The video below humorously illustrates a biblical principle of our hidden faults. Indeed we all have sins and behaviors that are often clear to others but of which we are unaware. Indeed there are even deeper faults of which no one is aware except God himself who sees our innermost heart. Consider some of the following quotes:
By [your ordinances] your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. But who can discern his errors? From my hidden faults acquit me, O Lord. Keep your servant also from willful sins; may they not rule over me. (Psalm 19:11-13)
You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence. (Psalm 90:8)
For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. (Eccl 12:14)
Mind you, I have nothing on my conscience, but I do not stand thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. (1 Cor 4:4).
The sins of some men are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear only later. (1 Tim 5:24)
Call no man happy before he dies, for by how he ends, a man is known. (Sirach 11:28)
Yes, some of our sins are obvious to us and we may rightfully work upon them. But lest we sin through pride, we ought always recall that we have sins and faults that are often hidden from us. Others may see them, or perhaps only God.
At the end of the day we’re all going to need a lot of grace and mercy!
Enjoy this commercial that well illustrates this fact. And enjoy a little humor, it’s been a tough week on the blog!
Every now and then we need to be reminded that God really loves us. Some of us struggle with this notion especially when we have sinned or experienced a shortcoming.
Recently the readings at Mass have had the heavy theme of warning us about death, judgment, heaven and hell. But of course these warnings are given by a God who loves us and wants to save us.
Whatever the reason that perhaps at times we don’t feel very lovable, consider this:
Before you were ever formed in you mother’s womb God knew you and loved you (Jer. 1:4)
God knit you together in your mother’s womb (Ps 139:13)
You are fearfully wonderfully made (Ps 139:14)
Every one of your days and deeds were written in God’s book before one of them ever came to be. (Ps. 139:16)
So God knew you and planned for you. You cannot earn his love you already have it. In fact you had it before you were born, before you had done anything. As for your sins God knew all about them too.
Sin does not cancel God’s love but it does limit and ultimately sever our acceptance of that love. “Ah but what about Hell?” you might say. Yes as we have seen recently, a great tragedy, but do you suppose that God’s love does not extend there also? After all God does not destroy the souls in hell. He still sustains and provides for them. He loves them still. It is they who do not love him or His kingdom and he will not force it on them. But at least consider this fact that God does not annihilate them. I once had a reader write and tell me that God was cruel for not killing the souls in hell and putting them out of their misery. But their objection points to two common oddities of the modern era:
1. That death is therapy, or escape. It is an odd modern notion, rooted in our obsession with comfort I suspect, that to not exist is preferable that existing. Yet, the desire to survive is common to all living things, except it would seem, certain post-modern men.
2. A second modern confusion is that the freedom to choose ought to be free of any real responsibilities or results. This immature conclusion is common to teenagers, but not to adults who ought to accept that the freedom to choose brings both responsibility and consequences that we ought to accept if we want to claim to be free and mature.
And thus, whatever objections we want to raise about God’s love, they are more about us and our distorted notions of love, than about God.
So face it God loves you, he even likes you. He does not love you because you deserve it. He loves you for “no good reason.” His love cannot be explained in any human terms. He loves you simply because he does, because he is Love. If you have never experienced this love, get on your knees and ask for this necessary gift.
Maybe these videos will help. The first one is a beautiful musical reflection by Don Francisco “I’ll Never Let Go of Your Hand” (available at iTunes). The Second one I have posted before about a young firefighter who powerfully experiences the unmerited love that God has for him.
Back in Seminary days we would often study the question of authorship when it came to books of the Bible. Especially in modern times there are extensive debates about such things. I remember being annoyed at the question in most cases since I didn’t really care who the Holy Spirit gave the text to, in the end, God was the author.
I was also annoyed at some of the premises used to reject authorship. For example, it was widely held by modern scholars that St. Paul couldn’t possibly be the author of the the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus) since the description of the Church was “far too developed” to have been written prior to 65 AD. Never mind that the Acts of the Apostles describes many of the “dubious” hierarchal elements (presbyters (e.5. Acts 14:23), deacons (e.g. acts 6:3), and apostles (bishops). Never mind any of that, for us moderns there is the tendency to consider as “primitive” early eras. So Paul’s authorship was questioned by many in those days.
John’s gospel too was considered far too lofty by modern scholars to have been written by a “simple fisherman.” Where could this “unlettered man” have gotten such profound and mystical insights? Again, never mind that he may have been as old as 90 when he authored the gospel, and may have pondered it for some 60 years. Never mind that he lived for at least part of that time with the sinless Virgin Mary, who knew her son as no one knew him and saw him with sinless eyes. No, never mind the power of grace and infused vision. No, it was too much for many modern and rationalistic scholars to accept that a simple fisherman could pull it off. It must have been by some other more lettered man like “John the Elder,” or it must have been other smarter types in the Johanine community, or school that authored this.
Here too I was just a simple 25 year old seminarian but it seemed to me that far too many modern interpreters stressed only the human dimension of Revelation. Something more mystical was missing from their view. That God could somehow give a profound vision to the early Apostles, and an infused mysticism was almost wholly absent in their analysis. Even as a 25 year old I knew better than to exclude that. I was young, but had already experienced aspects of the charismatic movement where inspiration and gifts were to be sought and expected.
And had not Jesus himself said to the Apostles, But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you (Jn 14:26).
I recently came across a quote from Origen, the early 3rd Century Father, whose insight into John struck me as profound and telling, deeply faithful and challenging for every Christian. Pondering himself, where John “got all this” Origen says,
We may therefore make bold to say that the Gospels are the first fruits of all the Scriptures, but that of the Gospels that of John is the first fruits. No one can apprehend the meaning of it except he that has lain on Jesus’ breast and received from Jesus, Mary to be his mother also. (Origen, Commentary on John, 6)
There it was, the lynchpin, the truest answer. John had mystical vision and saw the Lord in the loftiest way because he knew and experienced the heart of the Lord, and had Mary for his Mother. John was a brilliant theologian and possessed of deep insight, less because he knew books, and more because he knew the Lord, heart to heart.
And how surely and truly Mary’s role in this cannot be overlooked. Think of the conversations she and John must have had, the mystical prayer she must have enjoyed, and shared with John, the memories and the things that only the heart of a sinless mother could see and know. How John must have marveled at the gift of her. And how he too, who had known the heart of the Lord, and rested at his heart, at the Last Supper must have been able to pray and converse with her.
Speculation you say? Perhaps. But a vision I share with the great theologian Origen. It was love that gave John insight, it was relationship with Jesus, and with Mother Mary, by Jesus own gift, that his mystical gospel took flight.
And what of you and me? How will we gain insight into the Lord, and the truth of his Gospel? Books and learning? Studying Greek? Reading commentaries? Sure, all well and good. But these things are best at telling you what the text is saying. But it takes a deep relationship with the Lord to see Scripture’s mystical meaning.
Study? Sure. But don’t forget to pray! Scripture comes from the heart of the Lord and it is only there, by entering the heart of the Lord, and living there through prayer that Scripture’s truest meaning will ever be grasped.
Having trouble getting there? No one loves and understands Jesus like his Mother Mary. Ask her intercession and help, she will show you the heart of her Son.
Jesus gave John two gifts: the gift of his heart, and the gift of his mother. And John soared to such places that people could ask, “How did he get all this?” But you know how.
He offers you and me the same. Do you want vision, do you want to appreciate the depths of scripture and all God’s truth? Do you want the eyes of your heart opened to new mysteries and mystical experience? Accept the gifts Jesus offers: the gift of his heart, the gift of his mother.
Consider well the admonition of one of the most learned men who ever lived:No one can apprehend the meaning of it except he that has lain on Jesus’ breast and received from Jesus Mary to be his mother also.
Here is Fr. Thomas Luis de Victoria at his most mystical: O Magnum Mysterium (O Great mystery and wondrous sacrament, that animals would witness the birth of Christ. O Blessed Virgin whose womb merited to carry the Lord Jesus Christ, Alleluia!)
One of the more difficult Biblical themes to understand is the concept of God hardening the hearts and minds of certain human beings. The most memorable case is that of Pharaoh wherein, before sending Moses to him God said he would “harden Pharaoh’s heart” (Ex 4:21). But there are other instances where biblical texts speak of God as hardening the hearts of sinners, even from among his own people.
What are we to make of texts like these? How can God, who does no evil, be the source of a sinful mind or heart? Why would God do such a thing since he has said elsewhere:
As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?’ (Ez 33:11)
God our Savior…wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4)
To be sure, these questions involve very deep mysteries, mysteries about God’s sovereignty and how it interacts with our freedom, mysteries of time, and mysteries of causality. As a mystery within mysteries, the question of God hardening hearts cannot simply be resolved. Greater minds than I have pondered these things, and it would be foolish to think that a easy resolution is to be found in a blog post.
But some distinctions can and should be made, and some context supplied. We do not want to understand the “hardening texts” in simplistic ways, or in ways that use one truth to cancel out other important truths that balance it. So please permit only a modest summary of the ancient discussion.
I propose we examine these sorts of texts along four lines:
The Context of Connivance.
The Mystery of Time
The Mystery of Primary Causality
The Necessity of Humility
To begin it is important simply to list a selection of the hardening texts. The following are not the only ones, but they sample them widely enough:
The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. (Ex 4:21)
Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country. (Ex 11:10)
Why, O LORD, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes that are your inheritance. (Is 63:17)
He [God] has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn–and I would heal them. (Jesus quoting Isaiah Isaiah 6:9-10, at John 12:40)
They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie (2 Thess 2:11)
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another…..Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. (Rom 1:24, 28)
Point I. – THE CONTEXT OF CONNIVANCE – In properly assessing texts like these we ought first to consider the contexts in which they were made and written. Generally speaking, most all of these declarations that God hardens the heart, come after a significant period of disobedience on the part of those hardened. In a way, God “cements” the deal and gives them fully what they really want. For having hardened their own hearts to God, God determines that their disposition is a permanent one, and in a sovereign exercise of his will, (for nothing can happen without God’s allowance), declares and permits their heart to be hardened in a definitive kind of way. In this sense, there is a judgement of God upon the individual that recognizes their definitive decision against him. Hence, this hardening can be understood as voluntary, on the part of the one hardened, for God hardens in such a way that he uses their own will, whom he hardens, for the executing of his judgment and his acceptance that their will against him is definitive.
A. For example, in the case of Pharaoh, it is true, as the Exodus 4:21 text says above, God indicated to Moses that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart. But the actual working out of this is a bit more complicated than that. We see in the first five plagues, it is Pharaoh who hardens his own heart (Ex. 7:13; 7:22; 8:11; 8:28; & 9:7). It is only after this repeated hardening of his own heart, that the Exodus text shifts, and speaks of God as the one who hardens (Ex 9:12; 9:34; 10:1; 10:20; 10:27). Hence the hardening here is not without Pharaoh’s repeated demonstration of his own hardness, and God, if you will, “cements the deal” as a kind of sovereign judgment on Pharaoh.
B. The Isaiah texts, many in number, that speak of a hardening being visited upon Israel by God, (e.g. #s 3 and 4 above), are also the culmination of a long testimony, by the prophet, of Israel’s hardness. At the beginning of the Isaiah’s ministry, Israel’s hardness was described as of their own doing by God who said through Isaiah: For the LORD has spoken: “I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me. The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him. (Is 1:2-4). There follows a long list of their crimes, their hardness and their refusal to repent.
1. St. John Chrysostom – of the numerous texts Later in Isaiah (and also referenced by Jesus (e.g. Jn 12:40), that speak of Israel as being hardened by God, and having him shut their eyes, St John Chrysostom says, That the saying of Isaiah might be fulfilled: that here is expressive not of the cause, but of the event. They did not disbelieve because Isaias said they would; but because they would disbelieve, Isaias said they would…. For He does not leave us, except we wish Him….Whereby it is plain that we begin to forsake first, and are the cause of our own perdition. For as it is not the fault of the sun, that it hurts weak eyes, so neither is God to blame for punishing those who do not attend to His words. (on a gloss of Is. 6:9-10 at Jn 12:40, quoted in the Catena Aurea).
2. St Augustine also says,This is not said to be the devil’s doing, but God’s. Yet if any ask why they could not believe, I answer, because they would not…But the Prophet, you say, mentions another cause, not their will; but that God had blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart. But I answer, that they well deserved this. For God hardens and blinds a man, by forsaking and not supporting him; and this He makes by a secret sentence, for by an unjust one He cannot (Quoted in the Catena Aurea at Jn 12:40).
C. Of the text of 2 Thessalonians, God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie quoted in # 5 above, while the text speaks of God as having sent the delusion, the verse before and after make clear the sinful role of the punished saying: They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved….so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness ( 2 Thess 2:10,12).
1. Of this text, St. Augustine says, From a hidden judgment of God comes perversity of heart, so that the refusal to hear the truth leads to the commission of sin, and this sin is itself a punishment for the preceding sin [of refusing to hear the truth]. (Against Julian 5.3.12).
2. St John Damascus says, [God does this] so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (The Orthodox Faith 4.26).
D. The texts from Romans 1 speak of God handing them over only after they have suppressed the truth (1:18), persevered in their wickedness (1:18) and preferred lust and idolatry (1:23-24), hence, as a just judgement, he hands them over to sexual confusion (homosexuality) and to countless other destructive drives. So here too, though it is said God hands them over, it is really not that simple. God has, in effect, cemented the deal. They do not want to serve them and so He, knowing their definitive decision, gives them what they want.
E. Thus, our first point of distinction in understanding the “hardening” texts is that the context of connivance is important in assessing them. It is not asserted by Scripture that God takes a reasonably righteous man and, out of the blue, hardens his heart, confuses his mind or causes him, against his will, to become obstinate. The texts are usually presented as a kind of prevenient judgement by God, that the state of the person’s hardness has now become permanent. They refuse and so God cements the deal and “causes” them to walk in their own sinful ways since they have insisted so.
Point II. – THE MYSTERY OF TIME – In understanding these hardening texts, which we have seen, are akin to judgment texts, we must strive to recall that God does not live in time in the same we do. Scripture speaks often of God’s knowledge and vision of time as being comprehensive, rather than speculative or serial (e.g. Ex 3:14; Ps 90:2-4; Ps 93:2; Is 43:13; Ps 139; 2 Peter 3:8; James 1:17; inter al.).
A. To say that God is eternal and that he lives in eternity is to say that he lives in the fullness of time. For God, past, present and future are all the same. God is not wondering what I will do tomorrow, neither is he waiting for it to happen. For Him, my tomorrow has always been present to Him. All of my days were written in His book before one of them ever came to be (Ps 139:16). Whether, and how long I live, has always been known to him. Before he ever formed me in my mother’s womb he knew me (Jer 1:4). My final destiny is already known and present to him.
B. Hence, when we strive to understand God’s judgments in the form of hardening the hearts of certain people, we must be careful not to think he lives in time like we do. It is not as though God is watching my life like a movie. He already knows the choice I will make. Thus, when God hardens the hearts of some, it is not as though he were merely trying to negatively influence the outcome, and trip certain people up. He already knows the outcome and has always known it, he knows the destiny they have chosen.
C. Now be very careful with this insight, for it is a mystery to us. We cannot really know what it is like to live in eternity, in the fullness of time, where the future is just is present as the past. If you think you know, you really don’t. What is essential for us is that we realize that God does not live in time like we do. If we try too hard to solve the mystery (rather than merely accept and respect it) we risk falling into the denial of human freedom, or double predestination, or other wrong-headed notions that sacrifice one truth for another, rather than to hold them in balance. That God knows what I will do tomorrow, does not destroy my freedom to actually do it. How this all works out is mysterious. But we are free, Scripture teaches this, and God holds us accountable for our choices. Further, even though God knows my destiny already, and yours as well, does not mean that He is revealing anything about that to us, as though we should look for signs and seek to call ourselves saved or lost. We ought to work out our salvation in a reverential fear and trembling (Phil 2:12).
D. The Key point here is mystery. Striving to understand how, why and when God hardens the heart of anyone is caught up in the mysterious fact that he lives outside of time and knows all things before they happen. Thus he acts with comprehensive knowledge of all outcomes.
Point III. – THE MYSTERY OF CAUSALITY – One of the major differences between the ancient and the modern world is that the ancient world was much more comfortable in dealing with something known as primary causality.
A. Up until the Renaissance God was at the center of all things and people instinctively saw the hand of God in everything, even terrible things. Job of old said, The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised….if we have received good things at the hand of God, why should we not receive evil?” (Job 1:21; 2:10). Thus the ancients would commonly attribute everything as coming from the hand of God, for he was the “first cause” of everything that happened. This is what we mean by primary causality. The ancients were thus more comfortable attributing things to God that we are not. In speaking like this, they were not engaged in a form of superstitious or primitive thinking, but they emphasized that God was sovereign, omnipotent and omnipresent and that nothing happened apart from his sovereign will, He is the Primary Cause of all that is.
1. Of this ancient and scriptural way of thinking the Catechism says, And so we see the Holy Spirit, the principal author of Sacred Scripture, often attributing actions to God without mentioning any secondary causes [e.g. human or natural]. This is not a “primitive mode of speech”, but a profound way of recalling God’s primacy and absolute Lordship over history and the world, and so of educating his people to trust in him. (CCC # 304)
2. The Key point here is understanding that the ancient Biblical texts while often speaking of God as hardening the hearts of sinners, did not, as we saw above, mean that man had no role, or no responsibility. Neither did it mean that God acted in a merely arbitrary way. Rather, the emphasis was on God’s sovereign power as the first cause of all that is and hence he is often called the cause of all things and his hand is seen in everything. We moderns are uncomfortable in speaking this way as we shall see.
B. After the Renaissance man moved to the center and God was gradually “escorted” to the periphery. Thus our manner of thinking and speaking began to shift to secondary causes (causes related to man and nature). If something happens we look to natural causes, or in human situations, to the humans who caused it. These are secondary causes however, since I cannot cause something to happen unless God causes me. Yet increasingly the modern mind struggles to maintain a balance between the two mysteries of our freedom, and responsibility and God’s Sovereignty and omnipotence.
C. In effect we have largely thrown primary causality overboard as a category. Even modern believers unconsciously do this and thus exhibit three issues related to this.
1. We fail to maintain the proper balance between two mysteries: God’s Sovereignty and our freedom.
2. We exhibit shock at things like the “hardening texts” of the Bible because we understand them poorly.
3. We try to resolve the shock by favoring one truth over the other. Maybe we just brush aside the ancient biblical texts as a “primitive mode of speech” and say, inappropriately, “God didn’t have anything to do with this or that.” Or we go to the other extreme and become fatalistic, deny human freedom, deny secondary causality (our part) and accuse God of everything; as if he were the only cause and had the sole blame for everything. Thus, we either read the hardening texts with a clumsy literalism, or dismiss them as misguided notions from an immature, primitive, and pre-scientific age.
D. The point here is that we have to balance the mysteries of primary and secondary causality. We cannot fully understand how they interrelate, but they do. Both mysteries need to be held. The ancients were more sophisticated in holding these mysteries in the proper balance. We are not. We handle causality very clumsily and do not appreciate the distinctions of primary causality (God’s part) and secondary causality (our part, and nature’s too). We try to resolve the mystery rather than hold it in balance and speak to both realities. As such, we are poor interpreters of the “hardening texts.”
Point IV – THE NECESSITY OF HUMILITY – By now it will be seen that we are dealing with a mysterious interrelationship of God and Man, between our freedom and God’s sovereignty, between primary and secondary causality. In the face of such mysteries we have to be very humble. We ought not think more of the details than is proper for us, for, frankly they are largely hidden from us. Too many moderns either dismiss the hardening texts or accept them and sit in harsh judgment over God, as if we could do such a thing. Neither approach bespeaks humility. Consider a shocking but very humbling text where Paul warns us in this very matter:
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” (Romans 9:14-20)
In effect, none of can demand an absolute account of God for what he does. Even if he were to tell us, could our small and worldly minds ever really comprehend it? My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways, says the Lord (Is 55:8).
Summary – In this post, rather too long, we have considered the “hardening texts” where it seems that God is said to harden the hearts of certain people and groups. And so he does. But texts like these must be carefully approached with proper distinctions, appeal to the scriptural and historical context, and deep humility. There are profound mysteries at work here: mysteries of God’s sovereignty, our freedom, his mercy and also his justice.
We ought to careful to admit the limits of our knowledge when it comes to such texts. As the Catechism so beautifully stated, when it comes to texts like these, they are to appreciated as a profound way of recalling God’s primacy and absolute Lordship over history and the world, and so of educating his people to trust in him. (CCC # 304)
This song says, “Lord I’ve sinned, But you’re still calling my name…”
In our modern culture we tend to use the word “mystery” differently than the Christian antiquity to which the Church is heir. We have discussed this notion on this blog before. In this brief post I’d like to review that, and add a new insight I heard recently from Fr. Francis Martin.
As we have noted before, our modern culture tends to think of a mystery as something to be solved, and the failure to resolve it is considered a negative outcome. So, in the typical mystery novel some event, usually a crime, takes place, and it is the job of our hero to uncover cause of the problem, or the perpetrator of the crime. If he does not, he is a failure. And frankly, if word got out that, in a certain mystery movie, the mystery was not solved, there would be poor reviews and low attendance. Imagine in the series “House MD” if Dr. House routinely failed to “solve” the medical mystery. Ratings would drop rather fast.
But in the ancient Christian tradition, mystery is something to be accepted and even appreciated. Further, the attempt to solve many of the mysteries in the Christian tradition would be disrespectful, and prideful too.
Why is this so?
One reason is that the Christian understanding of mystery is slightly different that the worldly one. For the world, a mystery is something, currently hidden, that must be found and brought to light. The Christian understanding of mystery is something that is is revealed, but much of which lies hidden.
Further, in the Christian view, some, even most, of what lies hid, ought to be respected as hidden, and appreciated rather than solved. We can surely seek to gain insight into what is hidden, and mystery does reveal the depths of things and events. But, respectfully, we dare not say we have wholly resolved or fully comprehended everyone or everything. For, even when we think we know everything, there are still greater depths beyond our sight. Thus mystery is to be appreciated and accepted rather than solved.
Perhaps an example will help. Consider your very self. You are a mystery. There is much about you that you and others know. Your physical appearance is surely revealed. There are also aspects of you personality that you and others know. But, that said, there is much more about you that others do not see. Even many aspects of your physicality lie hid. No one sees your inner organs for example. And regarding your inner life, your thoughts, memories, drives, and so forth, much of this too lies hid. Some of these things are hidden even from you. Do you really know and fully grasp every drive within you? can you really explain every aspect yourself? No, of course not. Much of you is mysterious even to you.
Now, part of the respect that I owe you is to reverence the mystery of who you are. I cannot really say, “I have you figured out.” For that fails to respect that there are deep mysteries about you caught up in the very designs of God. To reduce you to something explainable merely by words is both disrespectful to you and prideful unto myself. I may gain insights into your personality, and you into mine, but we can never say we have one another figured out.
Hence, mystery is to be both respected and even appreciated. There is something delightfully mysterious, even quirky, about every human person. At some level we ought to grow in an appreciation that every person we know has an inner dimension, partially known to us but much of which is hidden and gives each person a dignity and a mystique.
Another example of mystery is the Sacraments. Indeed, the Eastern Church calls them the “Mysteries.” They are mysteries because, while something is seen, much more is unseen, but very real. When a child is baptized, our earthly eyes see water poured and a kind of washing taking place. But much more, very real, lies hidden. For, in that moment the Child dies to his old life and rises to a new one, with all his sins forgiven. He becomes, in that moment, a member of the Body of Christ, he inherits the Kingdom, and becomes the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Spiritually dead, he is now alive, and the recipient of all of God’s graces. These things lie hidden from our early eyes, by they do in fact take place. We know this by faith. Thus there is a hidden, a mysterious dimension to what we see. What we physically see is not all there is, by a long shot. The mystery speaks to the interior dimension which, though hidden from physical sight, is very real.
So mystery in the Christian understanding is not something to get to the bottom of. Rather, mysteries are something to appreciate, something to reverence, something to humbly accept as real. Aspects of them are revealed to us, but much more is hidden.
That said, we are not remain wholly ignorant of the deeper dimensions of things either. As we journey with God, one of the gifts to be sought is that we penetrate deeper into the mysteries of who we are, who God is, the mystery of one another, the mystery of creation, Sacraments and Holy Scripture. As we grow spiritually, we gain insights into these mysteries, to be sure. But we can never say we have fully exhausted their meaning or “solved” them. There remain ever deeper meanings that we should reverence.
In the video that follows, Fr. Francis Martin develops how mystery is the interior dimension of something. In other words, what our eyes see, or other senses perceive does not exhaust the meaning of most things, there are deeper dimensions that to some extent can be seen, and appreciated, but also respected as not fully seen or comprehended.
Fr. Martin gives the example of a man, Smith, who walks across the room and cordially greets Jones with a warm handshake. Jones smiles and reciprocates. OK fine, two men shaking hands, so what? But what if I tell that Smith and Jones have been enemies for years? Ah! That is significant. So the handshake has an inner dimension that, knowing it, helps us to appreciate the deeper reality of that particular handshake. To the average observer, this inner dimension lay hidden. But once we begin to have more of the mystery reveled to us, we appreciate more than the surface. But we cannot say, “Ah I have fully grasped this!” For, even here, we have grasped only some of the mystery of mercy, reconciliation, grace, and the inner lives of these two men. For mystery has a majesty all its own and we reverence it best by appreciating its ever deeper realities, caught up, finally, in the unfathomable mystery of God himself.
This video is part of a series Fr. Martin has done on the Gospel of John. I would strongly encourage you to podcast the series and view it or listen to it. It will bless your soul. Here is the podcast site for the whole Fr. Martin Gospel of John Series: Fr. Martin Gospel of John Series.
Some years ago (2009) I published on this blog a recollection of my youth in those critical years of the changeover from the “old Mass” to the “new” Mass. And, while I recall some puzzlement in those years about the changes and how they violated my training, I do not recall big protests from adults to the changes.
And while many people today who prefer the Traditional Latin Mass speak of the changes forced on us after the Council, I do not recall big protests, or objections as the changes came in swiftly in those years from about 1965 -1975. Granted, I was a pre-teen kid. But I do not recall protestors outside with signs, any even any vocal objections, that reached me at the time.
It is my recollection that the objections to the new Mass came largely about ten years later (mid to late 70s). By that time radical priests and nuns had abandoned all show and were either leaving in droves or were staying and causing all sorts of trouble with dissent and rebellion.
At any rate, I am interested in your experiences if you are a bit older, say 55+ and recall the changeover. My thesis is that the true reaction did not happen on “Sunday 1” when the altar was changed to face the people etc. Rather the negative reactions came later. For those were times when “Father says…” was enough to quell most concerns or protests. Only later when, for many “Father” had left with “Sister” to get married or, if he stayed he was misbehaving and commanded little respect, only then did the protests from some mount.
Anyway, tell me your experiences. It is also helpful if you can point to anything written at the time (65-75) that documents concerns.
What follows are my own recollections and a cool (strange) video from the era.
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 little did we know (I would argue) that it was the end of an era. Something was taking the place of what came to be call the “old Mass.” But none of us call it that then. And if some one were to mention in those days the Missal of 1962, blank stares would have resulted. These were all later terms and distinctions. We certainly talke about Mass in the vernacular etc. But it was Mass. And yet little by little the familiar gave way to the new. The transition was at times startling, at times exciting. But I don’t remember a lot of protests at first. That came later when for some “a bridge too far” had been reached. Anyway I am interested in your remembrances and experiences from that time if you’re old enough to remember.
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 of how the new Mass 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. But I wonder if we knew that?
Most people associate the word “vanity” with an excessive concern or pride in ones appearance, or sometimes with ones own qualities. But at its root the word “vain” or “vanity” refers to emptiness. To say that something or someone is “vain” is to say that it, or they, are empty or largely lacking in meaning, depth or substance.
It makes sense that people get worked up about externals when there isn’t much happening on the inside. And thus it makes sense that we connect emptiness (vanity) to excessive show.
There are lots of expressions that enshrine this connection:
All form and no substance That Texan is all hat and no cattle All bark and no bite All booster, no payload All foam, no beer All sizzle and no steak All talk Show me the money
The Wisdom Tradition in the Bible, especially the Book of Ecclesiastes, speaks of vanity at great length. And there the word tends to refer to the ultimate futility of whatever this world offers, that the world is ultimately empty and vacuous. For example –
Eccl 2:11 Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.
Eccl 5:10 He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity.
And thus the world which so mesmerizes our senses shows itself ultimately to be empty of power, or any lasting substance:
We have here, no lasting city (Heb 13:14).
As for man, his days are like grass: or as the flower of the field. Behold, he flourishes. But the wind blows and he is gone; and his place never sees him again. (Ps 103:15-16)
I thought of these notions of vanity when I saw this admittedly very funny commercial. It shows a man concerned only with his appearance. Actually, he is even more vain than that! It is how he smells that concerns him (this is an Old Spice commercial). He is so vapid, so vain, that even if he doesn’t look good, at least he smells like some one who looks good!
As he moves through the scenes of the commercial he becomes increasingly devoid of substance (literally)!
Symbolically we can see him as the vain person who goes through life carelessly, paying no attention to the way in which the world, the desires of the flesh, and the devil strike at, and eat away at him. But again, never mind all that, at least he smells like some one who looks good! His only real substance is to be lighter than air, a whiff. It is form over substance, impression over reality. It is empty show, it is vanity on steroids.
Here is a humorous look at vanity, a vanity so vain that it exists even beyond appearance and extends into the vapid, vacuous and vaporous vanity of merely “smelling like some one who looks good.” A remarkable portrait really of the empty show that vanity ultimately is. Enjoy!
The Gospel from Thursday’s Mass contains one of the most shocking parables Jesus ever told. It is the Parable of the Wedding Banquet a King gives for his Son. Most know it well, but in case you want to review it, the full text of the Gospel is here: Parable of the Wedding Feast
It does not take a degree in biblical theology to understand that the Parable is an allegory. The “King” is God the Father, the “Son” is Jesus, and the Wedding feast is the Great Wedding Feast of the Lamb further described in Revelation:
Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: “Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns.Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteousness of God’s holy people.) Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.” (Revelation 19:6-9)
The invited guests are the Jewish people of that time who, when the feast is ready, ignore or reject it for various reasons. There are concerns for land (I just bought a farm), profit (another owns a business), and third group who, for indeterminate reasons lay hold the the King’s servants (who represent the prophets), to beat and even kill them.
And in this rejection is illustrated, not just the Jews of history, but also the long human history of ignoring or rejecting God in favor of worldliness (the land), profit (the business) and hostility to the truth, (the beating and killing of the profits).
And yet, the rejection, while not unique to Jews, does focus on their historical rejection. For the parable calls them the “invited guests.”
Further, upon their rejection comes the horrible detail, told by Jesus himself, that the King (God the Father) was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. (Matt 22:6).
This detail shocks many modern readers especially for we have bought into a watered down notion of the holiness of God, and the significance of human choice for or against God. Our common modern vision of the Father is of a kind of doting older man (such as George Burns, or Morgan Freeman) who exists more to get us out of trouble and offer friendly advice, than to summon us to holiness, obedience and a critical choice.
But take note! This detail of the King burning their city is told by Jesus. And as we shall see in Sunday’s Gospel about the wide and narrow road, he is not playing around either. However we want to rework God, and render him harmless, however we want to try and hold opposed God’s love and justice, however we want to render human choice insignificant, the biblical text will have none of it. The bottom line fact is that no one loves you more than Jesus Christ, and yet no one warned of judgement and Hell more than Jesus Christ.
If this parable shocks, it is meant to. It is a call to sobriety in the face of the four most critical truths of our life: death, judgment, heaven and hell. In effect, this parable teaches that we will either enter the wedding feast and celebrate with the Father, or we will be caught up in the conflagration when the Lord comes to judge this world by fire (e.g. 2 Pet 3:7; Malachi 4:1; 2 Thess 1:7).
The choice is ours, but the judgement is certain to come:
God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more water but the fire next time! (Negro Spiritual)
The only safe place to be is in the wedding feast of the Jesus the Lamb, who saves us from the wrath to come (1 Thess 1:10).
Add to this shock the fact that the parable was actually fulfilled in 70 AD (as a kind of precursor of the final end of the age) when, after forty years of pleading with the Jewish people to come to Christ, a fiery destruction came on Jerusalem. Rejecting the Lord’s warnings (cf Matthew 24, 25; Mark 13; Luke 21), rejecting the call of the early Apostles and Church, and picking a pointless war with the Romans, the Jewish nation was utterly defeated. Jerusalem was sacked and burned, killing over 1.2 million Jews.
Jesus with weeping had warned:
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. (Matt 23:37)
The next shocking part of the parable comes in the second half. The enraged King (The Father) orders his servants to go into the streets and gather everyone they can. And in this detail is an allegory for the going unto the Gentiles and the Great Commission.
And thanks be to God the response is good and the banquet is filled. But then comes the second shock:
When the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited, but few are chosen.”
Here too, we moderns with our soft notions, wince. Perhaps part of our trouble with these verses is that we may think that the newly invited guests were dragged in, right off the street with no chance to change clothes. But there is nothing in the text to suggest they had no time to don their wedding clothes. The other guests all seem clothed properly. But the focus shifts to one man, not properly dressed.
Whatever the debated cultural parameters of the story, the theological parameters are more clear. The wedding garment is provided by the King (the Father), who clothes us in righteousness at our baptism. as we saw in the quote above from Revelation:
For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteousness of God’s holy people. (Rev 19:8)
Yes, here is the baptismal gown, the robe of righteousness, which God gives to the baptized who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb! In the baptismal rite the celebrant says to the newly baptized, pointing to their white garment:
You have clothed yourself in Christ. Receive this baptismal garment and bring it unstained to the judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that you may have everlasting life. (# 578)
Hence, in the parable, the man is not clothed properly not because he is poor or was pulled in off the street. He is not clothed properly because he has cast aside the garment he was given. Now again recall the garment is no mere cloth. It is an allegory for righteousness. And this righteousness is received and must be cherished. Without it, we cannot endure or remain in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, which is heaven.
And thus ends one of the most shocking parables Jesus ever told. (We will examine the “many are called, few are chosen” aspect of the text this Sunday). And though the parameters of this parable do shock, Jesus speaks them with an urgent love to bring forth godly repentance from us and to stir an evangelical urgency in us to reach others before “Great and Terrible Day of the Lord” comes (cf Joel 2:31; Mal 4:5 inter al). On that day there will be only two places: safe in the wedding feast with the Lord, or outside in a fiery judgement that is coming on this world.
An old spiritual says, God’s gonna set this world on Fire one of these days. Another old spiritual says, I got a robe, you got a robe, all God’s children got a robe. When I get to heaven gonna put on my robe and go wear it all over God’s heaven! Everybody talkin’ bout heaven ain’t a goin’ there!
Make sure you’ve got your robe and keep it washed in the blood of the Lamb.
