Given what we've said about what the Church is, and what relation she ought to have with the Polis (state, country, political unit), how do we start drawing conclusions about what the Church ought to be doing to serve all people?
The second part of the constitution Gaudium et Spes, on the Church in the modern world, lists some key areas where the ministry of the Church is particularly valuable, and ought to be particularly visible. These concerns are marriage and family life (#47ff), development of culture (#53ff), economy and society (#63ff), and politics, both intra-national (#73ff) and inter-national (#77ff). Notice that this list also progresses in the order of subsidiarity, from the smallest and most personal level to the global level. Let's take a quick look at them.
Marriage and Family Life
GS #47: The well-being of the individual person and of human and Christian society is intimately linked with the healthy condition of that community produced by marriage and family. Since the family is the domestic church, and the basic, subsidiary unit of both human and ecclesial life, the Church puts an extremely high priority on protecting and fostering healthy families. Gaudium et Spes lists some threats to married life: polygamy, divorce, fornication, abortion, contraception, worship of self and of pleasure, etc. Therefore the Church's ministry needs to address these kinds of threats, which, of course, we do on a regular basis. Clergy are (as we have always been) on the "front lines" of dealing with issues in marriages, both before and after the fact; and the Church also has resources like Catholic Charities and other Catholic professionals to help protect existing marriages, and heal broken ones (to the extent possible). Catechesis of married adults and their children, and of youth before (both remote and proximate) marriage, takes place constantly. And the witness of married couples themselves is of course critical to the success of these other efforts. All of this also needs to show up regularly in liturgical preaching.
But notice that these efforts to promote marriage and family are also "social justice" efforts. Divorce is the single greatest cause of generational poverty, and the consequences usually fall more heavily on women than men. The outcomes for children of divorced families (education levels, economic status, rates of criminal behavior and both social and physical disease, and stability of their own future marriages) are all significantly lower than for children whose parents do not divorce. All of these things also drive up taxes to support expanding social services, and may tend to imbalance the Church-State relationship and marginalize ecclesial efforts to serve in these areas. The long term costs of abortion and contraception are also devastating, not only morally (as is obvious) but also fiscally (elimination of millions of productive workers, etc, which more and more we are publicly admitting).
So, ecclesial ministry which succeeds in reducing rates of divorce, abortion, contraception, etc, and in strengthening marriage to the same extent, not only serves the individuals who benefit from that ministry directly, but also serves the Church as a whole, and the world in which she lives.
Culture
GS #53: Man comes to a true and full humanity only through culture, that is through the cultivation of the goods and values of nature. The "goods and values of nature" are of course many and diverse, and how we "cultivate" them (including both conservation/tradition and innovation/progress) gives us a distinctive "character" at a given time and place. Thus, The word "culture" in its general sense indicates everything whereby man develops and perfects his many bodily and spiritual qualities; he strives by his knowledge and his labor, to bring the world itself under his control. He renders social life more human both in the family and the civic community, through improvement of customs and institutions. Throughout the course of time he expresses, communicates and conserves in his works, great spiritual experiences and desires, that they might be of advantage to the progress of many, even of the whole human family (ibidem).
Gaudium et Spes includes as threats to culture, especially in the modern (urbanizing, industrializing, individualizing) context: technology and the pace of change, commodification of goods and human services, materialism, scientism, deracination, homogenization (loss of traditional wisdom and character), etc.
Obviously, building up families and strengthening marriage also helps preserve and strengthen culture. The human aspects of labor, social relations and engagement, exchange of goods and services, etc., are far less likely to be diminished or lost, when family life is strong and healthy. Family life is the subsidiary reality and model for all social life; its health is the barometer of culture.
In addition, GS #60-61 particularly exhorts the followers of Christ to particular forms of ministry: to support education, while maintaining the Catholic vision of the unity of knowledge within itself (against hyper-specialization in sub-disciplines), and between itself (techne) and morality (sophia); to foster the humanizing aspects of labor; to inculcate a shared commitment to duty (pietas, in its original meaning) to the common good along with personal rights; and to respect the essential differences between men and women, even in the marketplace. Clearly, education is a fundamental ministerial commitment in the Church, not only to our Catholic schools and universities, but also our RE programs, adult bible studies, and sacramental prep, etc. - not to mention upholding the fundamental right of parents to raise their children. In all these ways, the fundamental truth that we must teach is that of the human person: created and loved by God, fallen in Adam, redeemed in Christ, called to and capable of living every aspect of life in intimate union with Christ and thus in the Trinity. Family and ecclesial life, the sacraments and prayer and service must so deeply underlie every individual effort at education/formation that they cannot be separated from it.
In terms of the Church's ministry, clergy have to be present and inherently involved in the life of these institutions. Lay people, with their vocation of bringing all things under Christ's feet by their labor and witness, must work to transform these institutions more deeply into the image of Christ. All the various ways these might take place follow pretty straightforwardly.
Further, while Gaudium et Spes doesn't explicitly go here, there are implied hooks between this document and the other three conciliar Constitutions (Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium, and especially Sacrosanctum Concilium). This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy (SC #1). Culture is never whole without religion, and in religion, liturgy ("cultus")is the primary vehicle of passing on culture. In other words, we cannot pursue social justice or the common good without a solid and enduring foundation in right worship. In short, "Save the liturgy, save the world."
Economy and Society, and Politics
From this it follows that our consistent witness in living for Christ is the engine of divinization in the world. The proclamation of the Gospel in both word and action; the authenticity of standing consistently at the foot of the Cross in all social, economic, and political situations, and in being seen publicly to stand there; and the uncompromising commitment to be the instruments of bringing the order of nature under the order of grace: these are the hallmarks of compelling ecclesial ministry, always and everywhere. For man is the source, the center, and the purpose of all economic and social life (#63). Christians who take an active part in present-day socio-economic development and fight for justice and charity should be convinced that they can make a great contribution to the prosperity of mankind and to the peace of the world. In these activities let them, either as individuals or as members of groups, give a shining example (#70).
Nod to the Natural Law
Note, finally, in this exposition of ecclesiological ministry, the implicit hierarchy of goods. In the commitment of belonging only to Christ, being pro-life comes first, and being pro-family can't really be separated from it. (Of the Ten Commandments, this immediately invokes obedience to #1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.) From these first-order goods comes the second order of "the common good," especially what is tangibly grasped in the concrete life of the community (diocesan Church, local society with vigorously healthy voluntary associations, and deeply shared engagement in economy and political life). This layer of commitment invokes the remaining five Commandments (#2 in right worship in communion with the local bishop, and #7-10 in right social relations with others). Finally, the tertiary order of goods follows, in political commitments and party platforms and identifications. In a truly healthy culture, these various tertiary commitments never differ on the first and second order goods, but may envision different means of achieving them, or may differ on aspects of prudence. How much we argue about the first- and second-order goods is a clear measure of how unhealthy our culture is today, and by implication, how disconnected from that sickness our ministry can be.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
Ecclesiology - Who's in charge here, anyway??
Church-State relations have always been a bit testy. I think the apologists were mostly correct: God may have permitted states to form, "because of the hardness of our heart," but basically that power or authority is going to be used badly, as often as not. Part of the mission of the Church is to curtail that abuse, to "Christianize" the state. In a very schematic way, we can think about it in four phases:
1. Early Church, "Age of Martyrs" - characterized by a Church trying to distinguish itself clearly (in its intellectual, social, moral, and liturgical life) from everything around it (Judaism, Paganism(s), Heresies).
2. Constantinian Church - After Constantine's conversion, he intervened (or interfered) in Church matters, including disputed ownership of dioceses, public policy favoring Christians and churches (taxes, wills, etc), and theology - up to and including the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Constantine called himself "bishop for external affairs" and applied the old prerogatives of the pagan "Pontifex Maximus" to the Church. Since we're being schematic, we can say that this arrangement lasted in the East more or less until 1453.
3. Medieval Church - Pope Gelasius I offered the so-called "two-swords" theory, dividing civil and ecclesiastical power. Since we're being schematic, we can say that in the Early Middle Ages, the Church authority was independent of the state's, but generally weaker. Kings, dukes, and counts had a lot of say in Church affairs, even to choosing (or at least approving) key Church appointments. In the High and Later Middle Ages (after the Investiture Controversy), the Church's authority was independent of the state's, but generally stronger. The Church has a lot of say in political affairs, even to choosing or approving kings, marriages, and successions. Positively, it was felt that the Church, being morally free in Christ, could morally direct the use of the state's coercive power (police, law systems, justiciary); while lacking that power itself would be a check on human weakness. The state, by cooperating with the Church in this way, could be more the instrument of divine rule God had intended it to be; while not choosing the end of its own coercive power would be a check on human weakness.
4. Since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) - The Reformation and its aftermath dramatically changed the relationship of Church and State. States in the 16th century completed the subordination of the nobility, and the extension of the powers of royal (i.e. central) government over all associated territories (formerly duchies, counties, etc). They successfully monopolized for that royal or central government the use of coercive force. The Church was now the only non-physical limit to the power of the king, or later of Parliament or Prime Minister or President. But the Church itself was both damaged and discredited in the Reformation and what followed, so it couldn't really perform that function well. The coercive power of the state was uncoupled from the Church's direction, mostly so that the competing churches couldn't use it against each other, as in the Wars of Religion and 30 Years War. The State became morally self-regulating in its use of coercion. Hence the creation of the modern "rights of man" language, that tries to set clear limits on how the state can use its unrivaled power. But since the 19th century and industrialization, that tradition has been breaking down in practice. Fascism and Communism have the same roots as we do, and in each case the State devoured itself. Liberalism (representative democracy regulating a common, relatively free market) has all the same risks.
Since the 19th century, meanwhile, the Church has been rebuilding its moral vigor. Ecumenism is overcoming the partisan divisions of the past, and the common moral vision of our Christian heritage is more easily articulated. A document like Gaudium et Spes clearly shows the desire of a united front of Christians committed to being a moral force in the world, and a check on the otherwise autonomous (unchecked) civil power which now dominates it. The pro-life battleground is the obvious place this is playing out most confrontationally. Marriage issues are quickly becoming another. Christians can - must - choose between this reinvigorated prophetic Christianity (magisterial Catholics, most Evangelicals, most Orthodox, a few other Protestants) and the limpid sold-out squooshiness of decaying hippy progressive Christianity (cafeteria Catholics, mainstream Protestants).
This makes it clear that the Church's future is with the New Evangelization. Spineless liberal Christianity, which has abandoned dogma and Tradition, rejected Revelation, and explained away every miracle of salvation history, has nothing at all with which to play its proper role in limiting the immoral abuse of the state's growing power. In accepting as "spilled milk" fornication, adultery, abortion, and homosexuality - issues, notice, where the state uses "rights" language, not to raise the moral bar, but to lower it forcibly - liberal Christianity has already capitulated to the state's modern ambition. It is without force, without hope, and without energy.
In contrast, the prophetic Christianity of the New Evangelization, both Catholic and non-Catholic, alone has the intellectual and moral capacity to curtail the modern state. In opposing fornication, adultery, abortion, and homosexuality, it correctly identifies the wedge issues through which the self-regulating state is inexorably attempting to expand its use of authority. To the extent that the Church achieves some success in resisting these social changes, it forces the state not to change the meaning of "rights" language, and to be accountable for its use of power. It therefore re-establishes the proper relationship of moral power between it and the state.
Finally, no matter how much things have changed since Pope Gelasius I at the end of the 5th century, three concrete principles still apply and must be observed by all parties:
1. The state has no power over the Church's sacramental life. This inviolable principle is dangerously at play in current marriage politics. "Tyranny" is not too strong a word for the state legistlating sacramental life. We, as clerics, have to be willing to stand on this principle and take the scorn of the sick world, like the martyrs before us - most especially on those critical wedge issues where the state tries to make inroads where it really doesn't belong.
2. The Church isn't better at politics that the politicians. Obvious, one would think, but useful to remind ourselves that our mission is souls, not politics. To be truly prophetic, one must be apolitical. Pope Benedict said some interesting things last week in Germany about the Church embracing its modern poverty (no Papal States, no great reserves of wealth like the medieval Church had, dependent on the charity of the people for its operating resources) precisely for this prophetic end.
3. Every good law is supported by the universal moral law, what Catholics call "natural law." This is the right relation between Church and state. The Church has both the right and the obligation to explain both the natural law and the divine law, revealed in Scripture; and to expect that the State will listen to this wisdom. The State simply cannot be its own moral voice; it needs the Church to teach it the natural law, and to point to the revealed law, over and over again.
1. Early Church, "Age of Martyrs" - characterized by a Church trying to distinguish itself clearly (in its intellectual, social, moral, and liturgical life) from everything around it (Judaism, Paganism(s), Heresies).
2. Constantinian Church - After Constantine's conversion, he intervened (or interfered) in Church matters, including disputed ownership of dioceses, public policy favoring Christians and churches (taxes, wills, etc), and theology - up to and including the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Constantine called himself "bishop for external affairs" and applied the old prerogatives of the pagan "Pontifex Maximus" to the Church. Since we're being schematic, we can say that this arrangement lasted in the East more or less until 1453.
3. Medieval Church - Pope Gelasius I offered the so-called "two-swords" theory, dividing civil and ecclesiastical power. Since we're being schematic, we can say that in the Early Middle Ages, the Church authority was independent of the state's, but generally weaker. Kings, dukes, and counts had a lot of say in Church affairs, even to choosing (or at least approving) key Church appointments. In the High and Later Middle Ages (after the Investiture Controversy), the Church's authority was independent of the state's, but generally stronger. The Church has a lot of say in political affairs, even to choosing or approving kings, marriages, and successions. Positively, it was felt that the Church, being morally free in Christ, could morally direct the use of the state's coercive power (police, law systems, justiciary); while lacking that power itself would be a check on human weakness. The state, by cooperating with the Church in this way, could be more the instrument of divine rule God had intended it to be; while not choosing the end of its own coercive power would be a check on human weakness.
4. Since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) - The Reformation and its aftermath dramatically changed the relationship of Church and State. States in the 16th century completed the subordination of the nobility, and the extension of the powers of royal (i.e. central) government over all associated territories (formerly duchies, counties, etc). They successfully monopolized for that royal or central government the use of coercive force. The Church was now the only non-physical limit to the power of the king, or later of Parliament or Prime Minister or President. But the Church itself was both damaged and discredited in the Reformation and what followed, so it couldn't really perform that function well. The coercive power of the state was uncoupled from the Church's direction, mostly so that the competing churches couldn't use it against each other, as in the Wars of Religion and 30 Years War. The State became morally self-regulating in its use of coercion. Hence the creation of the modern "rights of man" language, that tries to set clear limits on how the state can use its unrivaled power. But since the 19th century and industrialization, that tradition has been breaking down in practice. Fascism and Communism have the same roots as we do, and in each case the State devoured itself. Liberalism (representative democracy regulating a common, relatively free market) has all the same risks.
Since the 19th century, meanwhile, the Church has been rebuilding its moral vigor. Ecumenism is overcoming the partisan divisions of the past, and the common moral vision of our Christian heritage is more easily articulated. A document like Gaudium et Spes clearly shows the desire of a united front of Christians committed to being a moral force in the world, and a check on the otherwise autonomous (unchecked) civil power which now dominates it. The pro-life battleground is the obvious place this is playing out most confrontationally. Marriage issues are quickly becoming another. Christians can - must - choose between this reinvigorated prophetic Christianity (magisterial Catholics, most Evangelicals, most Orthodox, a few other Protestants) and the limpid sold-out squooshiness of decaying hippy progressive Christianity (cafeteria Catholics, mainstream Protestants).
This makes it clear that the Church's future is with the New Evangelization. Spineless liberal Christianity, which has abandoned dogma and Tradition, rejected Revelation, and explained away every miracle of salvation history, has nothing at all with which to play its proper role in limiting the immoral abuse of the state's growing power. In accepting as "spilled milk" fornication, adultery, abortion, and homosexuality - issues, notice, where the state uses "rights" language, not to raise the moral bar, but to lower it forcibly - liberal Christianity has already capitulated to the state's modern ambition. It is without force, without hope, and without energy.
In contrast, the prophetic Christianity of the New Evangelization, both Catholic and non-Catholic, alone has the intellectual and moral capacity to curtail the modern state. In opposing fornication, adultery, abortion, and homosexuality, it correctly identifies the wedge issues through which the self-regulating state is inexorably attempting to expand its use of authority. To the extent that the Church achieves some success in resisting these social changes, it forces the state not to change the meaning of "rights" language, and to be accountable for its use of power. It therefore re-establishes the proper relationship of moral power between it and the state.
Finally, no matter how much things have changed since Pope Gelasius I at the end of the 5th century, three concrete principles still apply and must be observed by all parties:
1. The state has no power over the Church's sacramental life. This inviolable principle is dangerously at play in current marriage politics. "Tyranny" is not too strong a word for the state legistlating sacramental life. We, as clerics, have to be willing to stand on this principle and take the scorn of the sick world, like the martyrs before us - most especially on those critical wedge issues where the state tries to make inroads where it really doesn't belong.
2. The Church isn't better at politics that the politicians. Obvious, one would think, but useful to remind ourselves that our mission is souls, not politics. To be truly prophetic, one must be apolitical. Pope Benedict said some interesting things last week in Germany about the Church embracing its modern poverty (no Papal States, no great reserves of wealth like the medieval Church had, dependent on the charity of the people for its operating resources) precisely for this prophetic end.
3. Every good law is supported by the universal moral law, what Catholics call "natural law." This is the right relation between Church and state. The Church has both the right and the obligation to explain both the natural law and the divine law, revealed in Scripture; and to expect that the State will listen to this wisdom. The State simply cannot be its own moral voice; it needs the Church to teach it the natural law, and to point to the revealed law, over and over again.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Holy Father in Germany
The Vatican website has collected the texts, and some video, of the Holy Father's visit last week to Germany. His talks are, as usual, outstanding. I especially recommend his last talk, in Freiberg, in which he talks with great clarity about the mission of the Church, the good of apostolic poverty (i.e., not being politicized but being able to critique politics and culture from the outside), and the need for interior conversion. May God bless and strengthen His servant, Benedict, for the ministry of Peter!
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Ecclesiology, for class discussion
First, here’s the link to Pius XII's encyclical, Mystici Corporis (1943). Note what he says about the Church being (definition, not description) the mystical Body of Christ.
Second, "What is the Church?" We started with details of the preparatory revelation of the Old Testament, and types of the Church. We looked in the NT for some of the key moments when Christ gives the Church its most powerful gifts. And we've glanced quickly at how those gifts both remain stable and unchanging, and simultaneously can be used very differently, through time (Tradition). From all of this, I suggest three things for your consideration and discussion, to help prepare for next class on 9/24. I hope it’s obvious how these three (mutually enlightening) definitions come out of the OT, NT, and Tradition that we covered in our first two classes.
1. The Church is the New Covenant.
a. Where are the fundamental elements of the Old Covenant in the New (i.e. God, People, Land, Law; sacrifice, revelation, unique mission for the world, unique identifying rituals)?
b. Fit into this the threefold mission (liturgy, proclamation, service).
c. Fit into this the seven virtues (faith, hope, love, prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude).
2. The Church is the Body of Christ.
a. How is St. Paul’s language about being the Body of Christ literal (historical, and eschatological, both) and not merely a metaphor?
b. How does our being this Body make us “a perfect and visible society”? What else (more than visible) needs to be added (more on this with Lumen Gentium on 10/8).
3. The Church is the spotless Bride of Christ.
a. Sometimes this is conflated with Covenant, but not necessarily. How do the Gospels and St. Paul use this nuptial identity? (Again, more on this with LG.)
b. How does this relate to traditions of clerical and monastic celibacy? How are celibacy and marriage connected within the Church, and therefore by analogy between Church and Christ?
Discuss!
Second, "What is the Church?" We started with details of the preparatory revelation of the Old Testament, and types of the Church. We looked in the NT for some of the key moments when Christ gives the Church its most powerful gifts. And we've glanced quickly at how those gifts both remain stable and unchanging, and simultaneously can be used very differently, through time (Tradition). From all of this, I suggest three things for your consideration and discussion, to help prepare for next class on 9/24. I hope it’s obvious how these three (mutually enlightening) definitions come out of the OT, NT, and Tradition that we covered in our first two classes.
1. The Church is the New Covenant.
a. Where are the fundamental elements of the Old Covenant in the New (i.e. God, People, Land, Law; sacrifice, revelation, unique mission for the world, unique identifying rituals)?
b. Fit into this the threefold mission (liturgy, proclamation, service).
c. Fit into this the seven virtues (faith, hope, love, prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude).
2. The Church is the Body of Christ.
a. How is St. Paul’s language about being the Body of Christ literal (historical, and eschatological, both) and not merely a metaphor?
b. How does our being this Body make us “a perfect and visible society”? What else (more than visible) needs to be added (more on this with Lumen Gentium on 10/8).
3. The Church is the spotless Bride of Christ.
a. Sometimes this is conflated with Covenant, but not necessarily. How do the Gospels and St. Paul use this nuptial identity? (Again, more on this with LG.)
b. How does this relate to traditions of clerical and monastic celibacy? How are celibacy and marriage connected within the Church, and therefore by analogy between Church and Christ?
Discuss!
Thursday, September 1, 2011
WYD pilgrims
The front page photo of the Globe this week is one taken of some of our local pilgrims at WYD in Spain.
Looking carefully, I see that Fr. Lingle has, as I hoped he would, taken advantage of Spain's great and flourishing cottage industry in ecclesiastical haberdashery. I may be mistaken, but I believe that particular item is called the "galeretto mollo"...
Looking carefully, I see that Fr. Lingle has, as I hoped he would, taken advantage of Spain's great and flourishing cottage industry in ecclesiastical haberdashery. I may be mistaken, but I believe that particular item is called the "galeretto mollo"...
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Some Thoughts or Reminders about the Liturgy of the Hours
The Liturgy of the Hours (LH) - also called Divine Office (DO) or simply Office - is the daily, public, shared prayer of the whole Church. It is just as much "The Liturgy" as the daily Mass. We need to treat it with very nearly the same reverence and joy that we treat and dare to approach the Holy Eucharist, both in Holy Mass and in Adoration.
If we're praying it in private, maybe with our wife or our family, perhaps we don't need to be too punctilious about the externals - candles, vestments, standing and sitting and bowing, etc. But we should definitely have the right kind of spirit in praying it. We should never rush through it, just to get it done. We should never do it by rote, letting our minds wander already to the day's troubles etc. We should never forget we are praying for all those, both in the Church and outside, "as much for the living as for the dead," who may not have anyone else to pray for them.
This is one of the reasons I encourage you to learn to sing the DO, and why I mostly do it that way myself, even when alone. Singing forces me not to rush. Singing forces me to pay attention to my breathing, and to the words. Singing occupies parts of my mind that are drifting when I don't sing the DO. I've learned from experience what a lousy pray-er I can be, and I am grateful to the Church's wisdom for reminding me that the Psalms are always meant to be sung. It's easier to be recollected when singing the Office. (It's also more solemn, and more different from any other kind of public reading or recitation, etc, etc, just as it is with chant in the Mass.)
Singing also connects me and my offering of the DO more concretely to the whole Church. Maybe that's more subjective than I usually think it is, but the fact remains that the Church as a whole has always sung the Psalms. Generations of monks and deacons and pious husbands seem to be looking over my shoulder, or hovering just out of sight, when I'm singing the Office. The Church still recommends the DO be sung, as much as possible.
If we're leading LH in public, we should take the same care to prepare and make use of the externals as we do for Mass or Adoration. The proper vestments for leading LH are alb and stole (and cope); or cassock and surplice and stole (and cope). Four or six candles should be used, on or next to the altar. For more solemn events or days, there should be procession, incense, etc; for less solemn, there are simpler but still dignified ways of doing the same thing.
The LH combines very well with other liturgical rituals - sacraments outside of Mass, liturgy of the Word, and especially Exposition and Adoration (and Benediction).
There are rules about how to combine these different things, and in what possible combinations, and you can look those up - or, for you newer guys, ask me or one of the older guys.
Some ammo from the General Instruction on the Liturgy of the Hours (every Psalter and Breviary has this document in it):
15. In the LH the Church exercises the priestly office of its head, and offers to God "unceasingly" a sacrifice of praise...
16. When the Church offers praise to God in the LH, it unites itself with that hymn of praise which is sung in the heavenly places throughout all ages; it also receives a foretaste of the song of praise in Heaven...
18. Those who take part in the LH bring growth to God's people in a hidden but fruitful apostolate, for the work of the apostolate is directed to this end, "that all who are made sons of God through faith and baptism may come together in unity, praise God in the midst of the Church, share in the sacrifice and eat the supper of the Lord."
23. Those in Holy Orders [among others] have the responsibility of initiating and directing the prayer of the community... They must therefore see to it tha the faithful are invited -- and prepared by suitable instruction -- to celebrate the principle Hours in common, especially on Sundays and feast days.
255. The priest or deacon who presides at a celebration [of LH] may wear a stole over the alb or surplice; a priest may also wear a cope. On greater solemnities, there is nothing to prevent several priests from wearing copes, or several deacons from wearing dalmatics.
256. It is for the presiding priest or deacon, from the chair, to open the celebration with the introductory verse, to begin the Lord's Prayer, to say the concluding prayer, to greet the people, bless them and dismiss them.
258. In the absence of a priest or deacon, the one who presides at the Office is only one among equals; he does not enter the sanctuary, or greet or bless the people.
261. During the Gospel Canticle at MP and EP, the altar, then the priest [deacon] and the people may be incensed.
If we're praying it in private, maybe with our wife or our family, perhaps we don't need to be too punctilious about the externals - candles, vestments, standing and sitting and bowing, etc. But we should definitely have the right kind of spirit in praying it. We should never rush through it, just to get it done. We should never do it by rote, letting our minds wander already to the day's troubles etc. We should never forget we are praying for all those, both in the Church and outside, "as much for the living as for the dead," who may not have anyone else to pray for them.
This is one of the reasons I encourage you to learn to sing the DO, and why I mostly do it that way myself, even when alone. Singing forces me not to rush. Singing forces me to pay attention to my breathing, and to the words. Singing occupies parts of my mind that are drifting when I don't sing the DO. I've learned from experience what a lousy pray-er I can be, and I am grateful to the Church's wisdom for reminding me that the Psalms are always meant to be sung. It's easier to be recollected when singing the Office. (It's also more solemn, and more different from any other kind of public reading or recitation, etc, etc, just as it is with chant in the Mass.)
Singing also connects me and my offering of the DO more concretely to the whole Church. Maybe that's more subjective than I usually think it is, but the fact remains that the Church as a whole has always sung the Psalms. Generations of monks and deacons and pious husbands seem to be looking over my shoulder, or hovering just out of sight, when I'm singing the Office. The Church still recommends the DO be sung, as much as possible.
If we're leading LH in public, we should take the same care to prepare and make use of the externals as we do for Mass or Adoration. The proper vestments for leading LH are alb and stole (and cope); or cassock and surplice and stole (and cope). Four or six candles should be used, on or next to the altar. For more solemn events or days, there should be procession, incense, etc; for less solemn, there are simpler but still dignified ways of doing the same thing.
The LH combines very well with other liturgical rituals - sacraments outside of Mass, liturgy of the Word, and especially Exposition and Adoration (and Benediction).
There are rules about how to combine these different things, and in what possible combinations, and you can look those up - or, for you newer guys, ask me or one of the older guys.
Some ammo from the General Instruction on the Liturgy of the Hours (every Psalter and Breviary has this document in it):
15. In the LH the Church exercises the priestly office of its head, and offers to God "unceasingly" a sacrifice of praise...
16. When the Church offers praise to God in the LH, it unites itself with that hymn of praise which is sung in the heavenly places throughout all ages; it also receives a foretaste of the song of praise in Heaven...
18. Those who take part in the LH bring growth to God's people in a hidden but fruitful apostolate, for the work of the apostolate is directed to this end, "that all who are made sons of God through faith and baptism may come together in unity, praise God in the midst of the Church, share in the sacrifice and eat the supper of the Lord."
23. Those in Holy Orders [among others] have the responsibility of initiating and directing the prayer of the community... They must therefore see to it tha the faithful are invited -- and prepared by suitable instruction -- to celebrate the principle Hours in common, especially on Sundays and feast days.
255. The priest or deacon who presides at a celebration [of LH] may wear a stole over the alb or surplice; a priest may also wear a cope. On greater solemnities, there is nothing to prevent several priests from wearing copes, or several deacons from wearing dalmatics.
256. It is for the presiding priest or deacon, from the chair, to open the celebration with the introductory verse, to begin the Lord's Prayer, to say the concluding prayer, to greet the people, bless them and dismiss them.
258. In the absence of a priest or deacon, the one who presides at the Office is only one among equals; he does not enter the sanctuary, or greet or bless the people.
261. During the Gospel Canticle at MP and EP, the altar, then the priest [deacon] and the people may be incensed.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Saint Bartholomew, Apostle and Martyr
Jesus said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." Nathanael [=Bartholomew] answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" (Jn 1:48-9)
Many of the Old Testament prophets use the fig tree as a symbol of the Covenant. If it's barren, the fig tree can mean that the People of God are not living up to the Covenant, as for example in Jeremiah 8: "How will you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us?' In vain have the scribes used a false pen. The wise men are ashamed, and alarmed, and taken, because they have rejected the word of the Lord. What wisdom is there in them? ...There are no grapes on the vines, and no figs on the fig trees, and the leaves have fallen off."
But if the fig tree is flourishing, it can mean that the fullness of God's grace abounds, as for example in Micah 4: "And at the last days, the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, and established above the mountains and exalted above the hills... for out of Zion shall go forth a law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many peoples, and shall rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into sickles... And everyone shall rest under his vine, and everyone under his fig tree, and there shall be none to alarm them, for the mouth of the Lord Almighty has spoken these words."
Philip and Bartholomew are looking and longing for the Messiah, "him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote" (Jn 1:"45). His heart is "without guile" (1:47), and therefore is open to God satisfying his desire. Philip, who has witnessed John the Baptist baptize Jesus, tells Bartholomew to "Come and see" (1:46) the one who fulfills these prophecies. So when Jesus tells Bartholomew, "I saw you under the fig tree," the prophets' use of the fig tree leaps to mind. Bartholomew recognizes that this man, who knows his mind and heart so intimately and immediately, is from God, and is God - the Son of God and King of Israel, the "word of the Lord from Jerusalem" of whom Micah spoke.
Bartholomew believes because Jesus identifies Himself to him in this very intimate and personal way. Because he believes, he sacrifices all to follow Him. He becomes one of the Twelve, and eventually a great preacher and martyr who established the Church in India.
Jesus identifies Himself to us with the same immediate, intimate, and personal love. In baptism, and confession, and Eucharist, He calls us to follow Him. How do we let Jesus see us? Are our hearts "without guile" for Him? Do we rest under the fig tree - seeking union with Him in Scripture, and in the sacraments, and in prayer? Do we hold firmly to our hope and faith in His victory over sin and death? Do we recognize Him? Are we ready to hear and respond?
Many of the Old Testament prophets use the fig tree as a symbol of the Covenant. If it's barren, the fig tree can mean that the People of God are not living up to the Covenant, as for example in Jeremiah 8: "How will you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us?' In vain have the scribes used a false pen. The wise men are ashamed, and alarmed, and taken, because they have rejected the word of the Lord. What wisdom is there in them? ...There are no grapes on the vines, and no figs on the fig trees, and the leaves have fallen off."
But if the fig tree is flourishing, it can mean that the fullness of God's grace abounds, as for example in Micah 4: "And at the last days, the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, and established above the mountains and exalted above the hills... for out of Zion shall go forth a law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many peoples, and shall rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into sickles... And everyone shall rest under his vine, and everyone under his fig tree, and there shall be none to alarm them, for the mouth of the Lord Almighty has spoken these words."
Philip and Bartholomew are looking and longing for the Messiah, "him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote" (Jn 1:"45). His heart is "without guile" (1:47), and therefore is open to God satisfying his desire. Philip, who has witnessed John the Baptist baptize Jesus, tells Bartholomew to "Come and see" (1:46) the one who fulfills these prophecies. So when Jesus tells Bartholomew, "I saw you under the fig tree," the prophets' use of the fig tree leaps to mind. Bartholomew recognizes that this man, who knows his mind and heart so intimately and immediately, is from God, and is God - the Son of God and King of Israel, the "word of the Lord from Jerusalem" of whom Micah spoke.
Bartholomew believes because Jesus identifies Himself to him in this very intimate and personal way. Because he believes, he sacrifices all to follow Him. He becomes one of the Twelve, and eventually a great preacher and martyr who established the Church in India.
Jesus identifies Himself to us with the same immediate, intimate, and personal love. In baptism, and confession, and Eucharist, He calls us to follow Him. How do we let Jesus see us? Are our hearts "without guile" for Him? Do we rest under the fig tree - seeking union with Him in Scripture, and in the sacraments, and in prayer? Do we hold firmly to our hope and faith in His victory over sin and death? Do we recognize Him? Are we ready to hear and respond?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)