According to Catholic tradition, lex orandi, lex credendi [means] the law of prayer is the law of belief. What this means is that how a person worship[s] not only shows what the person really believes, but that how a person worships can ultimately decide what that person really believes.
Hence the importance of liturgical nuance:
As people’s patterns of actual worship change, so will their underlying beliefs – even without their realizing it. It is because of this that the Catholic Church can be so strict in maintaining what many might regard as superficial practices, causing them to be seen by many as old-fashioned and tyrannical.
The hierarchy realizes that allowing even minor changes in the practice of worship could lead to unforseen and unintended changes in beliefs, and the Church is one organization which understands how to think about how things will turn out over very long spans of time.
The author’s intent may be to show how we sheep are manipulated by our shepherds, but it’s an honest statement and quite accurate as taken to show how bishops fulfill their mandate and the deposit of faith is preserved.
I am reminded of one of the late Ralph McInerny’s novel about the Soviet mole who after years in a monastery was converted by the daily chanting of the divine office. (Anybody out there know the name of that book?) Prayerful repetition has its effect, as in J.D. Salinger’s Jesus prayer in Franny and Zooey.
I think today’s priests who insert subtle changes into the words of the mass have this in mind. They have their theology and want to promote it.
59. The reprobated practice by which priests, deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy. [italics added]
I like the reasoning, but I take special note of the date. This issue is neither brand new nor dating back several decades and so no longer current in the eyes of Vatican detectives and judiciary.
Definitely more later on this, as instances pile up. As I said before, for those who pay attention, it’s annoying, to say the least.
The LORD said to me: You are my servant,
Israel, through whom I show my glory.
Now the LORD has spoken
who formed me as his servant from the womb,
that Jacob may be brought back to him
and Israel gathered to him;
and I am made glorious in the sight of the LORD,
and my God is now my strength!
It is too little, the LORD says, for you to be my servant,
to raise up the tribes of Jacob,
and restore the survivors of Israel;
I will make you a light to the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.
— is pretty generic. I mean, admirable sentiments and at the heart of belief, but nothing to inspire most of us short of extensive explanation, it seems to me.
[3] And he said to me: Thou art my servant Israel, for in thee will I glory. . . . . [5] And now saith the Lord, that formed me from the womb to be his servant, that I may bring back Jacob unto him, and Israel will not be gathered together: and I am glorified in the eyes of the Lord, and my God is made my strength.
[6] And he said: It is a small thing that thou shouldst be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to convert the dregs of Israel. Behold, I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles, that thou mayst be my salvation even to the farthest part of the earth.
Quite a bit more musical, of course. It has soundbites, words to walk away with and mayhap recall during the day. Like God’s being one’s salvation “even to the farthest part of the earth,” vs. that it “may reach to the ends of the earth.” The farthest part. I like that.
The reading from Paul is even more generic, even in part procedural, as goes the explanation, “Paul follows the conventional form for the opening of a Hellenistic letter,” which is helpful in its way. But what else? It “expands the opening with details carefully chosen to remind the readers of their situation and to suggest some of the issues the letter will discuss,” which is Bible study.
That’s the idea, apparently. The Vatican 2 liturgy is to make every day a Scripture lesson, so as to make us more scripturally literate. But the same people are going to church for consolation, self-improvement, encouragement, and the like as before. Which is where soundbites come in. Why do newspapers have headlines? To get people to read the stories.
Finally, the gospel, from John 1, John the Baptist beholding Jesus as “the lamb of God,” etc. Again the odious comparison with Douay-Rheims. “[34] And I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God”? Or, currently, “34 Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God”? Gimme the first.
More substantially, contrast the selections for this “Second Sunday in Ordinary Time” (who thought that up?) with the long-ago Third Sunday after the Epiphany, which gives us the pithy Romans 12.16–21,
Be not wise in your own conceits. [17] To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men. [18] If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. [19] Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. [20] But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.
[21] Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.
Dunno know where this turns up in the current cycle of readings, but I tell you, it sings: you are pissed off at someone? Hah! Returning good for evil is the best revenge! Suck it up, you Christian, take your cue from The Apostle.
Or the olden-time gospel passage, Matthew 8.1–13, with tight narrative, hardly a word wasted:
[1] And when he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him: [2] And behold a leper came and adored him, saying: Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. [3] And Jesus stretching forth his hand, touched him, saying: I will, be thou made clean. And forthwith his leprosy was cleansed. [4] And Jesus saith to him: See thou tell no man: but go, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded for a testimony unto them. [5] And when he had entered into Capharnaum, there came to him a centurion, beseeching him,
[6] And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and is grieviously tormented. [7] And Jesus saith to him: I will come and heal him. [8] And the centurion making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed. [9] For I also am a man subject to authority, having under me soldiers; and I say to this, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. [10] And Jesus hearing this, marvelled; and said to them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel.
[11] And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: [12] But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [13] And Jesus said to the centurion: Go, and as thou hast believed, so be it done to thee. And the servant was healed at the same hour.
I hope this selection also appears, even in one of our Sundays in ordinary time.
For we do not have a high priest
who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses,
but one who has similarly been tested in every way,
yet without sin.
So let us confidently approach the throne of grace
to receive mercy and to find grace for timely help.
Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that Jesus was eating with sinners
and tax collectors and said to his disciples,
“Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
Jesus heard this and said to them,
“Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” (Italics added)
Tax collectors bought the position, then took tax revenue to cover their cost and make a profit. So there you were, dealing with a middle man reporting to no one. To sit with these people was to be one of them. Jesus had something else in mind. Good for him and good for us.
As in last Sunday’s “This is my beloved son” passage, where Jesus asks John the Baptist to baptize him, John hesitates, and Jesus says go ahead, do it:
[T]he sentence rendered by King James [Douai-Rheims] as But John forbad [stayed] him, saying: I ought to be baptised by thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now, appears in the Jerusalem Bible as John tried to dissuade him. It is I who need baptism from you, he said, and yet you come to me! But Jesus replied, Leave it like this for the time being.
I am not making this up: Leave it like this for the time being is how this wretched travesty renders what ought to be memorable words, as though our Lord were a car salesman with a special offer, or a politician suggesting some murky compromise.
He’d like to see leeway granted by bishops over there as to what version one may use, and I’d like to see it over here, where our New American Bible put the sentence thus: Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness,” which also limps.
This from the site of Oak Park’s Buzz Cafe is alternately moving and convincing (not the same thing) in re: a proposed low-cost-housing proposal for Madison Street in Oak Park. Reference is to the formerly Comcast building. It’s empty since Comcast decamped for parts more favorable to headquartering its business, in DuPage County. (Imagine that.)
The letter says a lot about what I call The Grand Planning of Well-meaning, Socially Aware Not-for-Profit People with Money to Spend. I may be biased, but from long experience, dating at least from my time on the Interreligious Council on Urban Affairs in the ’60s, I am ever suspicious of such endeavors, especially if it has “interfaith” in its name. This one also has “Catholic.”
Both carry with them a dangerous propensity to equate great ideas for helping people with feasible great ideas that do no harm on their way to, or at least in the direction of, fruition.
The letter:
Letter from the Editor
Guest Viewpoint: Demetrios Pappageorge
My name is Demetrios Pappageorge and I live at 430 S. Grove Avenue, and I am no stranger to the poor. I worked with the homeless in Champaign throughout college. As parents, we took our daughters to rallies in D.C. shouting No More Shelters We Want Houses! In Oak Park, we have served lunch to PADS, built homes for Habitat, and managed a 35-unit building for Oak Park Res. Corp., where we worked and lived side-by-side with the working poor. It was magic and it was a struggle.
Magic because at times, particularly the building barbecues, everyone came together. Despite differences in income, education, orientation, religion, or politics, people ate together and made offers to drive to Jewel or watch children for an hour.
It was a struggle because some folks lived in squalor; a toddler was left knee-deep in trash and neighboring units were plagued by a cockroach infestation; Police and DCFS were called due to theft, domestic violence, and mental illness. One enterprising teen was turning tricks in the basement with a line of men outside her apartment.
When it was good, it was very very good, but when it was bad, it was horrid; however, even when tenants were terrified to call the police for fear of retribution from an abusive neighbor, there was always someone on-hand 24/7, unlike the Interfaith Project which does not include a resident manager.
Our building had a small percentage of the poor sprinkled into 35 mixed-income units, and included people with the means to help. Interfaiths project is 51 units with 100% low-income. This literally keeps me up at night, and it is, in no uncertain terms, a recipe for disaster for the proposed tenants and our village.
Oak Park has an incredible history of folding people-of-need into the fabric of the entire community. We have over 700 vouchers and low-income units in existing buildings! That number dwarfs the combined total of Forest Park, River Forest, Des Plaines, and Berwyn put together. And our system grants tenants anonymity and dignity to live, learn and prosper as productive members of our village – without being segregated. For this we should be very proud.
Now some wish to turn their backs on this dignified and seamless system. Though the Oak Park way is being adopted by cities all around the country, some wish to return us to an failed approach that research warns us to avoid. In his writings like Blueprint for Disaster, Roosevelt University Professor D. Bradford Hunt discusses New Urbanist thinking and the need for mixed-income housing. New Urbanism prevents projects from standing out as separate spaces reserved for the poor, like this Interfaith Project where residents would feel, as Professor Hunt puts it, stigmatized in the eyes of other city residents.
In addition HUD advocates for mixed-income housing, and the CHA stated, No longer will public housing tenants be isolated as second-class citizens in reservations.
As a person of faith, this reminds me of the parable of the sower. In shallow rocky soil, seeds die unable to take root. Conversely seeds thrive when spread out over fertile soil.
As a schoolteacher, I want to know what lesson the village would be teaching our children? That we should separate low-income residents from the rest of society?
3 more problems include:
ONE: The plan relies on funding that chains it to being 100% low-income. Besides going against Oak Parks policy of diversity assurance, this funding is the tail wagging the dog. First and foremost, should we not be looking at what is best for current and future tenants? For their dignity and the integrity and stability of the neighborhood, let us not chain ourselves to this flawed plan due to their proposed funding
TWO: This project punishes folks for bettering their lives. Since it is for single adults, Interfaith tenants who find love and life-partners will be forced to move out. Since it excludes those who earn too much, tenants who climb the economic ladder will be rewarded with eviction. What motivation will there be for betterment?
THREE: The Interfaith plan also relies on success of the commercial spaces in this stagnant economy. If the project fails, Oak Park is left with even more empty retail spaces with inadequate parking, and a building full of dorm-sized units. A beautiful façade with a lousy business and floor plan is unacceptable.
As an 18-year resident of Oak Park, I truly appreciate your time and effort. And I urge you to reject these variances because the density, parking, and height do not enhance our village, and they would only serve to put into place a housing project that is not progressive, not inclusionary, and definitely not what is best for the future tenants, the neighborhood, nor Oak Park.
You guessed it. “Almighty Father” becomes “Almighty God” if the priest so chooses, slipping in the gender-non-specific for the sake of presumed bruised female sensibilities.
Sigh.
BTW, one has the devil’s own time in finding the official version at the U.S. Catholic bishops’ site. Try it and instruct me in how to find it if you do find it, dear reader.
As for the Lord’s Prayer, I am waiting for “Our Parent, who art in heaven,” etc. It’s coming . . .
This project rocks. Show God to homeless, somehow, some way, and they change their lives. Sounds like a war on poverty to me.
Just one thing about it makes me cringe: they speak of ending homelessness, which is utopian talk. Heaven on earth is a contradiction unless said figurately.
Reducing it, yes. Reaching out and helping people, yes. But changing the world? If making it better, fine, but what’s the need for this global, even metropolitan viewpoint?
In the summer of 1999, Richard was living in a halfway house on the West Side and considering suicide when a priest from the Ignatian Spirituality Project visited. The project is a Jesuit ministry that offers spiritual retreats for homeless people. The priest invited the men at the halfway house to attend a retreat.
“I went, and it changed me in a way that never made me the same,” said Richard. “It opened me up and inserted me back into humanity and a world I could understand and be a part of.”
The Spirit moved that fellow. The Jesuit was a vessel for the moving. Probably of clay, like most people.
Blithe Spirit 