Mary: deathless Mother, Church

Immaculate Conception: Gen 3.9-15, 20; Eph 1.3-6, 11-12; Luke 1.26-38
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Church of the Incarnation, Univ of Dallas (Vigil)

I have heard the dogma of the Blessed Mother’s immaculate conception called everything from “unnecessary political propaganda” to “anti-womanist tripe” to “Mary’s crowning as the fourth Person of the Blessed Trinity.” Our Marian dogmas tend to draw out this sort of hyperbolic distortion. Mary is a Catholic goddess. Catholics believe that Mary is equal to Christ as our Redeemer. Since Mary is the Mother of God, it is her flesh and blood we consume at the Mass. No doubt some of these distortions are the products of overeager amateur theologians. Some are intentional misrepresentations made for scoring anti-Catholic political points. Others are half-heard, mis-heard, re-heard rumors of rumors and poorly memorized fifth grade catechesis poorly remembered under duress!

We are here this evening to celebrate one of those oft-misheard, misunderstood Marian dogmas: the Immaculate Conception. On this day in 1854, Pope Pius IX issued an encyclical titled, Ineffabilis Deus (“Ineffable God”). In this letter our Holy Father teaches: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” Let’s look at what this statement says and then look at what it means. Here’s what we need to notice:

1). The phrasing “we declare, pronounce, and define that…” establishes Ineffabilis Deus as an infallible papal pronouncement. Not the first nor the last. Please note that papal infallibility wasn’t officially defined (i.e. “limited”) until 1870 at the First Vatican Council some sixteen years later.

2). The Holy Father is pronouncing infallibly on an existing doctrine. In other words, Pope Pius IX did not “invent” the Immaculate Conception. Our modern solemnity developed rather circuitously over the centuries from the second century oriental feast of The Conception of St John the Baptist. This feast and the feast of The Conception of St. Anne, Mary’s mother, carried the tradition in the East until we find in the eleventh century liturgical books the Feast of the Conception of Virgin Mary. The first Feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated by Pope Sixtus IV in 1476.

3). Mary’s immaculate conception in her mother’s womb was achieved “by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God…” This was a unique gift to Mary, an individual dispensation.

4). Mary’s preservation from O.S. was made possible by “the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race…” Mary did not save herself or preserve herself from original sin. Like the rest of humanity, our Mother, very much a woman, was “saved” by Christ.

5). Pius IX defines “immaculate” as “preserved free from all stain of original sin…” In other words, Mary was spared the effects of the Fall and was thus perfect in her humanity while living among us, remaining sinless her entire life, leading to her bodily assumption into heaven.

6). As already noted, the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception has always been believed by the Church. Pius IX’s 1854 declaration simply elevates the doctrine to the rank of dogma, teaching us that Mary’s sinless state at the instant of her conception “is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” Faithful assent to the dogma is not optional for Roman Catholics; it is definitive of the faith, i.e. de fide.

That’s what the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception says. What does it mean? Think about what Mary the virgin girl was asked to do by the angel Gabriel. She was asked to assent to conceiving, carrying, and giving birth to the Word of God, His only Son, the Christ. Gabriel greets Mary with, “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you!” Rightly so, Mary is scared nearly speechless by this and “ponders what sort of greeting this might be.” Gabriel, seeing her distress, says, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” Mary assents to the angel’s request to be the Mother of the Word among us, saying, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Quite apart from the utility of explaining how the Son of God becomes the Son of Man w/o Original Sin attaching to his incarnation, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception prefigures for us the conception of the Church.

Follow me here:

Mary gives Christ his body from hers. The Church is the Body of Christ, making Mary our Mother.

Mary gives birth to the Word of God. The Church is the Word of God preached to all the world.

Mary is deathless Mother, who has been raised bodily to heaven. The Church is deathless Mother, who will be raised bodily on the Last Day.

As members of the Body of Christ, we are given the dogma of the I.C. as more than a theological explanation, as more than a mere definition of doctrine. The I.C. is for us a way, a means of knowing our Father and the strength of His fidelity to His promises. Paul teaches us that God chose the Church, as he chose Mary “before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him.” Immaculate. Like Mary, “we were also chosen…so that we might exist for the praise of His glory…” Mary is the exemplary church, the ideal body of believers assenting to the will of God; conceiving, carrying, giving birth to the Word daily, hourly before the world, for the world. And for this purpose, Mary and the Church were themselves conceived, carried, and birthed without the stain, the burden of sin.

For each of us and for all of us, this feast is a singular grace, a gifted moment where we glimpse not in passing but in perpetuity the overwhelming power of our Father to accomplish through Christ the promises He made to our ancestors long ago: a virgin will conceive a son and he will be called “Emmanuel,” God-with-us, Jesus the Christ!

Sheep with sharp teeth

St Ambrose: Eph 3.8-12 and John 10.11-16
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Serra Club Mass

Paul, writing to the Ephesians, tells us that “as the very least of the holy ones” he has been given the grace: 1) “to preach to the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ;” 2) “to bring to light for all what is the mystery hidden…in God…;” and 3) to complete these two tasks “so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the Church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.” On a recent episode of America’s Got Talent, I heard one of the judges say to an ambitious twelve-year old singer who announced her intention to sing a Whitney Houston ballad, “That’s a mighty Big Song, little mama!” Compare Paul’s graces to Christ’s nature: “I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep […] there will be one flock, one shepherd.” The stark simplicity of Christ’s job description set beside Paul’s self-understanding is startling.

What is Christ giving to the Church when he serves as our Shepherd? Let’s start the answer with another question: can anyone doubt that the last five years have been extraordinarily difficult for the Roman Catholic Church? Clerical sexual abuse of minors; clerical and lay financial malfeasance; an archbishop marrying a Moonie; this craze of Catholic women “ordaining” themselves “priests” on riverboats and in Jewish synagogues; the bishops’ conference endorsing two blockbuster movies that directly attack basic Christian virtues; pro-abortion politicians and outlandish drag queens taking communion; and on and on. Catholic scandal these days is somewhat like taking a drink from full-on fire hose…one try at a sip and you’re drenched! We hear one question repeated more often than any other: where are the bishops while these scandals play out? Why won’t they “do something”?

Another way to ask that same question: what is Christ giving to the Church when he serves as our Shepherd? Paul sees his graced ministry as a Christian leader in somewhat esoteric terms: revealing the hidden mystery of God’s manifold wisdom through the Church. OK. Reading his letters we can see how he goes about doing this. Using his training in Greek philosophy and Roman rhetoric, Paul enthusiastically constructs a viable religious and spiritual practice out of his own encounter with Christ and what he has heard from other witnesses, preaching with enormous success do the Gentiles. Jesus, on the other hand, well beyond Greek philosophy and Roman rhetoric, uses a simple, near-universal image to evoke Christian leadership: the shepherd with his flock. Vigilant against predators. Eager to rescue lost sheep. Willing to endure hardship to get the job done. Willing even to die for his sheep. To lead us, Christ our shepherd was willing to die for us. To show us the way, to reveal the manifold wisdom of his Father, Christ was freely accepting of death. To preach the inscrutable riches of his Father’s mercy, Christ gave his life for us on the cross.

We know that the wolves of scandal and dissension slobber at the chance to pick off the Lord’s sheep one at a time. There’s security in numbers. Safety in the crowd of fellow-sheep. Comfort in looking out over the flock and seeing uniformity and compliance. But security, safety, and comfort are not the fruits of baptism, or of a life lived in Christ. Nothing we do here today and nothing we do as Catholics in a lifetime promises us a scandal-free, trouble-free life of lazy, spiritual grazing in verdant ecclesial meadows. Emerging from the waters of baptism we are set upon by a world in conflict with the Body of Christ and with itself. Jesus knew this. Paul knew this. And so, we are given as a grace in preaching “boldness of speech.” And as a grace in prayer “confidence of access” to the Father through our Shepherd.

Put that boldness of speech and confidence of access together, my fellow sheep, and let’s ask one another, “Why don’t we do something about the slobbering wolves of scandal and dissension?!” What did Christ leave his sheep? The truth of the faith, the communion of saints, the authority of his Body, and nice, sharp set of Wolf-biting teeth!

"Messing with the Mass..."

Here's an excellent article on priestly narcissism from Homiletic and Pastoral Review (Nov 2007).

Excerpt:

It is important for priests to keep in mind that most Catholics go to Mass to encounter Jesus Christ, and not to come into contact with the particular psychology of the celebrant. Furthermore, they go for something that is not present in the popular culture — a sense of the sacred (and a recognition of the need for humility). We don’t want to come away from the mass being affirmed in where we are, we want to be drawn toward where we long to be — closer to Christ and to Heaven.

Given the tendency toward “ego renewal”, self-esteem and self-aggrandizement, priests and seminarians should be made aware of the danger of inserting one’s personality into the liturgy. This tendency toward narcissism needs to be addressed specifically in the context of the mass celebrated versus populum (facing the people). Regardless of where one stands with regard to the respective merits of the mass being celebrated ad orientem (with the people) or versus populum, there can be little question that the temptation to grandstand is greater when the celebrant is facing the congregation. Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, recently commented on this issue, saying, “If the priest is not very disciplined, he will soon become a performer. He may not realize it, but he will be projecting himself rather than projecting Christ. Indeed, it is very demanding, the altar facing the people.”

EXCELLENT article!!!

Music List...

NO! I haven't forgotten about my poetry reading or writing. . .with all that's been going on--Rome plans, classes, sinus infection, ad. nau.--I've been a bit distracted.

Not only have I updated the POETRY wishes, I've added MUSIC wishes as well!

Sad but true story: I had about 300 classical/alternative/world music CD's before I joined the Order. Two days before I got on a plane to fly to the novitiate, I gave all but about ten of them away. I gave away a lot of stuff, including books (YIKES!).

Sooooo, Music: less important globally than philosophy books for my immediate future, yes. However, somewhat important for my Local sanity and artistic growth.

God bless, Fr. Philip, OP

Advice on buying philosophy books...

What most sensible people look like about two and a half minutes into a Derrida essay!

In the combox under “Philosophy’s Evil Twins,” SJH wrote:

“Father, perhaps you have a better handle on this than I. Where do you start? There's so much out there to read. As a former Philosophy graduate student (for a while) and as someone who hopes to be a graduate student again (in Philosophy or Theology), but also as a more general question, it's hard to know what to read and in what order. And it's also difficult to think you'll ever make much progress towards reading enough... since there's so much out there that is canonical and since you're also responsible for being up to date with the latest in one's field... and that stuff is cranked out at an incredible rate (especially since everyone has to write a book to get tenure). Any ideas? (Does the question even make sense?)”

The question does make sense and, let me say: I feel your pain! As an undergrad philosophy major at a public university twenty-five years ago, I was taught using textbooks and the occasional primary text. Now, here at U.D., I’m teaching seminars where we use only primary texts…the occasional “history of X” type text will slip through. The difference in these two methods is tremendous.

As I am putting together my philosophy library—with the constant and generous assistance of the blog’s benefactors!—two principles vie to guide me: 1) anthologies in major areas of philosophy will give you an introduction to the problems, vocabularies, personalities, etc. in that area; e.g. something like the Oxford Companion to Kant will lay out basic issues and provide you with a bibliography. It won’t take long for you to see the same names popping up over and over again. This leads to my second principle: 2) buy the books of the people whose names pop up most often, whether as primary authors or in annotations. So, for e.g., for Kant, you want to get Henry Allison’s book, Kant’s Transcendentalism Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. It took me about fifteen minutes to discover that this is considered a basic “must-have” text in the field.

As I noted in the post below, continental philosophy is more like literature than science, meaning that the range of acceptable genres and styles of writing is tremendous. Here I’ve discovered that one must find an author one can read and enjoy…much like you do when you find and read a favorite novelist or poet. I find some authors to be fascinating thinkers but nearly unreadable writers (J.-L. Marion). For the most part I prefer my postmodernist philosophy in poetic form (R.M. Rilke) or invective (Nietzsche).

The best advice I have is to just jump in! Go to the library, check out an anthology or two on modern or contemporary philosophy and start reading.

Sister Soap

Yes, I know! It's Advent. . .and you will not find a more fervent Advent-Nazi than yours truly.

However, shopping for Christmas now is a prudent way to avoid stress and anxiety later on.

Check out the Cloister Gift Shoppe operated by the Dominican Sisters of Summit, NJ.

Buy someone you love (or someone who needs a hygiene hint!) a bar or two of Sister Soap. . .

Fr. Philip, OP

Preach...or die

St Francis Xavier: 1 Cor 9.16-19, 22-23 and Mark 16.15-20
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
St Albert the Great Priory

During my novitiate six, seven years ago, the novices had a saying that leapt to our lips readily when asked to mop the floor or sweep the parking lot or grout the bathroom tile. We would say to the offending senior member who burdened us with an odious task, “Father, THAT was not in the brochure!” More often than not the senior member would respond with something like, “Yea, that’s right. Who would join if we put THAT in the brochures?” Reading again Paul’s description of preaching, I now know why we Dominicans prefer the Beautiful Feet of the Preacher quote from Isaiah: if we put Paul’s description of preaching in the brochures, no one would join us! This leads me to wonder and ask: why would anyone in his or her right mind want to be a preacher, choose the life of the preacher?

Let’s quickly review Paul’s description of preaching: there’s nothing about preaching worthy of boasting, he says, rather preaching the Gospel is an imposed obligation; he laments, “Woe to me if I do not preach it!” He is rewarded if he preaches willingly, but not if he does so unwillingly. He preaches for free. (That’s not good.) He has made himself weak, a slave to all; he has become all things to all for nothing more than a share in the Gospel. For all the romanticism of this picture of the preacher, I can’t imagine the vocations brochure drawn from our Pauline description that would attract a single soul to the preaching. But, then again, I could be missing something. After all, the image of the Gospel preacher painted by Christ himself isn’t all that attractive either: driving out demons, speaking weird languages, handling snakes, drinking poison, touching the sick. Yea, um, not a good brochure.

So, both Paul and Jesus himself paint wild and woolly pictures of the Gospel preacher. Nothing we could put on our vocations recruitment material. Why do we choose to become preachers then? All of us, any of us here: why do we heed the Lord’s admonition: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature”? Surely the psalm this morning has something to do with our decision: “For steadfast is His kindness toward us, and the fidelity of the Lord endures forever.” Good reasons, yes, but not quite enough, I think. Surely the life of the preacher is adventurous: snakes, demons, poisons, slaves, preaching Forty Day Novenas to the Infant of Prague! Tempting but not quite. Maybe this is it: we preach b/c those who hear the Gospel and believe “will be saved” but those who hear and do not believe “will be condemned.” We have a moral obligation to preach AND convince. Yes, that’s an excellent Dominican reason to suffer through a novitiate.

But I think the best reason is stated rather quietly in the conclusion of the gospel reading. After Jesus was taken up into heaven to sit at God’s right hand, “…[the disciples] went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them…” While the Lord worked with them. While they preached the Lord worked with them. Because they preached, he was with them. For those of us called to preach (any of us here!), is it too much to say of us that we are preachers b/c we know, somehow truly Know, that we cannot work with the Lord unless we speak his Word of mercy, unless we preach his Gospel? This is not just a matter of saving others from condemnation but finding and claiming our own salvation. We know, in other words, that there is nothing else for us to do but to lend—to give, freely give—our voices to the Word, to become slaves for the Word. Maybe our vocation brochures need to say only this: “If you are called to preach the Gospel: woe to you if you don’t!”

Preach today. Not because you ought to, unwillingly. Not for recompense or recognition. Not to boast or to exercise your rights. Preach, proclaim the Good News, because and only because, if you don’t you will not be you, because you cannot be you if don’t.

Do nothing special for Advent

1^st Sunday Advent (A): Isa 2.1-5; Rom 13.11-14; Matt 24.37-44
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
St Paul Hospital and Church of the Incarnation

[NB. My opening comment on the podcast is a reference to the fact that our parish maintenance guy closed off more than half the seating space in the church in order to wax the floors with this foul-smelling, eye-watering chemical. ]

We should hear about patience and waiting this morning/evening. We should hear about taking our time, not rushing through, slowing down. We should probably hear about wakefulness and readiness and walking in the light. All good Advent themes found in abundance in our scripture readings for today. We could hear about the church’s New Year—new start, starting over, begin again in the new liturgical year. We could hear about how Advent is not Christmas and how the Big Bully Christmas must not be allowed to push her little sister Advent further and further back toward Thanksgiving. Too late for that! What else could we hear about on this First Sunday of Advent? Orgies, lust, drunkenness, swords, plowshares, spears, pruning hooks, war. Terrorism, plague, starvation, floods, wildfires, messianic suicide cults, war, again war. And certainly there are moments of joy. Without warnings or threats of furtive kidnappings, let’s look at what we know this First Sunday of Advent. Rather than wallow in the messes of our ignorance, let’s review what we know about our faith, what we have been told about our end, and what we have figured out given what we know.

Jesus tells his disciples that in Noah’s day, folks were eating and drinking and that “they did not know until the flood came…” And later he says, “Stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come.” If the master of the house had known the thief was coming, he would have stayed away. They did not know. You do not know. If only he had known. Strangely, Paul writes to the Romans, “Brothers and sisters, You know the time…” You know! “It is the hour now for you to wake from sleep.” While Christ was with us, we did not know when he would return to us. Now that he has left us to be with his Father, we know when he will return. No? No. Paul and the Romans do not know the time of our Lord’s return. What they know is that the time is right for conversion and repentance. They knew then and we know now that time is now: “For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed…”

We know that our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. We know that there is a hour of reckoning; a hour, a day of expectation and judgment. We know that we are not moving in an ever-widening circle but rather processing in a line together toward our conclusion, approaching in brighter and brighter light, in deepening clarity and seamless continuity, our End, The End—the hour we expect, look forward to, pray for. Our end is a time and a place when and where we will be carried away, flooded away with Christ and the ark of his cross. And we know, we know that we must stay awake, be prepared, always ready, humming with tension, pure in motive and drive. . .to…to…to do what? Paul says we must “throw off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.” All Jesus says is that we “must be prepared.” Why, Jesus? “For at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come.” An hour we do not expect! So much for Advent expectation! So, what are we doing then? We are doing nothing special. Nothing out of the ordinary. We should be doing absolutely nothing that we would not be doing if this were July or October or some other boring liturgical month. The Lean Green Season is over. Break out the violet vestments! The Advent wreath, the O Antiphons, the too early Christmas hymns and Christmas trees. But if you are prepared, ready, sitting on the edge of true righteousness and apostolic fervor, do nothing special. Nothing special at all…

Nothing special?! It’s the First Sunday of Advent! The new church year! It is and we know that our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. We know that the night is advanced and that the day is at hand. And we know that we must put off the works of darkness and don the armor of light. We know this. We know that we must turn from a dark hungry death in sin to a bright shining life in Christ. We know that feeding the appetites of the flesh, those temporary desires of the little gods of our bodies, we know that these are small things grown large—the momentary thrill, the surge of satisfaction that comes before the lack rises again and wants more. These are idols and altars that must come down. We know this. And what’s more: we know these truths everyday, all day, everyday not just Sunday the first day of Advent. And b/c we know these truths, we are ready, fully-prepared, wide-awake; we are locked sitting on loaded and all-set for the Holy Thief to break and enter and steal us away!

I said early on we could hear about waiting, anticipation, Advent longing this morning/evening. I said we could hear all about the church’s new year, the reboot of the liturgical year. Hear all of that AND hear the call to repentance. From the prophet Isaiah: “Come, let us climb the Lord’s mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in His paths.” Hear Paul’s cry to all believers: “You know the time; it is the hour now for you to awake from sleep…put on the armor of light…put on the Lord Jesus Christ…” And hear Christ himself plea for our repentance; to turn, to return again and again. To come back and stay: “Stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come…for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come.” Does this make you nervous? Anxious? Good! It should. But don’t leave it there. Turn that nervousness, that anxiety into an electric joy. Turn it into a righteous hope. There is no meaner, darker spiritual buzzkill than despair, and if Advent is about anything at all, it is about HOPE.

Paul is not threatening the Romans. Jesus is not menacing his disciples. And neither of them is trying to put us on some sort of existential edge, a worrisome ledge. Rather, they are both teaching us to hope. Our Holy Father, Benedict, in his encyclical, Spe salvi, released just this weekend writes: “…the Gospel is not merely a communication of things that can be known—it is one that makes things happen and is life-changing. The dark door of time, of the future, has been thrown open. The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life”(n. 2). How is your life new, different? New in what way? Different from what? From whom? Look around you, outside, at the world. Who are we out there? Who are we to those who will not hope? We are: Lab rats. Cannon fodder. Inconvenient products of conception. Rungs on ladders to power and wealth. Herds of genetic code and meat. We are idiot children, bought and sold. To those who hope, however, we are weapons against despair; tools for cultivating love; bodies for health and spirits for perfection. We are those who know that “the dark door of time” has been thrown open and it is Christ who waits to steal us away.

Pope Benedict concludes his letter on hope: “We need the greater and lesser hopes that keep us going day by day. But these are not enough without the great hope, which must surpass everything else. This great hope can only be God, who encompasses the whole of reality and who can bestow upon us what we, by ourselves, cannot attain. The fact that it comes to us as a gift is actually part of hope. God is the foundation of hope: not any god, but the God who has a human face and who has loved us to the end, each one of us and humanity in its entirety” (n. 31).

Let the first Sunday of Advent 2007 then be the first Sunday of a year, a lifetime of hoping against the hopeless fables of accidental life. This is not special work for Christians. But the everyday work of all those who will risk hoping against the dark.

Spe Salvi!

Our Holy Father's latest brilliance has been published, Spe salvi, "In hope we are saved. . ."

Look for reflections, homiletic references, and other, less formal, gushings about this document coming soon!

Beautiful Word, beautiful feet

St Andrew: Romans 10.9-18 and Matthew 4.18-22
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
St Albert the Great Priory and Church of the Incarnation

Believe with your heart and be justified; confess with your mouth and be saved: “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” That’s a great deal! But here’s the catch: before anyone can believe, before anyone can confess—and it follows that before anyone can be justified or saved—they must first hear the Word of Christ spoken aloud and come to know the name of the Lord. Paul writes, “…faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.” There’s lots of hearing going on! So much hearing, so much being heard. Now, we know that it is the Word of Christ being heard. But who is speaking? Who is doing all the talking? Paul quotes Isaiah, “Their voice has gone forth to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” Who is this plural possessive; who is “their”? To whom do these voices and words belong? Again, Paul quoting Isaiah, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring the good news!” And we add: how true and good the tongues of those who speak the word of truth and see the Lord’s justice done!

They were fishermen, fishing on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called out to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Why is this proposal remotely appealing? I mean, do we have any inkling why two sensible pair of hard-working fishermen would abandon their nets and their father to follow an itinerant preacher on his odd-ball and apparently doomed quest to trawl for souls and save the ones who would be saved? The Word speaks and we listen. Jesus called Peter and Andrew and “at once they left their nets and followed him.” Jesus called James and John and “immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him.” At once. Immediately. This is the power of the word to overwhelm, to seduce and capture, to lure in and arrest more than just the imagination, more than just one’s deep longing for risk or novelty: Word speaks to Word. The Word once spoken strikes the Word once infused. Creator speaks to creature. Image and likeness. Chord and note. Texture and touch. Jesus calls and they follow.

And they follow on feet growing more beautiful with every step. Each step a word. Each word a name. Each name a soul, a mouth to confess, a heart to believe, a tongue to proclaim the Word. Each word a step. Each step a name. And with every step and name and soul, the fishers of men called by Christ net a back-breaking haul, a net ripping load. Having become preachers by hearing the Word and following Christ, these fishermen have also become apostles (ones sent out and away) and they have become prophets (ones who see justice at The End and warn).

Let’s ask with Paul: do we not hear? Certainly we do. Do we not preach? Certainly we do! Do our voices for Christ go forth to all the earth? Our words to the ends of the world? What do preachers do if not speak the word of truth and hunger to see God’s justice done? We leave behind our nets: the teacher’s chalkboard, the architect’s rulers, the social workers files, the chemist’s chemicals, the student’s tests. We leave behind the professor’s committees, the linguist’s books, the businessman’s deals and lawyer’s arguments. We walk away to walk with. We walk away to speak Christ’s word so that his name is known to all peoples in all tongues for all time. We walk behind Jesus, following Christ. We walk with Jesus, becoming Christ. We become Christ to preach his saving Word so that all who hear may believe, all who believe may be justified, and all who are justified may see God’s justice done among the living and the dead.

How beautiful are the feet and hands and tongues and hearts of those who bring the good news! And those who receive him!

FREE Indulgences (. . .sorta. . .)

Click HERE to receive a partial indulgence! You


must also say a decade of the rosary, go to


confession, buy me a book, and pray for the Holy Father's intentions. . .(whistling....)


HEY! We Dominicans used to get away with it all


the time. . .(sulking). . .I hate modernity. . .


(sulking. . . .)

"Liberal" Priest & the Extraordinary Form

Hat tip to Fr. Z. for pointing out this excellent piece by Fr. Michael Kerper. If, like me, you are a priest who would rather boil and eat America Magazine than read it, take the time to read this piece. If you are one of those priests who think America Magazine, Commonweal, and NCR(eporter) should be added to the biblical canon, pay attention to the highlighted parts of the article. Fr. Kerper is showing us what it means to serve in humility!

America Magazine: December 3, 2007 (pdf)

My Second First Mass

Fr. Michael Kerper

ON SEPT. 23 I walked down the center aisle of our parish church, genuflected and made the sign of the cross while saying, In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Thus began my first Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962 more than 22 years after my first experience of celebrating the Eucharist. When Pope Benedict XVI issued his letter of July 7 eliminating most restrictions on the use of the so-called Tridentine Mass, my reaction oscillated between mild irritation (Will this ignite conflict? How will we ever provide such Masses?) and vague interest (Is there perhaps some hidden treasure in the old Mass?). Within a week, letters trickled in. Some demanded a Latin Mass every Sunday, insisting that the pope had “mandated” its regular celebration. Others were more reasonable. In August, I met with a dozen parishioners who wanted the Mass. The meeting became steamy as I explained that I had never said the “old” Mass as a priest and had served such Masses as an altar boy for only two years before everything changed. Some thought I was just feigning ignorance to avoid doing it.

A few days after the meeting, I obtained a 1962 missal, looked through it, and concluded, reluctantly, that I knew more Latin than I had thought. My original cranky demurral crumbled under the force of my own pastoral self-understanding, which had been largely shaped by the Second Vatican Council. As a promoter of the widest range of pluralism within the church, how could I refuse to deal with an approved liturgical form? As a pastor who has tried to respond to people alienated by the perceived rigid conservatism of the church, how could I walk away from people alienated by priests like myself—progressive, “low church” pastors who have no ear for traditional piety? An examination of conscience revealed an imbalance in my pastoral approach: a gracious openness to the left (like feminists, pro-choice advocates, people cohabiting and secular Catholics) and an instant skepticism toward the right (traditionalists).

Having decided to offer the Tridentine Mass, I began the arduous project of recovering—and reinforcing—my Latin grammar and vocabulary so that I could celebrate the liturgy in a prayerful, intelligible way. As I studied the Latin texts and intricate rituals I had never noticed as a boy, I discovered that the old rite’s priestly spirituality and theology were exactly the opposite of what I had expected. Whereas I had looked for the “high priest/king of the parish” spirituality, I found instead a spirituality of “unworthy instrument for the sake of the people.”

The old Missal’s rubrical micromanagement made me feel like a mere machine, devoid of personality; but, I wondered, is that really so bad? I actually felt liberated from a persistent need to perform, to engage, to be forever a friendly celebrant. When I saw a photo of the old Latin Mass in our local newspaper, I suddenly recognized the rite’s ingenious ability to shrink the priest. Shot from the choir loft, I was a mere speck of green, dwarfed by the high altar. The focal point was not the priest but the gathering of the people. And isn’t that a valid image of the church, the people of God?

The act of praying the Roman Canon slowly and in low voice accented my own smallness and mere instrumentality more than anything else. Plodding through the first 50 or so words of the Canon, I felt intense loneliness. As I moved along, however, I also heard the absolute silence behind me, 450 people of all ages praying, all bound mysteriously to the words I uttered and to the ritual actions I haltingly and clumsily performed. Following the consecration, I fell into a paradoxical experience of intense solitude as I gazed at the Sacrament and an inexplicable feeling of solidarity with the multitude behind me.

Even as I cherish this experience, I must confess that I felt awkward, stiff and not myself. Some of the rubrical requirements, like not using one’s thumbs and index fingers after the consecration except to touch the host, paralyzed me. As a style, it doesn’t really fit me (I also can’t imagine wearing lace). But as a priest, I must adapt to many styles and perform many onerous tasks. Why should this be any different? Perhaps we have here a new form of priestly asceticism: pastoral adaptation for the sake of a few. My reluctant engagement with the Latin Mass has not undermined my own priestly spirituality, born of Vatican II. Rather, it has complemented and reinforced the council’s teaching that the priest is an instrument of Christ called to serve everyone, regardless of theological or liturgical style. Ultimately it means little whether Mass is in Latin or in the vernacular, whether I see the people praying or hear their silence behind. For sure, I have my preference, but service must always trump that.

The Mother of All Critiques?

A few posts down from this one, I ask regular readers to give me some serious feedback on my homilies. Since I firmly believe that the preacher preaches to himself first and that I've been feeling that my homilies have been somewhat BLAH lately, I thought it would be a good idea to hear from those of you who listen. Below is an exemplary critique from a former student of mine. This is what I'm looking for, folks!

I think you tend to sound more Protestant in your homilies with respect to delivery and style, or at least what my very narrow experience of Protestant preaching has been. Your content is, obviously, Catholic, but the mannerisms of speech can come across to me as a cross between a Baptist minister and a car salesman and like you're trying to be too clever. Now, a decent amount of the Protestant delivery feeling could be my Bostonian upbringing shining through and really more about northern vs. southern speech, but I think that there is a legitimate issue there as well. You sound every bit the academic that you are when you are speaking, and that's fine in general but sometimes it can result in sounding talked AT versus talked TO/WITH, particularly with the over-reliance on rhetorical devices. Answering your own questions to that degree (case in point: The Resurrection! So What?) can feel exclusive and condescending.

I've had you in classes before, and you were probably my favorite professor in college, and I think you should go more that direction in your homilies because in class you tend to draw out of your students more than what they necessarily even know they have to give. I think that in your homilies you sometimes are not as personable as you really are. Of course the point is to communicate Christ, but the packaging matters, and you will reach more people if your manner is more personally engaging. You are really great one on one, but that seems like it's getting lost in the written homilies that I'm reading because you are not meeting people where they are. People who are experiencing suffering as they try to live in faithful accordance with their vocations need to be able to go to Church for comfort as they carry their crosses. You don't know who is having these struggles, and when people in crisis go to Church to be comforted and fed, I'm not sure that your more recent homilies would fill that need. It's not the content that is the problem. Right now I really would like to, and need to hear about the resurrection of the body, but it took me 3 times reading through your homily to really feel like I get most of it, and even then some of it probably did go straight over my head. Most of your recent homilies I have been barely skimming as I have them on my friends list. You could convey the exact same ideas in a far more accessible way and I think it would reach more people, better preparing them to be transformed by the Eucharist.

I think it's almost like you're combining preaching with being an opinion columnist, now that I just glanced at a few more of your posts. You can be hard hitting and brave in speaking the truth while still being accessible and relatable to people. In a certain way, I feel like the priesthood and midwifery are quite similar. You don't control what happens, and neither does the mother/individual Christian who undergoes birth/theosis, but how you exhort, educate, and support does enable a more or less grace filled transformation into bearing fruit. I hope that this helps you and does not offend, and look forward to seeing how your homilies change over the next few weeks.

J.H.

Reprinted with permission

Two mites, two scandals

34^th Week OT(M): Daniel 1.1-6, 8-20 and Luke 21.1-4
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
St Albert the Great Priory, Irving, TX

When mixing the dough for baking bread the proportion of water to flour you use really matters to the result. The same is true for mixing concrete—too much water or too little water threatens the stability and strength of your art—whether you intend walk on it or spread jam on it. We also use the notion of proportion in our ethical decisions as well: ratio of mercy to justice; whether or not this or that reason tilts the scales for or against making a choice. Think about all those moments in your life when you weigh portions in relation to one another and then pick out what you conclude to be the useful, the good, the beautiful, and the desirable and leave behind what you conclude to be the unworkable, the ugly, the harmful, and the just plain wrong. I would daresay that we humans are creatures of chance (we take risks), planning (we take control), and proportion (we weigh options). Is this sort of calculation—ethical, financial, spiritual—a gospel habit, a Christian virtue?

Jesus praises the widow in this gospel b/c she does not risk, plan, or weigh proportionate options when she drops her two coins into the collection box. She doesn’t offer a reasonable amount, a prudent portion given her income,. Nor does she weigh benefit against cost. She offers her whole livelihood. Jesus says, “I tell you truly, this poor widow put in more than all the rest.” How does Jesus reach this obviously erroneous conclusion? The widow gives freely, completely, without reservation out of her poverty, her lack. The others give of their surplus wealth. She has acquired the virtue—the good habit—of magnanimous sacrifice. The virtue that Jesus himself will practice by dying gratuitously on the cross at Golgotha.

We know the Scandal of the Passion and the Cross: Christ our King is whipped, ridiculed, and executed as a criminal by the Roman and Jewish authorities. This is a scandal because he has claimed again and again to be the Christ, the Anointed One of God, one who possesses divine power to heal, heavenly authority over demons, and the prestige of being the only Son of God. Power never yields to weakness. Authority never abdicates its place of honor, its elevated status.

There is another scandal here as well: the Scandal of Excessive Generosity. For creation to be redeemed, for all of God’s creation to be brought back into right relationship with its Creator, nothing more is strictly required than that the Creator bring us back. A simple act of divine will. SNAP! And we are back right where we were in Eden. We could skip all of this “growing in perfection” business. In other words, we were salvageable as creatures of a loving Creator through a more prudent, a more calculated and less risky means: divine fiat. Instead, we are made righteous, made “children of the light” through the messy, wasteful, and ultimately ugly sacrifice of the Father’s only Son on the cross. For the practical among us, for reasonable souls, the planners and the risk-takers, this choice, this plan of salvation though suffering and death is “too much,” excessive and strictly unnecessary. Why not save us out of the surplus of divine wealth?

Jesus watches a widow drop two coins in the collection box, but in her he sees a kindred soul: one who gives not just a large portion of her wealth, not a calculated percentage of her leftover income but one who gives everything she has, her whole livelihood. And he sees in this widow a vision of his own sacrifice on the cross, his own excessively generous, needlessly gratuitous offering of body and blood for the reconciliation of creation to its Creator. It would have been more practical to leave Christ among us! To have skipped his suffering and death! But then, how would our Father have shown us His abundant love? His exceeding compassion?

Our faith is not an investment in risk-taking, planning, or prudently calculating cost/benefit. Our faith is a wildly generous, open-handed, open-hearted, full-throttled run, a redemptive marathon sprinted behind our Chosen Victim. We cannot give a portion of ourselves, a piece of our surplus wealth. We must give our whole livelihood, everything, all of it. . .nothing less was given for us.