Thoughts on the new translation

While I still am having some issues with some parts of the new translation, I am finding that I am loving some of the new "Collects".  This is the one from Friday, January 6th.
What beautiful imagery!

Cast your kindly light upon your faithful, Lord, we pray, and with the splendor of your glory, set their hearts ever aflame, that they may never cease to acknowledge their Savior and may truly hold fast to him. Who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen.

Clay in the Potter's hands

I was talking with my spiritual director the other day and he offered this observation.  How many people do you know who spend extra time each day/week, working on something that they are longing for?   For example- the runner, who in addition to their normal exercise routine, spends an extra ½ hour a day working on strengthening their leg muscles.  Or the musician who spends extra time on a practicing their “fingering” so as to keep their fingers limber.  Or the person who schedules time with a counselor or therapist to work on emotional issues and communication skills.  Then he asked me if I spend any extra time working on those places in my "spiritual life" that need strengthening, and if not, why not?  Is not my spiritual health just as important, if not more important,  than my physical or emotional life?

An intriguing question and one that I thought merited a little pondering.  How do I spend my prayer time?  I know that I have very deep wounds, which only God can heal, but have I actually taken the time to really share them with God in prayer, to work through my issues with His help, and to open myself to really  hear what He is trying to tell me?

As I pondered these questions, I came to realize that sometimes the answer is no.  And the reason for this answer is because, in my humanness, I will do anything that does not cause me pain or discomfort.

 HHHMMMM……

So, as I sat in my pew this morning, the First Sunday of Advent, I heard these beautiful words from Isaiah 64:7

Yet, O LORD, you are our father;

we are the clay and you the potter:
we are all the work of your hands.

God is the potter and I am the clay.  I get that.  God is the creator, and forms me in His image, but in my quest for understanding, I had to go deeper.  Just what does it mean to be clay in the potter’s hands?

So, using my friends “Google” and “Wikipedia” I did a little research on pottery and what I found, well it shouldn’t have surprised me, God really does have one hell of a sense of humor!

Before an artist can even think about beginning the design process, the clay needs to be prepared.  It needs to be kneaded, to distribute the moisture and to release the air that is trapped within it.  Basically, one needs to beat the crap out of it before it is ready.  And I started to think; doesn’t God do the same thing to us?  I started to think about all the hard times, when I thought God was nowhere to be found, and was sending pain, hurt and anger my way to punish me, the times I looked up to the sky, shaking my fist and saying “Why, God?  Why are you doing this to me?”  This was God’s way of kneading me, of getting me ready to look to Him for the answers that I was seeking.

So far so good.  Being clay in the potter’s hands- a good thing, God is working in me, but it can’t just stop there.  If it does, I am still just a lump of clay, with no purpose.  Something has to come next.

That’s where “throwing” comes in!  Throwing is a way to form that piece of clay into something useful and beautiful.  From Wikipedia-

During the process of throwing, the wheel rotates rapidly while the solid ball of soft clay is pressed, squeezed and pulled gently upwards and outwards into a hollow shape. The first step of pressing the rough ball of clay downward and inward into perfect rotational symmetry is called centering the clay--a most important skill to master before the next steps: opening (making a centered hollow into the solid ball of clay), flooring (making the flat or rounded bottom inside the pot), throwing or pulling (drawing up and shaping the walls to an even thickness), and trimming or turning (removing excess clay to refine the shape or to create a foot).

So, once I am kneaded, the real formation begins.  First there is the “centering”, an important step that brings the clay into perfect symmetry.  In the spiritual sense, I see this step as one of the most important.  This “centering” has to come from me; I have to choose to allow God to be the center of my life.  Only once I make that decision, can God continue to shape me.

Then next thing is “opening”, or in a spiritual sense, maybe a better word is “emptying”.  A hole must be made in the clay in order to make it a usable vessel.  If I am going to be a “usable vessel” for God, I must open myself to His love; therefore I must empty myself of all the things that keep me from that love.

Next is the “flooring”, making a good solid foundation.  I see the Church and the Sacraments as the foundation.  By making a commitment to my faith and receiving the Sacraments, especially Eucharist and Reconciliation, I am helping to build a good foundation for my life, one that is stable and strong, and will support me, even when I am filled to the brim with anxiety, fear and trepidation.

Now, with the clay prepared the “pulling” starts.   This is where God draws me up to Him, and this is the place where symmetry is most crucial.  If the clay is not perfectly balanced, the vessel will collapse. This is where my free-will comes into play.  I can cooperate with the potter, or I can choose not to.  If I choose not to, I end up just another lump of clay, with no real purpose.

And finally, there is the “turning”, the removal of any excess clay that hinders the beauty and functionality of the piece. It  is now that the piece is ready for the kiln, to be strengthened and changed into a instrument that has a purpose.   For me, this means that God is removing all the things that may hinder my relationship with Him- my need to be “in control”, to rely on myself rather than relying on Him.

If you have ever seen someone working in pottery, you know that it is a very messy job!  Just like life!  And thinking that God is just the “Great Fixer” who, with the wave of His hand, could, if He wanted too, make things “all better” is a very easy trap to fall into.  But without all of these steps, that would be a hollow victory.  Without all of the kneading, forming and trails, I am still just a lump of clay.  But in the hands of God, this insignificant lump of clay can become a vessel, filled to the brim and overflowing, with the unconditional love of God.

Living a spiritual life, one where God is the center of everything, is so counter-cultural in our age, which is why I think that this metaphor is one that many may not understand today.  It takes patience, love and perseverance to mold a lump of clay into a beautiful vessel.  Thankfully, God has all of those things and more!

As we begin this Advent season, this lesson is a very important one, I think.  Now is the time to prepare for the coming of our Lord  & Savior, Jesus Christ.  It is the time of year where I can look at how I can sometimes fall back into that lump of clay, by ignoring the hands of the artist, and repent and allow myself to be “worked”, sometimes messily, and often painfully, by the loving hands of God, so that I may become the vessel that carries His love out into the world.

Happy Advent!

I prayed for what?!

In about a month we will begin using the new translation of the Roman Missal.  In January 2010, I posted these thoughts about the new translation.  Since then, through much thought, study and prayer, I can honestly say that I am looking forward to the new translation, if for the only reason that it will make everyone
s-l-o-w d-o-w-n.

I have become aware lately of how fast we say our prayers in the parishes I attend.  I have made it a point that last few months to slow down, and concentrate on what I am saying, not just say the words.  And in doing so,  I had a very profound revelation.

One day at  daily Mass, during the Our Father, the congregation said it so fast that they finished before the priest did.  I could compare it to a 5 year old singing the ABC song, they know the letters and their order well enough that they can sing it like it is all one giant word.  That's how the Our Father sounded to me. 

Now, I know that the Our Father is not changing, but I am going to use it as an example.

When I made the conscious effort to slow down while praying the Our Father, something hit me like a ton of bricks!  I will never forget the day!  I was literally stopped in my tracks!  What did I just say?

"forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"

I was asking God to forgive me as I forgive others. 
Did I really want Him to do that?!
I left Mass that morning with that thought in my head. 
What if God forgave me as I forgave others?
I may have said I forgave someone, but did I really? 
Did I continue to hold a grudge?
Was I looking for some sort of acknowledgement from the person who "wronged' me?
Did I want that person to suffer because they made me suffer?

Sadly, my answer to many of these question was YES.

It really made me start to think.  Before this revelation, the prayer was just words, now I saw it more of a challenge. Forgiveness is a gift.  It is not something that one earns, it is not pardon, it is not forgetting the wrong done to me or even reconciling with the person who wronged me.  It is acknowledging a hurt and then letting it go.  It is saying to the other person, you hurt me and I may not like it, but I will not let this thought/word/deed keep me a prisoner in my own heart. 

I have learned the hard way that sometimes it is too late to tell someone that you love them and that you forgive them for the things they have done to hurt you.  That holding a grudge does nothing to the person who I hold the grudge against, but to me.  It has made me give forgiveness that I have been withholding out of pride, and seek forgiveness from those who I have wronged.  I cannot change other people, as much as I would like to try sometimes, I can only change myself. 

Forgiveness is never easy, and it is always necessary.  "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."  Not an easy thing to do, but then I don't think that being crucified was either.

Peace to all!

Make Mine Freedom

Sad to say, but we really haven't learned that much, have we?

In the Tomb

This year the Triduum has taken on a new meaning for me. It is a grace I have received from my participation in the 19th Annotation. For the past few weeks, I have been using the Passion accounts from all of the Gospels in my prayer time. For an hour (or sometimes more) per day, I have been praying and meditating with these passages using a technique called the “application of the senses” in which I fully enter into the stories in which I am reading, seeing, hearing, touching smelling and tasting everything, as if I am truly present. I have, with the grace and help of God, been able to “be” with Jesus and his disciples as the events of His passion have unfolded.


It has not been an easy few days. Reliving the betrayal and abandonment of Jesus by his friends, has brought up a lot of my own “stuff”. Betrayal and abandonment are things I would not wish on my worst enemy, let alone my “best friend”, and I fully understand how Jesus must have felt. I would much rather deal with physical pain than with the emotional pain caused by such acts. For me, the betrayal and abandonment of a friend was far worse that any physical pain I have ever suffered, and while the gaping hole left in my heart and life by this experience has been healed through prayer and by the grace of God, there are still twinges of pain when I am reminded of the happy times that I had spent with my friend. And this pain, I believe, will never fully go away. It is something I will carry with me for the rest of my days. It is there, in the form of doubt, when I am about to share something of myself with another. It is there as a constant reminder that the unconditional love that I seek is something that can only be given to me by God and God alone.

As I sat in Good Friday services yesterday afternoon, and at the Tenebrae service I attended last night, thinking about what Jesus did for me- the suffering, the humiliation, the pain, the abandonment, I was overcome with grief. I wanted to be angry. I wanted to know how the people that I loved could betray and abandon me. I wanted to know how, people who claimed to be Jesus’ friends and followers could have handed Him over to such a horrific fate. And then I heard Jesus’ words so clearly, that I almost thought He was sitting right next to me,

“Father forgive them: they do not know what they are doing.”

and suddenly things became crystal clear.

As a human being, I am a sinful creature. My sinfulness comes out of my thinking that I am in control of things, and that my will is what is important. What Jesus showed me on the cross is that it is not, has never been and never will be my will that brings me peace and salvation. Only God, through the life, death and resurrection of His son, can do that for me. The catch is I have to let Him!

As I prayed before the cross last night, I offered all of my feelings of anger, loss, grief, abandonment and betrayal there at the foot of the cross. Today, as I “sit in the tomb”, I can, with God’s help, finally let go of all of the negative emotion that has brought me into my one personal “hell” the past few months. I can offer my suffering in solidarity with that of Jesus’ suffering. I can take my human brokenness and leave it there in the tomb, so as to make room in my heart for the awesome gift that Jesus has in store for me,
new life in Him!

I found this beautiful image of Jesus being laid in the tomb at www.sistermarygrace.artspan.com.  through  a "google image" search.  There is much more artwork available.  I urge you to take a moment and check out the website, and maybe even buy something.  I know I will!

Judas, what were you thinking?!

As we enter into Holy Week, my prayer time is bringing me deeper and deeper into the Passion, and I find many of my thoughts, outside of my prayer time, are of Judas.

In today’s Gospel, Mary anoints Jesus with some very expensive oil. Oil that Judas believes could be better used by selling it and giving the money to the poor. That is not really a bad thing, is it? 300 days wages was a lot of money. It still is, if you really think about it. If I work 5 days a week, for a whole year without a day off, it is only 260 days. Would I have felt the same way Judas did? Would I have seen what Mary did as wasteful?

I remember watching a program on the History Channel, I believe, that speculated on who Judas Iscariot really was. I do not remember all of the details, and unfortunately do not even remember the title of the program, yet I do remember that it brought up some very interesting ideas. The basic premise was that Jesus and Judas had been life-long friends, and that their families had a long connection. It went on to speculate that Jesus and Judas were “revolutionaries” who fought against the Roman occupation during what we refer to as the “lost years” in the life of Jesus. The speculation continues with the idea that Judas, discouraged by the fact that they had not eradicated their Roman oppressors, continued to believe in, and follow that path that Jesus now took in His public ministry. Judas is named as one of the 12, and we can only assume that for the years of His public ministry, Judas was working side by side with Jesus in preaching the Good News.

So, I can’t help but to think, might it have been this episode from today’s Gospel that was the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back” for Judas? Were things not happening fast enough for him? Did he have a misunderstanding of what Jesus was actually trying to teach? Was Judas looking for a prize? Was his understanding of “kingdom” that of one of wealth and power and not one of love and service? What causes someone to betray someone that they love?

I don’t have to imagine how Jesus must have felt. I have been there. The betrayal of a friend, in my experience, is like having a piece of yourself ripped from within you. It leaves a jagged, gaping hole in your heart and in your spirit. The darkness can consume you if you let it. I know, because I almost did. And I remember praying, no pleading with God, to take this pain away, and make everything “better” again.

God did not take my suffering away from me, just as He did not take the suffering away from Jesus. Jesus suffered the ultimate betrayal; He lost His life because of a friend. In the end though, Jesus not only gained new life, but He gained it for me, too. Jesus took the ultimate betrayal and turned it into the ultimate act of love.

Can I do the same?

True Friendship

I am in the 3rd Week of the Spiritual Exercises. We are contemplating Jesus’ life during His final weeks. The past couple of weeks I have been praying with the stories of the Last Supper and the Agony in the Garden. There is much to be learned about friendship from Jesus' experiences.

This was Henri Nouwen’s Daily Meditation from March 23.  I love Henri. I have read just about everything he had written, and his "The Return of the Prodigal Son" changed my life.  I believe that this is the kind of friend Jesus must have been~ 

A friend is more than a therapist or a confessor, even though a friend can sometimes heal us and offer us God's forgiveness.
A friend is that other person with whom we can share our solitude, our silence, and our prayer. A friend is that other person with whom we can look at a tree and say, "Isn't that beautiful," or sit on the beach and silently watch the sun disappear under the horizon. With a friend we don't have to say or do something special. With a friend we can be still and know that God is there with both of us.

True friendship like this is a rare and wonderful thing. The pain of being betrayed or abandoned by a friend is one that cuts deep to the core. Jesus knew this. And I suspect most of us do, in some way or another.
Yet Jesus never stopped loving His friends, and, in the end,  He gave His life for them.

Could I do the same?

On Healthcare

I have resisted the temptation to get involved in any debate about healthcare. I work in the industry, and have seen first hand the lunacy that is working with insurance companies, and the Medicare and Medicaid systems. I am not saying that I don't think something needs to be done, but "ObamaCare" is not the way!


A note to all politicians-

Until you can prove to me and to the rest of America that you can fix the systems we already have (Medicare & Medicaid), please do not try and come up with something new!

I received this in an e-mail today. “Maxine” is one of my favorite characters, so I share with you her take on healthcare-
 don’t think I could have said it any better!

Let me get this straight......


We're trying to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

The Call to Holiness

I am not taking a class this semester, so I have been able to catch up on some personal reading, and because I am still not 100% because of my recent injury, I have decide to “slow down” a little bit, and use this down time as a way to take the psalmist’s advice and “Be still and know that I am God. (Psalm 46).


I am currently reading Rediscovering Catholicism, by Matthew Kelly. This is a wonderful book, and I highly recommend it. You can find out more about him and his book at his website . As I was reading, I came across the following quote

“When the practice and preaching of Christianity are not clearly focused on the ‘universal call to holiness', the activities pursued in the name of Christianity disintegrate into nothing but a collection of social welfare initiatives. As the Church becomes more and more isolated from this call to holiness-whether locally, regionally, nationally, or universally- it very quickly begins to resemble little more than a massive social welfare committee, rather than the great spiritual entity she was established to be for every age.” (pg.71)

This statement was so profound to me on so many levels. Maybe it is because of my experiences with the Spiritual Exercises that made this jump out at me. The past few weeks I have been working with the following concepts, The Two Standards, The Three Classes of Persons and The Three Humilities

In a nutshell,

The Two Standards are the standard of Christ and the standard of Lucifer. Remember that Ignatius was a soldier, and at the time each side had a “standard (flag) - bearer” that rode in the front of the line of troops. For Ignatius, this was “spiritual warfare” and the most important choice for a person was what “standard” they would choose to follow.

The Three Classes of Person  describes the 3 types of “spiritual disposition” most people have-

The first type- the one who says they want a relationship with God, but are not willing to do anything to help cultivate that relationship. They are more attached to the “things” in life

The second type- the one who tries had to have a relationship with God, but does everything but the one thing necessary. They try, but instead of doing what needs to be done, they are content have a “barter relationship” with God.

The third type- the one who says they want a relationship with God and is willing to let go of all their “worldly attachments” so that they may know and most perfectly fulfill the will of God.

The Three Humilities are general descriptions of the spectrum of humility as lived by men and women. In the Ignatian tradition humility is defined as the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the fullness of what it means to be human.

The first humility- this is one end of the spectrum. In practicing this level of humility, I do only that which I see as necessary to achieve salvation.

The second humility- this is the middle of the spectrum, what I call the “balance” that I believe that most of us who call ourselves Christians are looking for, the balance between living my life, but doing so through the lens of following God’s will and not my own.

The third humility- this is the most perfect version of the second humility, and a grace only granted by God. With this grace, the person practicing the 3rd humility is moved to follow Jesus Christ in the most intimate way possible.

So, needless to say, I have been spending a lot of time lately looking at my own “call to holiness” and how I have been doing at answering that call. And I started to think,

“You know, Matthew Kelly really has a point.”

The Church, in an attempt to work for “social justice” has seemed to forget that her primary focus should be on helping people to reach that holiness.

And then hit me,

If we as Church spent more time helping people to reach that state of holiness that we are all called to, and if I, in my words and actions, follow the standard of Christ, strive to become the 3rd type of person and live in at least the 2nd level of humility as an example to others, we would not need the church to work for “social justice” as it would be a natural consequence of living a life of holiness.

"With Open Hands"

The debate regarding the “orans posture” and hand-holding during the Our Father is contentious, at best. People on both sides look to the rubrics, which tend to be vague, and what usually happens is both sides end up thinking their way is the only right way.


In an article from Catholic Answers, that you can read here, Fr. Paul Scalia states:

“In various areas the Church grants certain options and leaves the choice to our prudential judgment. We may find certain practices preferable. Yet we cannot insist on them, because the Church does not. On the other hand, we may dislike certain practices. Yet, again, we cannot fault others for doing what the Church permits. We stray from militant to belligerent when we mandate what the Church does not, or forbid what the Church permits.”

I think these are wise words and in the spirit of dialogue, I would like to share a personal experience. I do not claim to have any answers. What I can offer is the following gift of grace I was given regarding the “orans position” during prayer times, when appropriate, in private and public.

When I returned to the Church, I was quite inexperienced in “prayer”. My prayers were more like “wish lists” or a child’s letter to Santa, asking God for all sorts of things I thought I wanted. I never really paid that much attention to posture, and often just seemed to be going through the motions. I was seriously considering leaving again when some friends suggested I talk to a particular priest, who subsequently became my spiritual director, and who introduced me to the writings of Henri Nouwen. Actually, had it not be for this priest's kind words, attentive and non-judgmental attitude, and recommendation to read “The Return of the Prodigal Son” by Nouwen, I can honestly say that I probably would have turned my back on organized religion all together.

After this initial introduction to Nouwen’s work, I read everything I could get my hands on. He had a simplicity about him that appealed to me and everything I read touched my heart. And then one day, while on private retreat, I stumbled into the library at the retreat house in the middle of the night looking for something- although I had no idea what! I found this small volume, with the most intriguing title, “With Open Hands”. I brought the small book back to my room, and in the next 90 minutes my understanding of prayer changed forever!

In a nutshell, what Nouwen so beautifully reminded me is that prayer is both giving and receiving.

How can I completely surrender- my worries, my cares, my will- to God, if my hands are clenched tight?

How do I receive the gifts of God’s grace, if my hands are not open to those gifts?

This experience is one that I will never forget. How something as simple as how I hold my hands can remind me that as I offer up all of my prayers, God is filling me with His grace and love. This was, I believe, the Holy Spirit at work, leading me to where I needed to be led, so that I could cultivate that “something deeper” I had been longing for.

How could I not think that this is pleasing to God?

For St. Ignatius says:

"Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul. 

And the other things on the face of the earth are created for man and that they may help him in prosecuting the end for which he is created. From this it follows that man is to use them as much as they help him on to his end, and ought to rid himself of them so far as they hinder him as to it. For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created things in all that is allowed to the choice of our free will and is not prohibited to it; so that, on our part, we want not health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather than dishonor, long rather than short life, and so in all the rest; desiring and choosing only what is most conducive for us to the end for which we are created."

"The Church Militant or the Church Belligerent?"

An interesting article from Catholic Answers.
 

It made me think,

"Which one am I?"

"And in acting the way I do am I giving glory to God or looking for it for myself?"

Excellent questions to ponder this Lent, don't you agee?

"Spirit of Vatican II"

The Church, post Vatican II, is all I know and I have, for most of my life, embraced the "Spirit of Vatican II" without really knowing what that meant. The past few months, I have begun to see that much of what has been touted as the "spirit of Vatican II", is a far cry from what I actually see in the documents.
I just took a class in sacramental theology, and had to read portions of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and as I was reading, I couldn't help but to think

"I am reading the same documents that our leaders in the DOR did?"

Because I am not taking a class this semester, I decided that I was going to use this time to actually read the Vatican II documents, so I have spent the better part of the past 3 weeks doing just that. And now, I have come to understand the need for and find myself hopeful about the “reform of the reform”.
That said, I do not believe that all of the changes that have come about in the past 40 years are necessarily a “bad thing”, but I do believe that the “envelope” has been pushed a little too far. I believe though, that any reform must be handled very carefully. It is my understanding that the initial reforms of VII were thrust upon the people, with no catechesis, no transition and with much admonishment of beloved traditions as “not part of what we do anymore”.
As we travel this road of reform, let us remember  these words from Sacrosanctum Concilium

The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.(emphasis mine)

and in this effort to “reform the reforms” let us remember the mistakes that were made in the years after the 2nd Vatican Council, and try not to make the same mistakes again.

"Teaching" Mass

Cleansing Fire had a post about an upcoming “teaching” Mass at St. Jude’s. The idea intrigues me, as I have never been to a “teaching” Mass. In theory, I have no problem with the idea. Actually I think it may be a good one, if it is done properly.


I know that, especially in the DOR, there is always a fear that things like this will not be done in a dignified and respectful manner.

I came across a “teaching” Mass program that covers a different part of the Mass, one each week for 5 weeks on the web from the Diocese of Baker in Oregon. I like the idea of stretching the teaching out over 5 weeks, and the hand-outs are a great idea. I am not sure if something like this format, all at once, in one Mass will be as effective, but I guess it is worth a shot.

I have no idea of what the “teaching” Mass at St. Jude’s will be like, but if it is anything like this format, I think that this may be a very good thing.

Thoughts, comments?

Why shouldn't we wait?

I have very mixed feelings about the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

Some of it, I see no problem with. Other parts, I feel have lost something in translation.

The current translation is the only one I know. I find that there is a rhythm to the Mass that I find comforting, almost soothing. The new translation, from my understanding, is a more literal translation of the original Latin. I am not a linguist. But I do know that translating involves not only translating the word, but also conveying the proper meaning of the word in the context it is being used. In Greek, there are at least four words for love, whose use depends on the object of that love.  In English, we use one word, “love”, when we talk about the feelings of a husband for a wife, a parent for a child, or for how we feel about chocolate- the same word, but three distinctly different connotations.

Which brings me to the question, why is literal better?

Why is “consubstantial” better that “one in Being with”?

Why is “incarnate” better than “born of”?

My feeling on these two examples is that the new translation takes away the relationship aspect of the humanity of our faith. “Incarnate” brings to mind a “mystical” sort of coming into the world, without the very personal, very human experience that Mary had in carrying and giving birth to Jesus. “Consubstantial”, of the same substance, seems more of a chemistry term to me than one that describes the relationship of God and Jesus, and that of Jesus’ nature of being both truly human and truly divine.

I think we should wait. I would like to hear some discussion as to why a more literal translation is thought to be better. I understand that many people are concerned that some priests take it upon themselves to change the words as they see fit. Do we really think that this won’t happen with the new translation? Shouldn’t we spend our efforts and energy on combating these abuses, instead of just changing the words?

Thoughts, comments..?

So, what is the answer?

There has been a lot of talk in the blogs about the importance of catechesis. And with the new translation of the Roman Missal finally approved, the need for catechesis on every level is going to be even more important.

That said, while I have seen a lot of gripping and complaining, I have not seen any ideas as to how to implement this catechesis.
How do we get people to understand that coming to church is not just “getting your ticket punched until the next week?”  Coming to church should not be an “obligation” it should be a desire.
I attend Mass each week because I want to, not because it is a “mortal sin” to miss Mass.

I am a post-VII Catholic. I, along with the Novus Ordo, am celebrating my 40th this year. My “formal catechesis” as a child was lacking to say the least. It was all “fluff” and no substance. What I have learned as an adult has been on my own, except for the two years I have been a student at SBSTM, and as I have said before, what I have learned there has also made me look deeper. I have  heard from most of the Catholics I know who were catechized in the pre-VII model (the Baltimore Catechism of the 40’s – 60’s & Catholic school),  that what they learned was just rote memorization that  had no meaning or substance to them, and has left them with a serious lack of understanding about the Church and her teachings.

Which begs the question, if  people before VII didn’t understand their faith, how can we expect their children and grandchildren to understand it?

Ideas, anyone?

"Peace be with you"

My friends over at Cleansing Fire have posted about Fr. A at OLV “suspending” the sign of peace because of “flu concerns.” While I understand that many are concerned about the flu, this is not, I believe, what this is about. It is no secret that many Traditionally-minded Catholics have a problem with the sign of peace.
As quoted from Cleansing Fire

“Something tells me that the flu will not ever go away, in the eyes of the administration of Our Lady of Victory in Rochester.
And thanks be to God for that.”

I am a little confused.

I hear a lot about “rubrics” and “that is not what they meant with “Vatican II”, “No one has the right to deviate from the prayers of the Church due to personal beliefs.”(a comment from one of my posts).

Please enlighten me.
How is it OK that Fr. A is doing this, even though it is in blatant disregard of the following?

From the GIRM (that we are using now, not the new one that was just approved)

The Rite of Peace
82. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.



From Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)
A) General norms
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

Yet…have a guest lay preacher as part of a parish retreat, female altar servers, music by Marty Haugen, or dare to receive Communion in the hand, all of which fall into a “gray area” of interpretation and you have your faith and level of Catholicity called into question.

Would any one like a cookie with their cup of hypocrisy?

 I mean no disrespect to Fr. Antinarelli, or the good people over at Our Lady of Victory.  This is a perfect example of my "problem" with this whole "orthodox vs. progressive mentality", the rules seem to only apply if one is agreeable to them.  Rules are rules, and should be followed to the letter and the spirit of the law.  Maybe we should be using this "flu pandemic"(she says sarcastically), as a way to re-evaluate our practice of this custom and bring it back to a sober and sanctifiying moment in which we can forgive each other and then approach the altar with clean hearts.

The lovers, the dreamers and me

I have been going through some notes from class (I am studying sacramental theology this semester) and some of my journal entries from the past 9 weeks of my 19th Annotation experience (the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius) and there seems to be a recurring theme of “sign” vs. “symbolism”.


I ask that you indulge me for the next 3+ minutes, find your “inner child” and listen to and enjoy this clip.



The rainbow, in the Judeo-Christian culture, is a sign the God will never again destroy the earth. The “symbolism” that this “sign” has taken on in secular culture, to some, may seem the antithesis of the “sign”, but that is the beauty part of “symbolism”- it all depends on one’s perspective, so, in essence, no one has the ‘wrong’ idea!

Kermit is right about one thing… "someday we’ll find it, the rainbow connection, the lovers, the dreamers and me.”

And for me, this “rainbow connection” is peaceful co-existence of "orthodox & progressive" so that we may be the “one, holy catholic and apostolic Church” and work together to spead the Good News!

Peace to All!

The Inclusive Language Debate

Ahhh, language, what a beautiful thing!


The issue of “gender neutral” language in the liturgical setting seems to me, to be one of the proverbial “lines in the sand” between orthodox and progressive Catholics. My friends over at Cleansing Fire  have posed some interesting questions, so as to not hijack the “com box’ there, I give you my humble opinions on the matter here.

In some respects, I believe this whole debate is a bunch of malarkey!
Jesus was a man, there is no way around that, and whenever we refer to him, it should be as a man!
God, however, is neither male nor female, as we were both created in God’s image. God is more than that. In the relational aspect, God was Jesus’ father therefore that is how Jesus referred to God.

For me, that is also my image of God, as a loving, patient, father, waiting for me to “come home”. For others, though, that may not be the image of “father” that they have. Their image of father may be one of fear and intimidation and I don’t expect that is how God would want someone to feel about Him.

I pray the Liturgy of the Hours, in the format that most priest and deacons do, which was written by men and for men. When I read the word “men” as it relates to the community or the world, I do not see just the male of the species, but all of human kind, because I know that up until about 30 years ago, this was an accepted practice! We did not get so wrapped up in the “what you said vs. what you meant” mentality. (Which is a whole other post!)

And then there is the Holy Spirit. I have heard the Spirit referred to as the “wisdom of God”. Well, in Greek, a language that many of our Latin translations come from, wisdom was personified as a woman, Sophia. Again, is there any reason to “box” in the Holy Spirit to one gender? If the Holy Spirit is the “essence” of God’s unfathomable wisdom, love and mercy, is it right to say that it must be either/or?

For me, this is all a very personal issue and depends on my relationship with God. That said, I do believe that we need to have some “structure” as to our liturgical practices. My idea of how to “bridge the gap” between the two sides is this…

When referring to a specific person, Jesus, Mary, one of the apostles, saints, etc., use the specific pronoun.

When referring to God, unless it is in direct relation to Jesus’ relationship, leave off the qualifier. (God, the father, we ask that you hear our prayer…) We acknowledge the relationship when we end our prayer, “We ask this through Jesus Christ, your son…, without using “gender specific language”

The Holy Spirit is a tough one. In the Creed, when I pray it privately, I use the feminine pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit (“with the Father and Son she is worshiped and glorified, she has spoken through the prophets…”). I guess it depends on my mood at Mass, and where I am, if I say it there, and if I do use the feminine pronoun, it is barely audible, as I do not want to offend anyone around me. I am not sure what I would do in this case, and am glad that I do not have to make the decision.

Which brings us to the most important thing, ultimately, it is up to the Church to decide on translations. This, from my understanding, is a very daunting and intimidating task, as many words have more than one meaning, and we cannot always be sure of context, syntax, grammar, etc.

I (we) can only pray that the people whose job it is to do these things act out of the knowledge that we all, male and female, were created in the image of a loving, benevolent, merciful God and that to use language to diminish that all encompassing love is, in my humble opinion, wrong.

Peace to All!

Lay Preaching & Canon Law, pt. 2

I will admit that there was a little fear when I finished writing my post on lay preaching, and I did hesitate before pushing "publish now", I must say I am very glad I did not hit "delete" instead!

A very special "Thank You!" to Dr. K. for his information and comments and thanks to all who commented, helping to make this post a "true dialogue".

I have had a chance to read Dr. K's documentation, and to talk to a priest who is a Canon Lawyer, and have come to recognize that canon law does indeed prohibit "lay preaching" when it comes to the homily.  I have been told that the DOR has it's own set of guidelines regarding "lay preaching" and I have talked to a couple of my contacts in the DOR about getting my hands on a copy, as of this posting I do not have it yet.

I am still not completely convinced that "lay preaching" at the time of the homily is an entirely bad thing, but I am willing to conceed that, at this time, it is strickly prohibited. Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est

That said, I would like to continue this dialogue, in regard to when, exactly, is "lay preaching" allowed.

I propse the following scenarios:

• Assuming that the homily is "allotted" 15 minutes of Mass time, would it be acceptable for the priest/deacon to give a 10 minute homily, and let a "lay preacher" reflect for the next 5 minutes?
• The same scenario as above, with the "lay preacher" speaking after the "prayer after the Eucharist", but before the final dismissal?
• What about during "Communion Services" during the week that are in place of a "Daily Mass"?
• What about prayer services that do not include Eucharist?

I would also like to comment on something that I am afraid I hear all to often, both in "blog land" and in "real life" that I will admit "bugs" me to no end because my perception of the comment is that it is an "insult to my intelligence", yet in this diocese, I can see where this may be a problem.
The comment, "lay preaching blurs the lines between the the "sacramental priesthood" and that of the "lay preisthood". 
In a word, HOGWASH!!
I know the difference between a priest and/or deacon and a lay person, and I have yet to meet someone who cannot make that distinction.  As I said, in this particular diocese, the lines get blurred, I believe, when you have "alb-wearing lay preachers" homilizing and then standing behind the altar during consecration!  This situation, to me is much larger than the "lay preaching" issue, goes to help illustrate my point of "for who's glory" even more, and is something that I hope to explore in another post sometime soon.

I am looking forward to hearing more thoughts and insights on this issue.

And again, my deepest appreciation to all who have helped to make this a "true dialogue".

Peace to All!

Lay Preaching & Canon Law

So I have been reading the blogs for a few months now.  Admittedly, my motives in the beginning we purely from a "keep your friends close, but you enemies closer" perspective.  In light of my studies, my embarking on the 19th Annotation retreat, personal experiences as a member of some of the most "liberal" parishes in the DOR and a growing maturity in my faith that perspective is not so clear anymore.

There are still many things that I do not understand. 
And one of the things that I have some (OK, A LOT) of trouble with is the "it's not in the rubrics" or "canon law forbids this" stuff. 

So, never being one to by shy-
I'm going to jump in with both feet!

Let's start with some questions about "lay preaching".
Now, yes, I know this is a "hot topic" sure to bring strong reaction, my prayer is though, is that this helps to bring about a stronger response!  I am  not trying to use the Canon to suit my own agenda, I am looking for answers. 

Here you will find the Canon regarding preaching.

According to Canon 766~

Lay persons can be permitted to preach in a church or oratory, if necessity requires it in certain circumstances or it seems advantageous in particular cases, according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops and without prejudice to ⇒ can. 767, §1.

which states~

Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.


Canon 767 is the one I see cited most often in describing "lay preaching" as liturgical abuse.
And while I know pretty much nothing about Canon Law, I do know a little about civil law, and enough to know that the most important phrase in these two canons is "without prejudice".

My understanding of this, in this context is: 
The homily is reserved to a priest or deacon,
but...
if need be, or better yet, if it seems advantageous, a lay person could preach a homily and it would not be a violation of Canon 767.

If you continue to read the whole section on preaching there are all sorts of very interesting things that could add a lot to this debate, but I think the most important ones are Canons 769 & 772.

As I said, I have no real knowledge of Canon Law, that is why I put this out there.  I have not taken Canon Law yet, but will have to to complete my degree.  I do not know any of the priests in the DOR who are Canon Lawyers well enough to bring this to them directly, so if there are any Canon Lawyers out there that can shed some light, that would be awesome!

Peace to All!!