Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 5 — February 12,1970
KNOW YOUR FAITH
f. INTRODIJCriOA
Scripture In The Life
Of The Church Today
THE WORLD IS being set in motion. In the midst of many beginnings and many confusions,
mankind is challenged to take flight. (NC Photo by Roland Freeman.)
— JUSTICE
Major Social Movements
BY FATHER WALTER J.
ABBOTT, S.J.
“It’s the most important
thing happening in the
Church today.” A wealthy
Catholic layman said that to
me in the Spring of 1969. He
was talking about the Biblical
apostolate. With a frankness
that is characteristic of him,
he added: “We’d better be
damn quick about getting it
done.”
What my friend meant by
the Biblical apostolate was
making available a direct,
easy, and frequent-even
daily-encounter with Christ
in the Scriptures for every
man, woman and child. He
knew that the Second
Vatican Council had called
for it, and he was pleased that
I was doing something about
it. I had to admit, though,
that I had not been talking
about the Biblical apostolate
in such vigorous terms as he
used.
I suppose I felt that people
could have direct, easy, and
daily encounter with Christ in
the Sacraments, in liturgical
and private prayer, in various'
apostolates, in the events and
needs of every day, as well as
in the reading or hearing of
the Scriptures. I may have
had a vague feeling that
contact with Christ through
the reading of the Scriptures
was basic, helpful, and even
necessary for full fruition of
all those other contacts with
Christ, but I had not been
inclined to make
comparisons.
Now, however, I talk more
like my friend. A very good
case can be made for the idea
that the Biblical apostolate is
the most important thing
happening in the Church. If
God still speaks to His people
through the Scritpures, then
those Scritpures are at least as
important as any other way
in which God speaks to us,
.because it is the same one
God Who speaks.
If in the Scriptures we
modern people can still meet
Christ the Lord, that meeting
is at least as important as any
other meeting with Christ,
because it is the same, one
Lord Who is met. In fact,
according to he Second
Vatican Council, we can have
the same regard for the
Scriptures that we have for
the Eucharist: “The Church
has always venerated the
divine Scriptures just as she
venerates the Body of the
Lord.” (Constitution on
Divine Revelation, Art. 21).
And at the end of their
document on the Bible, the
Council Fathers wrote: “Just
as the life of the Church
grows through persistent
participation in the
Eucharistic mystery, so we
may hope for a new surge of
spiritual vitality from
intensified veneration for
God’s word, which ‘lasts
forever’.”
The Fathers of Vatican II
were so convinced of the
importance of Scripture
today that they legislated all
the preaching of the Church
must be “nourished and
ruled” by it and “easy access
to Sacred Scripture should be
provided for all the Christian
faithful” not only through
sermons but through
vernacular translations which
should be available to the
people themselves “at all
times.” The people should
“gladly put themselves in
touch with the sacred text
itself,” and if they do not
they will not know Christ,
‘‘for ignorance of the
Scriptures is ignorance of
Christ.” (The Vatican II
document took that
quotation from St. Jerome’s
commentary on the Book of
Isaiah).
Knowledge of Christ
through the Scriptures is
something that every
Christian, young and old,
should have. It is not only for
bishops, clergy and members
of religious orders. When I
say “knowledge” I mean the
knowledge that comes from
daily reading and meditating
of the Scriptures. And the
same can be said for
missionary outreach with the
Scriptures. It is not
something only for priests
and religious. Vatican II
declared that “both pastors
of souls and Christians
(Continued on Page 6)
BY GRANT MAXWELL
One essential material for
building peace in the world
today is the “poverty of
spirit” proclaimed by the
Gospel. Dr. John Buell has
claimed that many Christians
lag behind other men when it
comes to translating this
Gospel value into practice.
“Because we have failed to
be poor in the Gospel sense,”
he said, “today, in the face of
our knowledge and
communications and power,
millions are poor in the
inhuman sense.”
Does his indictment still
stand? The Council and Pope
Paul have proclaimed in the
strongest possible language
the imperatives of the Gospel.
Yet our response has been
slow, reluctant. There is still
very little action, despite
endless talk about making
war on poverty at home and
abroad.
Why this lack of generious
response by so many who
prefess to follow Christ? A
root cause for the inertia is a
deeply rooted attitude of
mind. In the words of
Vatican II, “Many people,
especially in economically
advanced areas, seem to be
hypnotized by economics.”
That’s putting it mildly.
As the Council said,
“universal changes in ideas
and attitudes” are needed if
the scandal of starvation
alongside affluence is to be
overcome by socio-economic
reforms.
Yes, reforms. Christians
above all should know that
the “status quo” is never the
best of all possible worlds;
that continual betterment of
economic-social conditions is
required by justice; that
“poverty of spirit” requires
us to put others’ needs and
social progress before private
gain and special privilege.
The Council makes this
statement: “God intended
the earth and all that it
contains for the use of every
human being and people.
Thus a man should regard his
lawful possessions not merely
as his own but also as
common property in the
sense that they should accrue
to the benefit of not only
himself but of others .. .men
are obliged to come to the
relief of the poor, and to do
so not merely out of their
superfluous goods. If a person
is in extreme necessity, he has
the right to take from the
riches of others what he
himself needs.”
This Scriptural teaching,
recalled by the Council-and
much else in Schema XIII’s
chapter on socio-economic
life-makes us uneasy. We
would prefer to equate our
Christian faith with middle
class values of security and
status. We would soone? not
hear about social injustice
and fratnernal charity. We
would like to dismiss this by
labeling it as “communism,”
as a supposed threat to our
freedom. In fact, it is usually
only our private comfort that
is threatened. And it is the
leaders of the Church who are
urging us to bring Gospel
spirit into economic affairs,
to put service of neighbor
before excess profits.
Perhaps we should pose
some questions for Christians.
How many families lack the
basic necessities of life? Are
without regular income
through no fault of their
own? Are exploited by
lending sharks and housing
shylocks? Have we any idea?
Are we doing anything about
it?
What can you and I do
about poverty in our own
communities? Among the
transients and derelicts whom
we usually try to ignore?
Among the wretched poor to
whom Christians are first
sent?
Then there is the world
crisis in population growth,
and the world scandal of
underproduction and
desperate hunger. Vatican II
observed that “the greater
part of the world is still
suffering from so much
poverty that it is as if Christ
himself were crying out in
these poor to beg the charity
of the disciples.” At the same
time, “some nations with a
majority of citizens who are
counted as Christians have an
abundance of this world’s
goods.”
The Council recalled an
ancient saying: “Feed the
man dying of hunger, because
if you have not fed him, you
have killed him.” We know
millions are hungry, starving.
We know they are dying by
the thousands every day.
How many of us who call
ourselves Christians
contribute for the relief of
these starving people?
As a nation, Canadian and
American foreign aid still
amounts to a very small
percentage of our annual
national production. Most
politicians seem afraid to
rally public support for more
foreign aid and fairer trade
with developing nations.
What are we as Christian
citizens doing to help break
this bottleneck of timidity?
(Next Week: Major Social
Movement: Freedom).
Worship And
The World
BY FATHER JOSEPH
M. CHAMPLIN
The Sign Of Peace
Several months ago a
parish priest converted his
homily into a catechesis on
the meaning and purpose of
the sign or kiss of peace.
Then, at the appropriate
moment in the Eucharist, he
suggested with the words of
our revised Order of Mass,.
“Let us offer each other the
sign of peace.” There was
stirring in the congregation, a
few smiles, handshakes,
greetings of “Peace be with
you” and “God Bless you.”
However, a sad note marred
the otherwise successful
introduction of this
recommended gesture. One
man refused. He rejected the
extended hand of another. He
was unwilling to pass along
the message of love and
peace.
If distaste for external
signs and displeasure with
liturgical change prompted
such a negative response, then
the man’s action is
understandable enough.
Regrettable, in this writer’s
opinion, but understandable.
His refusal simply
underscored the need for
thorough explanations of
each innovation in the liturgy
and very tactful insertion of
them into the parish program.
If this man’s rejection of a
neighbor’s offer to reconcile
stemmed, on the other hand,
from bitterness of heart, of
hatred for another, then it
can hardly be excused. At
least that would be my
interpretation and application
of Jesus’ words: “If you are
bringing your offering to the
altar and there remember that-
your brother has something
against you, leave your
offering there before the
altar, go and be reconciled
with your brother first, and
then come back and present
your offering.” (Matthew
5:23).
The General Instruction to
the Roman Missal (no. 56)
reinforces this assertion,
supplies a father meaning to
the action and, at the same
time, justifies its placement
immediately before
Communion rather than
during the penitential service
or within the offertory
procession. “The rite of
peace: before they share in
the same bread the people
express their love for one
another and beg for peace
and unity in the Church and
with all mankind.” We are
made one in Christ through
receiving the one Body of our
Lord. We through many are
one in Him. The prospect of
such a oneness in Holy
Communion ideally should
compel us to dissolve our
differences and bury all
bitterness.
The Holy See delegated
actual determination of the
form for this sign of peace to
the conference of bishops in
each country. The hierarchy
of the United States at its
November, 1969 meeting left
the matter to local custom.
This practice, while ancient in
its tradition, is a relative
newcomer to people in
parishes. Consequently, each
community has been
employing the rite in slightly
different ways and no one
precise method has emerged
as the most effective
procedure. In fact, we can
even question the validity of
insisting on a standard,
exactly regulated ritual for
such a peace gesture.
A few weeks ago, for
instance, I offered in our
residence chapel a tenth
anniversary requiem Mass at
the request of a suburban
Washington family. The
widow and two of her
daughters, a college senior
and high school freshman,
were present and participated
in this Eucharist. At the
proper time and after a
one-sentence commentary, I
extended the sign of peace by
a handshake to the mother.
She piovoted and quite
naturally gave to her children
a maternal kiss and embrace.
These actions seemed
comfortable and meaningful
for that situation; they
obviously might appear
forced and become offensive
in a different context.
The best manner of
conveying the sign of peace
from the priest at the altar to
the people in the pews also
remains open for
experimentation. In some
circumstances the celebrant
could move down into the
congregation and personally
greet individuals; on other
occasions he might salute
those near the aisle and ask
them to pass the gesture
along; at larger celebrations
the ushers could carry the
message of Christian unity to
all or the priest might invite
worshippers to turn and
extend in any way they wish
this word of peace and love.
Every external ritualistic
act can with repetition take
on a perfunctory character
and lose its power. The sign
of peace may slip into that
unfortunate pitfall. But I
have hopes that it will not.
The reason? The person at
your side is always a different
individual. Even if he is the
same man or the identical
woman, the relationship
between you constantly
varies. A week of living
normally has intervened and
with it comes a fresh need to
reconcile, to love, to renew
your peace with God and
with that neighbor next door.
THE RITE of the Kiss of Peace, while ancient in its tradition, is
a relative newcomer to people in parishes. The rite, discussed
this week by Father Joseph Champlin. often consists in a
handshake passed through a congregation from person to
person. It is a way in which people express their love for one
another and beg for peace and unity in the Church and with all
mankind. (NC Photo by David Splitt)
l ieivpoints On Theology
Page 6
Question And
Answer
BY FR RICHARD MCBR1EN
Q. Is there any definition of the Church that all
Christians, or at least all Catholics, agree upon?
A. TTie Church has been defined in various ways:
as the Body of Christ, the People of God, the new
Israel, the community of the elect, the sacrament of
Christ, the congregation of saints wherein the Gospel
is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly
celebrated, and so forth. Although the Second
Vatican speaks constantly of the Church, nowhere
does it offer a single, hard-and-fast definition which
must be accepted by all Catholics without
modifeation.
This does not mean, however, that we are at a
complete loss. There are, in fact, certain elements for
a definition that most Christians should be able to
agree upon. These elements are drawn from various
sources: principally from the Bible, doctrine and
theology.
The Church is the community of those who
acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus, who ratify that
faith sacramentally, and who commit themselves
thereby to membership and mission for the sake of
the Kingdom of God in history.
The Church is, first of all, a community. It is
people. It is not, in the first instance, an organization,
or a means of salavation. It is not the hierarchy or the
clergy. The Church is a community. (Note, for
example, that the chapter on the People of God in
the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church comes
before, not after, the chapter on the hierarchy. This
particular arrangement, however, was not achieved
without a serious struggle at the council).
But the Church is not simply a community. It is
not just people. It is a special kind of community. It
is a particular group of people who differ from other
people in one important respect: Christians are those
who affirm that the meaning and hope of human
existence and of history itself reside in Jesus of
Nazareth, whom God has raised up for our salavation.
This, and this alone, is what makes Christians
different from the rest of mankind. Not that
Christians are holier than other people. Not that
Christians believe in God and give him due worship.
Not that Christians believe in the brotherhood of
man. Not that Christians believe in social justice and
in the service of mankind. For these are things that
Christians have in common with other religious and
even nonreligious people.
What distinguishes the Christian from the
non-Christian, and the Church from the rest of
mankind, is the conviction and the faith that Jesus of
Nazareth is the Lord, that he, and he alone, is the
pattern and ground of all life. That what we call good
and human, we call good and human because it
participates in the reality of him. And what we call evil
and inhuman, we call evil and inhuman because it
recedes from, or rejects, the reality embodied in Jesus
of Nazareth.
But the Church not only affirms the Lordship of
Jesus, it actively and joyfully celebrates it. The
Church is not just a group of people sharing a
common view of history, arising more or less from a
common view of Jesus of Nazareth. Christian faith is
not, in other words, simply a philosophy of life. It is
rather a way of life that one embraces precisely
insofar as he enters the company of Jesus’s disciples.
Faith is offered through community, and it is
embraced and lived in community. One responds to
preaching (Romans 10:14-17), repents of his sins,
ana is baptized (Acts 2:38). From that time on, he
devotes himself “to the apostles’ teaching and
fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and the
prayers” (Acts 2:42).
But the Church is not only a community which
acknowledges and sacramentally celebrates the
Lordship of Jesus. It seeks also to realize his Lordship
throughout the whole world, to bring the reign of
God to all men and to all human institutions, in or^er
that there might be justice and peace, charity and
righteousness. Whatever definition of the Church we
may finally agree upon, it must incorporate in some
way the principle that the Church is a servant
community, following in the footsteps of its founder,
the Suffering Servant of God (see Mark 10:45, and
the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World, n.3). The Church exists as herald,
sign, and instrument of God’s Kingdon on earth. The
Church, indeed, has no meaning apart from its
relationship to the Kingdom of God.
Q. You wouldn’t be satisfied, then, with
definitions which identified the Church with the
human community at large? Couldn’t one say that the
Church is wherever the Spirit happens to be, wherever
the struggle against dehumanization is taking place,
wherever people are becoming friends?
A. No. These definitions tend to equate the
Church with the Kingdom of God. It is to be hoped,
of course, that the Church and the Kingdom of God
overlap. We have a righC to expect, that is, a fuller
flowering of the Gospel among those people who
presume to preach it and to celebrate it publicly. The
Church should be recognized as the initial budding
forth of the Kingdom on earth (see the Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church, n. 5). But the Church
and the Kingdom are not one and the same reality.
Where you have the Church, you don’t necessarily
have the Kingdom; and where you have the Kingdom,
you don’t necessarily have the Church either.
*