Community in Mission

(N.B. This is part one of a sermon series wherein I explore the “why” of the Trinity. In Part Two I strive to explore the “so what” and “now what” of the teaching. Part two is here: Plain Talk about Family Life on the Feast of the Trinity).

There is an old Spiritual that says, My God is so high, you can’t get over him, he’s so low, you can’t get under him, he’s so wide you can’t get around him, you must come in, by and through the Lamb.

Not a bad way of saying that God is other; He is beyond what human words can tell or describe; He is beyond what human thoughts can conjure. And on the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity we do well to remember that we are pondering a mystery that cannot fit in our minds.

A mystery, though, is not something wholly unknown. In the Christian tradition the word “mystery” refers to something partially revealed, much more of which lies hidden. Thus, as we ponder the teaching on the Trinity, though there are some things we can know by revelation, but much more is beyond our reach or understanding.

Let’s ponder the Trinity by exploring it, seeing how it is exhibited in Scripture, and how we, who are made in God’s image, experience it.

I. The Teaching on the Trinity Explored – Perhaps we do best to begin by quoting the Catechism, which says, The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons: [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] … The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God, whole and entire (Catechism, 253).

So there is one God, and the three persons of the Trinity each possess the one Divine nature fully. The Father IS God; He is not 1/3 of God. Likewise the Son, Jesus, IS God; He is not 1/3 of God. And so too, the Holy Spirit IS God, not a mere third of God. So each of the three persons possesses the one Divine nature fully.

It is our experience that if there is only one of something, and I possess that something fully, there is nothing left for you. Yet, mysteriously, each of the Three Persons fully possesses the one and only Divine Nature fully while remaining a distinct person.

One of the great masterpieces of the Latin Liturgy is the preface for Trinity Sunday. The preface sets forth the Christian teaching on the Trinity compactly, yet clearly. The following translation of the Latin is my own:

It is truly fitting and just, right and helpful unto salvation that we should always and everywhere give thanks to you O Holy Lord, Father almighty and eternal God: who, with your only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, one Lord: not in the oneness of a single person, but in a Trinity of one substance. For that which we believe from your revelation concerning your glory, we acknowledge of your Son and the Holy Spirit without difference or distinction. Thus, in the confession of the true and eternal Godhead there is adored a distinctness of persons, a oneness in essence, and an equality in majesty, whom the angels and archangels, the Cherubim also and the Seraphim, do not cease to daily cry out with one voice saying: Holy, Holy, Holy …

Wowza! A careful and clear masterpiece, but one which baffles the mind as its words and phrases come forth. So deep is this mystery that we had to invent a paradoxical word to summarize it: Triune (or Trinity). “Triune” literally means “Three-one” (tri+unus) and “Trinity” is a conflation of “Tri-unity” meaning the “three-oneness” of God.

If all this baffles you, good! If you were to say you fully understood all this, I would have to call you a heretic. For the teaching on the Trinity, while not contrary to reason per se, does transcend it.

And here is a final picture or image before we leave our exploration stage. The picture at the upper right is an experiment I remember doing back in high school. We took three projectors, each of which projected a circle. One circle was red, another green, and another blue. As we made the three circles intersect, the color white appeared at the intersection (see above). Mysteriously, three colors are present there, but only one shows forth. There are three but there is one. This analogy for the Trinity is not perfect (no analogy is, or it wouldn’t be an analogy), because Father, Son, and Spirit do not “blend” to make God. But the analogy does manifest a mysterious “three-oneness” of the color white. Somehow in the one, three are present. (By the way, this experiment only works with light, don’t try it with paint. 🙂 )

II. The Teaching on the Trinity Exhibited – Scripture, too, presents images and pictures of the Trinity. Interestingly enough, most of  the pictures I want to present are from the Old Testament.

Now I want to say, as a disclaimer, that Scripture scholars debate the meaning of the texts I am about to present; that’s what they get paid the big bucks to do! Let me be clear in pointing out that I am reading these texts as a New Testament Christian and I am thus seeing in them a Doctrine that only later became clear. I am not getting in a time machine and trying to understand them as a Jew from the 8th Century BC might have understood them. And why should I? That’s not what I am. I am reading these texts as a Christian in the light of the New Testament, as I have a perfect right to do. You the reader, of course, are free to decide from your perspective if these texts really ARE images or hints of the Trinity. Take them or leave them. Here they are:

1. From today’s first reading: Having come down in a cloud, the Lord stood with Moses there and proclaimed his name, “LORD.” Thus the Lord passed before him and cried out, “The LORD, the LORD, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity.” And thus we see that the LORD announces his name three times, LORD … LORD … LORD. It is not without some implied instruction that the LORD announces his name formally three times as if to say, “LORD” once for each person. Is it a coincidence or of significance? You decide.

2. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness …” (Gen 1:26). So God speaks to Himself in the plural: “let us … our …”  Some claim this is just an instance of the “royal we” being used. Perhaps, but I see an image of the Trinity. There is one (God said) but there is also a plural (us, our). Right at the very beginning in Genesis there is already a hint that God is not all by himself, but is in a communion of love.

2. Elohim?? In the quote above, the word used for God is אֱלֹהִ֔ים (Elohim). Now it is interesting that this word is in a plural form. From the viewpoint of pure grammatical form, Elohim means “Gods.”  However, the Jewish people understood the sense of the word to be singular. Now this is a much debated point and you can read something more of it from a Jewish perspective here: Elohim as Plural yet Singular. My point here is not to try to understand it as a Jew from the 8th Century B.C. or as a Jew today might understand it. Rather, what I find interesting to observe is that one of the main words for God in the Old Testament is plural yet singular, singular yet plural. It is one, yet it  is also plural. God is one, yet he is three. As a Christian noticing this about one of the main titles of God, I see an image of the Trinity.

3.  And the LORD appeared to [Abram] by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day.  He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth,  and said, “My Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant.  Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree,  while I fetch a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on — since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.” (Gen 18:1-5). Now from a purely grammatical point of view, this passage is very difficult since it switches back and forth  from singular references to plural ones. Note first that the Lord (singular) appeared to Abram. (In this case יְהוָ֔ה Yahweh  (YHWH) is the name used for God). And yet what Abram sees is three men. Some have said that this is just God and two angels. But I see the Trinity being alluded to here. But then Abram addresses “them” saying, “My Lord” (singular). The “tortured” grammar continues as Abram asks that water be fetched so that he can “wash your feet” (singular) and that the “LORD” (singular) can rest yourselves (plural). The same thing happens in the next sentence in which Abram wants to fetch bread that you (singular) may refresh yourselves (plural). In the end, the LORD (singular) gives answer, but it is rendered: “So they said.”  Plural, singular … which is it? Both. God is one; God is three. For me as a Christian, this is a picture of the Trinity. Since the reality of God cannot be reduced to words, we have here a grammatically difficult passage. But I “see” what is going on. God is one and God is three; He is singular and yet He is plural.

4.  In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. Above him stood the Seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” (Is 6:1-3). God is Holy, Holy, and yet again, Holy. Some say this is just a Jewish way of saying “very Holy,” but as Christian, I see more. I see a reference to each of the Three Persons. Perfect praise here requires three “holys”—why? Omni Trinum Perfectum (all things are perfect in threes), but why? So as a Christian, I see the angels not just using the superlative but also praising each of the Three persons. God is three (Holy, Holy, Holy) and God is one. And so the text says, “Holy IS the Lord.” Three declarations of “Holy”—coincidence or of significance? You decide.

5. In the New Testament there are obviously many references, but let me make note here of just three. Jesus says, The Father and I are one (Jn 10:30). He says again, To have seen me is to have seen the Father (Jn. 14:9). And, have you ever noticed that in  the baptismal formula Jesus uses “bad” grammar? He says, Baptize them in the Name (not names as it “should” be) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). God is One (name) and God is Three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Thus Scripture exhibits the teaching of the Trinity, even going back to the beginning.

III. The Teaching of the Trinity Experienced – We who are made in the image and likeness of God ought to experience something of the mystery of the Trinity within us. And sure enough, we do.

For it is clear that we are all distinct individuals. I am not you, and you are not I. Yet it is also true that we are made for communion. As humans, we cannot exist apart from one another. Obviously we depend on our parents, through whom God made us. But even beyond physical descent, we need one another for completion.

Despite what old songs say, no man is a rock or an island. There is no such thing as a self-made man. Even the private business owner needs customers, suppliers, shippers, and other middlemen. He uses roads he did not build, has electricity supplied to him over lines he did not string, and speaks a language to his customers that he did not create. Further, whatever the product he makes, he is likely the beneficiary of technologies and processes he did not invent. The list could go on and on.

We are individual, but we are social. We are one, but linked to many. Clearly we do not possess the kind of unity God does, but the “three-oneness” of God echoes in us. We are one, yet we are many.

We have entered into perilous times in which our interdependence and communal influence are underappreciated. That attitude that prevails today is one of rather extreme individualism: “I can do as I please.” There is a reduced recognition of how our individual choices affect the whole of the community, Church, or nation. That I am an individual is true, but it is also true that I live in communion with others and must respect that dimension of who I am. I exist not only for me, but for others. And what I do affects others, for good or ill.

The “It’s none of my business what others do” attitude also needs some attention. Privacy and discretion have important places in our life, but so does having concern for what others do and think, the choices they make, and the effects that such things have on others. A common moral and religious vision is an important thing to cultivate. It is important what others think and do, and we should care about fundamental things like respect for life, love, care for the poor, education, marriage, and family. Indeed marriage and family are fundamental to the community, the nation, and the Church. I am one, but I am also in communion with others and they with me.

Finally there is a rather remarkable conclusion that some have drawn: the best image of God in us is not a man alone, or a woman alone, but rather a man and a woman together in a lasting and fruitful relationship we call marriage. For when God said, “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26) the text goes on to say, “Male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). And God says to them, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). So the image of God (as God sets it forth most perfectly) is the married and fruitful couple.

Here of course we must be careful to understand that what we manifest sexually, God manifests spiritually. For God is not male or female in His essence. Thus we may say, The First Person loves the Second Person and the Second Person loves the First Person. And so real is that love that it bears fruit in the Third Person. In this way the married couple images God, for the husband loves his wife and the wife loves her husband, and their love bears fruit in their children. [1]

So today, as we extol the great mystery of the Trinity, we look not merely outward and upward to understand, but also inward to discover that mystery at work in us, who are made in the image and likeness of God.

Radical atheists love to ridicule believers. They mock our “talking snake” in Genesis but really show their own lack of sophistication in understanding the nature of allegory or symbol in human language. But since I do understand allegory I will let them off the hook when it comes to their own “God particle” and the language of “blind evolution” (as if a process could have eyes and see or not see).” For unlike some (not all) of them, I attended high school grammar class and understand the nature of allegory, symbol, hyperbole, and metaphor when it comes to human parlance.

But I do have this question: “Why is it more rational to believe the universe created itself than to believe God created the universe?”

To quote my own brother, George, who is a smart fellow, “I’ve always been puzzled why most atheists seem hostile to religion. I guess I would expect more an attitude of condescension or superiority because they’re ‘not so stupid as to believe in God.’ And yet they usually feel threatened by religion which usually provides a civilizing aspect they should appreciate.” Well said, Brother George. Religion has its place in human culture, whether nonbelievers like to admit it or not. It is true that religion has not been without its sins (after all, human beings are involved), but so has atheist materialism had its sins and bloodbaths (e.g., Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and others who had “unpleasant” materialist escapades).

Can we agree that sin is the universal condition of fallen humanity and move beyond silly “blame game” when in fact we are all responsible?

Back to the question: “Why is it more rational to believe the universe created itself than to believe God created the universe?” Am I not being asked to ascribe to dumb luck a world that shows forth multivariate, multilevel, and intricate order? Am I not being asked to “believe” that a tornado or some other chance event just happened to tear through the “junk yard” of the world’s elements and produced a fully functioning (at every level all at once) universe with all its moving parts? Why is this more “rational” than to believe that an intelligence (we call “God”) deliberately ordered all this matter? Why is it more rational to believe the universe created itself than to believe God created the universe?

I would ask for concise responses from any atheists who choose to answer. I realize that science cannot “prove God” using its physical tools. Fine. But why must materialists refute God, a position that cannot be verified using the scientific method? Again the question: “Why is it more rational to believe the universe created itself than to believe God created the universe?”

Remember, the key word is “rational,” a word of which atheists do not have full ownership. Stephen Colbert humorously notes that atheists, too, can have rather irrational reactions to religion in this world. To our atheist interlocutors I pose just this one question: “Why is this more ‘rational’ than to believe that an intelligence (we call “God”) purposefully ordered all this matter?”

Here is a funny video by Colbert showing that irrationality is not the exclusive province of “believers.”

For many years when I was growing up,  the image I had of St. Paul was of a bold evangelist who went from town to town teaching and preaching about Christ in powerful fashion. I imagined people mesmerized as he preached and took on his opponents.

Recently, though, I have altered my view just a bit based on Scriptural descriptions of Paul I have read. I have no doubt that he was a brilliant theologian. Paul was reputed to have been one of the greatest students of one of the greatest rabbis of that time, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). I have no doubt as to his zeal for Christ, and I imagine that this fervor was reflected on his face as he preached and taught. But it would seem that Paul was not in fact recognized as a particularly gifted preacher. Consider the following texts from Scripture along with some commentary by me in red.

1. Now I myself, Paul, urge you through the gentleness and clemency of Christ, I who (you say) am humble when present in your midst, but bold toward you when absent … (2 Cor 10:1). The key element to glean from this passage is that people regarded Paul as rather humble and quiet in person but in contrast quite bold and assertive in his letters. This does not paint the picture of a fearsome and bold preacher.
2. For someone will say, “His [Paul’s] letters are severe and forceful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” (2 Cor 10:10).  Here is even clearer evidence that some (though surely not all or even most) thought of Paul’s presence and preaching as weak and of no account. The Greek phrase λόγος  ἐξουθενημένος  (logos exouthenhmenos),  translated here as “speech contemptible,”  can also be translated as “words or speech of no account,” or “a word or speech  to be despised.”  Now, of course, since it is Paul himself who is reporting this, he may well be overstating the perception of his preaching out of a kind of humility. But here again is more evidence that Paul may not have been a highly gifted or bold preacher,  at least from a worldly perspective.
3. For I think that I am not in any way inferior to these “superapostles.” Even if I am untrained in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; in every way we have made this plain to you in all things (2 Cor 11:5-6). The exact identity of the “superapostles” is debated, but there is wide consensus that Paul does not mean here the Apostles chosen by Christ. Rather he likely refers to itinerant preachers who were well known for their oratorical skills. Some of them may have been Judaizers who opposed Paul. But it would seem that these skilled orators could draw a crowd. Perhaps they are somewhat like the revivalists of today. Here too is more evidence that Paul was not possessed of great oratorical skill. He seems to admit this freely, but refuses to concede that he is inferior to anyone in the knowledge of the faith.
4. For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the cleverness of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning … (1 Cor 1:17). Again, Paul claims no clever oratorical skill but actually underscores his lack of eloquence to emphasize that the power is in the Cross of Christ.
5. On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight … Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” Then he went upstairs again and broke bread (Acts 20:7-11).  🙂 Note that Luke describes Paul as preaching “on and on.” The sermon seems to have put the young Eutychus right to sleep and the young man, sitting on a window sill, falls three flights to his death. Paul then runs down and raises him from the dead. (All in a night’s work, I guess!)  Finally, Paul returns to complete the Mass. It is a humorous and touching anecdote in many ways, but it is also a story that illustrates that Paul could be somewhat soporific.

So it would seem that Paul was not possessed of great oratorical skill. This may surprise us given his astonishing missionary accomplishments. But we must avoid superficiality in understanding the power of God’s Word. The power is in God. The battle is the Lord’s. We may all prefer to listen to great orators who can bring the house down. But God can write straight with crooked lines. He can make a way out of no way. If God could speak through Balaam’s donkey (cf Num 22:21), maybe He can speak through me, too. And maybe He can speak through you as well.

Avoiding Superficiality – As a priest, I work very hard to develop my preaching skills. I think the people of God deserve this. But in the end, none of us should ignore the fact that God can speak in and through the humblest of people and circumstances. Paul may not have had all the rhetorical skills we think he should have had, but he was possessed of many other gifts. He was a brilliant theologian, had amazing zeal and energy, and was committed to walk thousands of miles and endure horrible sufferings so that he could proclaim Christ crucified and risen. Paul was also a natural leader and one of the most fruitful evangelizers the Church has ever known. We tend to prize oratorical skill and personality rather highly, but there is obviously more to evangelizing effectively than eloquence and charisma.

Our TV-based, media-centered culture has come to focus primarily on personal magnetism and the ability to “turn a phrase.” The ability to communicate well is surely a great gift, but there are many others as well. In valuing certain gifts over others we risk superficiality and injustice. The Church needs all our gifts.

What gifts do you have that God can use?

This song says, “If you can use anything Lord, you can use me.”

We live in times that tend to emphasize the physical and the material. And this affects even those of us who strive to have a spiritual life. Too easily we assess our blessings in ways that emphasize the material more so than the spiritual. We feel blessed if our income is good and our physical health intact, but many seem to have little esteem for spiritual gifts like wisdom (which often comes from suffering), knowledge of the truth, and fortitude or courage.

Our prayers often skew heavily toward asking God to improve our finances, mend our health, or alleviate some discomfort in this world. While it is not wrong to pray for these sorts of things, at times it almost sounds as though we are saying to God, “Make this world comfortable enough for me and I’ll just stay here forever.” We’re a little bit like the older son in the story of the Prodigal Son, who wants a kid goat so he can celebrate with his friends rather than to go into the party and celebrate with his father (Luke 15).

But the true goal in life is not to celebrate with our friends, it is to celebrate with the Father! Yet you’d never know it from the way many pray. “King Jesus is a-listening” all day long just to hear some sinner pray for wisdom, greater love for God, deeper prayer, greater longing for spiritual things, chastity, generosity, proper priorities, and so forth.

We also see something of this in the first temptation in the desert: Satan tries to tempt the hungry Jesus to turn stones into bread. Satan’s goal is to try to distract Jesus from His fundamental mission as Redeemer and to have Him use His power to satisfy His own physical hunger rather than to liberate souls.

In and of itself, satisfying hunger is not evil. We all need to eat in order to have the strength to do what God asks. But Jesus, of course, had gone into the desert to fast as a way to strengthen His soul and prepare for His mission.

There are things that are simply more important than bodily hunger and other physical needs. Ultimately, the needs of our soul are more important than those of our body. And thus if food or drink or sex, while not evil in themselves, endanger our soul or hinder our spiritual mission, they should be refused.

Jesus counters Satan by saying that “man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Bread alone, the physical world alone, does not satisfy our needs. Man’s life does not consist in possessions (Lk 12:15). We are not only physical beings; we have a soul that it has its hungers, and the Word of God must answer these hungers.

This is balanced. But Satan would have us off balance; he would have us overly concerned—even obsessed with—the needs of the body and other worldly concerns.

Parents, for example, often pay close attention to the academic grades of their children, but many show little concern for the spiritual lives of their children or important aspects of their moral lives. Our culture shows great concern for overcoming physical maladies such as heart disease, AIDS, cancer, and so forth, but there’s little attention paid to the spiritual and moral maladies that often underlie many of our social ills and even contribute to our physical illnesses.

Jesus does not deny that there is a place for bread and the physical needs and daily life that the bread symbolizes. He merely says that man does not live by bread alone, and that the Word of God, the truth of God, the beauty, the holiness, and the glory of God, is also to be food for our soul.

Father Livio Fanzaga has eloquently written,

With the cutting sword of the Word of God, Jesus removes the mask of one of the most current and devastating Satanic lies. Man is not an animal trapped in the short-term cycle of matter. He is a spiritual being who needs to find divine truth even before material food. Never before as in our time Satan has taken succeeded in promising happiness through material good … Man is reduced to the hungers of his body … [And thus] the liar succeeds in depriving man of his dignity, his beauty, his greatness, and his immortal and divine destiny (The Deceiver, p. 118-119).

For the Church, too, there are great temptations in this materialistic time. Great esteem is given to the corporal works of mercy such as feeding the sick, clothing the naked, and so forth. It is clear that these are important, necessary, and glorious works without which we cannot be saved (Matt 25:31ff). And yet, seldom are the Spiritual Works of Mercy mentioned today in Church settings. But they are essential and, frankly, foundational to the corporal works of mercy.

Here too, Father Fanzaga has much wisdom for us:

Satan’s temptation to turn stones into bread quote is a permanent temptation for the Church until the end of time. The Church is certainly placed in this world and shares its joys and sufferings, hopes and defeats … The Church has always promoted the human growth of society, but her ends are the eternal salvation of souls. The temptation to secularize the Church, orienting her towards human promotion and removing her from her supernatural objectives, is among the most subtle and insidious. This temptation has led many parishes and religious communities to abandon prayer, catechesis, sacrifice and the supernatural means of the apostolate, involving themselves in social activities that empty the Christian presence of its meaning … [It is an] earthly messianism, a Christianity reduced to humanitarian religion, a Church that becomes a sort of Red Cross of the world (The Deceiver, p 117).

It is the subtle purpose of Satan to distract the Church from her primary mission so that he can continue to wreak spiritual havoc while the Church’s attention is directed elsewhere.

It is a kind of food fight: Bread for the body rather than the Bread of Life unto eternal salvation. Matter is all that matters. Satan does not trap us with evil, but with what is good yet out of proportion. Bread … bread … bread! Bread is all that matters. Meanwhile the famished soul is neglected.

Jesus rebuked the men of his day who sought him out for another free meal of multiplied loaves: Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs [to have faith], but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” (Jn 6:27).

The bread had become their idol, for they valued it more than the very God who stood before them and provided it in the first place. They had no faith for Jesus, only desire for bread. Properly understood, their desire could have led them to Jesus, but they could not see past the bread to the Bread of Life who stood before them. Indeed not by bread alone, but by every Word from the mouth of God, by the Word made flesh, are we to live.

I know, I made the word up: “minificence.” I’ll define it in a moment. But first, I want to ponder with you the awesome mystery of size and numbers as we look out and as we look in.

Outer Space: As we look out on God’s Universe we cannot even fathom how huge, how magnificent is the size of the universe. We cannot comprehend such immensity. If we were to make a scale model of the Milky Way galaxy and reduce each star to the size of a grain of sugar, it would be two thousand miles wide and a thousand miles high. And that’s just one galaxy! There are billions of galaxies in the universe, which is expanding rapidly outward. Even the nearest star is over 25 trillion miles away.

And we are whirling around and outward! The earth rotates at a speed of about 1000 miles per hour (at the equator) while the earth itself revolves at roughly 67,000 miles per hour around the sun. And our entire solar system is also rotating around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at over 500,000 miles per hour. And the Milky Way galaxy is also flying outward and away (according to Doppler shift) at 1.3 million miles per hour!

Inner Space: But what is equally amazing is how vast a universe exists, hidden from the naked eye, in what we might call “inner space”: that tiny, almost invisible world of microbiology. In just a drop of pond water may exist hundreds of thousands of bacteria and microorganisms, a veritable universe unto itself. Indeed in every human body exist trillions of microorganisms in a kind of microbial fauna. Eighty different types of microorganisms live in the mouth alone. Every square centimeter of the human bowel contains as many as ten billion organisms. Every square centimeter of our skin contains about ten million individual bacteria. Even on our eyelashes are colonies of helpful bacteria and microorganisms that help keep harmful bacteria away. These massively numbered civilizations—universes really—of microorganisms are only recently known to us with the invention of powerful microscopes. And to those in this “micro-world,” our bodies must seem as massive as the universe of outer space seems to us. If a microorganism could think, it would consider our bodies a vast universe too large to comprehend. Just as there are trillions of stars, there are trillions of microorganisms. And to a microbe on an eyelash, a bacterium on the toe seems light-years away.

“Minificence” and Magnificence! If outer space is magnificent (from the Latin magnus meaning large or great) then inner space is (according to me) “minificent” (from the Latin minimus meaning small or tiny). The abundance of life in these tiny worlds boggles the mind. To the microorganisms that accompany me, I am a universe too vast to comprehend. But I am just one of over seven billion human beings on this planet. And I, even we collectively, am not large at all. I am an infinitesimally small speck, on a slightly larger but still tiny speck of dust, rotating around a fiery spark called the Sun, in a galaxy of over 200 billion other fiery sparks. And this is just one galaxy (about 100 million light-years in diameter) of over 125 billion galaxies in the known universe.

Time for wonder and awe! We’ve moved from contemplating inner space to outer space in a matter of moments but we really cannot comprehend numbers like these. It’s time for wonder and awe. God does all this with a simple word, and it is so. He knows the depths of our souls and the tiniest forms of life that cling to us. Every hair of our head is numbered and known to Him. He knows the farthest fringes of the universe. He made the stars and calls them by name. Ah, the Lord!

He who dismisses the light, and it departs, calls it, and it obeys him trembling; Before whom the stars at their posts shine and rejoice; When he calls them, they answer, “Here we are!” shining with joy for their Maker (Baruch 3:33-35).

One of the great hymns says, O Lord my God! When I in awesome wonder; Consider all the works Thy hands have made. I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder, Thy power throughout the universe displayed. Then sings my soul, my Saviour God, to Thee; How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

Do not forget to meditate on God’s wonders. It is a great antidote to pride. God has done indescribable and marvelous things. And more is unseen than seen.

The book of Sirach says, Beyond these, many things lie hid; only a few of his works have we seen (Sirach 43:34).

Consider the scene. The Bishop has taken his place at the entrance to the sanctuary. He is prepared to confirm some twenty young people. It is a sacred moment; a Sacrament is to be conferred. The parents are in deep prayer thanking the Holy Spirit, who is about to confirm their children for their mission … oops, they’re not!

Actually, they are fumbling with their cell phone cameras. Some are scrambling up the side aisle to “get the shot.” Others are holding their phones up in the air to capture blurry, crooked shots. The tussling continues in the side aisle as parents muscle to get in place for “the shot.” If “the shot” is gotten—success! If not, “Woe is me!” Never mind that a Sacrament has actually been offered and received; the point was “the shot,” the “photo-op.”

Consider another scene. It is First Holy Communion. Again, the children are assembled.  This time the parents have been informed that a single parishioner has been engaged to take shots, and are asked if they would they please refrain from amateur photography. This is to little avail. “Who does that deacon think he is telling me to refrain, denying me the shot?” The cell phones still stick up in the air. Even worse, the parish photographer sends quick word via the altar server, “Could Father please slow down a bit in giving the children Communion? It is difficult to get a good shot at the current pace.” After the Mass, the photographer brings two children up with him; could Father perhaps “re-stage” the Communion moment for these two since, in the quick (normal) pace of giving Communion, their shots came out poorly.  “You see, the autofocus wasn’t able to keep up.  Look how blurry they are, Father.”

It would seem the picture is the point.

I have seen it with tourists as well. I live just up the street from the U.S. Capitol and it is fascinating to watch the tourists go by on the buses. Many of them are so busy taking a picture of the Capitol (a picture they could easily find in a book or on the Internet) that I wonder if they ever see the Capitol with their own eyes.

The picture is the point.

Actually, I would contend that it is NOT the point. Real life and actual experience are the point. Further, in the Liturgy, the worship and praise of God, the experience of His love, and attentiveness to His Word are the point. Cameras, more often than not, cause us to miss the point. We get the shot but miss the experience. Almost a total loss if you ask me.

At weddings in my parish, we speak to the congregation at the start and urge them to put away all cameras. We assure the worried crowd that John and Mary have engaged the services of a capable professional photographer who will be able to record the moment quite well. “What John and Mary could use most from you now are your prayers for them and your expressed gratitude to God, who is the author of this moment.” Yes, we assure them, now is the time for prayer, worship, and joyful awareness of what God is doing.

Most professional photographers are in fact professional and respectful and know how to stay background and not become a part of the ceremony but rather to record it discreetly. It is rare that I have trouble with them. Videographers still have a way to go as a group, but there are many who I would say are indeed professional.

Pastorally it would seem appropriate to accept that photos are important to people and to make reasonable accommodations for them. For major events  such as weddings, Confirmations, First Communions, and Easter Vigils, it seems right that we should insist that if photos are desired a professional be hired. This helps keep things discreet and permits family and others to experience the sacred moments more prayerfully. Infant Baptisms are a little more “homespun” and it would seem that the pastor should speak with family members about limiting the number of amateur photographers and be clear about where they should stand.

That said, I have no photos of my own Baptism, First Communion, or Confirmation. And yet somehow, I have managed to survive this (terrible) lack of “the shot” quite well. Frankly, in the days I received these Sacraments, photos of the individual moment were simply not done in the parishes I attended. Some parishes did have provisions for pictures in those days. The photo at the upper right is of Cardinal O’Boyle at St. Cyprian’s in Washington D.C. in 1957. But as for me, though I do have a photo of me when I was on my way to Church for my First Communion, there is no photo of me kneeling at the rail. And I am alive and well. There are surely photos of my ordination. But, I will add, the Basilica and the Archdiocese were very clear as to the parameters. Only two professional photographers were allowed (my uncle was one of them), and the place where they worked was carefully delineated.

Hence pastoral provisions are likely necessary in these “visual times,” to allow some photos. Yet as St. Paul says regarding the Liturgy, But let all things be done decently, and according to order (1 Cor 14:40).

A final reiteration: remember, the photo is not the moment. The moment is the moment, and the experience is the experience. A photo is just a bunch of pixels, lots of 0’s and 1’s recorded by a mindless machine and then printed or displayed by another mindless machine. A picture is no substitute for the actual experience, the actual prayer, the actual worship that can and should take place at every sacred moment and at every sacred liturgy.

If you missed my post from yesterday on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass as a preservative for culture, I would be grateful if you would click over and read it. For some reason readership was very low on the blog yesterday. I also know that Newadvent did not pick it up for some reason. Here is the article: The Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the Evangelization of Culture

Below is some very rare footage from a nuptial mass. It is of my parents’ wedding in May of 1959. What makes it rare is that it is film, not mere pictures, and that it was filmed from the sacristy. My parents told me years ago that they presumed it was filmed by a priest, who alone in those years could get access to the sacristy and other back areas.

We tend to think of evangelization as focused on individuals. But cultures need evangelizing too, perhaps even more so, due to the influence of culture on so many. In her strongest periods the Church has been instrumental in forming the culture and ethos around her. In her weaker periods the Church begins to parrot and reflect culture which, without her leadership, is too easily ephemeral, disedifying, and at worst, debased.

It is hard to contend that we are in a period in which the Church has a key influence on culture. It is rather more the case that popular culture has far too greatly influenced us. Few Catholics get most of their information or influence from God, the Scriptures, or Church teaching. Most are far more aware of and inclined to listen to secular leaders, pop musicians, entertainers, sports figures, and the general cultural din. And this is where they develop even their most critical insights about God, family, sexuality, and many significant moral questions.

Liturgically, too, there are many problems associated with the triumph and primacy of modern and popular culture. Most of our modern trends in liturgy reflect the preferences of our culture, rather than the ability to challenge and influence people. And thus liturgy must be convenient, fast, entertaining, youthful, “relevant,” accessible, completely understandable even by the smallest child, warm, comfortable, respecting of diversity, friendly, etc. To be sure, most of these are not bad qualities. But the emphasis on them to the exclusion of balancing principles (such as mystery and tradition), and the often shallow understanding of those balancing principles, shows that popular culture rather than the Church is really in the driver’s seat.

I’ll be honest, I don’t know where exactly to draw the line. When exactly is a song too secular or in bad taste? When does something go from being understandable to being “dumbed down”? When does emphasizing a warm and welcoming environment become too anthropocentric and unprayerful? When does respecting diversity become a Balkanization and “stove-piping” of communities? When does “youthful, vibrant, and relevant” do harm to what is ancient, enduring, and time-tested?

Somewhere in all this concern for evangelizing the culture, as opposed to being dominated by it, is the quiet and stable presence of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, often called the Usus Antiquior (the older use or form), that was in use, largely intact, from antiquity until 1970.

A recent article by Tracey Rowland in Sacred Liturgy (The Proceedings of the International Conference on the Sacred Liturgy 2013) develops the way in which the usus antiquior can act as a kind of salve or preservative in the rapidly changing climate of the post-modern West. I want to offer a few excerpts from the lengthy article and add a few comments of my own (in plain, red text). Rowland writes,

Specifically the usus antiquior may be an antidote to the ruthless attacks on memory and tradition and high culture typical of the culture of modernity. [And it can supply] a coherent, non-fragmented tradition that is open to the transcendent … Participation in this form of the rite does require a deeper intellectual engagement, if one is not to get completely lost, but this form is also more contemplative …

Yes, once one overcomes the notion that he or she must be hearing, seeing, and interacting with every aspect of the Mass, one is drawn to a more quiet contemplation of God and to the fact that many things are being done by God “for me” in a quiet and hidden way. So too in the Mass when the priest acts on my behalf, it is not required that I hear or understand every word. It is often enough that the priest ministers for me and that God both enables and receives this ministry. To pray quietly is thus an acceptable demeanor rather than to (only) relentlessly participate. Thus the usus antiquior emphasized a more contemplative dimension.

In arguing this, one need not take the view that the usus antiquior should be the only form of the Roman Rite … The older and newer forms … Should be mutually enriching. (p. 117, 130)

Yes, at least in our current setting, the “liturgy wars” are a sign that charity, which ought to be preeminent when it comes to Sacred worship, is lacking. But the main point here is that the usus antiquior acts as a kind of preservative of the overall Roman Rite by holding up “old-time religion.” This helps the newer forms from becoming detached from their proper roots and from the more fully Christian culture that preceded our current secularist and ephemeral culture. The usus antiquior evangelizes current Catholic culture (too easily swayed by modern notions) by showing forth the ancient holy traditions that have sustained us over the centuries.

Yves Congar argued that … the liturgy is truly the holy ark containing sacred tradition at its most intense … He said (in 1963), “We need only step into an old church in order to follow a Mass which has scarcely changed, even in externals, since St. Gregory the Great … Everything has been preserved for us, and we can enter into a heritage which we may easily transmit in our turn, to those coming after us. Ritual … as a victory over devouring time … and a powerful communion in the same reality between men separated by centuries of change … (P. 116)

The charcoal drawing at the upper right, if one does not look closely, could be of a Mass from almost any time period going back to at least the 4th Century. But it is a Mass celebrated just two days ago, by me here in my parish. The actual photograph is just below it. This is a demonstration of what Congar says.

Sadly, shortly after 1963, the “holy ark” was “lost to the Philistines” (cf  1 Sam 5) and has only recently been recovered through a series of indults and the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.  We can only pray that the holy ark will now stay among us and grow in the influence and “mutual enrichment” for which Pope Benedict XVI longed.

If modernity is a culture of forced forgetting, postmodernity is more of a fragmented culture of retrieval, the mood is less self-assured and more melancholy and nostalgic. Postmodernity, unlike modernity, is not hostile tradition … but it is hostile to the idea that the human intellect can be used to discern that one tradition is to be preferred over another. Most post-moderns tend to think that one’s preference of tradition is likely to stem from one’s aesthetic sensibility, rather than from intellectual judgment. (p. 129). Amen! If we are not careful, our tolerance of aesthetic preferences too easily becomes just another form of relativism.

In the midst of the decadence and fragmentation and Philistinism,  the usus antiquior can continue to be, in the words of Congar, a holy ark, a victory over devouring time, and a means of communication between Catholic separated by centuries of change … It does however need to be disentangled from ghetto culture, either ignorant or suspicious of the genuine reforms of the Council.

Therefore, we must be careful to find a balance that celebrates and insists upon the preservative role of the usus antiquior, but which does not devolve into the smug superiority and dismissiveness that threatens the very influence we seek to foster.

These are just some thoughts about how the usus antiquior can help evangelize culture both within and outside the Church. In this older form of the Mass we step back to what proved right for centuries, to the Mass most saints knew, to what time had tested and retained. This is important in a constantly shifting culture that has lost its moorings.

To have in our midst something that is fixed, stable, proven, and deeply connected to the wisdom of the past is a glorious gift. The newer form of the liturgy also brings gifts (a wider selection of readings, greater access to the vernacular, and some cultural flexibility). But without the stability of the usus antiquior, we see too many risks for wild and inauthentic shifts. And this is just what we have experienced in recent decades.

Both forms are currently the reality for us, but the new without the old is unanchored and drifts too wildly. The usus antiquior, the Extraordinary Form, restores our needed moorings.

What a wondrous and challenging feast we celebrate at Pentecost! A feast like this challenges us, because it puts to the lie a lazy, sleepy, hidden, and tepid Christian life. The Lord Jesus said to the Apostles and still says to us, “I have come to cast a fire on the earth!” (Luke 12:49). This is a feast about fire—about a transformative, refining, and purifying fire that the Lord wants to kindle in us and in this world. It is about a necessary fire, for as the Lord first judged the world by fire, the present heavens and the earth are reserved for the fire. Since it is going to be the fire next time, we need the tongues of Pentecost fire to fall on us to set us on fire and bring us up to the temperature of glory.

The readings today speak to us of the Holy Spirit in three ways: the portraits of the Spirit, the proclamation of the Spirit, and the propagation by the Spirit. Let’s look at all three.

I. The Portraits of the Spirit – The First Reading today (Acts 2:1-11) speaks of the Holy Spirit using two images: rushing wind and tongues of fire. These two images recall Psalm 50, which says, Our God comes, he does not keep silence, before him is a devouring fire, round about him a mighty tempest (Psalm 50:3).

Rushing Wind – Notice how the text from Acts opens: When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were.

This text brings us to the very root meaning of the word “Spirit.” For “spirit” refers to “breath,” and we have preserved this meaning in our word “respiration,” which means breathing. So the Spirit of God is the breath of God, the Ruah Adonai (the Spirit, the breath of God).

Genesis 1:2 speaks of this saying, the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And Genesis 2:7 speaks even more remarkably of something God did only for man, not for the animals: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So the very Spirit of God was breathed into Adam! But as we know, Adam lost this gift and died spiritually when he sinned.

Thus we see in this passage from Acts an amazing and wonderful resuscitation of the human person, as these first Christians (120 in all) experience the rushing wind of God’s Spirit breathing spiritual life back into them. God does CPR and brings humanity, dead in sin, back to life! The Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us once again as in a temple (cf 1 Cor 3:16). It has been said that Christmas is the feast of God with us, Good Friday is the Feast of God for us, but Pentecost is the Feast of God in us.

Tongues of Fire – The text from Acts says, Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them.

The Bible often speaks of God as fire, or in fiery terms. Moses saw God as a burning bush. God led the people out of Egypt through the desert as a pillar of fire. Moses went up onto a fiery Mt. Sinai where God was. Psalm 97 says, The LORD reigns; let the earth rejoice; let the many coastlands be glad! Clouds and thick darkness are round about him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. Fire goes before him and burns up his adversaries round about. His lightning lights up the world; the earth sees and trembles. The mountains melt like wax before the LORD, before the Lord of all the earth. The heavens proclaim his righteousness; and all the peoples behold his glory (Ps 97:1-6). Scriptures call God a Holy fire, a consuming fire (cf Heb 12:29), and a refining fire (cf Is. 48:10, Jer 9:7, Zec 13:9, Mal 3:3).

And so it is that our God, who is a Holy Fire, comes to dwell in us through His Holy Spirit. And as a Holy Fire, He refines us by burning away our sins and purifying us. As Job once said, But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold (Job 23:10).

And He is also preparing us for judgment, for if God is a Holy Fire, then who may endure the day of His coming or of our going to Him? What can endure the presence of Fire Himself? Only that which is already fire. Thus we must be set afire by God’s love.

So in the coming of the Holy Spirit, God sets us on fire to make us a kind of fire. In so doing, He purifies us and prepares us to meet Him, who is a Holy Fire.

II. The Proclamation of the Spirit. – You will notice that the Spirit came upon them like “tongues” of fire. The reference to tongues is no mere accident. For notice how the Holy Spirit moves them to speak and ultimately to witness. The text says: And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem. At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, “Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.”

So behold how the Holy Spirit moves them to proclaim, not just within the safety of the upper room, but also in holy boldness before the crowds who have gathered.

Notice the transformation! Moments ago these were frightened men who gathered only in secrecy, behind locked doors. They were huddled together in fear. But now they go forth to the crowds and proclaim Christ boldly. They have gone from fear to faith, from cowardice to courage, from terror to testimony!

And how about us? Too many Christians are silent, dominated by fear. Perhaps they fear being called names or not being popular. Perhaps they are anxious about being laughed at, or resisted, or of being asked questions they don’t feel capable of answering. Some Christians are able to gather in the “upper room” of the parish and be active, even be leaders. But once outside the “upper room” they slip into “undercover mode.” They become “secret agent” Christians.

Well the Holy Spirit wants to change that, and to the degree that we have really met Jesus Christ and experienced his Holy Spirit, we are less “able” to keep silent. An old Gospel song says, I thought I wasn’t gonna testify, but I couldn’t keep it to myself, what the Lord has done for me. The Holy Spirit, if authentically received, wants to give us zeal and joy, and burn away our fear so that testifying and witnessing are natural to us.

Note also how the Spirit “translates” for the Apostles, for the crowd before them spoke different languages, yet each heard Peter and the others in his own language. The Spirit, therefore, assists not only us but also those who hear us. My testimony is not dependent only on my own eloquence but also on the grace of the Holy Spirit, who casts out deafness and opens hearts. Every Christian should remember this. Some of our most doubtful encounters with others can still bear great fruit on account of the work of the Holy Spirit, who “translates” for us and overcomes many obstacles that we might think insurmountable.

III. The Propagation by the Spirit – In the Great Commission, the Lord said, Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age (Matt 28:19ff). He also said, as we have noted, I have come to cast a fire on the earth and How I wish the blaze were already ignited (Luke 12:49).

But how is the Lord going to do this?

Perhaps a picture will help. My parish church is dedicated to the Holy Spirit under the title Holy Comforter. Above the high altar is the Latin inscription Spiritus Domini, replevit orbem terrarum (The Spirit of the Lord, filled the orb of the earth). (See photo, above right, of our high altar.)

The walls of my parish Church answer the question. The clerestory walls are painted Spanish Red and upon this great canvas are also painted depictions of the lives of 20 saints, surrounding us like a great cloud of witnesses (cf Heb 12:1). (See also the video below.) And above the head of every saint is a tongue of fire.

THIS is how the Spirit of the Lord fills the earth. It is not “magic fairy dust”; it is in the fiery transformation of every Christian, going forth into the world to bring light and warmth to a dark and cold world. THIS is how the Lord casts fire on earth; THIS is how the Spirit of the Lord fills the orb of the earth: in the lives of saints, and, if you are prepared to accept it, in YOU.

In the end, the Great Commission (Matt 28) is “standing order No. 1.” No matter what else we do, we are supposed to do this. Parishes do not deserve to exist if they do not do this. We as individual Christians are a disgrace, and not worthy of the name, if we fail to win souls for Jesus Christ. The Spirit of the Lord is going to fill the orb of the earth, but only through us. The spread of the Gospel has been placed in your hands—scary, isn’t it?

Beginning two years ago, my own parish, after a year of training, stepped out into our neighborhood and went from door to door as well as into the local park. We announced Jesus Christ and invited people to discover Him in our parish and in the Sacraments. We were in the local park and the market just last week doing “sidewalk evangelization.”

Before we count even a single convert, this is already success, because we are obeying Jesus Christ, who said, simply, “Go!” “Go make disciples.” And, truth be told, we ARE seeing the results in my parish. Our Sunday attendance has grown from about 450 to 520, roughly a 15% increase. We are growing, and our attendance—while average for a downtown city parish—is going in the right direction. God never fails. God is faithful.

Spread the news: it works if you work it, so work it because God is worth it. Go make disciples. Ignore what the pollsters tell you about a declining Church and let the Lord cast a fire on the earth through you! Fires have a way of spreading! Why not start one today? The Spirit of God will not disappoint.

I know this: my parish has a future because we are obeying Jesus Christ; we are making disciples. How about you and yours? If parishes do not obey they do not deserve to exist, and they can expect to close one day no matter how big they may be today. I, in my short 50 years on this planet, have seen it: parishes once big, booming, and (frankly) arrogant are now declining and some are even near closure. It happens to the best if they do not evangelize, if they do not accomplish “Job 1.” The Lord wants to light a fire. Why not become totally fire? Let the Spirit propagate the Church through you. (I am not talking to the person next to you; I am talking to you.)

Happy feast of Pentecost! But don’t forget that the basic image is very challenging, for it means getting out of the “upper room,” opening the doors, and proclaiming Christ to the world. Let the Holy Spirit light a fire in you and then you can’t help but spread light and heat to a cold and dark world.

Let the evangelization of the whole world begin with you.

This video features details from the clerestory (upper window level) of my parish of Holy Comforter here in DC. Notice the tongue of fire above each saint. The paintings show how the Spirit of the Lord fills the orb of the earth (see photo above) through the lives of the saints (this means you, too). It is not magic; it is by grace working in your life, through your gifts and your relationships, that the Lord will reach each soul. The witnesses on the walls of my Church say, “You are the way He will fill the earth and set it on fire.” Let the blaze be ignited in you!

The song says, We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, looking on, encouraging us to do the will of the Lord. Let us stand worthy, and be faithful to God’s call … We must not grow weary!

Here is another video I put together which has scenes from the Pentecost event and is set to Palestrina’s Dum Complerentur. I like this musical version since it is sung in dance time. The Latin text to the motet is below the video along with its English Translation.

Dum complerentur dies Pentecostes,
erant omnes pariter dicentes, alleluia,
et subito factus est sonus de coelo, alleluia,
tamquam spiritus vehementis,
et replevit totam domum, alleluia.
–
When the Day of Pentecost had fully come,
they were all with one accord in one place, saying: alleluia.
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, alleluia,
as of a rushing mighty wind,
and it filled the whole house
where they were sitting, alleluia.