, but the imperative voice of the Greek is almost wholly lost by the vague and suggestive “avoid.” Who will follow an uncertain trumpet? (cf 1 Cor 14:8). The clarion call of this text is to get way as far, and as fast as possible, from fornication. This trumpet-call is reduced to barely a kazoo by the translation, “avoid immorality.” And even if a listener does finally get that “immorality” here means “sexual immorality” he or she will hardly be moved by the word avoid.

The bottom line is that 1 Corinthians 6:18 (Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν. πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὁ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει) is better and correctly translated as:

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.  OR:

Flee fornication. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but the fornicator, sins against his own body.

In other words, Run! Flee! Head for the hills! Get as far and as fast away from fornication as you can.

Do you get it? Probably not if you heard the RNAB yesterday to wit: Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Not exactly a clarion call.

This is surely something to bring to the attention of the Bishops as a new Lectionary is prepared. Rest assured I will surely bring it to the attention of a few bishops I know. I pray you might do the same.

Painting at top: St. Paul Writing at his Desk by Rembrandt