Remember man that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return...
Repent and believe in the Gospel
The liturgy today affords the priest a choice - he can chose either of those prayers as he applies ashes on the faithful today. This is my first year being in a parish for Ash Wednesday so I distributed ashes for the first time ever today. Between those attending the morning mass and the students in the schools I look after, I've probably distributed ashes to well over 500 people - and the evening Mass is still to come.
Now, I have a certain affection for the old-fashioned "Remember man that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return" and was always mildly irked as a layman that I never came across a priest who used it. However, as it suited the cathechesis I gave the school children, I used "Repent and believe in the Gospel" at the schools. (I was pleasantly surprised that some of the kids asked me about the whole mortality symbolism of the ashes without any prompting.)
Anyway, probably the most sombre moment of the day was when a mother and child came up for ashes at Mass. I asked the woman whether she wanted ashes for the child as well, and she nodded. It's difficult to say to a babe in arms, "Remember man that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return", but it was more appropriate than the other option. Whether we realise it or not, our death casts a shadow from the first moment of our life.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Forthcoming Canonizations
The Vatican's press office announced that there will be a gathering of the Holy Father and Cardinals to formally promulgate a number of forthcoming canonizations - including Blessed Damien of Molokai.
The story of Fr Damien was a staple of religious education classes when I was a youngster, but I suppose he's not on the new syllabus as the kids I come across seem not to have heard of him. I was discussing him with some of our primary school children recently, and I told them about leprosy and how the lepers had to gather together in an isolated area. I asked the kids what kind of life the lepers had - they realised that the lepers probably missed their families and friends and were very sad to be living in the leper colony. Then I asked them what kind of life the lepers had together. With the optimism of youth, one sharp little girl suggested that the lepers were friends with each other. Would that it were so, but I had to tell them that the lepers did not live together in peace and that their village became a place of drunkenness and fighting. The children seemed to understand that when they themselves were sad or sick or upset about something, they became quarrelsome with their parents and friends. Then I explained to them that Fr Damien's coming to live with the lepers was important - not just because he cared for their medical and material well-being, but that through his preaching and example he brought Christ to them.
The story of Fr Damien was a staple of religious education classes when I was a youngster, but I suppose he's not on the new syllabus as the kids I come across seem not to have heard of him. I was discussing him with some of our primary school children recently, and I told them about leprosy and how the lepers had to gather together in an isolated area. I asked the kids what kind of life the lepers had - they realised that the lepers probably missed their families and friends and were very sad to be living in the leper colony. Then I asked them what kind of life the lepers had together. With the optimism of youth, one sharp little girl suggested that the lepers were friends with each other. Would that it were so, but I had to tell them that the lepers did not live together in peace and that their village became a place of drunkenness and fighting. The children seemed to understand that when they themselves were sad or sick or upset about something, they became quarrelsome with their parents and friends. Then I explained to them that Fr Damien's coming to live with the lepers was important - not just because he cared for their medical and material well-being, but that through his preaching and example he brought Christ to them.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Fr Neuhaus
I was surprised that there was no reference to Fr Neuhaus's passing when the February edition of First Things arrived last week. The magazine was obviously put together whilst Fr Neuhaus was still alive, and indeed includes a piece by Fr Neuhaus wherein he discusses his medical condition. I was very taken with its conclusion:
The entirety of our prayer is “Your will be done” — not as a note of resignation but of desire beyond expression. To that end I commend myself to your intercession, and that of all the saints and angels who accompany us each step through time toward home.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
On the Conversion of St Paul (Extract from a Homily)
If we want to understand St Paul, we need to understand what happened to him on the roads to Damascus. If we want to understand why he wrote so passionately, travelled so tirelessly, was willing to endure shipwreck, imprisonment and beatings, we need to understand what was special about that event. There was a blinding flash of light, a heavenly voice, and a force that knocked St Paul to the ground... extraordinary things indeed, but they don't explain the great change which occurred in Saul of Tarsus. The important thing which happened on the road that day was that Paul met the Risen Lord, and that's what changed his life. And why did this meeting make such an impression? Because in Christ he encountered the mercy and love of God. Christ does not punish Paul for persecuting his followers, but offers him the chance of forgiveness. And Christ doesn't simply say to Paul, "I have forgiven you, let bygones be bygones." No! Through Annanias, Christ invites this former persecutor to become an intimate friend, someone who is entrusted with a mission which is no one else's. That's how God works. That's who God is.
My brothers and sisters, that same meeting happens in the life of every Christian. He presents Himself too us, He dearly wants to meet us. He extends to us the same mercy and makes known to us the same divine love. He invites each and every one of us to that same friendship. He has known each and every one of us from before the foundation of the world and has for each and every one of us a mission which He has entrusted to no other.
My brothers and sisters, that same meeting happens in the life of every Christian. He presents Himself too us, He dearly wants to meet us. He extends to us the same mercy and makes known to us the same divine love. He invites each and every one of us to that same friendship. He has known each and every one of us from before the foundation of the world and has for each and every one of us a mission which He has entrusted to no other.
What precisely has the Pope done?
This morning's bulletin from the Holy See's press office contains the news that the Pope has lifted the excommunications of four bishops of the Society of St Pius X. Now, I'm worried about how the media - and in particular the Irish media - are going to report this event. I fear that all too easily this will be used as a stick with which to beat the Pope and that most journalists lack the background to explain the precise significance of this event. So, I'm writing a brief post to explain what precisely the Pope has done and what the background to this event is.
Basically the Society of Pius X is a society of priests who are not in full communion with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church as a whole. It was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre because of his resistance - and the dissatisfaction of many clergy and laity - concerning the liturgical changes which came into effect after the Second Vatican Council and various elements of the Council's teaching - especially on the subject of religious liberty. It operated for some years outside the normal structures of the Catholic Church in what might be described as being, at best, a canonical grey area. In 1988, without papal permission, Archbishop Lefebrve ordained 4 men as bishops. This was a very serious crime under Canon Law, so he, an assisting bishop and the 4 men who were ordained bishops were excommunicated.
Archbishop Lefebrve has since died, as has the bishop who assisted him. The 4 men he ordained bishops (Bishop Fellay being their leader) were, until this morning, still excommunicated.
However, in recent years there has been an attempt to reconcile the SSPX to the Church. There have been behind the scenes discussions and communications. In order to facilitate this process of reconciliation, the Pope has lifted the sentence of excommunication placed on the 4 SSPX bishops. He has removed the punishment they incurred for allowing themselves to be ordained bishops without permission. This is an act of mercy and a gesture aimed at healing wounds and encouraging reconciliation.
However, that does not mean that all is well with these bishops and the clergy of the SSPX. Whilst no longer excommunicated, these bishops are still not proper Catholic bishops in union with Rome. They lack the necessary permission to act as bishops, and the priests who work under them do not have the necessary permissions to act as priests. The division between the SSPX and Rome has not been healed, and it is still a very serious matter for a Catholic to receive the sacraments from a member of the SSPX in all but emergency situations. SSPX clergy do not have the necessary permission from Rome or from local bishops to carry out their work anywhere in the world. The Pope lifting the excommunications does not mean that the separation between the SSPX and Rome has ended. However, it is a move which seems to promise a sincere effort on Rome's behalf to bring the SSPX back into the tent of the Church. The ball is now very much in the SSPX's court in terms of how they will respond to this gesture.
It should especially be noted that the lifting of the excommunication does not mean that the Pope agrees with anything or everything that the SSPX bishops might say. In a singularly infelicitous episode, one of the SSPX bishops seems to have denied the holocaust recently. Do not let anyone try and convince you that the Pope endorses these views. Sometimes it is necessary to extend mercy to people whom we do not approve of - in this case, for the sake of the souls of the SSPX clergy and the people who attend their chapels, the Pope has been very brave in persisting with this act of mercy even though it threatens to be a PR disaster.
What next? There are a whole host of things that need to be sorted out between the Roman Curia and the SSPX. Fortunately, other smaller communities with an attachment to the older form of the liturgy have been received back into the Church in recent times. Aside from the liturgical issue, the question of the interpretation of Vatican II and its teaching on religious liberty is something that will need to be agreed between Rome and the SSPX. I suspect that even if the proposed discussions are successful, not all of the clergy and faithful who are attached to the SSPX will be happy to reconcile with Rome. Some hold opinions which flatly contradict the teaching of the Church and they may not be willing to abandon these opinions. However, I think that we should all be praying that this process of reconciliation goes smoothly and that we will be able to welcome many back into full communion with the Holy Father. We should also pray that those hostile to the Church and those hostile to the Holy Father within the Church will not take advantage of an act of Papal mercy in order to further their own agendas.
As usual, American blogger Amy Welborn covers this issue very well.
Basically the Society of Pius X is a society of priests who are not in full communion with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church as a whole. It was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre because of his resistance - and the dissatisfaction of many clergy and laity - concerning the liturgical changes which came into effect after the Second Vatican Council and various elements of the Council's teaching - especially on the subject of religious liberty. It operated for some years outside the normal structures of the Catholic Church in what might be described as being, at best, a canonical grey area. In 1988, without papal permission, Archbishop Lefebrve ordained 4 men as bishops. This was a very serious crime under Canon Law, so he, an assisting bishop and the 4 men who were ordained bishops were excommunicated.
Archbishop Lefebrve has since died, as has the bishop who assisted him. The 4 men he ordained bishops (Bishop Fellay being their leader) were, until this morning, still excommunicated.
However, in recent years there has been an attempt to reconcile the SSPX to the Church. There have been behind the scenes discussions and communications. In order to facilitate this process of reconciliation, the Pope has lifted the sentence of excommunication placed on the 4 SSPX bishops. He has removed the punishment they incurred for allowing themselves to be ordained bishops without permission. This is an act of mercy and a gesture aimed at healing wounds and encouraging reconciliation.
However, that does not mean that all is well with these bishops and the clergy of the SSPX. Whilst no longer excommunicated, these bishops are still not proper Catholic bishops in union with Rome. They lack the necessary permission to act as bishops, and the priests who work under them do not have the necessary permissions to act as priests. The division between the SSPX and Rome has not been healed, and it is still a very serious matter for a Catholic to receive the sacraments from a member of the SSPX in all but emergency situations. SSPX clergy do not have the necessary permission from Rome or from local bishops to carry out their work anywhere in the world. The Pope lifting the excommunications does not mean that the separation between the SSPX and Rome has ended. However, it is a move which seems to promise a sincere effort on Rome's behalf to bring the SSPX back into the tent of the Church. The ball is now very much in the SSPX's court in terms of how they will respond to this gesture.
It should especially be noted that the lifting of the excommunication does not mean that the Pope agrees with anything or everything that the SSPX bishops might say. In a singularly infelicitous episode, one of the SSPX bishops seems to have denied the holocaust recently. Do not let anyone try and convince you that the Pope endorses these views. Sometimes it is necessary to extend mercy to people whom we do not approve of - in this case, for the sake of the souls of the SSPX clergy and the people who attend their chapels, the Pope has been very brave in persisting with this act of mercy even though it threatens to be a PR disaster.
What next? There are a whole host of things that need to be sorted out between the Roman Curia and the SSPX. Fortunately, other smaller communities with an attachment to the older form of the liturgy have been received back into the Church in recent times. Aside from the liturgical issue, the question of the interpretation of Vatican II and its teaching on religious liberty is something that will need to be agreed between Rome and the SSPX. I suspect that even if the proposed discussions are successful, not all of the clergy and faithful who are attached to the SSPX will be happy to reconcile with Rome. Some hold opinions which flatly contradict the teaching of the Church and they may not be willing to abandon these opinions. However, I think that we should all be praying that this process of reconciliation goes smoothly and that we will be able to welcome many back into full communion with the Holy Father. We should also pray that those hostile to the Church and those hostile to the Holy Father within the Church will not take advantage of an act of Papal mercy in order to further their own agendas.
As usual, American blogger Amy Welborn covers this issue very well.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Prayers for Fr Foster
My former teacher and latinist sui generis Fr Reggie Foster is not doing well, according to Fr Zuhlsdorf:
Fr. Reginald Foster, famous American Carmelite Latinist who works for the Holy See, continues to have serious health problems, ever since his fall last June. He has basically been bed ridden ever since that incident. What follows is the latest.
Yesterday (Saturday) he was taken from his monastery to the Fate bene fratelli hospital on the Tiber Island. Shortly after arriving, he suffered some kind of seizure and was put in intensive care. At first they diagnosed it as pulmonary embolism and they did not expect him to survive. Now they say it was NOT an embolism, but apparently his spleen ruptured and the ensuing rush of fluid in his body caused temporary heart failure.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord
I think that we tend to under-rate the importance of this Feast and the event that it celebrates. I seem to recall reading that the Orthodox put much emphasis on Christ's Baptism in the Jordan as being one of the great Trinitatian theophanies - it's one of those rare times when the Three Persons make themselves 'visible'. We hear the voice of God the Father, God the Son Incarnate is baptized, and the Holy Spirit appears in the form of a dove.
Of course, part of the difficulty is in correctly interpreting that baptism. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, so understanding why Christ submitted to it can cause difficulties. The Arians took Christ's baptism and the fact that He received the Holy Spirit at that time as evidence that He was not equal to the Father. Well-intentioned Christology which seeks to affirm Christ's divinity tends to downplay the importance of the Baptism of the Lord, reducing it to a mere gesture of humility. I'm inclined to think that such an over-simplification of things tends towards monophysitism - a rejection of the dogma of Christ's two natures, human and divine.
On the other hand, other theologians treat the Baptism as though it were the moment when Christ became divine, or as though He were just an ordinary man whose miracles and preaching derived purely from His having received the Holy Spirit at that time. Similarly, whilst it is evident that this Baptism was hugely significant in Our Lord's beginning his public mission, it would be a mistake to treat it as being the vocation-moment in His life when He realised who He was and what He had to do.
So, what is the Christological significance of the Baptism? Well, I shan't attempt to give a comprehensive answer, but I will highlight some aspects which strike me as important. Firstly, whilst Christ was sinless and not in need of forgiveness, I think that we can understand undergoing John's baptism as being more than just a gesture of humility or solidarity with the mass of sinful humanity. Rather, Christ is the Head of the Church and assumed a human nature which was marked by Adam's sin. He did not have the stain of Original Sin or the concupiscence which comes from it, but he did assume many weaknesses to which man is subject as a result of the Fall. It was therefore fitting that the Head of the Church should take part in the Baptism of repentance and thereby bring the Body with Him. Of course, it is the sacrifice of the Head which makes possible the repentance and salvation of the Body.
The Baptism is also profoundly a sign of acceptance - a prefigurement of His redeeming death. The logic of our sacramental relationship with Christ means that it makes perfect sense that if His baptism is a sign of His acceptance of His death, that our baptism allows us to share in the benefits of that sacrifice.
Of course, part of the difficulty is in correctly interpreting that baptism. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, so understanding why Christ submitted to it can cause difficulties. The Arians took Christ's baptism and the fact that He received the Holy Spirit at that time as evidence that He was not equal to the Father. Well-intentioned Christology which seeks to affirm Christ's divinity tends to downplay the importance of the Baptism of the Lord, reducing it to a mere gesture of humility. I'm inclined to think that such an over-simplification of things tends towards monophysitism - a rejection of the dogma of Christ's two natures, human and divine.
On the other hand, other theologians treat the Baptism as though it were the moment when Christ became divine, or as though He were just an ordinary man whose miracles and preaching derived purely from His having received the Holy Spirit at that time. Similarly, whilst it is evident that this Baptism was hugely significant in Our Lord's beginning his public mission, it would be a mistake to treat it as being the vocation-moment in His life when He realised who He was and what He had to do.
So, what is the Christological significance of the Baptism? Well, I shan't attempt to give a comprehensive answer, but I will highlight some aspects which strike me as important. Firstly, whilst Christ was sinless and not in need of forgiveness, I think that we can understand undergoing John's baptism as being more than just a gesture of humility or solidarity with the mass of sinful humanity. Rather, Christ is the Head of the Church and assumed a human nature which was marked by Adam's sin. He did not have the stain of Original Sin or the concupiscence which comes from it, but he did assume many weaknesses to which man is subject as a result of the Fall. It was therefore fitting that the Head of the Church should take part in the Baptism of repentance and thereby bring the Body with Him. Of course, it is the sacrifice of the Head which makes possible the repentance and salvation of the Body.
The Baptism is also profoundly a sign of acceptance - a prefigurement of His redeeming death. The logic of our sacramental relationship with Christ means that it makes perfect sense that if His baptism is a sign of His acceptance of His death, that our baptism allows us to share in the benefits of that sacrifice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
