Common Ground? – Worship

Do Evangelicals and Catholics agree on the importance of worship? Are you kidding? Evangelicals are all about praise and worship; more than one Catholic has left the Catholic Church for the enthusiasm of Evangelical services. On the other hand, many Protestants are very favorably impressed by the reverence shown at Mass as Catholics worship their Lord. Yes, the importance of worship is a subject upon which Catholics and Protestants agree completely.

HOW to worship – that’s a different question entirely.

My Catholic hair stood on end when I read the Dallas Morning News columnist Mark Davis’ defense of the controversial services at his Protestant church: “Everyone is entitled to personal taste in terms of the worship they enjoy,” he opined. Hmm…, and where is this notion revealed to us in Scripture? Where does the Bible ever suggest that we have some kind of right to choose how to worship God? One passage concerning “creative worship” does come to mind:

And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Gen 4:2-8

Obviously, God is not pleased with DIY worship; He reserved the right to tell Cain and Abel how He wanted to be worshiped. Jesus pointed this out to the Samaritan woman at the well when she decided to talk theology with Him:

“Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Jn 4:20-24

And a lot of Evangelicals, taking this passage as a condemnation of “dead liturgy,” feel that it validates their worship style as truly biblical. Those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth – that means worship with flash and sparkle, with spontaneity and creative touches! Right?

The pattern of worship running through the Old and New Testament is pretty well laid out, and there’s really no reason to believe that God has given His sons and daughters any leeway to follow their own “personal taste in terms of the worship they enjoy,” any more than He was pleased when Cain’s worship deviated from that of Abel. A good example of the order of Old Testament worship is found in the book of 2 Chronicles in chapters 5-7. King Solomon called the people to attend the dedication of the Temple. The people assembled.

1 And now Solomon must bring into the temple all the votive offerings his father David had made; silver and gold and lesser ware, all must be stored up in its treasure-chamber. 2 Then he sent for the elders of Israel, the chiefs of the tribes and the heads of clans; all must meet at Jerusalem to bring the Lord’s ark home from its resting-place in the Keep of David, which we call Sion. 3 It was on the great feast day of the seventh month that all Israel obeyed the king’s summons; 4 and when the last of the chieftains had arrived, the Levites took up the ark 5 and brought it in; the tabernacle, too, with all its equipment, and all the furniture of the sanctuary that remained still in the tabernacle, priests and Levites brought to the spot.

At the beginning, sins are dealt with. In the Old Testament context, this meant “burnt offerings.”

6 Meanwhile king Solomon, with the whole Israelite assembly, all that had gathered before the ark, offered rams and bulls; so many were the victims that there was no counting them.

God is praised in song:

11 At last the priests left the sanctuary; all of them who were present had purified themselves so as to gain admission, for as yet they had no times and manners of service planned out for them. 12 To the east of the altar stood Levites and singers, the clans of Asaph, Heman and Idithun alike, all robed in lawn, playing on their cymbals, zithers and harps; and now they had a hundred and twenty priests with them, sounding with trumpets. 13 Trumpet and voice, cymbals and flute, with all the other instruments, sounded aloud so that the noise of them could be heard far off, as they praised the Lord together; Praise the Lord, they sang, the Lord is gracious; his mercy endures for ever. And with that, the whole of the Lord’s house was wreathed in cloud; 14 lost in that cloud, the priests could not wait upon the Lord with his accustomed service; his own glory was there, filling his own house.

The people listen to Solomon declare the glory of the Lord:

1 Where the cloud is, cried Solomon, the Lord has promised to be. 2 It is true, then, the house I have built in his honour is to be, for ever, his dwelling-place. 3 With that, the king turned to bless the whole assembly; all Israel, that stood waiting there. 4 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, he said, who has fulfilled in act the promise he made to my father David. 5 So many years since he had rescued his people from Egypt, and never a city among all the tribes of Israel had he chosen to be the site of his dwelling-place or the shrine of his name, never a prince had he appointed over his people of Israel, 6 till at last he chose Jerusalem, to enshrine his name there, and David for his people’s ruler.

Prayer is offered:

12 Then Solomon stood before the Lord’s altar in full view of all Israel, and stretched out his hands. 13 In the midst of the great court he had bidden them set down a block of bronze, five cubits across either way and three feet in height; on this he mounted, and there, in the sight of all Israel, kneeling down with his hands lifted up towards heaven, he prayed. 14 Lord God of Israel, he said, thou reignest without rival in heaven and earth, making good thy merciful promises to all who follow thee with undivided hearts. 15 And thou hast not disappointed thy servant, my father David; thy act matches thy word; this day, who doubts it? 16 Do not forget, Lord God of Israel, that other promise of thine to David, that he should always have an heir to sit on the throne of Israel, would but his sons guide their steps, like David himself, as in thy presence; 17 let that promise too, Lord God of Israel, be ratified!…. 42 Lord God, do not reject my prayer, the king thou hast anointed; bethink thee of the loving designs thou hadst for thy servant David before him.

The Holy Spirit falls upon the offerings, consuming them:

Scarce had Solomon finished his praying, when fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt-sacrifice, consumed all the victims; the glory of the Lord, too, filled the temple, 2 and the priests might not enter; his own glory was there, filling his own house. 3 The fire that fell, the brightness of the Lord’s visible presence, was seen by all Israel; there on the stone pavement they fell down to earth in worship, crying, Praise the Lord, the Lord is gracious, his mercy endures for ever. 4 King and people offered their victims in the Lord’s presence; 5 the beasts king Solomon slew that day, when he and all the people dedicated the Lord’s house, were twenty-two thousand bulls and a hundred and twenty thousand rams.

Then, the feast:

6 There stood the priests at their task, and the Levites with the instruments of sacred music, that king David had given them to praise the Lord with, playing David’s own chant of everlasting mercy, while the priests led with their trumpets, and all the people stood around. 7 That day, the king must needs hallow the middle part of the court before the Lord’s house, burning there the burnt-sacrifice and the fat taken from the welcome-victims; the brazen altar he had made would not suffice for these and for the bloodless offerings too. 8 After this, king Solomon spent seven days in keeping the feast of Tabernacles, and with him a great multitude from the whole land of Israel, that stretched from the pass of Emath down to the river of Egypt; 9 and the eighth day he kept as a great holiday, after seven days given up to the temple dedication, and seven to the feast.

The people are dismissed:

10 At last, on the twenty-third day of the month, he sent the people home, rejoicing with full hearts over the mercies the Lord had shewn to David, to Solomon, and to his own people of Israel.

Okay, so the pattern demonstrated in the Old Testament is assembly, forgiveness of sins, praise, a declaration of God’s wonders, prayer, the offering of a sacrifice, feasting and dismissal.

But that’s all behind us – that’s the Old Covenant! Besides, why should we believe that this represents a pattern, and not just some random get-together?

Because the worship of the first Christians follows a similar pattern. The closest the New Testament comes to describing the worship of the first Christians is in Acts 2 where we learn that they “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” How this all actually played out is made more explicit in a first-century extrabiblical record of Christian worship called the Didache that instructs believers to:

Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until they have been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, “Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations.”

Assembly – forgiveness of sins – offering the sacrifice: the Eucharist. Again, circa 150 A.D. the order of Christian worship is explained to the Roman emperor by Justin Martyr.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

In a discussion of the rite of baptism, St. Justin goes into more detail on how the newly baptized received their first Holy Communion:

Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.

Assembly, declaration of the glory of the Lord, prayers, the offering of the Sacrifice (which Justin says is the very Body and Blood of Jesus). One of these things is not like the others. What’s the common link between the Old Testament worship of 2 Chronicles, the first-century worship described in the Didache, and the second-century worship that Justin Martyr was familiar with that’s missing from Protestant worship?

The Sacrifice – and it’s missing for good reason, Protestants say. Jesus Christ is the Sacrifice, once for all! He said, “It is finished!” We can’t resacrifice Him!

And Catholics couldn’t agree more: Jesus cannot be resacrificed; as the Catechism plainly states, “the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice.” When we participate in the Mass, He is not crucified anew. Hebrews assures us that “we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” However, the Eucharist makes possible our participation in this sacrifice as it is made present to us in our time. The bread and wine become for us the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which He commanded us to eat and drink: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.” As Benedict XVI put it:

By his command to ‘do this in remembrance of me’ (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:25), he asks us to respond to his gift and to make it sacramentally present. In these words the Lord expresses, as it were, his expectation that the Church, born of his sacrifice, will receive this gift, developing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the liturgical form of the sacrament. The remembrance of his perfect gift consists not in the mere repetition of the Last Supper, but in the Eucharist itself, that is, in the radical newness of Christian worship. In this way, Jesus left us the task of entering into his ‘hour.’ ‘The Eucharist draws us into Jesus’ act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving.’ Jesus ‘draws us into himself.’ The substantial conversion of bread and wine into his body and blood introduces within creation the principle of a radical change, a sort of ‘nuclear fission,’ to use an image familiar to us today, which penetrates to the heart of all being, a change meant to set off a process which transforms reality, a process leading ultimately to the transfiguration of the entire world, to the point where God will be all in all (cf. 1 Cor 15:28).

When we “lift up our hearts to the Lord” at Mass, God makes the gifts holy by sending down His Spirit upon them “so that they may become for us the Body and the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The worship instituted under the Old Covenant foreshadowed heavenly realities, realities in which the Church actively participates at every Mass, and the offering of the Sacrifice is the nonnegotiable component. Every Christian writing in the first millennium on the subject of the Eucharist emphasized, as St. Justin emphasized to the Roman emperor, that the Sacrifice is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus. The Reformers, lacking in faith, got creative and removed the offering of the Sacrifice from their services, spiritualizing the celebration of Holy Communion. Fervent prayer, heartfelt praise and enthusiastic singing are commendable practices that should accompany worship, but to engage in those and in some extended Bible study, and call it good, misses the point. Seriously, why do you think your church has an altar?

The Bible nowhere encourages Christians to worship God as we please. The heavenly liturgy, with “the Lamb Who was slain” as its centerpiece, was the model and guide for Old Testament worship, and even more so for New Testament worship, and worship without a sacrifice simply isn’t worship. Evangelicals, who generally try to be so careful to eschew “man-made traditions,” engage in a boatload of them every Sunday as “innovative contemporary worship” is offered wherever Evangelical churches are found. Sunday worship, folks, is just not the time to get creative.

Cain can tell you that.

 

On the memorial of St. Titian of Oderzo

Deo omnis gloria!

Postcard From Passion Sunday

The Mount of Olives

Another postcard from the past: St. Egeria’s description of the celebration of Palm Sunday in Jerusalem, c. 383 A.D. – 1,630 years ago today. The diagrams (from Wikipedia) below depict the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. This was built at the order of Emperor Constantine as two connected churches, which Egeria refers to as the “Anastasis” and the “Martyrium.”

But on the next day – that is, the Lord’s day – which begins the Paschal Week, called here the Great Week, they proceed from cock-crow to go through the usual ceremonies in the Anastasis, and at the Cross until the morning. Early on the Lord’s day they proceed, as usual, to the Great Church, called the Martyrium. It is so called because it is in Golgotha – i.e., behind the cross where the Lord suffered, and so is a Martyrium or Testimony. When all things have been celebrated, according to custom, in the Great Church, before the dismissal is given the archdeacon raises his voice, and says first: ‘During the ensuing week – that is, from to-morrow – let us all meet at the ninth hour at the Martyrium’ – i.e., in the Great Church. Again he raises his voice a second time and says: ‘To-day let us all be ready at the seventh hour in Eleona.’ Then the dismissal having been given in the Great Church – i.e. at the Martyrium – the bishop is conducted with hymns to the Anastasis, and there the ceremonial having been gone through which is customary in the Anastasis on the Lord’s day after Mass at the Martyrium, everyone goes home and hastens to eat, that at the seventh hour, now beginning, they may all be ready in the church in Eleona – i.e., in the Mount of Olives. The cave in which the Lord used to teach is there.

So at the seventh hour all the people and also the bishop go up to the Mount of Olives (i.e., Eleona) to the church; hymns and antiphons suitable to the day and place are sung and lections read in like manner. And when it begins to be the ninth hour they go up with hymns to the Imbomon – that is, to the place from which the Lord ascended into heaven – and there they sit down. For all the people are always bid sit down in the presence of the bishop; only the deacons always remain standing. Hymns and antiphons suitable to the place and the day are sung, and in like manner lections and prayers are interspersed. And now when it begins to be the eleventh hour, that place from the Gospel is read where the children with branches and palms met the Lord, saying: ‘Blessed is He that Cometh in the Name of the Lord.’ And forthwith the bishop arises and all the people, and they go down on foot the whole way from the summit of the Mount of Olives. For all the people go before him, responding the while with hymns and antiphons: ‘Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord.’ And all the children in those parts are there holding branches of olive-trees or palms; even those who cannot walk because of their tender years are supported on the hill by their parents. And thus the bishop is escorted like as the Lord was in former time. From the top of the hill to the city, and from thence to the Anastasis, throughout the whole city, they all go the whole way on foot, lords and ladies alike; thus they escort the bishop, singing in response, but slowly and gently, so that the people may not be wearied. When they have come, although it is late, they have vespers; then a prayer is said at the Cross, and the people are dismissed.

Once more we vicariously participate in a 4^th-century Catholic aerobic workout, this time up and down the Mount of Olives! Bishops back in those days must have been made of some pretty sturdy stuff! They were certainly held in great esteem as a symbol of the unity of the body of Christ. As Egeria writes: “And thus the bishop is escorted like as the Lord was in former time. From the top of the hill to the city, and from thence to the Anastasis, throughout the whole city, they all go the whole way on foot, lords and ladies alike; thus they escort the bishop….”

St Cyril of Jerusalem

St. Cyril of Jerusalem was the bishop at the time of Egeria’s sojourn, and fortunately much is known about him. He was a tough old guy, about 70 when Egeria was visiting, and believe me, he had to be tough. He was embroiled in the Arian controversy, and was banished from his see by the Arian Emperor Valens. He was deposed several other times on the charge that he had sold Church property, and was indeed guilty as charged – he sold sacramental ornaments and imperial gifts to feed the poor. He must have been a stirring speaker; Egeria tells us that sometimes when he was explaining the mysteries, the applause from the assembled was so loud that it could be heard outside the church. Here is part of his Catechetical Lecture 13 on the crucifixion. I count 16 quotes from Scripture, not counting the allusions (and this isn’t the whole text).

On the words, Crucified and Buried.

Isaiah 53:1, 7

Who has believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?…He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, etc.

Every deed of Christ is a cause of glorying to the Catholic Church, but her greatest of all glorying is in the Cross; and knowing this, Paul says, But God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of Christ. (Gal 6:14) For wondrous indeed it was, that one who was blind from his birth should receive sight in Siloam ; but what is this compared with the blind of the whole world? A great thing it was, and passing nature, for Lazarus to rise again on the fourth day; but the grace extended to him alone, and what was it compared with the dead in sins throughout the world? Marvellous it was, that five loaves should pour forth food for the five thousand; but what is that to those who are famishing in ignorance through all the world? It was marvellous that she should have been loosed who had been bound by Satan eighteen years: yet what is this to all of us, who were fast bound in the chains of our sins? But the glory of the Cross led those who were blind through ignorance into light, loosed all who were held fast by sin, and ransomed the whole world of mankind.

And wonder not that the whole world was ransomed; for it was no mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God, who died on its behalf. Moreover one man’s sin, even Adam’s, had power to bring death to the world; but if by the trespass of the one death reigned over the world, how shall not life much rather reign by the righteousness of the One (Rom 5:17-18)? And if because of the tree of food they were then cast out of paradise, shall not believers now more easily enter into paradise because of the Tree of Jesus? If the first man formed out of the earth brought in universal death, shall not He who formed him out of the earth bring in eternal life, being Himself the Life? If Phinees, when he waxed zealous and slew the evil-doer, staved the wrath of God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but gave up Himself for a ransom (1 Tim 2:6), put away the wrath which is against mankind?

Let us then not be ashamed of the Cross of our Saviour, but rather glory in it. For the word of the Cross is unto Jews a stumbling-block, and unto Gentiles foolishness, but to us salvation: and to them that are perishing it is foolishness, but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God. For it was not a mere man who died for us, as I said before, but the Son of God, God made man. Further; if the lamb under Moses drove the destroyer (Ex 12:23) far away, did not much rather the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29), deliver us from our sins? The blood of a silly sheep gave salvation; and shall not the Blood of the Only-begotten much rather save? If any disbelieve the power of the Crucified, let him ask the devils; if any believe not words, let him believe what he sees. Many have been crucified throughout the world, but by none of these are the devils scared; but when they see even the Sign of the Cross of Christ, who was crucified for us, they shudder. For those men died for their own sins, but Christ for the sins of others; for He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. It is not Peter who says this, for then we might suspect that he was partial to his Teacher; but it is Esaias who says it, who was not indeed present with Him in the flesh, but in the Spirit foresaw His coming in the flesh. Yet why now bring the Prophet only as a witness? Take for a witness Pilate himself, who gave sentence upon Him, saying, I find no fault in this Man (Lk 23:14): and when he gave Him up, and had washed his hands, he said, I am innocent of the blood of this just person (Mt 27:24). There is yet another witness of the sinlessness of Jesus—the robber, the first man admitted into Paradise; who rebuked his fellow, and said, We receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing amiss ; for we were present, both you and I, at His judgment.

Jesus then really suffered for all men; for the Cross was no illusion , otherwise our redemption is an illusion also. His death was not a mere show , for then is our salvation also fabulous. If His death was but a show, they were true who said, We remember that that deceiver said, while He was yet alive, After three days I rise again (Mt 27:63) His Passion then was real: for He was really crucified, and we are not ashamed thereat; He was crucified, and we deny it not, nay, I rather glory to speak of it. For though I should now deny it, here is Golgotha to confute me, near which we are now assembled; the wood of the Cross confutes me, which was afterwards distributed piecemeal from hence to all the world. I confess the Cross, because I know of the Resurrection; for if, after being crucified, He had remained as He was, I had not perchance confessed it, for I might have concealed both it and my Master; but now that the Resurrection has followed the Cross, I am not ashamed to declare it.

Being then in the flesh like others, He was crucified, but not for the like sins. For He was not led to death for covetousness, since He was a Teacher of poverty; nor was He condemned for concupiscence, for He Himself says plainly, Whosoever shall look upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already (Mt 5:28); not for smiting or striking hastily, for He turned the other cheek also to the smiter; not for despising the Law, for He was the fulfiller of the Law; not for reviling a prophet, for it was Himself who was proclaimed by the Prophets; not for defrauding any of their hire, for He ministered without reward and freely; not for sinning in words, or deeds, or thoughts, He who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; who when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, threatened not (1 Pet 2:22-23); who came to His passion, not unwillingly, but willing; yea, if any dissuading Him say even now, Be it far from You, Lord, He will say again, Get behind Me, Satan (Mt 16:22-23) .

And would you be persuaded that He came to His passion willingly? Others, who foreknow it not, die unwillingly; but He spoke before of His passion: Behold, the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified. But do you know wherefore this Friend of man shunned not death? It was lest the whole world should perish in its sins. Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be betrayed, and shall be crucified ; and again, He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem (Lk 9:5). And would you know certainly, that the Cross is a glory to Jesus? Hear His own words, not mine. Judas had become ungrateful to the Master of the house, and was about to betray Him. Having but just now gone forth from the table, and drunk His cup of blessing, in return for that drought of salvation he sought to shed righteous blood. He who did eat of His bread, was lifting up his heel against Him ; his hands were but lately receiving the blessed gifts , and presently for the wages of betrayal he was plotting His death. And being reproved, and having heard that word, You have said (Mt 26:25), he again went out: then said Jesus, The hour has come, that the Son of man should be glorified (Jn 12:23). Do you see how He knew the Cross to be His proper glory? What then, is Esaias not ashamed of being sawn asunder , and shall Christ be ashamed of dying for the world? Now is the Son of man glorified (Jn 13:31). Not that He was without glory before: for He was glorified with the glory which was before the foundation of the world. He was ever glorified as God; but now He was to be glorified in wearing the Crown of His patience. He gave not up His life by compulsion, nor was He put to death by murderous violence, but of His own accord. Hear what He says: I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again : I yield it of My own choice to My enemies; for unless I chose, this could not be. He came therefore of His own set purpose to His passion, rejoicing in His noble deed, smiling at the crown, cheered by the salvation of mankind; not ashamed of the Cross, for it was to save the world. For it was no common man who suffered, but God in man’s nature, striving for the prize of His patience.

“I confess the Cross, because I know of the Resurrection!” A sermon fit to grace an Evangelical pulpit, and yet this was the 4^th-century Catholic Church of the Holy Sepulcher,
steeped in liturgy, which heard the Scriptures boldly proclaimed to them by a bishop who braved banishment in defending the truth that Christ is “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, consubstantial with the Father.”

Go figure….

 

On Passion Sunday

Deo omnis gloria!

Photo credit: Mount of Olives by Yair Haklai

Postcards From a Pilgrim

As a Protestant, I knew next to nothing about the Church Fathers, and that suited me just fine. To me, the period between the death of the last apostle and the dawn of the Reformation was a vast religious wasteland. God only knows what the poor, benighted rabble of those centuries believed – I certainly didn’t care one way or the other. Indeed, whenever Catholics bring up the fact that ample documentation of the principle of something as important as, say, apostolic succession is found in the writings of the post-apostolic Christians, a Protestant such as I once was will dismiss this evidence out-of-hand. “Their writings weren’t inspired Holy Scripture.” To me, that made their writings worthless.

No one is claiming that the writings of the Church Fathers are infallible, or that they are Holy Scripture. They are, however, exceedingly valuable because they shed light on the beliefs and practices of the folks who, in the years after the apostles died, called themselves Christians. It’s as if Christian scholars living 900 years from now found a letter from the Reverend Billy Graham to the Reverend Jerry Falwell asking him to rethink his involvement in politics. Holy Scripture? Infallible? I don’t think so! But valuable nonetheless, because such a letter would serve to document the fact that (a) some 20th-century North American Baptists were involved in politics and that (b) other 20th-century North American Baptists felt that they shouldn’t be, and that (c) Billy Graham felt that he could offer Jerry Falwell fraternal correction. In the same manner, the writings of the Church Fathers don’t have to be inspired or infallible in order to be historically pertinent and therefore valuable. There is an exceeding great deal that we can glean from them.

One such writing of historical value is the Pilgrimage of St. Egeria. Thought by scholars to have been a French Catholic (though some say Spanish), Egeria (a religious sister or a laywoman – scholars remain divided on this as well) made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land before the end of the 4^th century, most likely after the death of the emperor Valens in 378 A.D. In other words, her journey can be dated to the neighborhood of 350 years after the Resurrection. We have fragments of her writings dealing with the various sites that she visited in Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor. Egeria’s account is important for several reasons. From a secular perspective, it is important because Egeria was a woman, and there are few extant writings from antiquity by female authors. From a Christian point of view, her story is noteworthy in part because it serves to bust the myth that the Scriptures were confiscated early on by the ECC (Evil Catholic Church) and locked up in “monasteries and museums” (as Tim LaHaye claims) where the faithful had no access to them. St. Egeria, writing 50 years after the death of Emperor Constantine (the guy who made Catholicism the religion of the Roman Empire, forcing “true Christians” underground – or so I’d heard), recounts the details of her visit to the River Jordan:

…setting out from Jerusalem and journeying with holy men, with a priest and deacons from Jerusalem and with certain brothers, that is monks, we came to that spot on the Jordan where the children of Israel had crossed when holy Joshua, the son of Nun, had led them over Jordan, as it is written in the book of Joshua, the son of Nun. The place where the children of Reuben and of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh had made an altar was shown us a little higher up on that side of the river-bank where Jericho is. Crossing the river we came to a city called Livias, which is in the plain where the children of Israel encamped at that time, for the foundations of the camp of the children of Israel and of their dwellings where they abode appear there to this day. The plain is a very great one, lying under the mountains of Arabia above the Jordan; it is the place of which it is written: And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the Arabot Moab on the Jordan over against Jericho, forty days. This is the place where, after Moses’ death, Joshua the son of Nun was straightway filled with the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him, as it is written. This is the place where Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy, and where he spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song until it was ended; it is written in the book of Deuteronomy. Here holy Moses, the man of God, blessed the children of Israel one by one, in order, before his death. So when we had arrived at this plain, we went to the very spot, and prayer was made; here, too, a certain part of Deuteronomy was read, as well as his song, with the blessings which he pronounced over the children of Israel; after the reading, prayer was made a second time, and giving thanks to God, we moved on thence. For it was always customary with us that, whenever we succeeded in reaching the places we desired to visit, prayer should first be made there, then the lection should be read from the book, then one appropriate psalm should be said, then prayer should be made again. At God’s bidding we always kept to this custom, whenever we were able to come to the places we desired.

It certainly sounds as if she had more than a passing acquaintance with Scripture – she’s alluding to and quoting from Deuteronomy 33 and 34, not exactly two of the best-known chapters in the Old Testament. And she constantly alludes to Scripture throughout her writings, with her quotes conforming closely to the text of the Septuagint version of the Bible (for those of you who have been following my series on the canon, this should come as no surprise).

Egeria sojourned in Jerusalem, chronicling the liturgical practices there. As a Protestant, I viewed any church that adhered to a liturgy as a Bible-free zone. Yet, listen to her words concerning the teaching of the Scriptures to the catechumens:

And as he [the bishop] explained the meaning of all the Scriptures, so does he explain the meaning of the Creed; each article first literally and then spiritually. By this means all the faithful in these parts follow the Scriptures when they are read in church.

So even if you couldn’t read or write, you were familiar with the Scriptures because they were read to you at Mass, and their meaning was explained to you. The ECC apparently hadn’t yet consolidated its iron grip on the faithful…

Egeria gives a fascinating account of the observance of Lent in the 4^th century church in Jerusalem. As a pampered 21^st-century American Catholic, I might not have made it through the 4^th-century Jerusalem Lent – those Christians were hardcore.

When the days of Easter come they are celebrated as follows. For as with us forty days before Easter are observed, so here eight weeks before Easter are observed. But the eight weeks are observed for this reason: they do not fast on the Lord’s day or on the Sabbath, with the exception of the one Sabbath day which is the vigil of Easter, on which it is necessary to fast. Except on this day they never fast on a Sabbath throughout the whole year. So deducting from these eight weeks, eight Lord’s days, and seven Sabbaths – for they must fast on one Sabbath, as I said above – there remain forty-one fast days, which they call here ἑορτύι, i.e., the quadragesimal [fast]. The several days of the several weeks are thus observed….

…For the custom of those who fast here in Lent is that some, viz., those who observe the week-long fast, as soon as they have eaten on the Lord’s day after Mass – that is, at the fifth or sixth hour – do not eat throughout the whole week until the next Sabbath after the Mass at the Anastasis. But when they have eaten early on the Sabbath, they do not eat in the evening, but on the next day – that is, the Lord’s day. They eat after the Mass at the church, at the fifth hour or even later, and then do not eat again until the next Sabbath, as I said above. For the custom here is that all those who are, as they say, Renuntiants, whether men or women, only eat once a day, and this not only in Lent, but throughout the year. If there are any of these Renuntiants who cannot keep the entire week’s fast, as we described above, throughout Lent, they take a meal on the fifth day in the middle [of the week]. Those who cannot do even this fast for two days at a time all through Lent, and those who cannot do even this much, fast from one evening to the next. No one demands how much one ought to do, but each one does what he can; neither is he praised who does more than he need, nor is he blamed who does less. Such is the custom here. And their food during the forty days is of this kind: they neither eat bread which cannot be strained as a liquid, nor taste oil nor anything else which is got from trees, but live on water and a little gruel made out of flour. So the Lenten fast is kept, as we have said.

Personally, I gave up sweets for Lent. I doubt St. Egeria would have been too terribly impressed.

Bethany

Tomorrow is Palm Sunday. Here is Egeria’s depiction of what the church in Jerusalem would have been doing today, the day before Palm Sunday:

When it begins to be morning, as the Sabbath dawns, the bishop makes an offering and the oblation early on the Sabbath. And when the dismissal is to be given the archdeacon calls out, saying: ‘Let us all be ready in the Lazarium at the seventh hour to-day.’ So at the beginning of the seventh hour they all come to the Lazarium. The Lazarium – i.e., Bethany – is about two miles from the city; and as they come from Jerusalem to the Lazarium, about 500 paces from the latter place, there is a church in the street at the spot where Mary, the sister of Lazarus, met the Lord. And when the bishop has come here all the monks meet him, and the people enter; one hymn is sung and one antiphon, and they read the passage from the Gospel where the sister of Lazarus meets the Lord. So prayer having been made, and all having been blessed, they go from thence to the Lazarium with hymns. When they come to the Lazarium the whole crowd assembles, so that not only the place itself, but the fields all round, are full of people. Hymns and antiphons are sung appropriate to the day and place, and in like manner lections suitable for the day are read. Before they are dismissed, Easter is announced – that is, the priest goes up to an elevated place and reads the passage from the Gospel where it is written, ‘When Jesus had come to Bethany, six days before the Passover,’ etc. The passage having been read and Easter announced, they are dismissed. These things are done on this day, because it is written in the Gospel that so it was done in Bethany six days before the Passover; now from the Sabbath to the fifth day, when, after the supper, the Lord was apprehended at night, is six days. Then they all return to the city straight to the Anastasis, and vespers are held as usual.

Authentic 4^th-century Christianity was something of an aerobic workout, walking two miles to another town to commemorate the events of John 12, and then walking back to hold vespers at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (the Anastasis), not neglecting to show up for Mass the next morning, and remember – they’d been fasting off and on for weeks! Kind of neat to know what Christians in Jerusalem were doing 1,630-some years ago on this day in history – different from what we are doing, and yet the same. Continuity, thy name is Catholic.

On the memorial of St. Turibius of Mongrovejo

Deo omnis gloria!

Photo credit: Israel Bethany Stone church with silver dome, by Djampa

Surprise!

One item of profound concern to me back when I was contemplating entering the Church was the note of dire warning in the collective voice of Protestantism. No daughter was ever more seriously cautioned against rash elopement – he’s not serious about you, he’ll mistreat you, he’ll get tired of you, he’ll leave you, you’ll come crawling home, you’ll rue the day…. The gloom-and-doom prognostication is enough to give any would-be convert grave pause; after all, conversion is a serious step, and anyone who undertakes it lightly has no real comprehension of the potential eternal consequences. I was worried, especially since I was bringing children into the Church with me. What if the warnings proved true?

Next Easter will mark our 10^th anniversary as Catholics, and after nearly 10 years I think I can speak with some authority on this subject. Did the Protestant misgivings hold water? Let’s examine them one by one – you might be surprised:

Protestants warned that by submitting myself to the teaching of the Church I would make of myself an intellectual slave.

Surprisingly, since proclaiming that “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God,” I have been freed to ponder and explore doctrine like never before, securely tethered to “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

Protestants warned that by using set prayers, I would be putting a chokehold on my devotional life.

Surprisingly, written prayers proved to be the trellis upon which my frail prayer life has grown and borne fruit.

Protestants warned that by participating in the liturgy I would lose any sense of a personal relationship with Christ.

Surprisingly, by participating in the Church’s worship at Mass, my personal relationship with Jesus has been greatly strengthened, as I now have the assistance of the Church teaching me how better to pray and to worship my Lord, and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist to change me from the inside out.

Protestants warned that when I began striving to obey the commandments of Christ, I would become bound up in works and lose sight of grace.

Surprisingly, in attempting to obey Christ’s command to love God and love my neighbor as the Church teaches us to do, I have been overwhelmed by the necessity of God’s grace to fit me for this otherwise impossible task.

Protestants warned that by embracing a belief system that proclaimed the existence of a ministerial priesthood, I would betray my understanding of the “priesthood of the believer.”

Surprisingly, when I accepted the idea of priests who offer up the once-for-all sacrifice of the Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, I became profoundly aware of my own responsibility as a member of the priesthood of believers, most especially when I assist at Mass, and when I pray, “Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I adore Thee profoundly. I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference by which He is offended. And through the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.”

Protestants warned that by confessing my sins to a mere man, I would forget that only God can forgive sins.

Surprisingly, by taking seriously my responsibility to confess my sins to a priest, I have become profoundly convinced of God’s love and forgiveness in the confessional.

Protestants warned that by forsaking their “once-saved/always saved” theology, I would lose all sense of “blessed assurance” and live in constant fear of hell.

Surprisingly, by admitting that the Bible does teach that we can lose our salvation, I have been freed to embrace a constant, trust-filled reliance on the only One Who can keep sin from ruling over me (Ps 119:133, Rom 6:12) rather than pretending that this One will turn a blind eye no matter what I do….

Protestants warned that my Christian walk would suffer as I embraced the notion of “a second chance” at salvation after death known as Purgatory.

Surprisingly, as I came to understand that the doctrine of Purgatory proclaims a final, thorough cleansing for those already headed to Heaven, I began joyfully offering up my sufferings in this life in cooperation with the God Who loves me too much to leave me the way He found me.

Protestants warned that I would be taught to consider 7 uninspired books to be Holy Scripture, books that the Church added to the Bible after the Reformation in support of false doctrines.

Surprisingly, the historical truth turned out to be the opposite of what I had been warned, and I began studying the 7 inspired books that Protestants removed from Holy Scripture, books that had been there since the New Testament canon was settled.

Protestants warned that I would end up praying to Mary and the saints rather than to God.

Surprisingly, as a faithful Catholic I have been taught to ask Mary and the saints to pray for me to the Lord our God that I would love Him above all things.

Protestants warned that I would lose sight of Christ when I cultivated a devotion to Mary.

Surprisingly, by drawing closer to Mary, my relationship to Christ has become deeper and wider and more profound than ever, as I ponder the events of her Son’s life through her eyes.

Protestants warned that I would become disillusioned with Catholicism when I found out what Catholics were really like.

Surprisingly, as I receive my Lord in Holy Communion Sunday after Sunday, I have been given special insight into the sins and failings of one Catholic in particular – myself. I am far too busy fighting to overcome that which displeases God in my own life to worry about what other Catholics are really like, although I suspect that they are for the most part a lot like me. “What is that to you? You follow Me.”

Protestants warned that I might get “left behind.”

Surprisingly, it turned out that the novel doctrine of the “secret rapture” so dear to Evangelical hearts is nothing more than theological speculation on their part, heavy on eisegesis and devoid of historicity. As a Catholic I await with the Church the glorious Second Coming of our Lord.

Protestants warned that I was leaving the Truth behind.

When I entered the Catholic Church, I left behind nothing that was true in all the Protestant denominations I had loved throughout my life. I entered into MORE truth, into the very Fullness of the Truth, when I was reconciled to the Church. After all, the Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus Christ the Lord, and so there is

no surprise about that at all!

On the memorial of St. Francis Xavier

Deo omnis gloria!

Where’s Mary?

It wasn’t till I got home after my first Mass that something very strange occurred to me: I hadn’t heard a word about Mary in the Mass. Wait a minute…. I thought Catholics were all about Mary! I thought one of our main Protestant objections to the Mass was that Catholics worshipped Mary! If that was the case, why hadn’t I heard anything about her that morning at Mass?

It turned out that I actually had heard a few words about Mary in the Mass that morning, but they were so few and so low-key that I, expecting to be slapped in the face with the wet mackerel of Mary-worship, hadn’t noticed them. The Mass I attended had actually mentioned her twice, first in the Creed:

For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit

He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

As you can see, this profession of faith is one that Protestants make all the time. Conservative Protestants are staunch defenders of the Virgin Birth of Christ. This mention of the Virgin really isn’t so much about her as it is about Him. That’s why I didn’t even notice that we’d mentioned Mary in the Mass.

The second time Mary came up was in the Eucharistic Prayer:

May He make us an everlasting gift to You, and enable us to share in the inheritance of Your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, the martyrs, and all Your saints on whose constant intercession we rely for help.

Now that would have gotten the attention of most Protestants; after all, we’re not just talking about Christ born of the Virgin – we’re calling the Virgin Mother of God. That’s like waving a red Marian handkerchief in front of an already irritable Protestant bull.

Many Protestants experience misplaced outrage when they hear Mary referred to as the “Mother of God,” due to a misunderstanding of what is meant by the phrase. No one is claiming that Mary is divine, and no one is saying that she somehow predates God the way our human mothers predate us. “Theotokos” (“the one who gives birth to the One Who is God”) was a theological term applied to Mary in the fifth century to defend not her, but Jesus from the implications of heretical doctrine. Catholics insisted and continue to insist that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, both divine and human, while heretics were asserting various doctrinal aberrations – Nestorian heretics, for example, believed that Jesus’ divinity and humanity were two separate issues, dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, God and man. Catholics were struggling to proclaim Christ’s full humanity and full divinity in one Person, a complete and perfect union of His human and divine natures, and thus objected to the depiction of a human Jesus who was the son of Mary, and a divine Jesus who was not. The Catholic contention is that Mary gave birth to Jesus, and Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of … God! Again, this really doesn’t say as much about her as it does about Him. By insisting that Mary is the Mother of God, Catholics are primarily insisting that Jesus is God, a proposal that no conservative Protestant Christian would contest.

In my investigation of Catholicism up to that point, I had already become convinced that the term “Mother of God” applied to Mary was simply a statement of Biblical fact, and thus the announcement of it at Mass didn’t jab me in the eye the way it might have another Protestant. I had no problem with Marian doctrines like the Virgin Birth or the Theotokos, because they were obviously attempts to protect doctrinal truths essential to our understanding of Who Jesus is. In other words, these doctrines aren’t really about Mary – they are about Jesus, and I had no problem with that.

Had I attended a different parish which used a different form of the Eucharistic Prayer, I would have heard variations on this theme, all referring to her as the Mother of God, and referring to the blessed apostles, the holy martyrs and all the saints, asking that we be numbered among them and admitting that we rely upon their prayers for help. And had I attended my first Mass during the Lenten season, we might have begun by praying the Confiteor, asking for the intercession of said saints.

So I did hear Mary’s name mentioned at my first Mass, but not in the way I thought I might. When you’re fearing that Mary, a mere human being, will be playing just as great a role (or even greater!) in Catholic worship as Jesus, then these glancing references to the part she plays in the Communion of Saints don’t really register. Other than that, no reference is made to Mary in the Mass – surprising from a Protestant standpoint, but true.

Certainly a Protestant can’t condemn an occasional sermon devoted to Mary. Especially around Christmastime Protestant thoughts turn to the woman who was asked to trust God enough to bear His Son, and Protestant pastors may choose to mention her in passing, or even to devote the entire sermon to her role in salvation history, although heavy on the disclaimers. And in the Catholic Church we too will devote homilies to Mary on special days when we contemplate events in her life or aspects of her calling. But at the average Mass on an average Sunday – you’re just not going to hear a lot about Mary.

You may not realize it, but Catholics agree with you on this point. Protestants are quite right about insisting that no creature, no human being, ever be allowed to distract us from the worship of God. It is ALWAYS wrong when a creature attempts to usurp the worship due the Creator. It is wrong when a preacher subtly or not so subtly calls attention to himself by his sermon antics, building a following inadvertently more devoted to him than to the One he claims to promote. It is wrong when music ministers turn worship into a concert, the musicians into “stars” and the sanctuary into a baptized mosh pit. It is wrong when worship leaders whip the faithful up into a charismatic froth Sunday after Sunday, until believers are so wrapped up in themselves and their ephemeral, subjective experiences that they lose sight of the truth of the God they came seeking….

No human being can be allowed to commandeer the attention of the worshippers, distracting them from the worship of God.

The Mass is about Jesus Christ, period. It’s no more about Mary than it is about the priest who’s officiating or the cantor who leads the singing. Fortunately it’s no more possible to interject Mary worship into the Mass than it is to interject worship of self; the liturgy is designed to make that impossible. The liturgy is a powerful defense against the twisting of Mass to personal purposes. Protestant critics complain that the liturgy is so unbending, so uniform, the same in parish after parish, country after country, year after year. Get with the times, the spirit of the age! they cry. People leave the Catholic Church to go to a Protestant assembly with more “vibrant” worship – yet it is precisely this liturgy which makes the Mass
the ultimate Christ-centered prayer. When Catholics follow the liturgy, worship flows within totally Christ-centered boundaries, like a mighty river flowing within its banks. When worship overflows the banks of the liturgy, it is worship’s Proper Object Who gets swept away in the flood….

So, where’s Mary in the Mass? She’s right there – with all the other worshippers. And how could she not be there where her Lord is receiving glory, honor and praise? At Mass we “behold our mother” present as she was at the foot of the Cross, the woman who said, “My soul magnifies the Lord” and “Do whatever He tells you,” the woman who would be the last to try to preempt our attention at Mass. The Mass, the Church’s greatest prayer, isn’t about Mary. The Mass is no more about her than it is about me or you or any other human being. And from the Catholic perspective, that’s exactly as it should be.

 

On the memorial of Blessed Miguel Agustín Pro

Deo omnis gloria!

Liturgy – You Say It Like It’s A Bad Thing

If you come to Mass with me, I won’t be surprised if you complain that we Catholics recite a lot of things from memory, leaving you at a disadvantage. The written prayers and liturgical responses we use are generally a sticking point with Protestants, and are one of their big objections to the Catholic form of worship. Written prayers are bogus! When I was in high school, my best friend’s father, a deacon in the Church of Christ, waited until all heads were bowed and eyes were closed before he pulled a prepared prayer out of his pocket and read it aloud. His daughter was scandalized (she had peeked). Many Protestants would look askance at reading a prayer; they believe that anything written down is “canned” and therefore insincere – true worship is spontaneous. That would certainly be news to Jesus Who, after all, said: “When you pray, say: ‘Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation'” (Lk 11:2-4). Jesus and his disciples prayed the Psalms, which are written prayers (just as Catholics pray a Psalm at every Mass). And of course, many, many hymns are written prayers set to music – Be Thou My Vision, How Great Thou Art, Take My Life and Let it Be – Protestants sing many written prayers. Catholics do the same, but we don’t share this odd insistence that written prayers always be set to music.

At Protestant churches you never know what you’re going to hear, and a lot of people like it like that. Spontaneity! The movement of the Spirit! But spontaneity can be synonymous with foolishness and the spewing of large volumes of tripe. At my mom’s charismatic assembly, the leaders once had to take a “prophetess” outside for a little chat – “Thus saith the Lord!” she had spontaneously claimed, warning that His return was imminent and that He was coming “with a sword” to deal with those in the assembly who persisted in their sins. Chastened, she apologized, claiming that she was merely repeating what she thought she had heard the Spirit saying. Prayers can be as unpredictable as prophecy. Spontaneous prayers can range from the misguided to the gossip-ridden to the inane, as in the cartoon quip that Mark Shea likes to quote: “Oh Lord, I just really want to just really pray that you would just really touch me, Lord, in a special way right now, and that you would just really take the words ‘just’ and ‘really’ out of my prayer vocabulary!” “In a special way” can go, too, as far as I’m concerned.

Having certain prayers prepared beforehand makes sense from a Catholic perspective, on the understanding that God the Holy Spirit can inspire the contents of a prayer ahead of time just as well as on the spur of the moment, and that most people do better when not under pressure to “perform.” Prepared prayers reduce the “tripe” factor to nil, because as a reader of this blog, LizB, points out, they are “perfected prayers.” The Gloria that we pray after the Penitential Rite has been recited by Christians at Mass since the 4^th century – it brilliantly expresses the cry of Christian hearts. The Liturgy is replete with Biblical references, with layer upon layer of meaning in each phrase and in each action. Man-made attempts to develop “relevant worship” are shallow exactly because of the ties that bind that worship to the events and trends of the day. My own attempts to produce adequate prayers, prayers that express all the longings, fears, needs, hopes and love of my heart, are similarly inadequate because of the ties binding me to my own narrow interests. In other words, my prayers in my own words are sincere, but I recognize that they could use some help. My spontaneous prayers predictably run on their own little hamster wheel of my selfish concerns, i.e., I need… I want…
I’m worried… What if… Help me… Don’t let this happen… Don’t let that happen… Oh, please, God! Please! Please! Please! Even when I am able to praise and worship, that praise and worship is limited to what my tiny mind and stunted heart can come up with. I need help. St. Paul promised that the Holy Spirit will pray for us in our weakness, and thank God He does. He is there with us at Mass, teaching us to pray, lifting up our minds and hearts through participation in the Liturgy, up to the Throne where our perfected prayers are being poured out. There is a chasm between my puny efforts at worship, and the worship going on in Heaven, and that chasm makes the Grand Canyon look like a gopher hole. The Mass bridges the chasm, because the Mass is actually a participation in the heavenly liturgy before the throne of God. As Revelation 4 tells us, St. John was caught up in spirit and saw:

A throne was there in heaven, and on the throne sat One Whose appearance sparkled like jasper and carnelian. Around the throne was a halo as brilliant as an emerald. Surrounding the throne I saw twenty-four other thrones on which twenty-four elders sat, dressed in white garments and with gold crowns on their heads…. In the center and around the throne, there were four living creatures covered with eyes in front and in back…. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, Who was, and Who is, and Who is to come.” Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the One who sits on the throne, Who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before the One who sits on the throne and worship Him, Who lives forever and ever. They throw down their crowns before the throne, exclaiming: “Worthy are You, Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power, for You created all things; because of Your will they came to be and were created.”

…Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the [seven] spirits of God sent out into the whole world. He came and received the scroll from the right hand of the One who sat on the throne. When He took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones. They sang a new hymn:

“Worthy are You to receive the scroll and to break open its seals, for You were slain and with Your blood you purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue, people and nation. You made them a kingdom and priests for our God, and they will reign on earth.”

I looked again and heard the voices of many angels who surrounded the throne and the living creatures and the elders. They were countless  in number, and they cried out in a loud voice: “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches, wisdom and strength, honor and glory and blessing.”

Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, everything in the universe, cry out: “To the One who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor, glory and might, forever and ever.”

There seems to be a great deal of repetition going on in the heavenly worship! Notice, too – worship quite clearly is corporate. St. John reports that certain worshippers all cry out the same thing at the same time. Had he visited a charismatic Heaven, he would not have been able to report much more than “There was quite a cacophony when the Lamb received the scroll!” As it is, he knows exactly what the worshippers said, because they cried out in unison. They responded as one.

And at Mass we lift up our voices in unison to become part of that “one voice.” As the Catechism puts it:

In the earthly liturgy we share in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle.

Three chapters of the ancient Christian document, the “Didache” (written between 60 and 110 A.D.) deal with the liturgy, so an innovation it is not. Christians have always attended Mass to devote themselves to “the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). But Catholics don’t merely “attend” Mass. We “assist at” Mass. This is what the emphasis on “fully conscious and active participation” in the Mass is all about. Just mouthing the words gets us nowhere – we have to make those words our own. The prayer of the saints before the Throne must become the prayer of our hearts. We must learn the language of Heaven.

Sometimes “worship” in the Protestant sense boils down to “an awesome experience of God.” It must be that – but it mustn’t end there. Going to Mass is a part of our formation as Christians. We are there to learn how to worship more completely, and much of what we need to learn is contained in the words of the Mass, the greatest prayer the Church can offer. Every one of the words and the actions of the liturgy is there for a reason – to glorify God and to teach us how to glorify God. Every Mass can bring you that much closer to Him as you learn to speak the words of the language of Heaven, the words the Church is teaching your heart to pronounce.

On the memorial of St. Leo the Great

Deo omnis gloria!

Former Catholics

Baptist pastors in my neck of the woods will sometimes preach warning sermons on the errors of “Roman Catholicism.” The pastor will stand up and repeat the silly talk he heard in seminary about how Catholics worship Mary, the saints, statues, and pretty much everybody and everything but God. He will thunder against the nonexistent Catholic belief that a second chance at salvation, called “purgatory,” is extended to people after they die. He will rail against that supposed Catholic doctrine of “works righteousness.” And he will then sometimes point to certain members of the congregation who, by the grace of God, have escaped the “false Roman system” and have been born again. The pastor himself, in some cases, may be one of those people.

This kind of testimony, the “I was a member of the false, perverted cult known as Roman Catholicism” story, is generally given a great deal of credence in Evangelical circles. After all, why should we not believe someone who actually bought into those false doctrines before they got saved?

I know a woman who was raised in a predominantly Methodist family. In her youth she was indifferent to religious issues, but as she reached middle age she experienced a profound conversion. Her devotion to God grew by leaps and bounds when she discovered the charismatic movement. She was fond of telling people that Methodists had no concept of the Holy Spirit. Thank God she had found the truth in the charismatic assemblies she attended! If only Methodists knew about God the Holy Spirit – what a difference this would make to their theology!

That woman was a relative of mine, and she was very sincere in her belief that the Methodist church was completely ignorant when it came to the third Person of the Trinity. Of course, any Methodist with some theological background could have set her straight on that – John Wesley’s “The Witness of the Spirit,” “The First Fruits of the Spirit,” “The More Excellent Way,” and “Scriptural Christianity” come to mind. But by that point she no longer consorted with theologically knowledgeable Methodists. All her friends were now charismatics, most of whom also spoke disdainfully (and generally not too terribly knowledgeably) about the denominations they had left behind. It is not the Methodist denomination that has a deficient theological understanding of the Holy Spirit; it was my relative who had a deficient understanding of the Holy Spirit when she was a Methodist.

This needs to be borne in mind when one considers the number of former Catholics ready to swear on a stack of Bibles that they never heard the Gospel in the Catholic Church. I would be willing to grant them that – they never HEARD the Gospel in the Catholic Church. But I guarantee you, the Gospel was being preached. It is impossible for a Catholic parish not to preach the Gospel, as long as that parish sticks to the liturgy, for the liturgy contains all the elements of the Gospel. A youth minister at a Baptist church my daughter was visiting made the remark that, as a former Catholic, he had never been exposed to Bible stories when he was growing up. The loud snort issuing forth from my daughter’s nose caused several worshippers around her to nearly drop their King James Bibles. She had just come from Mass and had sat through several rather longish readings including the story of Moses striking the rock, a Psalm, a reading from St. Paul, and then the Gospel story of the woman at the well – pretty typical readings for a normal Catholic Mass. When she got home, she asked me, “What exactly was that guy doing when he attended Mass???” Not listening, that’s for sure.

Liturgy of the hours in a monastery of Carthusian nuns

The Internet appears to be full of stories by former priests and nuns who would have us believe that they were never exposed to a word of Holy Scripture till they became “Bible-believing Christians.” This, despite the fact that Catholics priests as well as members of male and female religious orders are required to pray the Liturgy of the Hours (click on the tabs at the top of the page which say “Invitatory Prayer,” Office of Readings,” “Morning Prayer,” “Daytime Prayer,” “Evening Prayer” and “Night Prayer” to see how much Scripture is involved). One would assume that these folks might attend Mass with some regularity as well. Between the two, it’s pretty obvious that they would be exposed to a considerable chunk of Scripture on a daily basis. What accounts for the discrepancy? I don’t care to speculate, but as they say, you do the math. There’s simply no way that they were never exposed to the Bible….

So, take these “I escaped the horrors of the false Romanist system” stories with a grain of salt. If you really want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church – it’s all right there in black-and-white. If you want to know how much Scripture is actually read at Mass, visit the nearest Catholic parish some Sunday morning. It never hurts to check things out for yourself!

On the memorial of St. Peter Claver

Deo omnis gloria!