Pope Benedict’s trip to the Holy Land is a great lesson in the Church’s commitment to inter-religious dialogue. Catholics have two very different relationships with Judaism and Islam and if you follow the papal trip to the Holy Land you will learn quite a bit.
Pope John Paul II liked to speak of the Jews as our older sisters and brothers highlighting our shared roots. With regard to Islam, Pope Benedict highlights our common values.
We often think that dialogue is meant to highlight what we share in common and while that if often a good starting point, dialogue is also understanding our differences in order to have a better understanding of the other and a better understanding of ourselves. I had a professor who once said that good dialogue helps us learn more about ourselves and more about our partner in dialogue.
Pope Benedict in a speech in Jordan speaks of Islam and Christianity as “natural allies in defense of common values and a positive role for religion in society.” He added that Muslims and Christians must also “bear witness to all that is good and true, especially the common origin and dignity of all human persons.” This foundation offers many possibilities for collaboration. In his speeches though, he also raises the areas in which the two faiths have quite different perspectives. He affirms that Christianity rejects extremism with regard to religious freedom. Pope Benedict would like to see more freedom for Christians living is Islamic countries both with regard to worship and civil issues like employment. He will speak of this often during his trip.
This trip to the Holy Land will both highlight the beauty of these three major faiths whose home is the Holy Land and the differences in the answers we have to life’s biggest questions.
So we have gathered, acknowledged God’s presence in several ways (hymn of praise, incense, veneration of the altar and the greeting of the celebrant). We have examined our consciences and asked God to give us pure hearts and minds to praise him. At most Sunday Masses what comes next is a kind of outburst of praise called the Gloria (Glory to God in the highest!) Knowing and experiencing God’s presence and mercy brings forth joy and a desire to praise him. And so we sing:
Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us; you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
The Gloria is a very old and venerable hymn sung by which the Church. It is sung by the congregation, or by the congregation alternately with the choir. If it is not sung it is to be recited by all in unison or alternately. It is sung on Sundays outside the Advent and Lenten seasons, as well as on solemnities and feasts and at special, more solemn celebrations. The text of the Gloria echoes the song of the angels at the Nativity. Further it praises and invokes both the Father and Son and concludes with a brief doxology to the Trinity.
History – The Gloria was not created originally for the Mass. It is and heirloom from the treasure of ancient church hymns. Indeed it is a precious remnant of a literature now mostly lost but once certainly very rich. These hymns imitated and borrowed from biblical themes. Indeed they may even be said to take after the tradition established by Mary who proclaimed her Magnificat by borrowing heavily from the biblical themes with which she was so familiar. So too Zacharia in his Benedictus. Few of these early hymns of the Church remain however. One other hymn which does remain is the Te Deum and it, unlike the Gloria has retained its existence apart from the Mass. The roots of the Gloria may be found as early as the 4th Century where a text very close to our present text is found. Likewise another text from the 7th Century is also very close. Again, this hymn was not originally part of the Mass but was probably sung as the Te Deum is today, as a thanksgiving hymn for feasts and celebration. It was sometimes included in the Mass as a hymn as early as the 6th Century and perhaps even earlier by some accounts. But definitely by the 6th Century Pope Symmachus permitted its use on Sundays and feasts of martyrs but only at a mass presided over by a Bishop. Pope Gregory allowed its use at the Easter Mass even if the Celebrant be only a priest. It was not until the 11th Century that the distinction allowing it only for Bishop’s masses was dropped. This was due to continual requests that it be allowed. Today, the Gloria is said at all masses of a festive character outside of penitential seasons.
A full analysis of the hymn could be a course in itself. However suffice it to say that it is understood to be a hymn of praise which is almost ecstatic in quality. This is not as well brought out in the present English translation for use in this country. However, a look at the Latin text (see appendix 2) is helpful. Lastly, it is well that the Gloria be sung if possible. Reciting the Gloria is comes in a very poor second. It is kind of like reciting the National anthem. We just don’t do this because the very festivity and honor of the song requires it be sung. The Gloria is like this. If at all possible it should therefore be sung. However this is not always possible and it ends up being recited. It should at least be recited in a vibrant and pious manner to avoid the possibility of the text becoming wooden and dull.
In the end, these introductory rites of procession, penance and praise all serve to establish the fact that we are in the presence of God. Casting aside our sin and sorrow we enter God’s presence with reverence, confidence and joy. Next we will pause to pray before we sit to attentively listen to God speak to us.
The following video shows the opening the movent of Vivaldi’s Gloria in D Major. Church music for the Baroque era became very elaborate with the use of orchestras and large choirs. Sometimes the Gloria and Credo of a Mass could last 20 Minutes or more. Also, the text of the Mass had become so well known and popular that it was not uncommon for settings of the Mass to set by the great composers as concert pieces sung outside of Mass. This was an era when the Church influenced the world much more so than today. Enjoy this festive opening movement of the Gloria in D by Vivaldi, a Catholic priest and composer from the early 18th Century.
We Catholics often call Mary our Mother and rightly so. But how is she in fact our Mother? Granted, Jesus announced her as our Mother when he said to John from the Cross, “Behold your Mother.” (John 19:27) John represents every disciple and hence when Jesus declares Mary to be his Mother, he also speaks to us” Behold your Mother. But still the question of how is she our mother. Jesus does not simply declare her to be so in some arbitrary way, as a sort of nice thought.
As you might suspect there is something more at work here. The most straight forward theological answer is simply this: Mary is our mother because she is the Mother of Jesus and we, by baptism are incorporated into Jesus. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. (1 Cor 12:27) . Jesus is the head of the body, the Church. (Col 1:18) But if Mary gave birth to the head of the Body of Christ she also gave birth to the rest of the Body of Christ (us). What mother do you know who ever gave birth to the head of her child but not the rest of that child’s body? So if Mary is the Mother of the head of the Body, she is also mother to the members of the body. Why? Because of Christ is one and we are one in Christ. Hence Mary is Mother of Jesus, we are in Jesus, Mary is thus our Mother. It is not some mere sentimental thing. It is a real motherhood.
My Twitter name is MsgrPope. I’m not going to tweet incessantly. But I’ll send alerts when I update the blog. Click on the Picture to the right to go to my twitter page.
There are a lot of “Solos” sung by our Protestant brethren: Sola Fide (saved by faith alone); Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is the rule of faith); sola gratia(grace works alone). (See the Protestant Logo to the right). Generally one ought to be suspicious and careful of claims that things work alone. It is our usual experience that things work together in harmony with other things and are interrelated.
Hence faith alone is rejected by the Bible itself as an unreality. Faith without works is dead (James 2:26) It is not really faith at all since faith does not exist all by itself but always present with and works through love. Galatians 5:6 says: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love. Hence faith works not alone, but through love. Further as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13:2 if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. Hence faith alone is a null set, it is nothing in that it does not exist. True faith is never alone, it bears the fruit of love and works of holiness. Beware the soloists who cry “faith alone” and ask where faith, all by itself can be found.
As for grace alone, this too is a puzzling claim since grace builds on nature. You and I may have grace, but it works through our human nature to have its effects. Hence one who has the grace to preach must use his mind, voice, lungs etc. One who sings well must do the same. Even the grace of holiness builds on our nature since we called to be holy in a human way. It is our humanity that must be transformed: our mind, heart, attitudes and behavior. Even to the extent that we manifest the holiness of God we cannot forget that we are made in the image and likeness of God. So again beware the soloists. Human nature is not depraved but wounded and grace is not alone, it works with and builds on our nature and heals it.
Finally beware the soloists who say Sola Scriptura! Namely the claimthat Scripture alone is the measure of faith and the sole authority for the Christian. There are several problems with this. First, Scripture as we know it (with the full New Testament) was not fully assembled and agreed upon until the 4th Century and it was Catholic Bishops in union with the Pope who made the decision as to what books belonged in the Bible. The early Christians could not possibly live by sola scriptura. Secondly, until recently most peoplecould not read. Kind of strange that God would make a book the sole rule of faith. Even today large numbers of people in the world still cannot read well. Thirdly, and most importantly, if all you have is a book that book still needs to be interpreted accurately. Without a valid and recognized interpreter the book can well serve to divide more than unite. It this not the experience of Protestantism which now has tens of thousands of denominations all claiming to read the same Bible but interpreting it in rather different manners? The problem is if no one is Pope everyone is Pope! Protestantism claims that everyone alone with a Bible and the Holy Spirit can authentically interpret Scripture. Well then why does the Holy Spirit tell some that baptism is necessary for salvation and to others no. Why the Holy Spirit tell some that the Eucharist really is Christ body and blood and others only a symbol? Why does the Holy Spirit say to some Protestants “Once saved always saved” and to others, “No” ?? So you see Scripture is not meant to be alone. Scripture itself says this in 2 Peter 3:16 our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, Our Brother Paul speaking of these things [the Last things] as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.So Scripture warns that it is quite possible to mis-interpret Scripture. Well then, were is the truth to be found? The Scriptures once again answer this: you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15) Hence Scriptures are not to be read alone. They are a document of the Lord through the Church and must be read in the context of the Church and withthe Church’s authoritative interpretation and Tradition. As this quote says, The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
So beware of the soloists. Scripture is the most authoritative and precious document of the Church but it emanates from the Church’s Tradition and must be understood in the light of it. Further, faith is not alone but works through love, grace is not alone but builds on nature.
Here is a brief video where Pope Benedict reminds us that we must read Scripture not alone, but in union with the Living Tradition of the Church.
The Penitential Rite in general – Let us recall that we have just acknowledged and celebrated the presence of Christ among us. First we welcomed him as he walked the aisle of our Church, represented by the Priest Celebrant. The altar, another sign and symbol of Christ was then reverenced. Coming to the chair, a symbol of a share in the teaching and governing authority of Christ, the priest then announced the presence of Christ among us in the liturgical greeting. Now, in the Bible whenever there was a direct experience of God, there was almost always an experience of unworthiness and even a falling to the ground! Isaiah lamented his sinfulness and needed to be reassured by the angel (Is 6:5). Ezekiel fell to his face before God (Ez. 2:1). Daniel experienced anguish and terror (Dan 7:15). Job was silenced before God and repented (42:6); John the Apostle fell to his face before the glorified and ascended Jesus (Rev 1:17). Further the Book of Hebrews says that we must strive for the holiness without which none shall see the Lord (Heb 12:14). Thus is makes sense that, acknowledging the presence of the Lord and longing to see him more clearly, we ought to repent of our sins and seek the Lord’s mercy. How can we, who enter the presence of the Holy not see more clearly our sins and desire to be free of them?
Thus, The priest invites them (the congregation) to take part in the penitential rite which the entire community carries out through a communal confession and which the priest’s absolution brings to an end. He uses these or similar words, Let us acknowledge our sins that we may worthily celebrate these sacred mysteries. The priest and people recall their sins and repent of them in silence. The penitential rite may take a number of different forms.
A confiteor (I confess) recited by the priest and people together followed by the absolution
A rarely used Miserere consisting of the following formula:
Lord We have sinned against you. Lord Have Mercy.
Lord Have Mercy
Lord show us your mercy and love.
And grant us your salvation.
A Kyrie Litany. There are numerous forms for this given in the sacramentary which are not themselves seen as an exhaustive list since, once again, the directive indicates that “the priest (or some other suitable minister) makes the following or other invocations. Here is one sample:
You raise the dead to life in the Spirit. Lord have mercy.
You bring pardon and peace to the sinner. Christ have mercy.
You bring light to those in darkness. Lord have mercy.
History of the Penitential Rite. It is a rather surprising fact to many that, strictly speaking, there is no history to the penitential rite in the Mass prior to Vatican II. The inclusion of the penitential rite as a communal gesture is an innovation in the new order of the mass. “But Father, but Father!” you might say, “I remember the old Mass and hearing the priest and servers recite the confiteor and strike their chest three times!” True there was a confiteor in the Tridentine Liturgy but this was a private devotional gesture between the priest and the servers done at the foot of the altar which was actually prior to the actual beginning of Mass. Thus the introduction of this element into the Mass itself and as a communal gesture is new. Some have suggested a historical precedent may be found in Protestantism. Communal confession of sins was first introduced into protestant communion services of the 16th century. Others However, see its roots in the Eastern liturgies wherein a penitential act at the beginning of Mass is almost universal and very ancient in origin. The form of this practice varied however and was sometimes linked to the incensing at the beginning of mass. Even as early as the Didache (written ca 90-100 AD) a confession of sins is prescribed before the Sunday celebration of the Eucharist: “On the Lord’s day gather together, break bread and give thanks after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest your sacrifice defiled. For this is that which was proclaimed by the Lord, “In every place and time let there be offered to Me a clean Sacrifice’” Elements of the Penitential rite (the confiteor and the kyrie) do have a history and their histories will be dealt with separately below.
The History of the Confiteor (I Confess). The history of this part of the Mass is somewhat convoluted. The remote history may be found in the Western Liturgy in the silent worship which the Pope made when he first came to the altar. Later (by the 7thcentury) this silent prayer became more elaborate with the directive being that the celebrant lie prostrate before the altar. Likewise, the nature of the prayer came to be more specified. The celebrant was directed to pour forth prayers for himself of for the sins of the people. The general term for this was the apologiae and may be called the forerunner of the confiteor. Thus a penitential theme is introduced. By the 11th century the Confiteor had developed as a specific dialogue between the Celebrant and those immediately around him. Thus he not only acknowledges his sinfulness before God but also before those who serve him and asks their mediation on his behalf. The actual text of the confiteor, was taken from those used in sacramental confession. The oldest confiteor formulas were simple and brief. For example here is an 11th Century version from Cluny, “I confess to God and before all His saints and you, Father, that I have sinned in thought word and deed through my fault. I ask you to pray for me. They confessed before God and the heavenly Church (i.e. the saints) as well as asking intercession from the Church on earth. In the Gothic period there grew a practice of listing some of the Saints by name. This is evident in the confiteor used in the Tridentine Mass. The shorter, simpler version of the confiteor now prescribed is closer to the oldest formulas although the angels and the Mother of God are still specifically mentioned in addition to the general phrase “all the saints.” Both versions can be compared HERE. One other difference today from the Tridentine Mass is that there is no longer a separate recitation of the confiteor for priest and the servers. Now the communal aspect of the act is stressed even while the personal aspect is retained: I confess.
The History of the Kyrie is much more complicated and will be covered in a separate post.
Sometimes in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass there is a second recitation of the Confiteor just prior to communion that may even be sung.
As you can see just below there has been a vote of DC City Council to recognize same-sex “marriages” that have been contracted in other states where such unions are legal. There is also the statement of the Archdiocese in response to that vote.
How have we gotten to the place where marriage has been so radically redefined by a growing number in our society? I wonder if it doesn’t come down to a shift in thinking about marriage that took place beginning in the late 1960s? It was during that time that a fundamental understanding about marriage slipped away. What was that understanding?? Simply this: that marriage is about children. Almost everyone today thinks that marriage is about adults and only includes children if it suits the adults. And even if it suits the adults they decide how many children and when. The bottom line is that most people think about marriage today as for and about adults. To be sure, the spouses are surely an important object of consideration in marriage but children provide the essential reference as to why marriage should be structured as it is. It should be stable (no easy divorce) for the sake of the children. It should be heterosexual because that is an obvious prerequisite for child bearing. Parents should seek to establish a strong bond and strive for unity for the sake of the children. Emphasis should be given to “staying together for the sake of the children” even if there are difficulties in a marriage. But slowly this thinking has slipped away.
The first big chips in the foundations began in the 1950s when the first “Hollywood” divorces began to publicly take place. People, (who love their movie stars!) began to state that if someone is “unhappy” in a marriage that they shouldn’t have to stay. “After all, is happiness not one of the chief ends of marriage?” Or so the thinking began to go. Some even brought God into all of this, “God doesn’t want me to be unhappy does he?”
The second wave of chips in the foundation took place in the sexual revolution of the late 1960s. Now it seemed that if marriage wasn’t about children, neither was sex. Sex came to been seen primarily for pleasure and for the enjoyment of the partners. The link to child bearing was also severed by the large scale availability and use of contraceptives. To be sure there was pleasure to be had in sex but it is also clear from the nature of the act that it is intrinsically linked to child bearing and its very nature was to bring sperm and ova into regular proximity (pardon the biology lesson). Nevertheless all this was set aside by the sexual revolution. Now couples gave sex what ever meaning they chose. If they wanted to link it to having a child so be it. If they preferred to keep the whole thing sterile through contraception fine too. So here too, as with marriage, the link to children was diminished or entirely dismissed.
So here we are today. If sex and marriage are no longer necessarily linked to children, but only to the adults and what ever meaning they choose to give these then we have an “anything goes” mentality that starts to develop among many. If marriage takes its primary meaning from what adults want rather than the needs of children then why not easy divorce? If marriage is primarily about the happiness of the adults then surely we should not require or even encourage them to stick it out for the sake of the children. If marriage isn’t about children then why can’t same-sex couples marry? Or so the thinking goes. After all if marriage is about happiness, don’t same-sex people deserve to be happy? And if sex is just about pleasure and not really about child bearing who is to say that people can’t engage in it any number of formats: gay, straight but sterile, pre-marital, etc. It’s not about kids so why bother with all the restrictions? Or so the tinking goes.
Well, this is a lot to consider. But here is the bottom line. If marriage is primarily about adults and only incidentally about children then should it surprise us that some have taken this thinking (very common even among Christians today) to the next level? If marriage and sex aren’t about children but about adults and the meaning they choose to give it then limits to the definition of marriage are decried by increasing numbers as intolerant attacks on the happiness of another (adult).
But Marriage is about children. Yes, adults are involved and they are important, but in the end marriage takes its limits and structure from the fact that it’s primary fruit is children. Proponents of Gay marriage would surely reject this. But sadly, so do many Christians who have long dabbled in a culture of easy divorce, tolerated promiscuity and notions that my primary right is always to be happy and seldom inconvenienced.
