Newspaper Page Text
:4:
PAGE 5 - February 5, 1970
KNOW YOUR FAITH
Don’t Lose Your Cool!
BY LAWRENCE LOSONCY
DIRECTOR, ADULT
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION, USCC
There is a rumor afoot
these days that sin is being
abolished. It comes hard on
the heels of the rumors that
God is dead, that the
communists have captured or
infiltrated the papacy, that
the Church has gone soft, that
the end of the world is
coming soon, and that
religion has come upon hard
days, especially Catholicism.
The overall impression
created by such rumors is
that the average person just
has no chance of Figuring
what is going on in religion.
Theology has always been
considered complicated,
above the level of ordinary
people, requiring immense
background and intelligence.
The Church has always been
more or less of a mystery.
What priesis are up to nas
never been certain. The Bible
has looked foreboding. What
they are teaching our kids in
school has seemed startling,
confusing, and too
sophisticated.
A good example of what I
am talking about comes up
each Lenten season. What
about fasting and abstinence?
What about penance for our
sins? Is sin still for real? Are
the same things sins that used
to be? What is right and
wrong any more?
The articles which are
appearing in this series are
designed to clear up some of
this confusion. This week, for
example, Grant Maxwell
examines the peace
movement in his Christian
witness series. Fr. Champlin
gets into the liturgy, while
Reverend Mr. Schineller
writes of God. Fr. McBrien
each week answers your
GOD-
Viewpoints
On Theology
By Rev. Mr. Peter
Schineller, S.J.
Our image of God,
however imperfect, makes a
great difference in our
attitude to God in our own
Christian lives. For the way
we talk of God reflects our
human condition and
experience. Thus a child in a
slum dwelling whose father is
an alcoholic, and cruel
toward his wife, must Find it
difficult to call God
“Father.”
Yet with the aid of
Scriptures and religious
instuction we do form some
image of God. Scriptures
speak of God as Father, of
Christ as the Son, and the
Third Person is the Spirit. In
the Old Testament God is
spoken of as Rock, King,
Judge, Shepherd, Warrior,
and Creator. A brief
reflection would show that to
call him rock or warrior is
quite different than to call
him shepherd.
Philosophers speak of God
as supreme being, First cause,
ultimate concern, horizon or
ground of experience, and
omega, or Final cause. It is to
be noted that each of these
titles carries with it a system
of views of whom man is and
what the world is.
Thus if God is King, then
we are subjects who owe
loyalty and obedience to
Him. If He is creator, then we
in our dependence owe our
very existence to Him. If He
is shepherd--an image
becoming less familiar to us
in our technological
age,--then we are the sheep
who must follow.
The Christian pioneer has
a different view of God than
the settler. For the settler,
God is the law giver, the
mayor. You don’t see Him
much, but He is a man to be
feared. His laws call for strict
obedience.
The God of the pioneer is
a co-worker, someone present
with him on the trail,
concerned about his safety.
(Continued on Page 6)
Worship And
The World
BY FATHER JOSEPH
M. CHAMPLIN
“Breaking Real Bread”
“Children, you must be
careful not to let the Host
touch your teeth and never
should you chew the very
Body of Jesus.” Such stern
warnings from sincere religion
teachers preparing young
children for First
Communion were not
unheard of a few years ago.
Their explanations of the
wafer’s whiteness followed a
similar theme. Since the
sinless, all holy God is truly
present in the Eucharist, we
may use only spotless,
immaculately white, pure
hosts at the altar.
We probably cringe at
those remarks now or even
laugh at them. But they are
understandable enough and
proceeded logically from the
theological emphasis in vogue
at that time. We spoke of
Mass and Holy Communion
in terms of awe, loftiness,
adoration. Christ came into
our midst on the altar so we
might adore and worship
Him. If we really believed,
spiritual writers told us, we
would creep up the aisle on
our knees.
Papal teaching and
conciliar documents over the
past two decades have neither
denied nor minimized this
truth of the Real Presence.
But they did bring into
sharper focus the fact that
our Lord instituted the Mass
as a sacrificial meal at his Last
Supper. They also clariFied
the concept that Jesus gave
up His Body to eat and Blood
to drink under the sign of
(Continued on Page 6)
questions concerning the
Church since the Second
Vatican Council. During Lent
these articles will continue in
this same style but with the
common theme of the new
morality; what does new
morality have to do with
Confession and sin, what
should parents teach their
children about morality, and
what is the new theology
about forgiveness.
These articles are being
put together with YOU in
mind. Both the NC News
Service and the USCC
Division of Adult Education
are working to make the
themes of these weekly
articles simple, relevant, and
intelligent in terms of the
religious adult, the harried
parent, the person in search
of broader and deeper
Christian background. These
articles will appear weekly,
making them ideal for
discussion or study groups,
and they will be related to
filmstrips and other
follow-ups available for
parishes.
The big message, though,
is to hang loose, relax, have
conFidence, don’t panic keep
your cool, You’ve been
through worse than this. For
example, you probably went
through the Depression when
the whole world of Finance,
banks, paychecks (including
yours), mortgages,
employment, and the
economy changed overnight.
You’ve seen the Federal
Government grow into a
complicated world during
your own lifetime. You’ve
seen every big city in America
change so much in the last
ten years that it is
unbelievable. You’ve seen
moonwalks and wars and
black revolutions, crime, the
invention of TV, and only
God knows how many more
big changes, complicated
systems, complex concepts,
and intricate schemes hatched
in your lifetime, making you
a pretty sophisticated person.
Religion is really no
different from life. Life
forces us to grow, to change,
to adapt. We would all readily
admit that if our religiuos
understanding remained
static, even concerning things
like sin and morality, it
would also be irrelevant. We
will always be committed, as
Christians, to doing good and
avoiding evil. Salvation will
always come for those who
are of good will and whose
actions match their good will.
The basics will never change:
God is still God, evil is still
evil, virtue is still virtue. But
the nitty-gritty of everyday
life will change. Chastity will
always be chastity, for
example, but what that
means for the celibate priest,
the dating teenager, the
married father of Five
children, the single woman,
and a divorced person will be
very much different.
Let’s get rid of rumors and
ignore our instincts toward
panic. As long as we can use
our head and are of good will,
open and loving towards God
and our fellow men, we are in
good shape. Keep reading and
keep the faith.
$-
This Church announcement borad asks When Did You Last Pray For Peace? Grant Maxwell’s
article this week deals with peace in the world. (NC Photo)
PEACE
Major Social Movements
By Grant Maxwell
The Gospel and the
Council teachings are
DIRECTION POINTERS to
the human values situated at
the heart of the major social
movements of our time.
These great movements,
mainstreams of human
history, catch up and carry
with them social, economic
and political questions of
many kinds. Three of these
world movements have been
pointed out by Dr. John
Buell:
“ . .. three things begun
with the early Christians and
then submerged for centuries
have exploded on the world
at large: the three things are:
freedom, peace and poverty
(in the sense of full sharing
and generosity). These have
exploded into world
movements .... These world
movements do not include
the Church, yet...”
That was Dr. Buell’s
judgment in 1965. Now it is
1970. Is there any progress to
report -within the Catholic
Church, among the other
Christian communions?
Certainly the Council’s
ringing statements represent
progress. Vatican II closely
associated the Catholic
Church with the world
movements in search of
human maturity, and
affirmed that these
movements need the leaven
of the Gospel to reach their
goals.
Pope Paul has been equally
positive, affirming
Christianity’s concern “with
man and with earth” -- a
concern that “rises to the
kingdom of God.” And there
ON PILGRIMAGE - Change for the sake of change has never been endorsed as a sufficient reason
for reform and renewal. But when a new decade begins, some of the bright and shiny objects of
not so long ago find themselves titled “old." It is like this with all of life. We have to adapt, to
grow, to change. This does not mean that we must throw out our past, our history. It might mean
we need to find out how our history can best contribute to our present lives. Photo courtesy of
OEO. ,
has been similar progress
within the World Council of
Churches and other major
religious bodies in pointing
out the social dimensions of
Christianity.
But what of the rest of us,
the great majority of
Christians? How dedicated
are we -- people, priests and
ministers, bishops and
moderators? Are we
promoting peace, freedom,
the poverty of spirit that
brings justice? Are we serving
at the centers of these
movements, or are we still
preoccupied with private
ceremonials and parochial
housekeeping? Let’s look a
little closer at these world
movements, beginning with
the peace movement.
Today the contest
between good and evil in
every person is summed up
and reaches its apex for all
men in the fateful choice of
peace on earth or global,
nuclear war.
In one hand, man, for the
First time, has the resources
and the know-how to build a
world community where all
people can live in peace, with
dignity. In his other hand,
modern man for the first time
carries the surplus
firepower--the capacity of
“overkill” -- to destroy
civilization and himself in a
Final, total war against life,
against creation, against the
Creator.
God leaves man free to
make this fateful choice. Are
we wise enough, humble
enough, responsible enough,
to choose peace?
Are we wise enough to
heed John F. Kennedy’s
warning: “Mankind must put
an end to war or war will put
an end to mankind”? ...
Are we humble enough to
heed Pope Paul’s plea before
the United Nations: “Let the
arms fall from your
hands ... No more war! War
never again!”
Are we responsbile enough
to recognize, with the
Council, that “Divine
Providence demands of us
that we free ourselves from
the age-old slavery of war” --
just as past generations
learned to free themselves
from the slavery of witchcraft
and tribal sorcery?
Are we responsible enough
to leam from the Council
Fathers, who condemned
total war in all its hideous
forms as a crime against God
and humanity; who decried
the nuclear arms race as a
treacherous trap that denies
food to the starving; wno
pleaded for international
agenices to prevent war and
build the peace; who called
I
for “a renewed education of
attitudes and for new
inspiration in public
opinion”; and who implored
parents, teachers, pastors, and
all who educate to “consider
it their most weighty task to
instruct all in the fresh
sentiments of peace” in the
spirit of the Gospel.
Despite this leadership,
despite the Gospel imperative
that calls Christians to be
peacemakers, many Catholics
still are not committed fully
to the search for world peace;
neither, I suggest, are many
other Christians. Some of
John Buell’s questions still
apply. For instance:
- Why do many Catholics
“still make theories to justify
violence?”
-Why, whenever someone
talks of peace, do
we . . . immediately conclude
that he must be either a
coward or a communist, but
rarely heed the possibility
that he might be a
Christian?”
These comments raise
further questions:
What are we doing now to
help create a social climate
for peace: in the family, in
the classroom, through
organizations and political
groups? What could we be
doing in our own
communities to heal the
cancers of ignorance of
prejudice, to renew attitudes
towards various ethnic groups
and other nations?
What about TV, movies,
books, magazines, and
elaborate war toys, that
glamorize violence and
perpetuate old hatreds? Are
we willing consumers?
Are we ready to pay more
taxes to help support a
permanent peace force under
the UN?
What are parents and
teachers doing to lead
children beyond a narrow,
-nationalistic outlook towards
a wiser loyalty to the whole
human family and to the UN
as a “school for mankind?”
What are Christians of
various communions doing to
raise their voices together, to
arouse the public conscience
against the folly of total war?
And what about peace
marches and demonstrations?
Are they always inspired by
extremists? Should Christians
be marching in the streets,
too, demanding, “No more
war”? What do you think?
What are we doing, each of
us, to educate our own
conscience for peace in the
spirit of the Gospel?
Anything?
Question And
Answer
BY FR RICHARD MCBRIEN
Q. While I do not necessarily agree with those
Roman cardinals who denounced the new Mass as
heretical, I deFinitely sympathize with the many
Catholics who are tired of changes in the liturgy. Our
parish priest, however, says that we must change in
order to keep up with the times. This doesn’t seem
like a valid reason in itself. It sounds as if the Church
is supposed to change just for the sake of change
itself.
A. You are right, of course. No one can
responsibly argue that the Catholic Church must
change simply to keep up with the times. Change for
the sake of change has never been endorsed as a
sufFicient reason for reform and renewal. “There
must be no innovations (in the liturgy) unless the
good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires
them,” the Constitution on the Liturgy states (n. 23),
“and care must be taken that any new forms adopted
should in some way grow organically from forms
already existing.”
On the other hand, the Church would have been
derelict in its duty if it had not undertaken major
reforms of the liturgy. For all practical purpose, the
Mass and sacraments of the Catholic Church had
remained substantially unchanged for centuries.
Particularly since the Protestant Reformation,
Catholics were fearful lest any alterations in liturgy
be construed as a concession to Protestantism.
Thus, over against the Protestant emphasis on the
priesthood of all believers, the Catholic Church
continued to place very heavy emphasis on the role of
the ordained priest. In the minds of some Catholics,
the laity were present at Mass simply to give assent to
what the priest alone was doing.
Furthermore, while the Protestants had always
stressed the personal sentiments and feelings of the
individual worshipper, the Catholic Church war ted to
retain its high sense of objectivity in the liturgy. That
is to say, The Catholic Church-in the minds of many
of its members, including even its leadership-did not
really have to reform its liturgy to make it more
meaningful. Meaningful or not, the Mass was still the
Mass. Whether the people always understood the
words and the actions, the worship of God was taking
place and Jesus Christ was becoming really and
substantially present in Holy Communion. The
subjective dispositions of the individual worshipper
cannot change that.
This reasoning, however, is false. The sacraments
are not only causes of grace; they are signs of faith.
This principle has been enunciated from the earliest
days, and received particular stress in the writings of
St. Thomas Aquinas. It is because the sacraments
must be signs of faith that the Church must always
take care that the people trully understand what the
signs mean. The sacraments do not automatically
cause grace. On the contrary, the Council of Trent
insisted that the sacraments are causes of grace
precisely insofar as they are signs of faith. “They
cause by signifying.” To the extent that the Mass or any
of the sacraments have little or no meaning for people
(because they do not understand the signs), then to
that same extent are these people closed off from the
grace of the Mass and these other sacraments. That is
why the Second Vatican Council said that “it is . ..
of capital importance that the faithful easily
understand the sacramental signs” (Constitution on
the Liturgy, n. 59).
And that is why the council also placed a heavy
responsibility on pastors to see to it that the faithful
take part in the Liturgy “knowingly, actively, and
fruitfully.” Thus, it is never enough simply to do
what is required by law for a “valid and licit
celebration” (Constitution on the Liturgy, n. 11).
Q. That explains why the Church must be ready to
change the way it worships from time to time, but it
doesn’t explain why there is so much variation in the
way the Mass and the sacraments are actually
celebrated. Shouldn’t we be albe to agree upon
certain changes and then stick to them, so that
everyone once again is doing the same thing?
A. Are you perhaps confused in your own mind
about the distinction between liturgy and rubrics?
Liturgy’ is the public worship of God by the Church,
rubrics (from the Latin word “red”) have to do with
the specific directions for the celebration of the
Liturgy (and these directions were usually printed in
the Missal and sacramental books in red, to set them
off from the prayers themselves).
As far as possible, priests and faithful should
follow the directions set down by the various
ecclesiastical authorities. These rubrics should not be
changed without good reason. The points is, however,
that these rubrics are not an end in themselves, only a
means to an end. A slight change in the rubrics
requires only a slight reason. Thus, before the recent
changes in the Mass rubrics, many priests did not use
the pall on the chalice. The pall is the flat, white,
cardboard object that traditionally protected the
wine in the chalice from being contaminated with
dust, flies, or any other objects that might
accidentally drop into the cup. Some priests were
upset by the action of their fellow priests in not using
the pall. They seemed to equate this practice with a
general disregard for, and even outright rejection of,
lawful authority. That was something of a classic of
confusing accidentals with essentials and of losing
one’s sense of perspective.
Q. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that
certain variations in the rubrics are not only allowable
but, on some occasions, even necesary and desirable.
Can we justify, however, more fundamental variations
in the liturgy itself?
Yes, and Church already allows this. After all, the
Western, or Latin, rite is not the only legitimate rite
in the Roman Catholic Church. There are Catholics of
the Eastern tradition who celebrate the Mass in ways
which would be almost completely foreign to many
American Catholics. And these differences are not
simply a matter or rubrics; they are a matter of basic
structure and format. “Even in the liturgy,” the same
Constitution on the Liturgy states (n. 37), “the
Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in
matters which do not involve the faith or the good of
the whole community. Rather she respects and
fosters the spiritual adornments and gifts of the
various races and peoples.”