Category: Uncategorized

Recent adaptations in the baptismal rite of the Church of England further illustrate the troubles endured by that ecclesial communion. I’d like to excerpt an article, make some comments of my own, and then set up for an article tomorrow wherein we ought to spend a little time looking at our own current Rite of Baptism, and some of the ways it also made some puzzling (and some would argue troubling) shifts in emphasis of its own in the 1970s.

For now, here excerpts from an article in the Daily Mail . My comments are in plain red text.

Parents and godparents no longer have to ‘repent sins’ and ‘reject the devil’ during christenings after the Church of England rewrote the solemn ceremony. The new wording is designed to be easier to understand – but critics are stunned at such a fundamental change to a cornerstone of their faith, saying the new ‘dumbed-down’ version ‘strikes at the heart’ of what baptism means.

In the original version, the vicar asks: ‘Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?’ Prompting the reply: ‘I reject them.’

They then ask: ‘Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbor?’, with the answer: ‘I repent of them.’

But [now in the proposed new rite] already being practiced in 1,000 parishes, parents and godparents are asked to ‘reject evil, and all its many forms, and all its empty promises’ – with no mention of the devil or sin.

Somehow I am mindful of a slogan used at Google headquarters some years ago: “Don’t do evil.”

But of course these days, “evil” has become a somewhat vague and open-ended concept. Traditionally evil was understood as “moral evil” and involved rather clear violations of Divine and Natural Law.

Now, many who use the term “evil” tend to self-select what they mean by term. Thus, may things such as fornication, homosexual acts, greed, the idolatry of false worship, failure to attend divine services, and so forth are screened out of many people’s notion of evil. And things like, pollution, contributing to “global warming,” being “homophobic,”  or in any way “judgmental” or of any contrary opinion to the new morality, things like these replace the void left by the others.

So, sadly, simply asking, “Do you reject evil?” is too vague in the modern context. But it would seem, from what the article says later, that this is exactly the reason for the change. The authors of the new rite seem to want to keep the whole concept of what is being rejected here vague so as to be inclusive of a wide variety of notions. I can almost hear someone at one these rites when asked, “Do you reject evil” say, “Sure, why not. Evil is, like, bad, ya know? Don’t do evil, bro, I’m with you on that.”

The rewritten version… is designed as an alternative to the wording in the Common Worship prayer book, rather than a replacement. But why permit a watering down of the faith at all??

But the idea has angered many senior members of the Church, who feel it breaks vital links with baptisms as described in the Bible. One senior member of the General Synod, who did not wish to be named, said ‘The trouble is that large parts of the Church of England don’t believe in hell, sin or repentance. They think you can just hold hands and smile and we will all go to Heaven. That is certainly not what Jesus thought. Yes! Have we not discussed this very problem at length on this blog?

[The Church official went on to say] ‘There is so much left out that one wonders why do it at all? If you exclude original sin and repentance there is very little substance left. ‘It doesn’t just dumb the service down – it eviscerates it. It destroys the significance of the rite by watering down the concept of sin and repentance. ‘A humanist could say “I renounce evil.” If you take out repentance you immediately strike at the heart of the whole idea of needing to be baptized. ‘John the Baptist only baptized those who came and were repentant. This rite is saying to people you don’t need to be particularly repentant. Just come and join the club.’

Yes, indeed, baptismal  renunciations of Satan and repentance from sin, and the promises that follow are no time to be vague. Once again, I am somehow mindful that when I was a child my mother might ask me, in releasing from my time out in my room, “Do you promise to good?” And I’d say, “Yeah…” as I ran off to punch my brother in the stomach for “ratting me out.” Somehow I could still promise to be good, while at the same time “remind” my brother not to work for the opposition.

[Another Church official said] ‘By removing all mention of the devil and rebellion against God, we are left to our own vague understanding of what evil might or might not mean.’ Exactly

The draft was drawn up by the Church’s Liturgy Commission to redress fears the current version was too off-putting for lay people who only go to church for baptisms, weddings or funerals.

Wowza, why bend over backward for people that don’t even want to come anyway? My own experience with people who have “been away for a while” is that they are usually more disconcerted by changes in what they once knew, and that substantial changes only further drive them from the Church which comes to seem more and more unfamiliar.

Either way though, it seems strange that any denomination or Church should confect its liturgies to appeal to people who don’t come anyway.

The Bishop of Wakefield Stephen Platten, who chairs the commission, said repentance was implied in phrases urging people to ‘turn away from evil’…  (But that’s just the point, its only implied! We have to do better than that)….

And [Wakefield] defended the omission of the devil by saying it was ‘theologically problematic’.

Problematic? Do you mean that some other clerics and faithful in your denomination deny the Devil’s existence and that to mention him is problematic? Apparently Jesus never got their memo, since he talked about the devil a lot, and even engaged the devil personally on a number of occasions. He tangled with him in the desert, and, as I recall, drove him out of a number of people. And let me also add on a personal, as some one who has also tangled with old scratch, he is quite real.

Or perhaps the good bishop means that he understands that omitting any mention of the devil is what is problematic. If so, why do it, or permit others to do it?

Whatever the case, all the more reason to teach clearly on the reality of the Devil and teach people to specifically renounce him. In the Roman Rite we say rather clearly: Do You renounce Satan? And all his works? And all his empty promises? I DO renounce (abrenuntio) is the clearly prescribed response. And yet the good bishop says,

He said: ‘We are certainly not dumbing down. Far from it. What we are concerned about is to make sure that people who are coming to baptism understand what is being said.’ What am I missing here? Is it not the opposite that is being done? Since when does becoming more vague help to “make sure” people “understand?”

OK, well, sad to say the least, but not unexpected, given the meltdown in the Church of England. For the record there are Anglicans who are disturbed. And well they should be.

Of course it is not my job as a Catholic blogger to critique other denominations except insofar as it is a teaching moment for us who are Catholic. And as we know, there are sadly some among our own number some who have bought into the lies and errors which deny the existence of the Devil; who also seek to preach mercy and salvation without repentance. And we have well discussed it here.

Hence I do not single out the Church of England here. However, at least in the Catholic Church we have some mechanisms in place, including the grace of infallibility, which help avoid any dogmatic deviations, despite our internal bickering.

Tomorrow however I would like to broach a topic regarding our own baptismal rites and whether it is not perhaps time for us, as a Church, to reconsider having omitted the exorcisms that were once integral to that rite, even in the baptism of infants.

There is a good article on this matter I want to share with you by Ralph Martin who quotes extensively from St. Thomas on the importance of the exorcisms. I do “Old Rite” baptisms a few times a year and

I can tell you the exorcisms are powerful and they really give the Devil his walking papers. But more on this tomorrow!

Here’s a Hymn from a better moment in the Church of England:

This is one of those stories that I hesitate to comment on because I’m indirectly implicated in it. But according to substantial rumors, the Pope has decided to eliminate the title “Monsignor” being conferred on any priest under 65.

I say “rumors,” because I have not seen any official Vatican statement. Further rumors like this circulated couple months back and proved unsubstantiated.

The second reason why I consign this to the category “rumors,” is that these reports also claim to explain why the Holy Father has done what he has apparently done. But, without any Vatican statement what is actually in the Pope’s mind, speculations as to why the Holy Father has (reportedly) done this, seems to me to be a lot of conjecture and presumption. Perhaps he just wants to simplify. I don’t know, it is his prerogative.

With that said, I’d like to base my comments more on the discussion that is taking place on the Internet about the title “Monsignor” rather than on the Pope’s thoughts, which we don’t clearly know, at least as of yet when I write this. Here are a few of my thoughts:

1. It is not a huge matter. It is more of an “inside baseball” discussion among clergy. So whatever the Pope has decided to do, or not do, involves little more than ceremonial titles which are sometimes, and in certain places, conferred on clergy. Many dioceses have not named Monsignors in decades; in other places it is more common practice.

2. Of course it should go without saying, the Pope has every right to do this. Although local bishops make the nominations, the title Monsignor is a papal honor, making the recipient the ceremonial member of the papal household. So if the pope doesn’t want to confer this title as widely as has been done before, that’s obviously up to him.

Future popes may have different ideas; and that will be up to them. The practice of naming Monsignors, at least here in America, dropped dramatically after 1970, and slowly reemerged in some areas. My guess is that the waxing and waning of things like this will continue going into the future based on the preferences of popes and bishops.

3. I am alarmed that many link the restriction to the Pope wanting to clamp down on so-called “careerism” among the clergy. The Holy Father has not said this, that I am aware. And while there may be some connections people like to make here, it is possible that the connection of this move and careerism says more about those making the connection, than the Pope’s full motives.

My own experience in the priesthood, is that careerism is not a huge problem. As with any collection of human beings, one can always find a few priests who are angling for certain positions etc. But most priests are happy to live and work in parishes. I don’t think any of us ever went to seminary because we wanted to hold a high position in an office at the Chancery office. Most of us dreamed of living and working in parishes, and trained for that alone.

And most who priests who do serve in diocesan leadership, and on the Bishop’s staff, do so at often high personal cost. Many of them long to return to simple parish ministry.

Indeed, the vast majority of priests I know, are humble and dedicated men who love God, love his Church, and his people, and work very hard, whether in parishes or other special ministries or offices.

I can’t even remember the last time I heard a priest say he wanted to be a bishop. We’d probably try to get him into therapy. Most of us instinctively know that being a bishop is often a very lonely duty, involving great hardships, demanding schedules and often unrelenting criticism from many sectors. Priests who are called to be bishops often have to say farewell many close and supportive relationships they developed with parishioners over the years. Surely, to be a bishop is a noble task. But most priest know that it comes a great personal cost.

Also regarding so-called “careerism,” a good number of the comments along those line which I read in comboxes on blogs state that many priest avoid teach on hard or difficult topics, because they are afraid of how it will affect their clerical “career.” Hence they equate silent pulpits with the problem of careerism.

But I think this misses the more poignant and widespread cause of this among priests, which is the problem of “human respect.” Human respect is the sinful disposition wherein one is more concerned about what people think of them, than what God thinks. Alas it is a sin usually committed in weakness.

At the end of the day, priests are human beings, and like most human beings we don’t like conflict, and tend to get anxious when people are offended at us or what what we say.

Let me be clear, as I have commented before on this blog, this is a sinful tendency among priests. I am not excusing it. The fact is, we were not sent out to win a popularity contest, we were sent to preach the gospel whether in-season are out-of-season. If even Jesus, who was sinless, and the best of preachers gave offense, how much more so those of us who are sinners and not as good as Jesus at preaching!

The point here is that most priests are not too silent because it careerism. Most priest are not really quaking in their boots all that much about what might happen to their so-called “career” if they preach the hard truths. No, most priests are struggling with the more common human problem of wanting to be liked, of not wanting people to be mad at them. The problem is about courage, not careerism.

4. A wider cultural trend also manifests in linking honorific titles like “Monsignor” to “careerism” by some. It raises in my mind concern over the increasing hesitancy (and even hostility) in our culture toward bestowing honor, or recognizing achievement.

Why be so cynical about honors given or received? Many comments in com-boxes I have read contain some of this cynicism about the honoring of some priests with the title “Monsignor.” A comment on one site, during the first wave of rumors (a few months back)  went so far as to say, “This serves those ambitious Monsignors right. Now their title will evoke only laughter.” This speaks to me of the wider anger that some have toward the bestowal of honors.

But the bestowal of honors, and the recognition of achievement, are signs of a healthy culture wherein excellence is appreciated and held forth both in gratitude, and also as an encouragement to others to seek and manifest excellence, and other virtues such as generosity, service, love, and so forth.

In recent decades, likely due to excessive application of egalitarian principles, bestowing honors has come to provoke anxiety and also significant degree of cynicism and anger. These trends go all the way down to the schoolhouse level, and children’s sports programs.

In the past, certain students, and sports team members who showed special excellence, received awards. Certain students, because of consistently high grades were recognized as outstanding with honors such as the Principal’s Honor Roll, etc.

Today, at honors ceremonies in most schools and sports banquets, feature almost endless awards. The goal is to largely make sure that no student or sports team member leaves without a trophy, or ribbon, or medal of some sort. Parents and educators often insist on this tactic, saying that to honor certain students is to not to honor others. But of course, this is just a point of honors, to single out those who show for the superlative excellence, who go beyond the average, or norm. But Heaven forfend that a certain child might come away little sorry or sad at not getting certain honors.

At the end of the day, I would argue, this insistence by educators and parents is envy, pure and simple. Envy is: “sorrow, sadness or anger, at the goodness or excellence of another person because I take it to lessen my own standing.”

But the proper response in observing excellence or the good fortune of another, should be joy and zeal. Joy for the gifts they have, that we can all share in; and zeal, to try to imitate wherever possible the excellence we observe in others. Really to be sad that others got honored and I didn’t, is by definition “envy.”

Culturally, we have come to enshrine envy is a kind of a right: “My right not to be hurt, or feel diminished because someone else, deserving of honor, is honored.”

My point: Somehow, we have lost the ability in our culture to confer honors, and bestow rewards without others taking offense. Yes, I fear that we, as a wider culture, have lost the important ability to bestow honor and have sunk into cynicism and some degree of envy when it comes to the practice of recognizing achievement.

It will be admitted, that no culture or institution bestows honors perfectly. Sometimes people are genuinely overlooked who should be honored. Sometimes certain individuals are honored for more political purposes, than due to genuine achievement or honor. But as a general rule, bestowing honors and awards on those who work hard and have excelled, should be seen a good thing.

The bestowal of the title “Monsignor” has traditionally been seen as a way for a Bishop to give special honors to priests who have, for various reasons excelled in some work for the diocese. It is a true fact that not all priests can be honored, some Priest are overlooked, and yes, in certain situations, the title was given for less than stellar reasons. As a general rule however, most priests who are so honored, are honored for good reasons.

5. The majority of the faithful genuinely like the bestowal of honors on their clergy by the Bishop.

I remember when I received the honor in 2005, how excited my parish was. They knew instinctively, and I clearly stated to them, that this award was not for me per meipsum, (for me alone) but was due to the fact that we,  as a parish, worked very hard to accomplish several major goals that the Cardinal had set forth for us;  including assisting him with a capital campaign and also bringing to our local community the wonderful gift of a $5 million recreation center.

The parish where I was at the time, St. Thomas More Parish in Southeast Washington was one of the smaller parishes in the diocese, and in one of the poorest neighborhood in the city. What an incredible zeal they had to undertake these works of charity in support of God’s people. I may have gotten the title, but I was clear with them, (and they knew) the honor bestowed on the leader goes to  all the people. Three busloads from the parish joyfully went to the Basilica the day the honors were bestowed.

In my experience that most Catholic people love their clergy and are happy to see them honored, realizing that honors bestowed on their clergy also accrue to them.

I can only conclude that the cynics in some com-boxes have issues of their own, for it is not my experience tat they reflect the view of most of the faithful, who are glad to see clergy honored.

6. Finally, a few personal notes. When I was a child, my mother said that when someone offers you a gift, say “Thank you” and accept it graciously.

So there I was in the Fall of 2005 in my car, and my cell phone rang. The screen said it  was Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Nervously I answered the call, and His Eminence said to me, “Charlie I’ve got good news for you. The Pope has decided to name you a Monsignor.  I’m very happy for you, and I know your mother would be so proud.” I had to pull over to catch my breath.

He went on to tell me the reasons he had nominated me, and we both agreed that whatever meritorious things I had attained to, was thanks to God, and God’s wonderful people. He went on to tell me he was also very happy and proud for the people St. Thomas More Parish.

I did as my mother said.  I said “Thank you, Your Eminence” and, as graciously as I could, I accepted. I thought of many priests older and wiser than I, who were more deserving of the honor than I.

I never consciously sought the title, and certainly did not think it would come to me in my mid 40s. But I was grateful, and deeply moved.

I only tell my own story to illustrate that every priest has these personal stories, and all of us are human. Like anyone, we enjoy a little recognition.  We know that we don’t deserve most of the recognition we get, but we try to graciously accept the love and honors bestowed on us.

I honestly don’t think its all about ambition and careerism, and I’m sure the Pope doesn’t either. Most of the monsignors I know are humble and hard-working priests. We who have the title did not seek this recognition, but were happy and move to receive it.

Epilogue: When I was young, and my mother was proud of me, she would stand before me, look me in the eye, and  then mess up my hair. This was always her sign of affection. One day, not long after the papal honors had been conferred on me, I was praying quietly. I became somehow mindful of my mother’s presence, and then something of a breeze  moved through my hair. It was at that moment that I somehow knew and experienced that my mother was proud of me.

In fulfillment of my mother’s instruction I can only say thank you Lord, thank you Pope Benedict; thank you Cardinal McCarrick; and thank you, God’s holy people.

And yes, Your Eminence, you were right, my mother is proud of me, and for that, I am deeply moved and grateful.

St. Paul says that when one member is honored, all the members rejoice and are honored (cf 1 Cor 12:26). Hence this video that reminds us that whatever distinctions and honors we have, we are all ultimately one and need each other.

There are so many wonderful details in the Epiphany story: the call of the Gentiles, the nations, and their enthusiastic response, the significance of the star they see, and the gifts they bring, the dramatic interaction with Herod and their ultimate rejection of him in favor Christ.

In this meditation I would like especially to follow these Magi, in their journey of faith to become wise men. As Magi, they followed the faint stars, distant points of light; as Wise Men they follow Jesus who is the ever Glorious Light from Light, true God from true God.

We can observe how they journey in stages from the light of a star, to the bright and glorious Light of Jesus Christ. And, of course to authentically encounter the Lord is to experience conversion. All the elements of this story serve ultimately to cause them to “return to their country by another route.” Let’s look at the stages of their journey from being mere Magi to becoming by God’s grace, Wise Men.

Stage 1. CALL – The text says – When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star at its rising and have come to do him homage.” – Notice first the identity of these individuals. They are called Magi, (μάγοι, (magoi) in Greek) and they are from the East.

Exactly what “Magi” are is debated. Perhaps they are learned men, perhaps they are ancient astronomers. We often think of them as kings though the text does not call them that. It also seems Herod would have been far more anxious had they been actual potentates from an Eastern Kingdom. In our imagination we often think of them as Kings since Psalm 72, read in today’s Mass, speaks of “kings” coming from the East bearing gifts of gold and frankincense. However, for the record, the text in today’s gospel does not call them kings, but “magi.”

Yet, here is their key identity: they are Gentiles, and they have been called. Up to this point in the Christmas story, only Jews had found their way to Bethlehem. But now the Gentiles come. This detail cannot be overlooked, for it is clear that the gospel is going out to all the world.

St. Paul rejoices in this fact in today’s second reading as he says: that the Gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body, and co-partners in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel (Eph 3:6). Most of us are not Jewish by ancestry, and hence we ought to rejoice for in the call of these Magi is prefigured our call.

And notice that God calls them through something in the natural world. In this case a star. God uses something in creation to call out to them.

We do well to wonder what is the star that God used to call us? Perhaps it was Scripture, but more usually, it is first someone God has used to reach us, a parent, a family member, a friend, a priest, religious sister, or devoted lay person. Who are the stars in your life by whom God called you?

God can also use inanimate creation like he did for these Magi. Perhaps it was a beautiful Church, a painting or a song. By someone or something God calls. He puts a star in our sky. These wise men, these Magi, follow the call of God and begin their journey to Jesus.

Stage 2. CONSTANCY – Upon their arrival in Jerusalem the Magi find a rather confusing and perhaps discouraging situation. The reigning King, Herod, knows nothing of the birth of this new King. It must have seemed probable to them that the newborn King would be related to the current King, so his surprise may have confused them. But Herod seems more than surprised, he seems threatened and agitated.

Even more puzzling, he calls religious leaders to further inform him of this King. They open the sacred writings and the Magi hear of a promised King. Ah! So the birth of this king has religious significance! How interesting!

But, these religious leaders seem unenthusiastic of the newborn King and after giving the location of his birth seem to make no effort to follow the Magi. There is no rejoicing, no summoning of the people that a longed for king had finally been born. Not even further inquiry!

So the wicked (e.g. Herod and his court), are wakeful, and the saints are sleepy. How odd this must have seemed to the Magi. Perhaps it occurred to them to suspend their search. After all, the actual king knew nothing of this birth, and those who did, seemed little interested.

Ah, but praise the Lord they did persevere in their search. They do not give up!

Thanks be to God too, that many today have found their way to Christ despite the fact that parents, clergy and others, who should have led them joyfully to Jesus, were either asleep, or ignorant or just plain lazy. I am often amazed at some of the conversion stories I have heard, people who found their way to Christ and his Church, despite some pretty discouraging obstacles like poor religious upbringing, scandalous clergy and bad example. God sometimes allows our faith and call to be tested but Those who persevere to the end will be saved (Matt 24:13).

To persevere is open the door to Wisdom which must often be sought in spite of obstacles.

Stage 3. CONFESSION OF FAITH – The text says, After their audience with the king they set out. And behold, the star that they had seen at its rising preceded them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was. They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage. – With what little information they have they set out and continue to follow the call of God through the star.

Note that they enter a “house.” We often think of the Magi as coming that same Christmas night to the cave or stable, but it seems not. Mary (Joseph) and Jesus are found now in a house. It would seem that decent lodging has now been found. Has it been days since the birth? Perhaps even longer, but we are likely dealing with a different day than Christmas Day.

Notice too that they “prostrate” themselves before Jesus. The Greek word is προσεκύνησαν (prosekunēsan) which means more literally “to fall down in worship” or “give adoration.” The verb is used 12 times in the New Testament and it is clear each time that religious worship is the purpose of the prostration.

This is no mere homage or a sign of respect to an earthly King, this is religious worship. This is a confession of faith. So our Magi manifest faith! The Beginning of Wisdom is the fear of the Lord. And these Magi are well on their way from being mere Magi to being Wise Men!

But is their faith a real faith, or just a perfunctory observance? It’s not enough to answer an altar call, or to get baptized. Faith is never alone. It is a transformative relationship with Jesus Christ. So lets look for the effects of a real and saving faith.

Stage 4. COST – There is a cost to discipleship. The magi are moved to give three symbolic gifts that show some of what true faith includes. And they are costly gifts.

Gold is a symbol of all our possessions. In laying this gift before Jesus they and we are saying, “I acknowledge that everything I have is yours. I put all my resources and wealth under your authority and will use them only according to your will.” A conversion that has not reached the wallet is not complete.

Frankincense. is the gift of worship, for in the Bible incense is a symbol of prayer and worship (eg. psalm 141). In laying down this gift we promise to pray and worship God all the days of our life. To be in his holy house each Sunday and render him the praise and worship he is due. To listen to his word and to consent to be fed the Eucharist by him. To worship him worthily by frequent confession and to praise him at all times. And they give

Myrrh – a strange gift for an infant. Myrrh is usually understood as burial ointment. Surely this prefigures Jesus’ death but it also symbolizes our own. In laying this gift before Jesus we are saying, my life is yours. I want to die so that you may live your life in me. May you increase and may I decrease. Use me and my life as you will. So here are gifts that are highly symbolic.

The magi manifest more than a little homage to Jesus. They are showing forth the fruits of saving faith. And if we can give these gifts so too are we.

In their Holy reverence for God is Wisdom in its initial stage!

Stage 5. CONVERSION – The text says, And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed for their country by another way.

Here then is essential evidence for faith: conversion. It is not enough to get happy in Church, we have to obey. Hence, these wise men are walking differently now. They are not going home by the same way they came. They’ve changed direction, they’ve turned around (conversio). They are now willing to walk the straight and narrow path that leads to life rather than the wide road that leads to damnation. They are going to obey Christ. They are going to exhibit what St. Paul calls the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26). They have not just engaged in a possibly perfunctory worship, they are showing signs of a true and saving faith. They are not just calling Jesus “Lord, Lord!” They are doing what he tells them (cf Luke 6:46).

No longer mere Magi, now the wisdom of Wise Men!

So there it is. Through careful stages the Lord has brought the Gentiles (this means you) to conversion. He called these Magi to Wisdom. They remained constant, confessed him to be Lord, accepted the cost of discipleship and manifested conversion. Have you? Have I?

Walk in the ways of the Wise men! Wise men still seek him. Even wiser ones listen to him and obey. Are we willing to go back to our country by another route? Is on-going conversion part of our journey home to heaven? If Epiphany means “manifestation” how is our faith manifest in our deeds and conversion?

I have it on the best of authority that as the now Wise Men went home by another route they were singing a Gospel song: “It’s a highway to heaven! None can walk up there but the pure in heart. I walking up the King’s Highway. If you’re not walking start while I’m talking. There’ll be a blessing you’ll be possessing, walking up the King’s Highway. “

I began our New Years Eve Late Night Mass (Which begins at 11:15 PM) with the observation that we begin this Mass in one year, and end in another. New Years Eve features the mysterious passage from one year to another. In a way I suppose it is no more mysterious than the passage from Tuesday to Wednesday or from 10:00 AM to 10:01 AM.

In one sense, nothing could be simpler than time. What time is it? It is 1:15. Simple! But time has mysteries about it.

What is time? Some say it is merely a measure of change. But that doesn’t really make a lot of sense since change doesn’t happen at a steady pace at all.

Some say it is just another way of clocking distance in the space/time continuum. Time and distance surely are related. To look out at the stars at night is to look into the past, for is has taken sometimes millions of years for the light of many stars to reach us through the vacuum and vast distances of space. Even the light of the sun is eight minutes old before it reaches us.

But there’s just more to time than distance and we all know it. The Greeks had several words for time. Chronos was clock-time. Kairos was a complex notion of time as experienced subjectively. Thus ten minutes can seem like an hour or an hour pass swiftly. Further things can seem fitting at certain times and not at others. Kairos is thus an elastic notion of time. And lastly there is Aeon (eternity, or the fullness of time). More on Aeon below.

Yes, every New Year I ponder the mystery of time, I guess because time is so much on our mind. And as I ponder time, I am mindful that most of us think we know what time is, until we are actually asked to define it in some meaningful way. Something makes me think of what St Augustine once said about another mystery (the Trinity). And thus if someone asks me to define time I am tempted to say with Augustine: If you don’t ask me, I know. If you ask me, I don’t know. So time, while plain at one level is mysterious at other levels.

I cannot list all such mysteries, but consider a few puzzlements about time.

1. The Mystery of Time’s Elasticity – We like to think that time is unvarying. 10 minutes here, is the same as 10 minutes there. But science has largely disproved that. For example, as an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down. Further, strong gravitational forces also slow down time. On a very large planet with stronger gravitational forces I would age less rapidly than on a smaller planet. Granted, it would take a huge difference in speed or gravity to be able to observe a big difference, but the Law of Relativity does demonstrate that time does not pass equally everywhere. In a way it is almost symbolized by a large, lumbering elephant compared to a tiny little mouse. As the mouse scurries across the floor (pursued by my cat!) the speed is amazing, almost as if the mouse were in a different time frame.
2. The Mystery of Lifespans – And speaking of animals, why are life spans so different? My cat Daniel is, like me, a mammal. He has heart and lungs, a very similar physiology to me in most respects. Yet his clock is set to 15 years, my clock is set to 80 years. Certain turtles can live up to 150 years, Many types of parrots can live to be over 100. Other birds live only 10 to 15 years. Most fish live only a few years, but Carp (a fish) live up to 100 years. And so on. We all see to have a clock, a designated life span. But that life span seems quite variable even among very similar species. We seem to carry the mystery of time in us. I have never heard a satisfying answer to the wide variability of life spans.
3. The Mystery of our “inner clock.” Most of our demarcations of time are clearly rooted in the celestial cycle. Thus, a “day” is the cycle of the sun, as is a year. A month (a least originally) is rooted in the cycle of the moon, and “month” is just a mispronunciation of “moonth.” Seasons too follow the Sun’s trajectory in relation to the horizon and length of day. But more mysterious is the 7-day cycle we call the “week.” Where does it come from? Anthropologically most cultures manifest a need to “reset the clock” every seven days. The Genesis account of creation in seven days, surely influenced the Judeo-Christian culture,  but other cultures show a similar tendency of seven days. Where does the seven day week come from? Mysterious. But we seem, as humans to have some inner clock in this regard.
4. The Mystery of Eternity – Lastly there is the mystery of what we call “eternity.” Most people misunderstand the word eternity simply to mean a long, long, time. But that is not what is meant by the word. When the Greeks coined the word eternity, (Aeon) they meant by it “the fullness of time.” That is to say, Eternity is the past, present and future all being experienced at once. I cannot tell you what this is like, but I can illustrate it. Look at the clock to the upper right. The time is 1:15 in the afternoon. That means that 10:00 AM is in the past and 6:00 pm is in the future. But consider the dot at the center of the clock and see that at that spot 10 AM, 1:15 PM, and 6 PM are all the same, they are equally present to the center. We live our life in serial time, on the outer edge of the clock. But God does not. God lives in eternity. God lives in the fullness of time. For God, past, and future are the same as the present. God is not “waiting” for things to happen. All things just are. God is not waiting and wondering if you or I will get to heaven. He is not watching history unfold like a movie. In eternity, 10,000 years ago is just as present as 10,000 years from now. Scripture hints at God’s eternity in numerous passages. For example, But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. (2 Peter 3:8). Psalm 139 says, Your eyes foresaw my actions; in your book all are written down; my days were shaped, before one came to be. (Ps 139, 15). Psalm 90 says, For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (Ps 90:4). And then there is simply the God’s name: “I AM” In this Name, there is no past, no future, just an eternal now, the present tense. Jesus declared to the crowds, “Before Abraham ever was, I AM.” (John 8:58). So here is the most awesome mystery of time, the fullness of time, eternity.

Ponder God’s glory and the mystery of time!

Here’s a remarkable video on the mystery of time.

–

I must admit that I have a few concerns about the Christmas Liturgical Calendar and I am interested in your thoughts on the matter.

1. In the First place I think that having the Feast of the Holy Family inside the Octave is a mistake. This is due, not to the feast per se, but especially to the Gospel readings that are selected for the Feast.

In cycle A we read of the flight to Egypt, an event that takes place after the Epiphany which we have yet yet to  celebrate! In effect, we jump forward in time either weeks, or even two years, (depending on when we reckon Epiphany to have taken place historically, (for some scholars think the Epiphany may have take place up to two years after the birth, which I personally doubt)). After having jumped forward in time and place (Egypt), we then go back in time and place, (Bethlehem), to celebrate Epiphany on January 6th or the nearest Sunday.

If this were not bad enough Cycle B takes us forty days forward in time for the Feast of the Presentation (also called the Purification). This too is a jump forward in time for the Rite of Purification was to take place forty days after birth by Jewish law and custom. That is why we celebrate the Feast of the Presentation on February 2nd.

Even worse, Cycle C takes us 12 years into the future as we read of the finding of Jesus in the Temple. Then suddenly we are back to the infant Jesus for the feast of Epiphany.

All this temporal displacement could be avoided if we returned the Feast of the Holy Family back to the Sunday after Epiphany where it was prior to 1970. Indeed the Traditional Latin Mass still has the feast located there and uses the Gospel of the Finding of Jesus in the Temple. As such it provides a nice bridge from the infant Jesus we had at Epiphany to the Adult Jesus we have and the Baptism of the Lord and the Sundays following. It also avoids the temporal whiplash which the calendar and Christmas cycle causes by celebrating the Feast of the Holy Family on the Sunday inside the Christmas Octave.

2. A second concern I have is the loss of the Feast of the Circumcision and the giving of the Lord’s Name. As you likely know, Jewish boys were circumcised on the 8th Day, and their name was announced. Until 1960 we celebrated the octave day of Christmas as the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord. More than the Circumcision we also celebrated the giving of Jesus’ name. However in 1960 Pope John XXIII renamed January 1st as simply, “the Octave Day of Christmas,” though the Gospel of the Circumcision continued to be read. In 1970, the Feast came to be designated as the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.

However! – Now in this matter, my preference for the Feast of the Circumcision is rooted in my preference for a proper chronology that follows the Biblical Data as close as possible. But to be fair, the designation of the Octave Day as “Mary Mother of God” has some very strong arguments for it, I must say.

Evidence for the celebration of this feast goes back in the Roman Church all the way to the 7th Century. Prior to that, there is evidence of this feast being celebrated in other parts of Europe, but usually on the Fourth Sunday of Advent. By the 13th and 14th Centuries, however, the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord came to replace this feast, and the Feast of Mary Mother of God was eventually moved to October 11th and renamed the feast of the “Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Just after Vatican II The more ancient feast of Mary Mother of God was restored to January 1st. So, in the first place we see that the Feast of Mary Mother of God on January 1st is the more ancient practice and this is a strong argument in its favor.

The feast also commemorates a very central dogma, most appropriate for the Christmas season: that since Christ is one person with two natures (human and Divine), then Mary is rightly called the Mother of God. Mary is Mother of God because Jesus is God. Some had wanted to argue that she only gave birth to his human nature and, hence, is only mother of what is human in him. But Jesus is ONE PERSON with two natures. This is something called in theology the “hypostatic union” and it is an essential teaching on Christ. He unites, in one person, the human nature and the divine nature. There are not two “Jesuses.” Neither is it true that his Divine nature came upon him at a later time such as his baptism. No, his two natures were united in his one person from the moment of of his human conception. And since Jesus is one, Mary gives birth, and is mother to the whole Christ. Mary is Mother of God because Jesus is God and Jesus is one. This title was given to Mary at the Council of Ephesus in 431 in defense of Christ’s divinity. The Greek form of this title is Θεοτόκος (Theotokos) translated more literally as “God Bearer.”

Still! – I love the Blessed Mother, and surely affirm her under this proper title. But I regret the loss of the Feast of the Circumcision. As stated, I generally prefer to stick as close to the Biblical narrative as possible. In this case Scripture is clear, on the eighth day (i.e. January 1st for us), Jesus was circumcised and his name given. Three important truths and events are celebrated here. First that Jesus was born under the law and submitted himself to it so that he might fulfill it. Secondly there is the first shedding of blood, and this refers to the passion. Thirdly his name is announced: Jesus, a name which means “God saves.” There is no other name given to men by which we are to be saved, there is no other blood that can atone for our sins than the blood of Jesus and there is no one who can fulfill the Law as Jesus does. It seems a bit of a loss not to explicitly celebrate these truths about Jesus on the very day (the eighth day) they happened.

3. A third concern is the moving of Epiphany in many parts of the world to the nearest Sunday. This troubles me greatly. Epiphany is a very important feast of the Church and completes the the 12th day of the Christmas feast. January 6th is the proper day for this feast going back to the 4th Century. Now many argue that the Feast is important and that is why it should be moved to the nearest Sunday so that many more will experience it. However, it is a fact that this inevitably shortens the Christmas Cycle. The liturgical calendar sets forth sacred time, and it seems a very bad idea to allow the demands of the secular world for convenience to intrude on sacred time. Christmas is OUR time and OUR feast. It seems as though the tail is wagging the dog here. Too many Catholics allow the world to influence how they celebrate Christmas. Christmas does not end December 26th or January 2nd. It ends January 6th. Better that we should catechize our faithful as to the importance of this feast and even set it as a holy day of obligation than to move it. It is true that fewer will experience the feast, even if we oblige it, but at least the Church will speak more clearly to full mystery of the Christmas feast rather than rush its completion and cave to worldly schedules. IMHO.

4. Lastly, the Christmas Octave is quite “interrupted” by feasts that are often extraneous to it: St. John Apostle, St. Stephen, St. Thomas Becket. Here too the feast of St. Stephen on December 26 is quite ancient, probably predated the celebration of Christmas liturgically. St. John’s Feast is also quite ancient. Less, so St. Thomas Becket, though his feast may predate the declaration of Christmas as an “octave.” Thus, there may be little we can do about these feasts due to their ancient origins in the late December calendar. Even the Feast of the Holy Innocents (Dec 28), while part of the Christmas story, is celebrated out of proper temporal order and belongs somewhere after Epiphany if we were to try and restore some order to the temporal whiplash of the Christmas cycle.  At any rate, the upshot of the Christmas Octave is that it is Chaotic and temporally unsettling.

You may wish to dispute these regrets of mine and I hope you will use the comments section to advance your points. Obviously, greater minds in the Church than I have decided on these matters and do not agree with yours truly.

I suppose though, if I had it my way, here is what I would do:

1. Celebrate the Feast of Mary Mother of God on the Sunday Between Christmas and January 1st (where we celebrate Holy Family now).
2. Move the Feast of the Holy Family to the Sunday after Epiphany (where it used to be before 1970). This Feast seems better celebrated after Epiphany as a kind of bridge: Jesus at 12 years of age links the infant Christ and the adult Christ as we return to Ordinary time.
3. Restore the Feast of the Circumcision to January 1st.
4. Return Epiphany to January 6th where this is not currently the case.
5. Holy Innocents could be celebrated sometime after the Feast of the Presentation or at least after Epiphany, but before Holy Family.

But nobody is asking me from Rome what I think! 🙂 So enjoy my “rant” for what it is: , just a slight case of temporal whiplash, grief for a feast that is missing in action and a wish to tweak the Christmas calendar so it flows a little better.

Enjoy The Ave Maria by Rachmaninoff.

And for those of you who prefer a more modern Christmas, here is a virtual and iPad Christmas:

North Point’s iBand from North Point Web on Vimeo.