April 2006 – Page 4

Invasion Of The Bird Snatchers

These are birds of paradise.

They’re a plant that looks like a bird. (No, really.)

They’re native to South Africa, but we’ve got ’em all over the place out here in California, where they’re used as a common ornamental plant.

The other night I was at a square dance and, between tips, I went outside for some cool air, since we’d been hot hashing really fast and I’d worked up a sweat. (Man, that was fun! My square got through the hot hash tip without any mistakes! Yee-haw!)

In the moonlight, I got to looking at the birds of paradise that were planted around the War Memorial Building (in Balboa Park, for those who know San Diego) where the dance was being held, and I got to thinking: These really do look like birds. I mean, amazingly so.

The fact that they’re not birds is obvious to human eyes if you get up close to them, but not all creatures have vision as good as humans, and not all see them up close.

So I thought: This can’t be a coincidence. There has to be some advantage to the plant if it looks like a bird. So what might that be?

Well, an obvious one is that if you’re a plant that looks like a pretty bird then humans will take a liking to you and plant you all over the place, thus furthering your survival/reproductive aims.

But I don’t know if humans have been doing this kind of horticulture for long enough to have tailored this plant breed to look like a bird (though we may have).

On the other hand, bugs eat plants and birds eat bugs, so maybe if you’re a plant that looks like a bird, it’ll scare off the bugs. Some bugs may have an avoidance instinct for anything that has a bird-like silhouette, so having one would again further the plant’s survival/reproductive aims.

And then what might birds think of this plant? If I were a bird that looked like this plant then I might want to hide among a bunch of them and thus mask my signature from potential predators. If these plants provided such birds with a really good hiding place then they’d hang out among them a lot and end up . . . uh . . . providing them with fertilizer, which will again further the plant’s survival/reproductive aims.

So this is getting kinda familiar: A plant that takes the form of an animal for purposes of furthering its own survival/reproductive aims? Possibly intermingling with the actual animals that it imitates?

You’re next!

MORE ABOUT BIRDS OF PARADISE.

(Oh, and before someone else says it: "No, it is I who will replace you!")

Kneeling & Pain

A reader writes:

I’ve really been enjoying your blog for the past
couple of months. I also recently got a used copy of
your book The Salvation Controversy from amazon.com,
and was happy to discover that it was autographed in
the front. The autograph is apparently from the
"James" years, so I wonder if it will be a limited
edition collectors’ item someday. 😉

Maybe. I was foolish enough for a few years to avoid my legal birthname–Jimmy–in quest of the "more dignified" James (during which time I also suppressed the native Southern elements of my speech), but I don’t know that it’ll have any economic impact on the value of my writings. Such foolishness can be part of growing up, but I don’ t know that it’ll make the stuff I write any more valuable. Maybe you could get an extra nickle. 😉

I’m writing you because I have a question, but let me
first give you a brief background. I am a (former
Methodist, current Southern Baptist) student who will
soon be graduating with a Master of Music degree from
a Baptist seminary, and (get this), largely because of
my studies at seminary, I do believe I may be on the
way to becoming a Catholic!

Congratulations!

I’ve been doing a lot of
research (much of it on the Catholic Answers website),
and I’m thinking that next fall I’ll probably start
RCIA. It’s kind of scary, but I’m definitely feeling
the pull in this direction.

My question is this, and on one level it’s kind of
silly.

Okay, but I don’t view there as being silly questions, only silly answers.

I’ve never been much of a kneeler, mainly
because it hurts if I do it for very long. I go to
mass a lot with my mother (who converted to
Catholicism three years ago), and sometimes I try to
kneel some (they do have kneelers, and no one else
seems to have much trouble with this except maybe an
older lady here or there who stays seated). But I
knelt for some of the Good Friday service the other
day, and I’ve hardly been able to walk all day today!
This happened once before too, though on that
occassion I intentionally stayed kneeling even though
I was in pain during a mass (I guess what I thought
was a Catholic notion of self-mortification or
something-I’m all new at this).

What I’ve run across on the Catholic Answers website
seems to indicate that during certain portions of the
mass, the faithful are supposed to kneel unless health
reasons indicate otherwise. I suppose this is some
kind of health reason, though I’ve never actually been
diagnosed with anything. (My mom has suggested that I
may be getting arthritis, which is of course always
welcome news at my young age!)

Do cradle Catholics build up
more knee strength over the years?

That’s an interesting question, and the only thing I can say is, "perhaps." I don’t think it takes years, though. Once you start using your muscles in a new way, they build up pretty quickly. I’d think that any added knee strength from kneeling would be built up in a matter of weeks, not years.

Does anyone else
have this problem?

Oh, sure. Lotsa folks have knee problems or back problems or what have you. I myself have a back problem and can’t always kneel. (Incidentally, you don’t need a diagnosis for a medical condition to be excused from kneeling, you just need the medical condition.)

If I do become Catholic, will
people think I’m some sort of unpious wimp because I’m
not kneeling?

No. Like I said, lotsa folks are unable to kneel–either temporarily or permanently–and just staying in your seat won’t really attract attention. When I’ve been unable to kneel, I’ve never had anybody wrinkle their nose at me (and I’m usually totally anonymous in church, so it’s not like I get any deference for being an apologist or having a blog or anything).

Besides, if anybody did wrinkle their nose at me for not kneeling, all that would mean is that they’re paying attention to me instead of to the Mass, so I could wrinkle my nose right back at them.

Are you supposed to feel pain when you
kneel?

A little discomfort, maybe, but actual pain, no–certainly not anything that make it hard for you to walk afterwards. That goes beyond pain to doing some kind of actual damage to the body, and that isn’t the goal of kneeling. If you’re having anything like that then you are unambiguously excused from kneeling.

I wouldn’t worry about the issue of kneeling. If you find it too difficult to do–temporarily or permanently–then you are excused from the requirement, and people will not notice or care if you just sit. Even if they did, the important thing is being in union with Christ’s Church and receiving Jesus in the Eucharist. That’s where one’s focus should be.

Thank you so much for all you do. It is obvious from
hearing you on the radio and reading your writings
that you both really understand the Catholic faith and
have a heart for people.

Thanks. You are too kind.

Latin Mass Speculation

This week’s The Word From Rome (which may have to get retitled "The Word From New York" given John Allen’s plans to relocate to the states) contains a piece about the speculations that Pope Benedict would announce a universal indult for celebrating the Tridentine Rite of Mass during Triduum.

Personally, I always thought this was a long shot, though I anticipate that there will be greater and possibly universal permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite at some point. It was the timing of publicly announcing it during Holy Week that was the issue, since this would take the focus off of the Holy Week celebrations entirely, with a media firestorm errupting.

Allen has been talking to some Vatican sources about the kind of reactions B16 has been getting in his discussions with cardinals on the topic:

"Whenever there have been meetings about this among the cardinals, it’s not just that there’s division," he said. "The overwhelming majority is against it [universal permission to celebrate the old rite]. It’s not like it’s fifty-fifty."

This source pointed out that just two weeks ago, in Benedict’s closed-door meeting with cardinals, the bulk of cardinals who spoke were against such a move.

"If it were up to Castrillon Hoyos, it would already have happened," the source said, referring to Colombian Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission for traditionalist Catholics.

"But Benedict is trying to operate on the basis of consensus, and there’s just no consensus," he said.

Another senior Vatican official said simply, "It is not a theme that is yet mature."

Here’s Allen’s bottom-line assessment:

Given the way Benedict XVI has played his cards close to the chest on other matters, it’s possible that a document is in the works without most of his key advisors knowing about it. But so far, on this issue, what we have is a lot of smoke in search of a fire.

GET THE STORY.

I Disagree With The Cardinal Archbishop Of Guadalajara

First, let me note a point on which I agree with him, though.

According to Catholic News Agency,

The archbishop of Guadalajara, Mexico, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez expressed his support this week for protests by Hispanics in the United States, saying the “undocumented” are persons who also possess the dignity of the children of God.

That much is true. The protesters are largely baptized people, and the baptized possess the dignity of the children of God. And even the unbaptized possess the dignity of human persons created in God’s image. At the same time, that is a dignity that can be abused, as when people, baptized or otherwise, break the law.

Here’s where the disagreement comes in:

During the inauguration of the Diocesan Museum of the Mexican Martyrs, the cardinal said the undocumented should not be called “illegal” because they are not criminals, but rather people who out of necessity or “ignorance left without their papers.” He said the country to which they travel should treat them with justice and grant them a status that “respects first and foremost their human dignity.”

The U.S. should indeed treat illegal aliens with human dignity, but treating them with justice means acknowledging that they have broken the law, making their presence in this country "illegal."

It may be morally legitimate at times to do illegal things out of moral necessity, but this does not automatically make the act legal under civil law (though in some cases civil law may honor a necessity defense).

The Cardinal Archbishop is not dealing straight here. The number of illegal immigrants from Mexico who out of "ignorance left without their papers" is diminimously small. Children may have been dragged along by their parents in that condition, but the number of adults who did so is extremely low or non-existent. They knew darn well that they needed the appropriate papers to cross into the United States. Otherwise they wouldn’t be using obscure desert trails and paying coyotes sums of money to smuggle them across crammed into the backs of vans and semi-trucks.

I’m sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts, and the truth is that non-citizens who have come into this country illegally are illegal aliens by definition.

We do neither them nor the American people a favor if we try to paper over this reality with terminology that would seek to mask this fact.

To do so only distracts from the core moral questions of whether their presence in this country can be morally justified or not (that’s where the necessity defense plays a role) and what is to be done about the situation.

Hell In A Nutshell

If Uncle Screwtape had thumbs, he’d be giving The DaVinci Code two thumbs up.

"Now, Wormwood, before you object to my calling this book ‘non-fiction’ — since it is technically classified as ‘fiction’ — let me say that it is essentially non-fiction, at least as far as our purposes are concerned. That’s because it’s principle delight for our side is that in the tacky plastic shell of some below-average ‘fiction’ the book parades as ‘fact’ a veritable phalanx of practical propaganda and disinformation that would make our dear Herr Goebbels (Circle Eight, third spiderhole on the right) jade green with envy! Souls by the boatload are blithely believing almost all of the deliciously corrosive non-facts that are congealed everywhere in it, like flies in bad aspic, and it is that precisely which most recommends this glorious effort as worthy of our dedicated and especial study.

"But where to begin in describing to you its myriad delights? First, a brief synopsis of the plot: a museum curator is murdered by a fanatical albino Christian bigot (nice opening, no?); the curator’s granddaughter and an American ‘symbologist’ (don’t ask me, I haven’t the time) try to find the real killer and are launched on a wildly implausible and fantastically cryptical search for the proverbial Holy Grail, all the while chased by angry gendarmes and the aforementioned unhinged albino. In the process they (and the lucky reader) discover that: the Church is murderous and evil; the Bible is a hoax; Jesus is not divine, but merely a married mortal and an earnest proto-feminist (!); there is no such thing as Truth; and oh, yes… is the truest kind of prayer. Can you stand it? A virtuoso performance, no? It’s as if the author’s somehow squeezed all of hell into a walnut shell. And oh, yes, one more historical ‘fact’: Leonardo DaVinci’s homosexuality was ‘flamboyant’! Do tell."

GET THE STORY. (Warning: Put down the coffee mug and clear the throat first. JimmyAkin.org takes no responsibility for the state of your keyboard, monitor, or respiratory system if you read this while drinking or eating.)

(Nod to Mark Shea for the link.)

I’ve read a number of Screwtapian musings by writers attempting to channel C. S. Lewis, but this is the first one I’ve read of which I think even Lewis himself would approve. Eric Metaxas nails Screwtape. Read the whole thing.

Hand Holding & Rubrics

A reader writes:

I have heard you and others say it is not written that holding hands is part of the proper way to say the Lords Prayer during the Liturgy. I have looked in the GIRM. No instructions are given as to posture, sitting, standing or holding hands. Is there another reference I can read about the church’s instructions?

The posture for this point in the liturgy is standing. This actually is found in the GIRM, but it isn’t as explicit as one might want. Here is the reference:

43. The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect; for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Prayer of the Faithful; from the invitation, Orate, fraters (Pray, brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below.

They should, however, sit while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed and for the homily and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place; and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.

The part in blue is what governs the posture during the Lord’s Prayer. Since this occurs after the Orate, Fratres ("Pray, Bretheren") it is in the part of Mass where standing is the default posture. There is no exception carved out for it in what follows, so standing is what is supposed to be happening for the Lord’s Prayer.

Standing means standing without doing anything fancy with your arms. It is distinct, for example, from the orans posture, which the priest uses when he stands and prays with arms outstretched. It is also distinct from the hand-holding posture.

The latter is not expressly forbidden in liturgical law because it is one of those "Please don’t eat the daisies" situations. The legislator (the pope) did not envision that anybody would try to alter the standing posture in this way. As a result, the practice is not expressly forbidden, the same way that standing on one foot and hopping up and down as an effort to get closer to God in heaven is not expressly forbidden.

In general what liturgical documents do is to say what people should be doing and not focus on what they should not be doing (though there are exceptions). To prevent "Please don’t eat the daisies" situations, what the law does is prohibit things that aren’t mentioned in the liturgical books. Here’s the basic rule:

Can. 846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority.

Changing from standing to hand holding during the Lord’s Prayer would be an alteration or addition of something provided for in the liturgical books and thus would be at variance with the law.

The reader also writes:

I have also heard the term "the rubrics of the Mass". Is this a separate document? If so, where do I find it at?

The rubrics aren’t found in a separate book. They’re little instructions written into the Sacramentary itself. For example, they tell the priest when to perform certain actions with respect to the prayers that he is saying. To set them off from the text of the prayers (which are printed in black ink), these instructions are printed in red ink. The Latin word for red is "ruber," and so the little red instructions in book came to be called "rubrics."

If you’d like to see them, just look in a normal Sacramentary. (Though they won’t address hand holding either.)

Re-Doing The Crucifixion?

A reader writes:

You know the way non-Catholics always say we are re-doing the crucifixion at every Mass. I want to say, No, we’re re-doing the Last Supper (as He said to do); at the Last Supper, Christ is pre-presenting the Calvary sacrifice, so if they could participate in it ahead of time, why can’t we participate in it after the time? So my question is, is it accurate to say that the Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper, rather than of the crucifixion?

There’s a sense in which it’s a re-enactment of both, but I think you’re on to something here. The way a current Mass re-enacts the two is not the same.

To flesh out the idea, we need to consider the relationship between three events: The Last Supper (a.k.a. The First Mass), the Crucifixion, and any particular Mass being held today.

Obviously, all three of these are related to each other, but the nature of the relationship differs.

The Masses (either the first one or a contemporary one) make present the sacrifice of the Cross in a special sense. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting the Council of Trent):

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "[a] The victim is one and the same: [b] the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; [c] only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."

I’ve added the [a], [b], and [c] in that for the sake of clarity. [a] and [b]spell out the senses in which the sacrifice is the same: It has the same victim ([a]) and the same priest ([b]). Other sources add that the purpose of the sacrifice is the same (our redemption), making it the same sacrifices in those three senses. What is different is the manner of offering ([c]). Christ offered himself on the Cross by the shedding of his blood (i.e., in a bloody manner) but today he offers himself without shedding his blood (i.e., in an unbloody manner) while "enthroned gloriously in heaven". (So this doesn’t seem to be just a time warp to Calvary in A.D. 30.)

So that’s how the Masses are related to the Crucifixion.

Now, how is a current Mass related to the First Mass?

As you allude to, Jesus told his apostles:

"This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me" [Luke 22:19b].

This is the command by which Jesus ordained his apostles as priests (since he was performing a sacrificial action and commanded them to do it, thus commanding them to perform sacrifice), but what is it precisely that he is commanding them to do?

Is it to nail him to a Cross?

No, if we read the first part of the verse, we find:

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them [Luke 22:19a].

So when Jesus says "Do this," the "this" he is referring to is the act of taking bread, giving thanks/blessing it (the word here in Greek is eucharistEsas–"gave thanks"–from which we get "Eucharist"), and distributed it to those present. In other words, he told them to say Mass.

So in fulfilling Jesus’ command to "Do this" what the Catholic priests are doing is to saying Mass, just as Jesus did, not nailing him to a Cross. (As should be obvious.)

Thus the relationship between the Masses (first or later) and the Cross is one of presentation–they make the sacrifice of the Cross present in specific senses–but the relationship of current Masses to the first Mass is one of direct replication.

That means that the thing that is being repeated is the celebration of Mass, not the Crucifixion.

Your point about the Last Suppre pre-presenting the sacrifice of the Cross the way contemporary Masses re-presenting it is also a good one: If Jesus didn’t have a problem with having the Last Supper pre-presenting what he would do on the Cross–and if he told us to keep doing it after the Crucifixion–then we should have no problem with the Mass re-presenting the sacrifice of the Cross (in the senses indicated above).

In other words, whatever the relationship is of the Eucharist to the Cross, Jesus didn’t have a problem with it, so we shouldn’t either.

The Law Of Fast: Food

I know I said I was going to take Triduum off from blogging, and I know that this comes rather late in the day, but in case it’ll help anybody, here goes. . . .

You often hear it said that the law of fast allows one full meal per day and two smaller meals provided that the two smaller meals do not add up to a second full meal.

I’ve even said that myself.

But this is false. At least in the United States.

If you check the legal sources, the bit about the two smaller meals not adding up to a second one is not to be found.

First, here’s what the Church’s universal law–found in the 1966 Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini–says:

The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom [Norms, III:2].

So there’s nothing in that about the two smaller meals (which aren’t even called meals, just “some food,” with the implication that it’s less than the “one full meal” that’s allowed) adding up to anything.

So if that requirement is not found in universal law, then it must be found in the particular law of the United States if it is to be binding here. So let’s check the complimentary norms issued by the USCCB.

HERE’S THE RELEVANT ONE OF THE CURRENT NORMS.

If you read that, all it does is say that the norms established in the U.S. bishop’s 1966 document On Penance and Abstinence are still in force.

SO LET’S CHECK ON PENANCE AND ABSTINENCE.

If you do that, you’ll see that the bishops didn’t address the subject there, either.

Therefore, while it may be customary in some places to try to calculate whether the two snacks add up to a second meal, this is not a requirement that has force of law in the United States.

Personally, I’ve always found the adding up of the two snacks to be really problematic, because my meals vary in size considerably, and I don’t have a fixed meal size. And how is that supposed to be measured, anyway? In calories? In food volume?

The good news is that this need not be a point of scrupulosity for people. You can have one full meal a day and two snacks, but you don’t need to scruple about what the two snacks add up to.

Blog Triduum Off

I’m going to be taking a break from blogging over Triduum (which technically doesn’t start until the Mass of the Lord’s Supper tonight, but I’m counting the of Holy Thursday as part of my break).

Regular blogging service will resume Easter Monday.

In the meantime, I’d invite you to get more out of this smallest of liturgical seasons by reading

POPE BENEDICT’S ADDRESS FROM YESTERDAY EXPLAINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TRIDUUM

and

PASCHALE SOLEMNITATIS, THE VATICAN DOCUMENT DEVOTED TO THIS SEASON AND EASTER

Also, have fun with the archives!

I’ve Been Bible Memed

MM of Theology of the Body has tagged me as part of a meme on Bibles, so here goes:

1. How many Bibles are in your home?

Hmmm. I’m not sure. Depending on what you count as a "Bible" (e.g., both OT and NT with deuteros, OT and NT without deuteros, just OT, just NT, just Torah) between thirty and fifty probably.

2. What rooms are they in?

Well, most of them are in the kind of large, living area where I have most of my bookshelves. I’ve also got some (espeically original language ones) in my bedroom, where I keep most of my biblical languages books, and there’s probably some in the unused second bedroom, too.

Except for the original language ones, though, I tend not to use paper Bibles that much. Instead, I use electronic ones online. They’re much more convenient for the kind of stuff I’m looking up or when I’m writing.

3. What translations do you have?

Gak! There’s no way I can answer that.

Suffice it to say that I have all of the major Catholic and Protestant translations, as well as a bunch of specialty ones.

4. Do you have a preference?

When writing I normally use the RSV (esp. the RSV:CE) since it’s the standard one that the publishers I work with use (as well as being a good one itself).

If I’m needing to get a feel for other translations, I generally go to the NASB and the NKJV for more literal ones and the NIV for a dynamic one.

If I need to really nail something down I go to the original language versions.

5. Nominate an interesting verse:

Hmmm. I nominate all the verses in Ecclesiastes, because that book is so hard to interpret, which makes it interesting.

MEME REPLICATION: I hereby tag any other bloggers out there who wish to be tagged with this meme. Commenters who also wish to be memed are hereby tagged as well.