It is too easy to take our faith for granted. We can complain at the slightest requirement. Perhaps the Mass is “too long.” Perhaps the air conditioning or PA system is less than ideal. Perhaps the Church’s moral teaching seems too demanding or “out of touch” with modern thinking. Perhaps some aspect of the Liturgy seems “boring.” And so forth.
But have you recalled that martyrs died so you could have this faith? Every one of the Apostles except St. John the Evangelist died a martyr’s death for our capacity to know that Jesus is Lord and that he died and rose for us.
Andrew was crucified on an X shaped cross after being scourged. He preached to his tormentors to his last breath.
Bartholomew had his skin flayed off
James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded
James the Younger was cast off the Southeast pinnacle of the Temple. When the 100 foot drop did not fully kill him he was beat to death with clubs.
John the Evangelist was thrown into a vat of boiling oil and when he miraculously survived he was sent to prison on the Isle where Patmos where he died years later.
Jude was shot through with arrows
Simon was Crucified
Matthew was killed with a sword
Phillip was beheaded
Peter was crucified upside down.
Thomas was stabbed to death with a spear
St. Matthias was stoned then beheaded.
Mark was dragged to death by horses.
Paul was beheaded
Luke was Hanged to death
What will you suffer for handing on the faith? The martyrs went to death to proclaim Christ but some us cannot bear if some one merely raises an eyebrow at us or scoffs. Merely being less popular or excluded from the world’s admiration is too high a price for many. The next time you recite the Creed at Mass remember those words are written with blood. The next time you kids protest going to Church or your teenager scorns the faith you insist they practice, remember that others have faced far more formidable does than an unhappy child. The next time you are challenged for your faith and merely have to risk ridicule, remember others suffered (and still suffer) prison. Many were (and still are) killed for it.
Remember the Martyrs and stay faithful, dedicated and courageous. Stand firm in the Faith and never give up.
I have little understanding why anyone would not want a new translation. I DO understand that familiarity is often appreciated but the fact is, what we have been using since 1970 is not even a translation. At best, it is a paraphrase. For those of us who know Latin, the poverty of the current English Missal was enough to provoke anger and deep sorrow. The richness of the Latin text is great and masterful, and that most Catholics have had no real access to it is a matter that has needed correction for decades.
In this series which I begin today as an occasional feature I would like to look at some of the new texts which have already been released. I would like to compare them both to the Latin text and to the current rendering (I cannot call it a translation) we are currently using. I would like to begin with the venerable Roman Canon. In this installment we will look just at the opening lines of that text. As you will see many important teachings are being recovered in the new translation, teaching never lost in the Latin but soon to be restored by a correct and complete translation to the English speaking world. I list first the Latin, then the new translation, then the current rendering for your reference. There follows my commentary.
Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum, Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus, uti accepta habeas et benedicas + haec dona haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, in primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Pap nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.
New Translation: To you, therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord: and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, which we offer you first of all for your holy Catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her throughout the whole world, together with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth, hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.
Current Rendering: We come to you, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless + these gifts we offer you in sacrifice. We offer them for your holy catholic Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world. We offer them for N. our Pope, for N. our bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles.
Observations:
Getting our focus right– Notice that the New translation begins “To you therefore” whereas the current usage has “We come to you.” The New translation renders the Latin (Te igitur) correctly. But of equal importance is the fact that the proper focus is restored in the New Translation. The focus shifts from us (“we”) to God (“You”). One of the greatest problems with modern liturgy has been its anthropocentric focus. Modern liturgical notions have wanted to focus on the self-aware, gathered community than seems to frequently to celebrate and focus on itself. Modern songs go on at great length to describe that we are gathered, that we are church, that we are called, chosen, etc. Modern church architecture too has tended to focus the community upon itself with circular and fan shaped churches. It is true that perhaps in the liturgies of the early half of the 20th century that the congregation had all but been forgotten. But the over correction now needs correction itself. The focus of worship is God, what God has done, is doing and who He is. God is worthy of our worship and praise. Liturgy does not exist to entertain me or please me. It is directed to God. God, it is true speaks to us and ministers to us, but until we focus on Him and pay attention to him as our true focus, the Lord’s ministry to us is less fruitful than it should be. Consider for example a visit to the doctor. If the focus is merely on what pleases me and makes me feel good, and not the truth that the Doctor offers, the fruitfulness of the visit to the doctor is severely compromised. In the same way, if my visit to God’s house is on me and what pleases me and affirms me, and not on the truth that God proclaims and on his goodness and wisdom, my visit to God’s house is far less fruitful. Hence the Latin text and the new translation focuses on God and leaves behind the anthropocentric emphasis of the current rendering.
Celebrating the Father and the Son– Notice the Latin text and the new translation contain far more adjectives in reference to the Father and the Son than the current rendering. The current render calls him merely “Father” whereas the Latin and the more faithful New translation refer to him as a most clement or most merciful Father. Further the Son is referred to as Jesus Christ your Son and our Lord. The Lordship of Jesus Christ cannot be emphasized enough in an age which has tended to reduce him to a merely affirming brother who told us to love each other and other nice things. Further, the great mercy and clemency of the Father must also be emphasized in an age which has tended to identify the Father with the “vengeful God of the Old Testament.”
Ecstatic joy in the gifts we offer– There is a kind of ecstatic joy in the Latin and the new translation as we describe what we offer as gifts, offering and unblemished sacrifices. When I celebrate the Mass in Latin I sense a real joy as I say haec dona! haec munera! haec sancta sacrificia illibata! (these gifts, these offerings, these holy unspotted sacrifices) We are joyful in what we bring to God and we describe them almost as a child who has personally made a gift for a parent and joyfully presents it. The current rendering does not capture this joy but simply speaks of the them as gifts we offer in sacrifice. Gone is any reference to them as being holy or unspotted. The Old Testament had required a sacrificial lamb that was unblemished, hence the new translation also recaptures the scriptural allusion of the Latin.
Recovering the Church as Bride– One of the most egregious tendencies of the current rendering is to consistently refer to the Church as “it” rather than as “she” and “her.” The Church is not an impersonal institution but is the great Bride of Christ. She is His Bride and our Mother. You will note that the new translation restores the proper pronoun “her” as opposed to the impersonal pronoun “it”.
The Church needs more than guidance, she needs governance– Note too that the new translation asks the Lord to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her. The current rendering is less strong asking the Lord merely to “guide” the Church rather than govern her. Frankly we need more than guidance. We DO need governance. We need commandments, and clear instruction. Too many moderns prefer a suggestive and supportive God who affirms but does not correct or punish, who does not direct and command. But the real and true God does command, does insist and does correct and punish. It is proper that the Latin “regere” should once again be properly rendered “govern.”
A papal title recovered – One of the great titles of the Pope is Servus Servorum Dei – the Servant of the Servants of God. The current rendering omitted what the Latin says and simply called him our Pope. He is that but there is no greater dignity than to be the servant of God. In Mark 10:43-44 the Lord told the Apostles that the greatest among the flock must be the servant, even the slave of the others. The Pope’s most profound quality is that he has authority as one who serves.
The faith is true– The Latin text is ancient and makes use of the word orthodox. It is used as an adjective, not as a proper Noun as though it were referring to the Orthodox Churches of the East. The word “orthodox” refers literally to “straight (or correct) thinking.” Hence it means that which is revealed to us and which is true. Hence the New translation correctly renders the word orthodoxis in a way that avoids the impression of the Churches of the east and captures what the Latin was originally getting at. The orthodox are those who cling or hold to what is true. The current rendering simply omits any reference to this word. But more than ever we need to recover a sense today that our faith is not just a viewpoint, or a way of thinking. Our faith is a truth claim. The opposite of what we teach is not just less meaningful, it is false. Jesus said, For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice. (John 18:37). The Roman Canon alludes to this verse here. It is good that we have this back in the new translation. More than ever we need to recover a notion that when the Church announces the faith to the world, she (we) are not just expressing an opinion. We are speaking the truth. And those who are of the truth listen to us.
Well, we’re just getting started. And you can see how much has been lost and how much is being recovered in the new translation just these few lines. Praise God for this new translation which restores to us many teachings lost by the poor paraphrase we are currently using. I hope you’ll see that any discomfort in getting used to a new text is more than worth the price to recover the richness of the Latin Text.
Msgr. Bruce Harbert is a member of the new ICEL commission which was responsible for developing the new translation. In this 11 minute video he describes some of the insights and history of the new translation.
We are entering the season for ordinations. And perhaps a worthy reflection is to recall that one of the great glories of the Catholic Church is her historical link to Christ and the Apostles. The Catholic link to Christ himself and the apostles is not merely some moral unity, or a kind of invisible union, it is not merely a knowledge through books and historical data, precious those these things are. No indeed, there is more at work here. There is also an actual physical union through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. In this sacrament, there is a laying on of hands that stretches right back to the Apostles and Jesus.
Unique to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches – Only the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches can make the claim that they historically go back right to Christ and the Apostles. Every other Christian (Protestant) denomination lacks this antiquity. They were all founded less than 500 years ago, some even less than 100 years ago. Further, they literally severed the physical, hands on connection to Christ by casting aside the ministerial priesthood and hence the laying on of hands that signifies this sacrament. They have ministers, but not priests. The Anglicans are an exception, in that they consider their ministers to be priests. Yet they are not considered by the Catholic Church to have valid orders since they went through a long period wherein they did explicitly abandon the intent to hand on the priesthood, hence the link was severed.
Biblical and Patristic roots – It is clear in the Acts of the Apostles that when the apostles chose successors and co-workers to share in their apostolic ministry they “laid hands” on them. Paul and Barnabas had hands laid on them for their work as Apostles (Acts 13:3, 1 Tim 4:14 etc.). Paul later counsels Timothy to be careful on whom he “lays hands” when appointing bishops and deacons (1 Tim 5:22 etc). All the earliest documents of the Church such as the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch make it clear that this laying on of hands continued. This laying on of hands came to be known as “ordination.”
Every valid priest has “connections” – The Catholic Church through this laying on of hands actually preserves a physical link to Jesus himself and the Apostles he chose. History for us is a “hands-0n” kind of history, a “hands-on” link going back 2000 years. Every validly ordained Catholic bishop has this physical as well as spiritual link to the apostles. Every Bishop is a successor to the apostles. The priests share in this office and this link (though not in its fullness) for they too have hands laid on them by the bishop. I am often humbled to think of the “connections” I have with the early Church.
The Faith is literally handed on – So fellow Catholics, “stay connected” and rejoice in our “hands on” historical heritage. Now you know why it is said that the faith is “handed on.”
The following video shows highlights of the ordination of priests. In this case the ordination took place in Portland Oregon. I would like to show you highlights of our beautiful Washington ordinations but I am not aware of any film footage I can post. But this is a beautiful video.
One of the biggest mistakes a Christian can make is to misunderstand the moral law. For a Christian the Moral Law is not just a set of rules we have to follow, it is rather a description of the transformed Christian life. The Christian who begins to receive the ministry of Jesus Christ through grace will see his life transformed. He or she will begin to be more generous, more chaste, more honest and trustworthy. Such a person will begin to think differently, have better priorities, will see sins increasingly put to death. He or she will be more loving, more serene, more confident, more faithful to commitments. The transformed human person, by God’s grace will even begin to love his or her enemy. All of this is a gift, the work of Jesus Christ in the heart and mind of the believer, the fruit of His death and resurrection. It is not ultimately we who keep the law, but Christ who keeps it in us, if we but let him.
The Gospel today contains a mandate that we should love one another. But there is a danger in thinking that Jesus is saying that we, with our own unaided flesh power are supposed to do this. This of course seems impossible and leads to frustration if we attempt to do it as our own achievement. As soon as we start trying to love people there is some set back. Perhaps they do something to anger us or cause hurt. Love, if it is human, will likely vanish and be replaced by anger or resentment. That is why it is important to get this gospel right. Jesus is not telling us to love (which may not last) but to allow him to love others in us. He will use our humanity to effect this love but it’s source will be him.
To understand this we need to consider the gospel in stages. There are three stages to this Gospel.
First there is PREREQUISITE. Jesus indicates that the hour has come for him to be glorified. He is referring to his passion, death and resurrection. In this saving act Jesus acquires for us to power to live a wholly new life. In order for him to command us to love one another he must first equip us to do so. He does this on the cross and in his rising to new life. From the cross and resurrection comes a totally new life for us. As St. Paul puts it, we have been raised to new life with Christ (Col 3:1), and again, If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17) and yet again that since we have died with Christ in baptism we have also risen with him that we might live in newness of life (Rom 6:4).
Next note the POWER– So it is clear that Christ’s death and resurrection empowers us to live the life he describes in the moral Law of the Sermon on the Mount and throughout the New Testament and in today’s Gospel. Notice how He gives us a new command but links it to what he has already done in us: Love another as I have loved you. In other words, I have loved you and placed my love in you, now you are able and must discover the power you have to love others. Jesus commands us only because he has first equipped us. It is not our love that must love others, even our enemies, it is His love already placed in us that he asks us to draw on. As St. John puts it, We love because he first loved us (1 John 4:19).
Finally notice the PROOF. Jesus concludes by saying that we will know, that is we will experience, that we are his disciples when we love each other. It is almost as if he is saying, “Try me in this and begin to experience that you DO have this power because you are my follower and some one who has my grace.” So the question for us is ultimately, Do you believe that the Lord has equipped, empowered and enabled you to love others?
In the end we must remember that we are to live under grace, not the Law (Rom 6:14). This does not mean that there is no law. Rather it means the the Law describes the new life that Christ offers. The keeping of the commandments is not the cause of God’s love in us. Rather it is the result of it. It is but for us to finally grasp and expereince this love and thus be equipped to keep the commandments of the Lord and all they imply.
This video is the high water mark in the movie Fireproof. It is where Caleb finally “gets it.” He has been trying to love his alienated wife out of flesh power and, since she is not responding as well as his ego says she should, he is resentful. But in a moment of grace depicted here he finally experiences the complete and unmerited love of God for him and thus becomes equipped to start loving his wife this way. Would that our lives were as simple as this movie describes, but after this plot had to unfold in 90 minutes. For most of us, finally grasping the love of God for us takes more than one chance conversation in a park. But the central point remains, we have to experience the love of God for us to live more fully under grace. The more we grasp God’s love the more we can keep his law.
A few days ago we discussed whether Angels sing. My own conclusion from the discussion is that there is little or no evidence that Angels sing. About the closest reference is Job 38:7 and even there it is not perfectly clear that they sing. Perhaps the most positive way to state my point is that musical expression is a particular gift and genius of the human person. And our capacity for music is not just to make crude sounds. Rather we are possessed, at least collectively, of creative genius in this regard. The video below illustrates this genius.
Do you remember your grammar and the grammatical term Onomatopoeia? An Onomatopoeia is a word that sounds like the object it describes. Words like oink, meow, Wham! Sizzle, and my personal favorite:”Yackety Yak”
There are times too when music takes up a kind of onomatopoetic quality. In the video below Moses Hogan, one of the great modern arrangers of the old African American Spirituals describes his arrangement of “Joshua Fit the Battle of Jericho.” He has the male and female voices in a frenetic dialogue with lots of staccato notes dominating in the male voices. This creates the very sound of an intense battle! The song sounds like what it is describing. It’s a kind of “musical onomatopoeia.” There are other aspects of the same concept, you’ll hear the trumpet in the soprano and the battle reach climax in a moment of dissonance. And wait till you hear the walls fall at the very end in a cascade of notes!
In this three minute video Moses Hogan describes his intent of echoing the sound of a battle and then the song is sung. Enjoy this brilliant and beautiful arrangement of the Spiritual. Admire too the wonderful discipline of the choir that is necessary to execute this spiritual flawlessly.
I had a funeral today and for various reasons the P.A. System was not working during the time for the homily. I have a large cavernous Church, built of stone and plaster and both music and voice resonate well. With a fairly full church I had to preach the Old Fashioned way, I belted it out.
I was reminded again how powerfully the modern use of microphones has affected preaching and to some extent singing. To preach without a microphone means to preach with elevated volume and it requires one to strongly project the voice. In effect one has to preach authoritatively and passionately. I had to speak boldly. And as I preached in this manner the physical requirement began to affect the message. As adrenaline began to build, enthusiasm and a kind of confident joy overtook me.
Now I am not generally known for a quiet style of preaching anyway but preaching in this manner strengthened my message even more. Body and soul were fully engaged in proclaiming the message. Ah what power the preachers of old had to have! Imagine Jesus preaching out in the open to thousands. He surely did not speak gently, he needed power to project.
It is not the first time I have preached without a microphone. Yet today it occurred to me that I have to do more of this. I have learned in the past to stand far back from the mike but perhaps, in the right conditions no P.A. at all is best.
I have discussed with brother priests before the concern I have at how too much microphone harms our preaching. Too much microphone causes the priest to adopt a gentle, lyrical style of preaching. His style too easily becomes suggestive rather than bold proclamation. The suggestive and conversational tone of many a modern preacher can, if not balanced by other things, amount to an “uncertain trumpet.” St. Paul warns, “For if the trumpet produces an uncertain sound, who will get ready for battle?” (1 Cor 14:8) It is a sure fact that many of the Catholic faithful have no readiness or appetite for battle and this can surely be laid at the feet of uncertain and uninspired preaching and teaching.
So perhaps a suggestion….No! a strong prescription! Use less microphone for the preaching moment and for the proclamation of the Word. It is a very different type of preaching that emerges from such a context, and I think, a far better, bolder and braver preaching. The lectors too will benefit from a louder and bolder style.
It is a true fact, not all churches, (especially the ones built after 1970 and until recently), are well suited for this option. But many are and we surely need bolder preaching today and trumpet that is more certain. Some of preaching simply comes down to the physicality of the moment. If a priest needs to project his voice he is affected by that very fact and his message inevitably turns bolder and braver. He will feel the very voice of the Prophets echo though him.
Lectors too will find a whole new experience for they will not merely read the Word of God, they will proclaim it. And those in the pew will be less sleepy and the authority of the Word of God will reach them in a whole new way.
And finally, music will also benefit. Too much modern Church music, if you ask me (and I know you didn’t but I’m saying it anyway), is rather sing-songy and lyrical. Meditative music is nice and has its place but we also need a return of some of the bold and brave singing enshrined in the hymns of the past; before heavy use of P.A. systems influenced us to sing more softly and in a more folksy manner. Different musical styles all have their place but good gutsy singing has taken something of a hit and I blame the loud microphones for some of it.
Less mike and more manpower may well re-energize the proclamation of the Word, the preaching of it and the singing of praise to God. A certain trumpet can awaken even the dead! (cf 1 Cor 15:52).
This video shows Jesus preaching to an unruly crowd in the synagogue. No Microphone in those days!
Caution! This blog is about to heat up with controversy! Arizona and Immigration are the topic.
Archbishop Dolan from New York recently blogged on the issue of Immigration and the recent developments in Arizona. And he did what every good blogger does, he kept it a bit edgy. I am going to excerpt that blog below but would like to make a introductory comments of my own, and, as always, invite your comments.
These comments of mine try to strike a balance.
I like immigration and think we should allow for a generous amount of immigrants each year. A growing population means a growing economy. It also means enrichment for this country as other cultures join the mix that is American Culture.
I am quite happy with most of the immigrants coming here. Obviously the vast majority of them are Latinos from Central and South America. I am personally glad that most of them are Catholic and admit that this is an important factor to me. In addition, I find that they have strong family values, a wonderful and strong work ethic and a strong drive to succeed in this land. Here in the parish I have had many good experiences in hiring Latino workers who charge a reasonable prices, do quality work and get it done fast. I have especially benefited from their skills in the area of painting, carpentry, masonry, and general home repair and remodelling.
I have found great and spirited faith among the Latinos I know in the parishes I have served. In my last parish I had three neocatechumenal communities and the majority of the 70 members were Latinos. They were devout and also enthusiastic about their faith.
As for the language issue, I found most, except that very old, willing and able to learn and speak English. Even if the parents struggled, their children were fluent English speakers. In reality it is no different that other groups who have immigrated here. They speak the mother tongue at home and ethnic neighborhoods but English elsewhere. Within a generation they are fully fluent in English.
However, and while I love immigration, it remains true that we as a nation need to attend to security concerns and have the need and right to set legitimate parameters on immigration. I personally urge generosity since we have plenty of room and are rich in resources. But it is legitimate to regulate the numbers and set parameters so that this nation can properly receive immigrants and also maintain the safety of our borders.
The Catechsim of the Catholic Church strikes a good balance here: The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens (CCC # 2241).
Some areas of the Country have experienced negative effects from unregulated immigration. Problems include a sudden spike in the need for social services such as schooling, medical assistance, welfare and the like. There are also problems with crime. The vast majority of immigrants (legal or not) are not violent criminals or felons. However, with unprotected borders the true criminal element does find easy access to our country and we must be able to screen out criminals. Hence it is not wrong for citizens to insist that Federal and local authorities protect borders and regulate immigration to some extent.
Reasonable people will differ on finding the proper balance between a generous immigration policy and legitimate and necessary measures to protect the common good and maintain respect for law.
Legality is sometimes difficult– While it is unjust for immigrants to enter our Country illegally, it must also be understood that not every one is here illegally in the same way. Some did simply steal across the border. But many others came here legally but have had their legal status expire. Navigating our immigration laws is something that makes even trained lawyers cry. I have personally tried to help individuals I know renew their status and it is surely a bewildering process. It is IRS Law on steroids. Legality is more complicated and difficult than many Americans realize.
On the other hand people who live in areas that have received large and sudden increases in immigrant populations also deserve our sympathy and understanding as they try to moderate and manage a truly difficult human problem. The vitriol in the recent Arizona case on all sides sometimes ignores the human dimension on both sides of the equation. I am unfamiliar with the particulars of the Arizona Law but am also aware that part of the background in this matter is that the Federal Government has been derelict in its duty to properly oversee immigration. It is no surprise that anger has reached high levels in this matter.
And now a word from Archbishop Dolan. Since it is impolite for a priest to interrupt a bishop I will not comment in red as I often do. The Archbishop speaks well enough for himself. This is an excerpt. The full article can be read here: Archbishop Dolan on Immigration
Here we go again! Anyone who does not believe that “history repeats itself” has only to take a look at the unfortunate new law in Arizona….It’s a supreme paradox in our American culture — where every person unless a Native American, is a descendant of immigrants — that we seem to harbor an ingrained fear of “the other,” which, in our history, is usually the foreigner (immigrant), the Jew, the Catholic, or the black.
So we can chart periodic spasms of “anti-immigrant” fever in our nation’s history: the Nativists of the 1840’s, who led mobs to torch Irish homes and Catholic churches; the Know-Nothings of the 1850’s who wanted to deny the vote to everyone except white, Protestant, native-born, “pure” Americans; the American Protective Association of the 1880’s and 1890’s who were scared of the arrival of immigrants from Italy, Poland, and Germany; the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920’s who spewed hate against blacks, Jews, Catholics, and “forn-ers”; the “eugenics movement” of the 1920’s and 1930’s who worried that racial purity was being compromised by the immigrant and non-Anglo Saxon blood lines; and the Protestants and Other Americans United of the 1950’s who were apprehensive about Catholic immigrants and their grandkids upsetting the religious and cultural concord of America.
And, here we go again! Arizona is so scared, apparently, and so convinced that the #1 threat to society today is the immigrant that it has passed a mean-spirited bill of doubtful constitutionality that has as its intention the expulsion of the immigrant…..
Thank God, there’s another sentiment in our national soul, and that’s one of welcome and embrace to the immigrant…..To welcome the immigrant, to work hard for their legalization and citizenship, to help them feel at home, to treat them as neighbors and allies in the greatest project of human rights and ethnic and religious harmony in history — the United States of America — flows from the bright, noble side of our American character. To blame them, stalk them, outlaw them, harass them, and consider them outsiders is unbiblical, inhumane, and un-American.
Yes, every society has the duty to protect its borders and thoughtfully monitor its population. The call is to do this justly, sanely, and civilly….
Angels Don’t Sing! Or at least that is my proposition. When I say this to people they usually respond. “Of course angels sing, you are just plain wrong.” I would like to challenge you to find that I am wrong. Perhaps I am. But why do I say that angels don’t sing? A number of reasons:
1. There is no Scriptural verse that I have ever read that describes them as singing. Even in the classic Christmas scene where we depict them as singing “Glory to God in the Highest,” the text says that they SAY the song not that they sing it (cf. Luke 2:13). If you can find a Scripture text that shows the angels singing please share it, but I’ve looked for years and can’t find it. Here too I state this humbly and may be wrong. If so you will help me.
2. The catechism never says that angels sing.
3. The liturgy of the Church does not seem to indicate that angels sing. Perhaps the closest that we come are the prefaces. There is reference to the “song of the angels” (the Holy, Holy, Holy) but they are said to “say” this song. The most common ways of describing what they do regarding the heavenly hymn and what we join in with are phrases such as: Sine fine dicentes (saying, without end), Clamantes (shouting), ingaudioconfitentes (declaring in joy), Concinunt – This is about as close as the Latin gets to saying they sing. It can be translated “they sing” but can also be translated “they agree in saying” or “they say together.” There is also a phrase that comes up in the prefaces which says, cumque omni militia caelestis exercitus hymnum gloriae tuae canimus (and with all the heavenly hosts we sing the hymn of your glory). But the we who sing is us. That the angels are referred to as singing is not clear. It may well be a gloss on Psalm 137:1 In the sight of the angels I will sing your praises Lord.
4. I cannot say I have comprehensive knowledge of the Fathers of the Church so here I cannot definitively declare they never indicate that angels sing. Perhaps you can assist in this regard?
5. Though there are references to nine “choirs” of angels, the word choir here means “order” or “group.”
6. It would also seem that, having no bodies, they cannot sing. For to sing is to cause the vocal cords to vibrate, causing the air to vibrate as well. While it is true that angels are said to talk, and do other things such as blow trumpets, it is unclear if this is meant literally or analogously. It is possible that humans hearing or seeing angels were enabled to do this through a temporary grace which was not hearing or seeing in the conventual sense as though the angels had actual physical bodies. (However, St. Thomas effectively argues that angels do sometimes assume bodies, (Pars Prima, 51.1)). Even if this is the case, they are still never said to sing.
So here is my proposition, “Angels don’t sing.” I will further state that singing is a particular glory of the human person. The capacity is unique to us, a very special gift. In the heavenly liturgy I propose to you that it is we who will sing, and not the angels.
This is only a proposition! I have thought about it for years. I do not declare it with pride as though I am certain I am right. But for the reasons stated I want to propose this for your consideration. How say you?
but preaching in this manner strengthened my message even more. Body and soul were fully engaged in proclaiming the message. Ah what power the preachers of old had to have! Imagine Jesus preaching out in the open to thousands. He surely did not speak gently, he needed power to project.