Every now and then we Catholics get asked about statues and images. Sometimes we get accused of “worshiping” them. Well actually that would be pretty strange and stupid since plaster and marble and paint on canvas can’t hear us or respond. Not much of a god if you ask me. Of course we don’t worship these things, we aren’t stupid.
But what is with these statues and pictures? Why do we have them? Well the question is kind of odd since most people who ask us this really already have the answer. When I get asked this question I ask another question in return: “Do you have pictures of your family in your home, in your wallet or at your office?” Most answer “yes.””Why?” I ask. The usual answer amounts to the fact that these things “remind me of my loved ones.” Exactly. And so to statues and images of saints. They remind us of family members (the saints) who have lived heroic lives. While it is not common for us to have statues of loved ones in our homes, it is common to see such things in State Houses and museums. Just a little more formal than a painting or photo but its the same idea.
So really, folks ought to lighten up on us a bit. We are neither stupid nor idolaters here. We’re just venerating the memory of heroes who have gone before us. We are reminded to ask their prayers and imitate their example.
Here is another video from that Catholic Show that speaks on this topic further. I have one quibble with the video. It seems to imply that statues and pictures only came into use in the Church after the Renaissance. In fact they have been with us almost from the start. All the way back in the 8th Century the Church struggled with the Iconoclasts (image smashers) who went through churches smashing statues and images. They claimed it broke the commandment against idolatry. But the Church ruled that there was no violation of the commandment in the use of images for the reasons stated above. But the point here is that images and statues were in use far back before the Renaissance.
I put this video together, this time focusing on exteriors. The music is Nisi Dominus sung by the Majorstua Kammerkor. The Text of the psalm is rather long to produce in full here but the opening text, translated from the Latin, goes as thus:
Unless the Lord build the house, those that labor to build it do so in vain. In vain is your earlier rising and your going later to rest, you who toil for the bread you eat. For God pours gifts on his beloved when they slumber!
The latest issue of Gloria TV News contains a strange and troubling event from the Church in Vienna. It appears that a rather appalling (and ugly) statue of a recently beatified saint is to go on display in St. Stephens Cathedral. Here is the text from the video:
Today, a sculpture allegedly representing Sr. Restituta Kafka will be unveiled in St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna. Sr. Restituta was arrested and murdered by the Nazis during the Second World War. In June 98 she was declared a blessed by Pope John Paul II. Her new sculpture shows a female face without veil and with big breasts. It will be placed in a side-chapel of St. Stephen’s Cathedral. The bust was created by Alfred Hrdlicka, the same artist who caused a worldwide scandal with a painting representing Christ’s Last Supper as a homosexual orgy. The controversial painting was exposed in the diocesan museum of Vienna. Hrdlicka calls himself an atheist and Stalinist.
It is unfortunate enough when modern artists attack the Church and the faith of simple believers, but it is even more troubling when Catholic Church leaders accept and display such “art.” Why has the Cathedral contracted with an artist who has clearly demonstrated contempt for the faith and who apparently has a thirst for scandal? Once the artwork was completed and so clearly vulgar and impious why does the Cathedral display it? Where is the local Archbishop in all this? Why these self-inflicted wounds? Clearly there are many who hate and ridicule our faith and relish in scandalizing the faithful, so why are we paying for this and displaying it? I feel safe in saying this would not happen in the Cathedral of Washington.
There is another item in this news report from Gloria TV on the question of the words of consecration: The Hungarian Bishops’ Conference has decided to implement a longtime wish of the Pope. Beginning with the coming feast of Pentecost the words used in Mass during the consecration of the chalice will be brought in line with the Latin original and with the Gospels. The present wording will thus be changed to say that Christ died “for many” instead of the current “for all.” While it s true that it is the wish of God to save all, it nevertheless reamins true that not all accept his offer of salvation. In a time when many people maintain unbiblical notions that just about every one will be saved, it is important that our prayers refelct the more sober biblical teaching that many in fact are lost (cf Matt 7:14 inter al.) For this reason, and for the important reason that our prayer texts correspond to scriptural texts, the Pope has asked that incorrect translations be fixed. Here in America a new translation is coming forth that reflects the correction.
Here is the video in reference. WARNING: the video contains some vulgar photos displaying the “art” in question. The photos are presented in order for the viewer to understand the story.
One of my privileges as a priest is to have accompanied many people on their final journey toward death. I also journeyed with my father in his last days. (My mother died suddenly so I was not able to do that with her). But in making these journeys I have come to discover that some of God’s greatest and most necessary work takes place in and during the dying process. When a person who has faith is dying many powerful things begin to happen. I have seen pride melt away, I have seen powerful contrition for past sins emerge. I have seen gratitude intensify, both in the one who is dying and in the love ones who surround him or her. I have heard beautiful words like, “I just want to be with God now….I want to go home.” I have seem a letting go and a letting of God take over. And even in the painful sight of once strong individuals reduced to weakness there is a kind of strange beauty. In the nursing homes of this land are people who once ran businessness, raised families, and led communities. Now many have returned to a kind of infancy. They cannot walk, or only with effort, some have to be fed, some can no longer talk, some clutch dolls and many even wear diapers. All this seems so horrible to many but important things are happening. The Lord says, Unless you change and become like little children you will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Mat 18:3) And really are those in nursing homes really so different than you and me right now. Are we not little children to God? Does he not have to provide for our every need? Does he not have to feed us, clothe us and enable us to speak? Perhaps with the elderly and dying it is just that the illusion of self-sufficiency has been shed.
So, among the elderly and dying there is important work being done by God. Yet today our world frequently does not understand or accept God’s ways. There is a kind of hatred of the Cross and a refusal to accept that the cross and suffering both have important roles n our lives. Increasingly there are those among us who demand the right to assisted suicide and that doctors should be legally permitted to end lives . In the midst of this, we as Christians must once again reaffirm our acceptance of the cross. We must also reaffirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the time and manner of our death. For individuals to demand a right to end their life ultimately threatens us all because it implicitly denies the dignity of the dying. Failing to understand this dignity will lead to poorer care and increasing pressure for the dying to end their lives and no longer burden us. Further it arrogantly ends God’s work, either considering it unnecessary or unfair. No one likes the cross, but as Christians we have been taught by Christ that the cross is both necessary and saving. Think carefully before you support assisted suicide through some sort of limited notion of compassion. The truest compassion is to want for someone what they truly need to be saved. Only God can ultimately say what this is. We do not have dignity because we can control our lives, we have dignity because our life is in God’s hands.
Here are some quotes from the Catechism on this topic:
Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. (CCC 2277-2279)
If you have time to watch this 14 minute video, it is a beautiful meditation on the process of dying with faith and the care of the dying. It is also an articulate defense of the Church’s Teaching against assisted suicide. If you know of anyone who is going through the dying of a loved one this video can be a great help and support.
The following video does a pretty good job of briefly reviewing teachings on the priesthood. There is only one High Priest: Jesus Christ, all other priests are his ministers. He works through his priests who act in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). Christ established the sacrament of Holy Orders in order that men should minister in his person by teaching, governing and sanctifying. All of this is done in and through Jesus who minsters through his priests. This video traces some of the history and teachings about the priesthood and is also entertaining. It is three and a half minutes. Enjoy the “outtakes” at the end as well 🙂
In the last post in this series we focused on the Responsorial Psalm. This post will consider several matters related to the Liturgy of the Word.
The Place for the proclamation of the readings might seem obvious to you: the pulpit! But actually the place where it was proclaimed has wandered about as we shall see. The place for the proclamation of the readings in the very earliest days of the Church is not specified. However, by the third and certainly the fourth centuries there is growing mention of an elevated place where the reader stood. Presumably this was so that the reader could more easily be heard and seen. Whether or not there was a desk or book stand upon the platform varied. Later on however this developed into the common form of an ambo or pulpit as we know it today and as a general rule it was placed in the most convenient and suitable spot between the sanctuary and the nave or body of the church. It was from this spot that the readings were proclaimed for almost a thousand years.
However the practice began to end especially by the 10th century. The exact reason for this is somewhat obscure. However, the following factors seem to have played a role.
The was a long tradition of having the altar face east. Thus the priest, who faced the altar and the people who also faced the altar all faced east. There developed however a notion that the north was the region of the devil. (Some of the imagery evoked here is that the North at the time had a predominance of paganism. Likewise an imagery of the “coldness of unbelief” implied the North…and so forth). Hence the Word of God was directed against the North. This meant that the deacon would face to his left (i.e. to the north) when singing the gospel. In low mass the priest did not leave the altar but moved to the left (i.e. the north side of the altar) and angled a little bit to the left (to the north) and read the scriptures.
There was also the influence of the Low Mass sine populo (without a congregation) which was becoming more common as monasteries proliferated. In these Masses, the celebrant did not leave the altar and thus read the gospel at the altar. This practice eventually seems to have been taken over into masses with a congregation as well.
Nevertheless, all of this meant that the readings were no longer proclaimed by facing the people directly. Thus the use of the lectern or ambo fades out in the early middle ages. Increasingly, these were used more and more merely for preaching and so they are seen to move further out in to the nave.
Likewise, Latin became less and less understood by the people. This meant that the proclamation of the readings, still in Latin was seen less and less as a vital communication and now was more of a ritual. Thus, the readings were often read again in the vernacular at the beginning of the homily. Since the assembly was no longer vitally involved with the hearing of the proclaimed word in Latin, facing them was not seen as a central concern. Thus the raised pulpit or stand as decreased in importance.
One last factor is the emergence of an “epistle side.” At first both the Gospel and Epistle were read on one side. However, later on it became more common to give the Gospel special dignity and this led to its place of proclamation being considered special. The epistle ended up being proclaimed to other side of the altar or sanctuary (i.e. the right side) out of reverence for the Gospel.
Today the readings are returned to the ambo, or lectern (also called a pulpit. Of this lectern, the General instructions specify the following: “The dignity of the word of God requires that the church have a place that is suitable for the proclamation of the word and toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns during the Liturgy of the Word. It is appropriate that this place be ordinarily a stationary ambo and not simply a movable lectern. The ambo must be located in keeping with the design of each church in such a way that the ordained ministers and lectors may be clearly seen and heard by the faithful. From the ambo only the readings, the responsorial Psalm, and the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet) are to be proclaimed; it may be used also for giving the homily and for announcing the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. The dignity of the ambo requires that only a minister of the word should go up to it.” (GIRM 309)
The Lector. According to the Fathers of the Church a special reader was appointed distinct from the celebrant of the Mass. By the second century the position of lector was seen as a special position. It will be recalled the special training that would be necessary for the lector in an age where far fewer were able to read. Further, reading ancient manuscripts was a lot harder since modern punctuation was not yet in use. You’ve got to really know what you’re doing when there are no periods, commas, quotation marks and the like! It is interesting to note that young boys were often used for this office. In many places they lived in special communities or schools and received special training. It was a common sentiment that the innocence of youth was well suited to the proclamation of God’s word. Nevertheless, the Gospel, due to its special prominence was still proclaimed by someone in higher orders. Over time however the reading of the epistle began to fall more and more to the sub-deacon during a high mass. In low mass the Epistle continued to be proclaimed by someone other than the celebrant. Nevertheless, over time this task transferred to the celebrant at low mass although it was still done by the subdeacon at high mass. Today, the readings, except the Gospel have once again been returned to the laity. The General Instruction has the following to say about the reader,By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, (and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant). In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture. They should be truly suited to perform this function and should receive careful preparation, so that the faithful by listening to the readings from the sacred texts may develop in their hearts a warm and living love for Sacred Scripture (GIRM 59)
Pastoral Note: Are you listening? We are supposed to listen attentively to the Word of God as it is proclaimed! Our attention spans today are very poor however and it is easy for the mind to wander. Nevertheless, pay attention!. God is speaking when the Word is proclaimed! It is obvious too that Lectors and Deacons require special training and preparation so as to procalim well. After all, God is speaking through them! For those who read: If God is using you to speak, you had better prayerfully prepare. FOr those who listen: Are you listening? God is speaking.
The following Video is from the Byzantine Liturgy, the Epistle is Chanted in Aramaic. In the ancient world, prior to all these microphones, Singing was a way to get the word out. Singing carried better and farther. In the Roman Liturgy it is rare to hear the first two readings chanted thought they can. In the Latin Mass, in the solemn high form it is still directed that the subdeacon should chant the epistle. I couldn’t fine a good video of the epistle being chanted in the Roman rite (old or new) so I post this example from the Byazantine liturgy
The video below was produced by www.calledtocommunion.com and presents some thoughtful questions to ponder. Questions such as, Did Jesus intend all this disunity among Christians? Do we tend to “paper-over” our disunity and minimize its seriousness?. If Christ intended only one Church then how can we determine the one True Church? At points the video is a bit hard to hear but it surely gives a lot to think about. The truth be told, the disunity among Christians is a grave and serious scandal. It is certainly opposed to the will of Jesus who said: I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:21-22) The website mentioned above is thoughtful and scholarly and I recommend it to your attention.