Another movie quite unfair to Catholics and the Church has been released: Angels and Demons. It remains true that the attacks against the Catholic Church would never be tolerated against Muslims or Jews. Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians are also groups that it is OK to attack. None of the usual rule apply about bigotry or insensitivity, hate crimes etc when Catholics, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are the target.
The following review by Fr. Barron is helpful in sorting out the myth that the Church is somehow “anti-science.” By the way, skip the movie. I read the book and while it is suspenseful in places it has a really stupid and unrealistic ending.
Every now and then it will be claimed that the Catholic Church is not a “Bible Believing Church.” Further, that Catholics do not know the Bible. Both claims register false when we look at the Mass. The Mass is filled with Scripture and Catholics know a lot more Scripture than they think they do. We may not be the sort to quote Chapter and Verse numbers but we know the scriptures. If I start to tell the story of Zaccheaus climbing the tree, or of Lazarus being raised from the dead, or of the woman at the well, or the storm at sea, or begin to quote from the Epistles, Catholics know these passages IF they go to Mass regularly. Over the period of three years the whole of the New Testament is read in the Catholic Liturgy and most of the significant passages of the Old Testament. We read A LOT of Scripture in every Mass and Catholics know more of the Bible than they think they do.
Now that the Congregation is seated, it is time to listen attenively to God’s Word. We do this in a part of the Mass called the Liturgy of the Word which in the current form of the Mass consists of and Old Testament Reading, a Psalm, a reading from a New Testament Epistle, and a reading from the Gospels. Then follows the Homily, the Creed and the prayer repsonse. In effect, readings from scripture and the chants between the readings form the main part of the liturgy of the word. The homily, profession of faith, and general intercessions or prayer of the faithful develop and complete it. In the readings, explained by the homily God speaks to his people of redemption and salvation and nourishes their spirit; Christ is present among the faithful through his word. Through the chants the people make God’s word their own and express their adherence to it through the profession of faith. Finally, moved by this word, they pray in the general intercessions for the needs of the Church and for the world’s salvation.(cf G.I.R.M. # 55)
History of the liturgy of the word. The beginnings of this service go back the synagogue and it therefore pre-christian in origin. The Apostles attended the synagogue and were thus familiar with it. The synagogue was distinct from the Temple. The Temple was in Jerusalem and it was there alone that blood sacrifices were offered. However, after the exile especially The Jews undertook the practice of meeting in their local areas to read scripture and praise the Lord. The gatherings (or synagogues) varied in size but tended to be small groups. In fact, as we know from Scripture, Jesus himself faithfully attended the synagogue and his Apostles continued to follow his example. We read in Acts 2:46, “Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and breaking bread in their homes.“
The Jewish synagogue service of the First Century may be described as follows. On appointed days, above all on the Sabbath, the community was assembled. The Assembly was opened with the Shema which served as a kind of profession of faith. The Text of the Shema begins as thus: “Hear O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone! Therefore you shall love the Lord, your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength…” (Deuteronomy 6:4) There was next a congregational prayer spoken by one of the members of the group appointed by the leader of the synagogue. Passages from Holy Writ were then sung. There were two readings. The first was from the Law (Torah- the first Five books of the Bible) which was read according to a prescribed cycle of three years. Each days readings were thus prescribed much as they are today in our Lectionary. Thus, in a three-year period the whole of the Torah was read. The Second reading was from the Prophets (Nebiim). This reading was selected at will. At least by New Testament times, there seems to have been a homily also included after the readings. This is indicated in scripture (See Luke 4:16-20; Acts 12:15ff). The whole assembly concluded with the blessing of a priest (Levite) if one was present otherwise with a prayer.
The very early Christians continued to attend the Saturday Synagogue service. They celebrated the Eucharist elsewhere, usually in a home or “house-church” on Sundays. Rather quickly however, there was a falling out with the Jews who came to regard the “Nazarenes” as divisive and hence sought to expel them. Upon “leaving” Judaism, the Christians took the Synagogue service with them and combined it with the celebration of the Eucharist. Thus, we have the beginnings of the form of the mass we recognize today.
The Scripture readings in general. In the readings the treasures of the Bible are opened to the people; this is the table of God’s word. Reading the scriptures is traditionally considered a ministerial, not a presidential function. It is desirable that the gospel be read by a deacon or, in his absence, by a priest other than the one presiding; the other readings are proclaimed by a reader from among the laity. In the absence of a deacon or another priest, the celebrant reads the gospel. The reading of the gospel is done with great reverence; it is distinguished from the other readings by special marks of honor. A special minister is appointed to proclaim it, preparing himself by a blessing or prayer. By standing to hear the reading and by their acclamations the people recognize and acknowledge that Christ is present and speaking to them. Marks of reverence are also given to the book of gospels itself. Among these are the kissing of the book, the signing of the page with the sign of the cross, and the use of incense. Likewise, there may also be a special procession to the “Place of the Gospel” as well as the use of torch bearers to stand near the book during its proclamation. Not to be overlooked is the possibility of singing the Gospel where the skill of the priest or deacon permits it.
History of the cycle of readings. In the choice and number of readings in the liturgy a great variety has prevailed and still prevails. The different rites of the Church still have in use different cycles or readings. This is true as well with the revived Traditional Latin Mass which follows its own schedule of readings distinct from the new Lectionary. It is interesting to note however, that many protestant churches have been impressed with the new lectionary of the Catholic Church and make use of its schedule in their own services. One general rule seems to have always been that there be at least two readings one of which would always be from the Gospels. Likewise, the readings were always biblical. The arrangement of the synagogue service, as has been noted was taken into the Christian Church. It was adapted however. Now a Gospel reading was gradually paired with an Old Testament passage. However, at more festive times of the year such as Eastertide there seems to have been an increasing inclination to replace the Old Testament reading with one from the New Testament other than the Gospel. This began to affect masses at other times of the year as well. However, at first there seems to have been merely the addition of a third reading resulting in a schema similar to the one we have today. However, for some reason this number dropped to two leaving the general schema as a reading from a New Testament Epistle and a Gospel reading. This remained the case until the liturgical changes of the Second Vatican Council which restored the three-reading schema. According to the testimony of the Fathers of the Church, the service of readings stressed reading the books of Holy Scripture straight through in the form of a “Lectio continua.”(That is to say, the passage this week picks up right where we left off last week.) However, strict adherence to this setup was not exacting. Just as is the case today, this system was often broken into by feast days whose occasion demanded a special and appropriate passage. These feast days tended to multiply and thus break up the continuous reading. Likewise, liturgical seasons played a role in shaping the lectio continua. Thus, through the centuries this strict lectio continua was eroded and became less recognizable although it still existed to some extent. Today, it has been restored to some extent. This is particularly true with regard to the Gospels. However, the first reading is chosen to back the theme of the Gospel and hence its selection is “arbitrary.” The epistles have returned to a rather strict lectio continua both on Sundays and weekdays.
Today, the lectionary today provides for a three year cycle for the Sunday readings and a two year cycle for weekdays. The first reading comes from the Old Testament and is chosen to parallel the Gospel passage. The second reading is taken from the epistles of the New Testament and sometimes from the book of Revelation. The Third reading of course is
taken from the Gospels. Each cycle relies especially on one of the Gospels. Cycle A relies on Matthew. Cycle B on Mark. Cycle C on Luke. All three of the cycles also draw on St. John’s Gospel. The weekdays draw from all the Gospels and Books of the Bible giving special emphasis to passages not covered on Sundays. The lectionary presents a broad sweep of the Scriptures. The Sundays readings alone present to the Catholic over 7000 verses of scripture over three years. Nearly the whole of the New Testament is covered in the Lectionary as well as the most significant portions of the Old Testament.
In the next post. We’ll talk a little more about the repsonsorial psalm.
This video depicts the Gospel being Chanted. It is rare today in most parishes to hear this but on Solemn Feasts it is appropriate if the Deacon is able to chant well.
L’Osservatore Romano Is the Newspaper of the Vatican. It’s editorials, while not considered official statements of the Vatican are nevertheless seen indicative of the general thinking in Rome. The paper has sounded an “upbeat” note in terms of recent postures of the President toward abortion, including the recent speech. . I am not sure how to interpret the editorial. Is is just wishful thinking? Is it an olive branch? How is one to interpret such an editorial in light of the very different position announced by Archbishop Raymond Burke, a Vatican Official? Hmm…
Here are excerpts from the summary article on the editorial published by Catholic News Service:
The search for a common ground: This seems to be the path chosen by the president of the United States, Barack Obama, in facing the delicate question of abortion,” the newspaper said….It said Obama had set aside the “strident tone” of the 2008 political campaign on the abortion issue….”Yesterday Obama confirmed … that enacting a new law on abortion was not a priority of his administration,” it said…The newspaper noted that Obama had called for reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, facilitating adoption and supporting women who want to carry their babies to term, and that he had also spoken of drafting a “conscience clause” for medical personnel who are morally opposed to participating in abortions.
Compare the tone of this article to that of Prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Court Archbishop Raymond Burke. Who really speaks for the Vatican? Who best represents the sentiments of the Vatican?
The full text of the Archbishop’s Address to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast is HERE
The latest issue of Gloria.TV news has a couple of reports on the Notre Dame issue. See below. By the way, AMERICAN PAPIST reports that Notre Dame has taken a big blow in terms of Alumni withholding donations. Presently 14 million has been withdrawn. I can’t link directly to the American Papist Article and so I reproduce it here:
ND Alumni withhold nearly $14m because of Obama at ND
The hemorrhaging continues. These are just the donations they can track down:
Notre Dame alumni who are upset with the university’s decision to allow pro-abortion President Barack Obama to give this coming weekend’s commencement speech and to give him an honorary degree continue to withhold their donations to the Catholic college.
In total, pro-life alumni and donors who feel disenfranchised by Notre Dame’s decision have decided to withhold nearly $14 million in gifts they normally would have given.
David DiFranco, a Michigan businessman and 1995 Notre Dame graduate, told LifeNews.com on Wednesday that the ReplaceJenkins.com web site for disgruntled alumni has received over 1,400 pledges to withhold donations within a month since its launch. (LifeNews)
I’m not sure if I’d call these folks “disgruntled.” “Principled” sounds better to my ears.
The video below shows an excerpt from the President’s speech at Notre Dame. A couple of thoughts occur to me in terms of his remarks:
The President has laid out a case that we should not demonize and that we should disagree agreeably in this matter. At one level this all sounds fine. But the issue here is not about being nice, it is about whether a Catholic institution should honor someone who is vigorously and uncompromisingly pro-abortion with an honorary degree of Law. Being nice is one thing, honoring what is not honorable is another. The President as a man, and as the President of the United States of America is honorable but his philosophy about the law is not. As St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians whom he loved: “In hoc non laudo” (in this I do not praise (you)).
Therefore the issue before us is more about us, than the President. What are WE doing here? What are we NOT doing? Are there going to be corrective moves from Church authority that will prevent such honors being bestowed in the future?
An analogy here: When a non-Catholic asks me if they can take Holy Communion I have to answer no. Perhaps this is not the “nicest answer” but it is the truest. Why can they not receive? Because communion means something. It means that I share communion with Jesus Christ. But it also means that I share communion with his Body the Church, that I accept what the Church teaches in faith and morals and the truth that this really is the Body of Christ I am receiving. In the same way that communion actually means something and is not just an old ritual, bestowing an honorary Doctorate of Law means something. It means that we honor the recipient’s understanding of and interpretation of the Law. But we do NOT honor an interpretation of law that says it is legal to kill thousands of innocent people every day. We cannot honor an interpretation of law that sanctions what has caused the death of tens of millions. It is not. Just as Holy Communion (which actually means something) must be withheld when such communion is lacking so should honors be withheld when when what is held cannot be honored. Again, this is no personal disrespect to the Office of President, nor to President Obama as a man. But we cannot honor his interpretation of the law here. And it is not some small point of law in question, it is a point of law that has led to the death of many millions.
So, being nice and agreeable is fine, being truthful and maintaining integrity is better.
Pray for our our President. He is clearly an articulate and intelligent man. What an ally he could be if he were converted on this matter. Pray too for our Church that we can use a moment like this to look more deeply and what we are doing and what it all means.
I have been the celebrant on the Mass for Shut-ins on many an occasion and was sad to hear that it may have to stop airing on WHUT a PBS Affiliate of Howard University. I don’t know what this means for the future of the Mass. I am not sure we could afford to purchase air time somewhere else or not. We’ll have to see where all this goes. Here are some excerpts explaining the whole matter from an article in today’s Washington Post. The article was written by Paul Farhi
PBS stations are debating the limits of one of public television’s basic commandments: Thou shalt not broadcast religious programming. The discussion, some station managers fear, could lead to a ban on broadcasts of local church services and other faith-oriented programs that have appeared on public stations for decades despite the prohibition.
The Public Broadcasting Service’s board is to vote next month on a committee’s recommendation to strip the affiliation of any station that carries ‘sectarian’ content. Losing its PBS relationship would mean that a station could no longer broadcast programs that the service distributes, from Sesame Street to ‘Frontline.’
The proposal is already having local ramifications. In anticipation of the vote next month, WHUT, the public station operated by Howard University in the District, has notified the Archdiocese of Washington that it will cancel ‘Mass for Shut-Ins,’ a Diocese-produced weekly program, if the PBS board adopts a strict interpretation. ‘Mass for Shut-Ins’ has been carried on WHUT since 1996, and continuously on a Washington TV station for nearly 60 years.
‘It’s kind of a shock to us,’ said Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese. ‘They’ve been great partners of ours for a long time. . . . The Mass is a very local programming that provides a community service. You’d think public television would be about engaging the community.’
…..A strict ban would leave stations such as WLAE in New Orleans with a dilemma: Stop airing its daily telecast of Catholic Mass or end its affiliation with PBS. The station, which is partly owned by a Catholic lay group, has been presenting the morning Mass since it went on the air in 1984.
‘We don’t want to lose our association with PBS, because they provide a lot of fine programs,’ said Ron Yager, the station’s vice president and general manager. ‘But at the same time, we need to serve our community. We’ve built an identity around this. People know us for this.’
Yager said his station has never received a complaint about the Mass telecast in the 25 years it has aired. ‘I’m really not totally sure of their reasoning for doing this,’ he said.
Lawson said her station has never had a complaint about its Mass broadcasts, either. But the program has sparked interest from other religious groups that would like the station to broadcast their church or mosque services, she said. ‘We just have to tell them that [‘Mass for Shut-Ins’] is a legacy program, and that we don’t have the wherewithal or inclination to do any more,’ she said….
KBYU in Provo, Utah, for example, is operated by Brigham Young University, which in turn is affiliated with the Mormon Church. The station airs much of the usual PBS fare — ‘Arthur,’ ‘Barney,’ ‘The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer’ — but also broadcasts two hours a day of ‘BYU Devotional,’ which includes lectures from leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. KMBH, based in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas and licensed to an affiliate of the Diocese of Brownsville, carries Sunday Mass broadcasts, Bible study in Spanish, and a family issues program hosted by a priest. In 2007, the station drew national attention when it declined to air ‘Hand of God,’ a critically praised ‘Frontline’ documentary about clergy sexual abuse.
Jan McNamara, a PBS spokeswoman, declined specific comment, saying only, “We’re still gathering feedback from our members to see where they stand.”
Another movie quite unfair to Catholics and the Church has been released: Angels and Demons. It remains true that the attacks against the Catholic Church would never be tolerated against Muslims or Jews. Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians are also groups that it is OK to attack. None of the usual rule apply about bigotry or insensitivity, hate crimes etc when Catholics, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are the target.