Matthew's account of the Resurrection retains its power to move.
I had a ministerial first this year: I was deacon for the Easter Vigil. For the first dozen or so of my years as a deacon, there always was this other deacon in the parish who did the Easter Vigil, because he and his wife directed RCIA, so it seemed fitting that they would be present for the baptisms (and other sacraments of initiation, although, in light of Jack's on-point recent post, perhaps the less said of those at the Vigil, the better :-)). We other deacons took turns doing Holy Thursday and Good Friday.
Our Easter Vigil deacon sadly and suddenly died a few years ago, but around the same time, our parish became a one-priest parish, and our new pastor decided that, for reasons of sharing the workload, he really needed a deacon to lead the Good Friday liturgy. That is not really a by-the-book practice (the rubrics emphasize that it's especially fitting that a priest lead the Good Friday celebration, because its subject matter is intrinsic to the priesthood), but in this time of few priests, I'm given to understand that it's not an uncommon thing. The idea is: the Good Friday liturgy is not a mass, as there is no Eucharist confected, so a deacon can lead it. The pastor who instituted this practice at our parish is gone now (long story), but his successors have kept it in place. For whatever reason, I was designated to be our first deacon Good Friday presider, and the pastor appointed me to do the same the following year. As with so many things in the church and elsewhere in life, once I had done it twice in a row, everyone just started assuming I do it every year. So the last few years, I've done Good Friday, flying solo. And then the other deacon (there is now only one other) does Holy Thursday and the Easter Vigil. The thought is: I have to write a homily every year for Good Friday, whereas the other deacon doesn't preach at the evening liturgies (although he also leads the Morning Prayer on the Triduum days, and gives brief reflections on those days), so the workload is sort of equal. Sort of.
The other guy, who is some 15-20 years older than me, had a health setback earlier this year, and it wasn't clear whether he'd be back in the saddle for the Triduum, so I raised my hand and said I'd like to be the deacon for the Vigil.
All this is preface for the point I'd like to make for this post, which is: until this past Saturday, I had never proclaimed Matthew's account of the Resurrection. From a proclamation standpoint, it knocked my socks off. It's *really* proclaimable. It's sort of the polar opposite of John's account, proclaimed on Easter Sunday, which features the empty tomb. John's account is dramatic and proclaimable in its own right, but for sheer drama, I'm not sure it can compare with Matthew's. Here it is:
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.
And behold, there was a great earthquake;
for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven,
approached, rolled back the stone, and sat upon it.
His appearance was like lightning
and his clothing was white as snow.
The guards were shaken with fear of him
and became like dead men.
Then the angel said to the women in reply,
“Do not be afraid!
I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified.
He is not here, for he has been raised just as he said.
Come and see the place where he lay.
Then go quickly and tell his disciples,
‘He has been raised from the dead,
and he is going before you to Galilee;
there you will see him.’
Then they went away quickly from the tomb,
fearful yet overjoyed,
and ran to announce this to his disciples.
And behold, Jesus met them on their way and greeted them.
They approached, embraced his feet, and did him homage.
Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid.
Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee,
and there they will see me.”
I am one of those readers who sort of pours himself into the proclamation of the readings. I had a bit of an emotional moment. I had been pretty deeply immersed in Good Friday for the previous week, trying (somewhat desperately) to figure out what to preach that evening. And so reading this account, it just felt like this really was Good News.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe human voice brings Scripture and liturgy to life. I realize some people are hard of hearing. But most of us have heard the liturgy enough that we don't need a text for most of it. It's amazing how much more vivid things become if you get your nose out of the missal.
ReplyDeleteAs for Matthew, that text was meant to be proclaimed in a group. Look at how the action occurs in threes: the angel descends, rolls back the stone, and sits on it; Jesus is raised from the dead, is going to Galilee, there they will see him; they approached, embraced, and did homage; they went away quickly, were fearful, yet overjoyed.
That triad is a trick of oral composition that give the passage a pleasing rhythm that facilitates memory. It also makes it easier for the reader to look up from the page and speak directly to listeners.
"The human voice brings Scripture and liturgy to life. "
DeleteYes!
Btw, the same is true of Shakespeare. I think we do students a disservice by making them read to themselves the scripts of his plays. We saw The Comedy of Errors on stage a couple of weekends ago. It's amazing how it comes to life when the words are spoken, even if there are words and lines that aren't immediately understood.
I used to give my intro to lit students the text of the play and have them follow along with a movie version. Joss Whedon did a good job with "Much Ado About Nothing" set in contemporary times, and it fit into a 90-minute class. It's very funny. One section asked if they could watch a tragedy to compare it with. I hemmed and hawed for a bit just to have the experience of having students beg me to watch Shakespeare.
DeleteI guess I’m the lone dissenter as usual. I prefer reading the gospel, epistles etc at church. I’ve often been put off by official readers who “proclaim” the readings (apparently imagining that they too are Shakespearean actors). I felt this way even before the hearing loss. I don’t listen to speeches - I read them. I remember being very disappointed when I made a point to listen to a speech by Obama, given the rave reviews he got as an orator. Really? Professional actors in a Shakespearean play are one thing. Ordinary speakers who imagine they too can “proclaim” and sound as riveting as Jesus did may be fantasizing. In Jesus’ day and for many centuries after, very few people were literate. So speaking to them was the main form of communication with large groups. But not too large - there was no sound equipment then either, no microphones. So if Jesus spoke to thousands of people on the shores of Galilee while standing in a boat offshore, it is doubtful that more than a handful of people actually heard and understood what he said. It was word of mouth and I imagine messages got changed a bit as they were passed through the crowds. And we know, of course, that none of the gospels were written by eyewitness, and that they weren’t written for decades after Jesus’s death - by unknown authors. I think that Jesus’s best talks were probably passed down with some accuracy, but that the writers of the gospels also probably enhanced them at times to drive home what Jesus’s followers had come to accept, or to help them accept the messages the four evangelists thought were the most Important. Jesus did proclaim a radically revolutionary message about the nature of God, the need to love thy neighbor, even enemies, rejecting violence, etc, so what he taught would certainly have shaken people up and be remembered.
DeleteThe ancient Greeks and others built amphitheaters with excellent acoustics, and the actors and speakers were highly trained in projecting their voices. Proclaiming in churches is overrated I think, especially when done by wanna be actors. Or orators. I remember my mom watching bishop Sheen faithfully. I thought he looked silly, stalking around, swishing his robes. A bit vampirish. So a few months ago I decided to see how he sounded. Was he really so impressive? Well, to some, but not to me. I did the same with Billy Graham. Didn’t begin to understand the pull he apparently had with his come to Jesus talks. Bishop Barron is another meh. But. Millions admire all these people. I really don’t get it. We started skipping Palm Sunday years ago because the dramatization was also a turn-off for us. A normal reading, and a written version in hand, is best for some of us.
Anne, I get turned off too by overly dramatic readers. The best ones speak clearly and enunciate, go over the readings prior to get the pronunciation of names right, and put on their reading glasses if they need them. I'm not going to be too critical, but a common mistake during the passion readings is to mispronounce the high priest Annas' name. You can guess how that sounds. One of the readers did that on Good Friday, fortunately she corrected herself the second time the name came up in the reading.
DeleteThe readings will continue. But I think it’s important for the Church Professionals ( and amateurs) to realize that without a written version as well, a whole lot of people just tune out. True of homilies too. No matter how well “proclaimed”.
DeleteI am a reading/writing learner. My eldest son is an auditory learner. But I didn’t know about learning styles then. For years I was frustrated with him for not reading his textbooks. Including two I found when packing his apt up when he was graduating from college - two textbooks that each cost well over $100, still in their shrink wrap. Grrr. But he retains about 90% of what he hears. He got top grades in high school and better than decent grades in college. A top 25 university. I retain almost nothing of what I HEAR, but have incredible recall of what I read and write ( I took great notes in college!).
Yes, learning style has a lot to do with what people retain and like. Hence, gestures were an important part of readings in the olden days when most people were illiterate.
DeleteI am a tactile learner. I retain what I read, see, or hear to the extent that it appeals to the senses. I get fidgety with things that are very abstract or philosophical. Raber is an abstract thinker, and tends to turn discussions about the monthly budget into sermonettes on the problems with federal borrowing. Geez Louise, I just need to know how much he's going to kick in for catfood.
Good reflections, Jim. Yes, the Matthew account is very dramatic. And very moving. From Matthew's Gospel on Palm Sunday this bit always intrigued me: " The bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many." Is this a symbolic literary device, or were people seeing visions of the departed? I like to think that perhaps they did.
ReplyDeleteDeacon K was very busy during Holy Week also. He didn't have to solo any of the services, but had to be there for all of them. Our priest is serving three parishes right now due to the shortage and the medical leave of one of the pastors, so he needs all the help he can get from our two deacons. Our elder deacon who used to chant the Exsultet passed away. Neither K nor the priest are singers, so the other deacon tackled it. I'm told he did a good job, I wasn't there. I know it isn't according to the GIRM, but I think the Exsultet would be much easier for the soloist with soft chords accompanying it. More tuneful also, just my opinion.
I'm usually busy also with choir and EMHC duties during Holy Week. Unfortunately I have a knee injury and couldn't do the twisty narrow choir loft stairs, or do long periods of standing. So I spent Holy Week and Easter services in the side chapel with the other lame and halt. Probably was good for me to see how many of us there are, most a lot worse off than me. Am scheduled for arthroscopic surgery on April 19th. Torn meniscus, same as I had on the other knee in 2021. I hate it when I feel like I'm not pulling my share, I guess it's something to offer up.
Katherine, so sorry to hear about your knee. You've done your share or more for many years, so no need to feel guilty about recuperating.
DeleteBtw, even though I was on for the Vigil, I still didn't get to chant the Exsultet. We have a newish associate pastor who laid claim to it this year. He does have a nice tenor voice. In prior years, our music minister at the time always had a cantor sing it in an accompanied arrangement. I agree it's easier if it's accompanied.
Some purists insist that the Exsultet should be sung a cappella, but I am reading that there is actually no rule against it being accompanied. It would be very easy to drift flat with that long of a piece.
DeleteI don't know if anyone sings the Victimae Paschali Laudes sequence for the Easter Mass, but it is actually quite lovely. We sing a sequence, but it is usually the hymn Ye Sons and Daughters. I have a CD with Victimae Paschali Laudes played as an instrumental on a harp.
Happy St Guthlac's Day! Guthlac was an Anglo Saxon mercenary, the worst of the worst, who had a sudden change of heart after a terrible battle. Standing in a blood-soaked field, he dedicated his life to God. Abbess Aelfthryth heard his vows, and, with several other men, he went to live on an island in the fen country, aka Crow Land, in Lincolnshire.
ReplyDeleteThe "Guthlackings" gained a reputation for holiness and fighting demons. One hagiographer, in a fit of pique over the endless border skirmishes around Wales, claimed that the demons spoke a dialect of Welsh. The Guthlackings also suffered from malaria or some other swamp disease. Guthlac died about 715 at age 40. He was one of the most popular medieval saints, and is still recognized by Catholics, Anglicans, and the Orthodox.
If you hear a crow today, remember to ask St Guthlac to help you have a change of heart.
Interesting, St. Guthlac is a new one for me!
DeleteMaybe his intercession is something to pray for, for people to turn their hearts from war and violence. Which we have plenty of.
Love the story of St. Guthlac!
ReplyDeleteI am going to wish people Happy Saint Guthlac's Day for the rest of the day. When they say "wha?", I'll tell them "the rest of the story."
ReplyDeleteSpread the word! I am sure St G is eagerly awaiting more people to help. There are about a dozen medieval churches dedicated to him in England and a few of us Old English lit cranks know about him, but I don't think he has been called on much in the past few centuries. Maybe, given his connection with the fens, he could be the unofficial patron saint of wetlands.
DeleteMeantime, here's a story about a dig they're doing at the possible site of Guthlac's hermitage. https://the-past.com/news/in-search-of-guthlac-crowlands-early-medieval-hermit/
Jean might get me to start reading about the saints.Great stories.
ReplyDeleteLots of cool images of St Guthlac's demons from medieval manuscripts. Forerunners of "Tales from the Crypt." Sometimes Guthlac is shown with the scourge helpfully provided by angelic forces that he used to whip the bejeezus out of said demons. More evidence, imo, that a lot of teenage boys were working in medieval scriptoria.
ReplyDeleteJim referred to the Good Friday liturgy. I don’t know what Jim’s parish uses. Jim McDermott, SJ, ( a regular columnist at America) argues that the passion from John should no longer should be used. I agree with him.
ReplyDeletehttps://religionnews.com/2023/04/06/what-the-catholic-church-could-learn-about-good-friday-from-parade/
I disagree. That would be sweeping antisemitism under the rug. We need a better translation. Our seminary scripture scholar always amended it to say things like "religious authorities" when that is what it meant.
DeleteWe have to face the honest conflicts not only between Jesus and the religious authorities of his time, but also the conflicts between the Jewish religious establishment and nascent Christianity, and the competition between the Synagogue and Church at the time Christianity became the established religion.
All of that has to be prelude to the misuse of the historical record both scriptural and post-scriptural that resulted in centuries of antisemitism.
We should be devoting Holy Week to facing our long complex history.
I honestly don't know how to feel about this. Do most Catholics understand that "the Jews" in John means a certain faction? If so, then whose feelings/sensibilities are we trying to spare? Jews who might come to Good Friday services? Do Jews change references to gentiles that might be offensive (Psalm 2:6 "Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession")? What about other parts of the Bible that might offend women (Ephesians 5:22-24) or other groups? I don't like censorship or suppression in any form, and I lean toward Jack?'s argument. But there is a danger in giving idiots "it says right here in the Bible" cudgels to justify disdain for/harm to others.
DeleteJack, that sounds like wishful thinking. Two thousand years and yet the church has taken only baby steps towards rectifying the anti- Jewish sentiments it pushed for most of them. Steps taken partly because JPIIs best friend from childhood was Jewish. Certainly by the time John ( whoever he was) wrote the gospel there was tension between the Jesus followers and the Jewish establishment, probably resulting in the objectionable language. Millions of Catholics throughout church history have heard those passages and taken it out on the Jews - quite violently very often. John Chrysostom incited violence against Jews in his famous homilies and yet he is still referred to as “saint”. The church needs to rethink some of its choices of scriptures. It should maybe decanonize a lot of “saints”, and work to educate Catholics. Most Catholics I’ve mentioned the church’s history of persecution of Jews to get their hackles raised, and are too knee jerk defensive to even talk about it. If you Mention Constantine’s Sword, get ready for an explosive attack on James Carroll. Catholics would not take kindly to using Holy Week to educate them on the church’s history of anti- semitism. They prefer to remain in denial, to remain ignorant of the church’s violent history, and wish only to continue to sweep the unvarnished history under the rug.
DeleteThere are four gospels. The passages on Jesus’s trial, flogging, and death in Matt, Mark and Luke don’t have as strong an emphasis on the role some Jews played in the final day or two of Jesus’s life as John’s account. They can use one of the others.
DeleteJean, another huge problem with the RCC is that it has never outgrown (in 2000 years) its patriarchal, misogynist mindset towards women. Just as the church could ( but seldom does) explain the anti-Jewish passages in John’s gospel as historical artifacts, it could also begin treating women as equal to men in the church ( meaning seven sacraments for women, and not just for men), and not as inferior possessions, which was their status in the pre- common era and in the first two centuries, when the gospels and epistles were written. Instead it uses scripture written in an ancient, patriarchal culture as an excuse to continue to treat women as inferior to men, whose roles in the church may be only those that men let them do. Sing in the choir, teach the children, arrange the flowers etc. And even the jobs they are allowed to do are subject to the whims of the pastor or bishop. The bishop doesn’t like girls on the altar so girls are banned from being altar servers. No female lectors in some places. Katherine would not be allowed to be à Eucharistic minister if a retro pastor moves into her parish. Nor a reader. Etc. But I’m assuming she would be allowed to teach religious Ed and arrange the flowers.
Ironically, when the Vatican appointed a commission of biblical scholars in the 1970s to study the scriptures and determine if there is anything in them that justifies banning women from the priesthood, they said they couldn’t find anything in scripture to prohibit women priests. Of course, that wasn’t the finding that was wanted, so the study was shelved. The same thing happened with the recommendation of the birth control commission. It wasn’t the recommendation they wanted, so they trashed it.
The RCC often seems little better than fundamentalist Protestantism, but with smells and bells, silk, lace and stained glass, and sacraments. But only six sacraments for females.
The biggest problems I see in the Church are a tendency to make too many rules and to regulate things outside matters of faith. If a rule does not support "love God and your neighbor as yourself," I tend to feel skeptical about it.
DeleteI'm skeptical about enough of those rules that I stopped receiving Communion years ago. I lost interest in Mass attendance since the parish revealed itself to be anti-vaxxers during the pandemic. I don't feel I need to support a parish that doesn't want to support its most vulnerable members. Not much "love your neighbor" there.
But I am still inspired by Catholic thinkers, broadly speaking, and still feel engaged with the moral problems the Church wrestles with. Like whether John should be read in Good Friday.
Jean, the depth and breadth of Catholic thinkers - the Catholic intellectual tradition - along with the depth and breadth of Catholic social justice teachings and actions kept me Catholic for decades. The social justice work is carried out mostly by the ordinary people, with a Christ- tethered intellectual foundation.. A lot of the leadership comes from women religious. Some comes from priests, but not much. Almost none comes from bishops and cardinals and Vatican bureaucrats. But the combination of the intellectual and the care for the neighbor- especially those outside of the tribe - kept me tethered for decades in spite of my dissent from many of the teachings - teachings that really have no relationship with what Jesus taught and which harm people, finally driving me from the pews. Those teachings get codified, turned into doctrine, along with a lot of other stuff that became Canon Law, the GIRM, etc. However, I can still learn from the wisdom of Catholic thinkers, but am not limited to only Catholic thinkers. There is spiritual wisdom to be found in many religions, including Judaism, the parent of Christianity.
DeleteI was exposed to many thinkers in other faiths or in no faith as a Unitarian. I have respect for many of those ideas.
DeleteMy rejection of the SBNR quest was its lack of any creed or grounding ideas. There was no agreement on a common set of ideals or principles, so you had a lot of people just trying to find stuff that justified their bad behavior.
I started looking at Christian teaching in college because most Unitarians I knew who had any moral grounding got it from their upbringing in mainline Christian or Jewish congregations.
They detached from a variety of notions about the afterlife, God as a puppet master, hypocrisy of the clergy, excessive spending on the trappings of ritual, triumphalism, dietary laws, the divinity of Jesus, etc.
But they still believed in duty to others, the Golden Rule, marital and family obligations, etc.
The narrow question that Jim McDermott, SJ, raises, the multiple references to “Jews” in John’s Gospel is actually a complex and interesting question, at least to me.
ReplyDeleteThe Greek word which we translate with “Jews” is actually best translated as “Judeans” since it refers to the inhabitants of Judea which is a specific area of Palestine, in comparison to Samaria, and Galilee.
According to the Synoptic Gospels, the ministry of Jesus was largely confined to Galilee. Both Matthew and Luke hang their account of Jesus’ preaching, taken from Q and other sources, on the Mark framework of a Galilean ministry followed by a journey to Jerusalem and the crucifixion of Jesus.
Jesus was an upstart from Nazareth and his disciples were Galileans. When they came to Jerusalem, they found little support among all the establishments of the Judeans, the priests, the scribes, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees. Each of these had their problems with Jesus.
If we ask the question who crucified Jesus, the obvious answer is that Pilate and the Roman soldiers did.
However, politics always takes place within a context. Rome administered territories through clients. In the case of Palestine, these included the Herod family in Galilee and the High Priests in Jerusalem. Clients were expected to deal first with trouble-makers, especially religious zealots like John the Baptist and Jesus. The synoptic Gospels show that both clients had an interest in Jesus .
The client politicians had to take account of their own constituencies. Pretty clearly Jesus had no support amount the rulering classes of Judea. Galilee might have been a different question. Jesus did exercise a ministry there. Herod was interested in him as a trouble- maker, but also appeared to have been cautious of acting against Jesus. Jesus may have had a lot of support of Galilee. He did travel and teach rather freely, including in the synagogues.
Good comments, Jack. I agree with you that we need to place the Scripture readings in context and examine things such as translations, rather than just cancelling them.
DeleteAnd you are right that the Romans and Pilate crucified Jesus. They also crucified hundreds of other people, they were brutal occupiers. Kind of weird that the Jews got scapegoated but not the Romans. However the temple and ruling PTBs were only too willing to weaponize the Romans against someone they felt was a challenge to their power. Power always corrupts, craving power ought to be the eighth deadly sin.
I think it should be fairly obvious to people *which* Jews were being castigated in the Gospel accounts. Jesus, Mary, Joseph and every last one of the twelve apostles were Jews, not to mention most of the original followers of Jesus.
Katherine, what is obvious to you, and Jack, and me, is NOT a bit obvious to 90% of Catholics that I know. They haven’t a clue because they were not taught the history, culture, context. Even those who had Catholic schools all the way through. I learned some of Catholicism’s less savory history in my European history class in public high school. It was actually a bit embarrassing. History that was never mentioned in my religious Ed classes. But my older sibs who went to Catholic schools through high school, and two through college, also remained blissfully unaware. I think I became hyper aware because my best friend in childhood was Jewish, and because I have lived as a religious minority in a Jewish majority community for the last 50 years. We are surrounded by Jews, and I am grateful for that. I self- educated. And I think Catholics are largely ignorant of the church’s history of persecution of the Jews and of the lasting impact to this day. Anti- Jewish graffiti shows up regularly in the public schools here, as well as on Jewish temples and schools. Obviously thevRCC no longer promotes anti- Jewish ideas, but the legacy lives on. Problematic scripture readings should be replaced with others AND the parishes should actively educate their congregations about why Johns gospel was replaced with another. They probably wouldn’t even notice the change, not being immersed the way Jim, Katherine, etc are, but their attention should be brought to the change and the history, culture of the era, etc explained.
DeleteI find that the same benign ignorance lives in most whites who are personally not racist. Since they live in demographic bubbles, they don’t believe that systemic racism exists. Well, I was ignorant too. But since our family has been blessed by having our son’s black wife join it, our eyes have opened to the reality of racism that does exist, built in, slowly improving, but now going backwards again ( the latest events in Nashville are only a reminder that eliminating racism in our country is backsliding). Racism is a reality faced every single day by every single black American. Anti-semitism is growing again also.
Yes, anti-semitism is growing, and that calls for the Church to get way more serious about white Christian nationalism than it has.
DeleteIs the answer to quash John? Or do a better job educating? I don't know.
I guess I am thinking about the wrangles we had in curriculum committees about banning "Huckleberry Finn" and anything by Faulkner because of the use of the n-word. These discussions were never very nuanced, two factions yelling "censorship" and "racism" at each other. The upshot was always to ban certain titles. And I don't think banning things teaches anybody to think.
Jean, I don’t think it means censorship if John’s gospel passion narrative is replaced by a different version. Thé passion narrative remains. But it does require education. Given the ongoing harm that has been done, and still is done, by featuring selected anti- Jewish scripture passages, choosing to use the gospel of a different evangelist isn’t censorship. I would welcome teaching Catholics to think. Teaching ALL Christians to think. Most do not. They simply passively accept the ideas that were drummed into them from birth. They don’t examine them, much less question them. Bible studies I’ve started (and dropped out of) in parishes, both RCC and EC, were pablum. The blind leading the blind very often. Even worse, in the Catholic parishes near my home, they are using Bible study materials written by converts from evangelical Christianity - and it shows. They are using Alpha, adapted from the most conservative (evangelical and charismatic ) wing of Anglicanism.
DeleteIs there anything in the Passion of John that a thoughtful Catholic aware of the historical context of the period might miss if it were replaced? Is John feeding anti-semitism in a way other Passion accounts do not? If John's account is replaced, does the homilist miss a chance to teach about the Church's evolution in its thinking about Jews, from the "Christ killers" of the Middle Ages to JPII's greeting rabbis as "our elder brothers"? I don't know the answers to these questions, but they seem worth discussing.
DeleteJean, the lectionary is a cherry- picked compilation, and it neglects most of the scriptures. The homilies are supposed to be rooted in the gospels, but only some passages of the gospels appear in the lectionary. A college theology professor once noted in an article that it was interesting to her her to note that many gospels that revealed leadership roles by women were not included in the lectionary. Her students were surprised when she taught passages of scripture that they had never heard before.
DeleteThe gospels often tell the same stories, with some differences, and not all gospels have all the stories. Homilists could use the homily to actually educate the congregation about the culture in Jesus’s time and during the century or so following to explain the scripture, especially those considered to be problematic today. They could - But few homilists do this. My favorite homilist at my first Catholic parish here was a professor from one of the Catholic formation houses in DC. He was a scholar and he educated the congregation. I absolutely loved his homilies and would check the schedule for Sundays to see when he would be presiding at mass. But I learned from chatting with some of my fellow parishioners that many didn’t like his more academic homilies. They wanted the same old stuff they had always heard, which basically retold the scripture in smoker, contemporary language.
The daily lectionary doesn't seem cherry picked to me. I think Episcopalians follow the same reading sked. It covers most of the Gospels over time.
DeleteIt has always puzzled me that the CCC is full of rules Catholics about receiving the Body of Christ, but doesn't have much about a duty to listen to or study Jesus's words.
Like one of my college dorm mates said when the Dutch Reform girl was haranguing us, "I don't need to read the Bible, I'm Catholic."
Difference between Sola Ecclesia and Sola Scriptura, I guess.
The Gospel of John is a different animal. While most scholars see it as late, some have argued for its priority over the Synoptic Gospels. John has a very different view of the ministry of Jesus, having it take place over several years with journeys to Jerusalem and Judea on the feasts. We also get more Judeans identified as disciples. It is more a Gospel from the perspective of a Judean follow of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteWas the writer of John himself a Judean? Maybe much of the invective against the Judeans may have been his disappointment with his fellow Judeans!
I like to think of the Galilee versus Judea issue as somewhat similar to Mid-West versus Washington issue in the USA. No doubt that the country is run from D.C.; it has a lot of complicated, sophisticated political movements and parts. In many ways the heart land, like Galilee, has more of a simple patriotism and religiosity. How do things play in Peoria?
The issue is further complicated by the Infancy Narrative. Both of these locate Jesus' origin in Judea. Both were written after the destruction for Jerusalem when Christians might have wanted to claim Judea as their own. The Acts of the Apostles also gives a prominent role to the Jerusalem Church, perhaps again a claim to Judaea.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the Pharisees became the Rabbinical establishment after the fall of Jerusalem. Scholars have noted the opposition to Jesus is more focused on the Pharisees in Mathew and Luke than in the earlier Mark.
I think we will make more progress toward ridding ourselves of anti-Semitism by understanding the complex historical processed that led to it than by projecting antisemitism back into early stages of Church history.
Finally “Judeans” or “Jews” was a pejorative name used by non-Jews for the people of Israel, just as Christian was a pejorative name used by non-Christians for the followers of Jesus. This is how Pilate meant King of the Jews, and how the Samaritan women used Jew in addressing Jesus as a non-Samaritan.
Off topic - especially for Jack.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/north-american-synod-gathering-focused-concerns-about-popes-process-says-participating-bishop
Thanks, Anne.
DeleteBetty and I listened to Bishop Stowe's talk the other night. Commonweal was one of the sponsors of the occasion as it has been of previous lectures by bishops that are part of this series. Commonweal will likely publish a scaled down version of the talk as it has in the past.
The bishops of the US and Canada did publish their North American Continental Synod final document today. It really did not express much of the misgivings that Stowe says took place in the virtual meetings. It followed the general practice of talking well about the process. I think the bishops hope that nothing will come of it.
Link to the Final Document
Deletehttps://www.usccb.org/resources/North%20American%20Final%20Document%20-%20English.pdf
I preach every Good Friday, or have for the last several years. I haven't broached the topic of Catholics and Jews in those homilies, or any homilies. I am open to doing so.
ReplyDeleteFor the last four decades, I have lived on the North Side of Chicago and then in the Northwest Suburbs of Chicago. Both areas have large Jewish populations; when I was younger, the Chicago area was the third largest center of US Jewish population (after New York and LA). I am not sure whether Chicago still ranks third, but it's still an important center for Jewish life and culture. My town has many Jewish residents, as well as many Catholics, Evangelicals and people of other faiths (including Muslims and people of non-Abrahamic faiths). Ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue is a daily reality for many people in this area, in their marriages, friendships, workplaces, schools, block parties, etc. I have heard individual parishioners of ours say awful things a few times over the years, but I have never heard a single anti-Semitic word. My perception is: it's not a major issue in this community, which is not the same as saying it doesn't exist, but it's not common and overt around here. At least, that is my perception.
I've never considered preaching on this topic on Good Friday. That said: the question, "Who killed Jesus?" obviously is an important question and certainly is fair game for a homily, especially after John's Passion account has just been proclaimed.
Of course, the basic answer to that question must be, "We did". I'd like to think that would help defuse any incipient anti-Semitism in the congregation. In addition, Jesus and Paul, the Batman and Robin of the NT, can't really be understood apart from their Jewish faith and cultures.
Much more could be said on the topic. Any treatment of the topic - including here at NewGathering - that skips over Nostrae aetate is, in a sense, skipping over the part of the history that is most important: the part that is our reality today.
Above in one of these comments, Anne wondered whether our parish utilizes the same readings as Fr. McDermott's. Yes, we do. All parishes all over the world are supposed to use the same readings on Good Friday. But for some of these high holy days, the parish office prepares scripts rather than have us read the readings directly from the Lectionary or the Book of the Gospels. Primarily this is because we often have several readers for the Passion accounts, sometimes punctuated by musical underscoring and sung refrains. I have noticed that in one or two places on Good Friday, the script has been doctored to say, "religious authorities" (or something similar) rather than "Jews". Personally, I'd prefer we read the readings in all their problematic rawness, and then address any problem passages, as in a bulletin article or perhaps a homily. (I say "perhaps" because the homily shouldn't be primarily an intellectual discourse. But if I perceived that anti-Semitism is a recurring issue in this community, or on the rise around here, that would make it not only relevant but perhaps a compulsory topic.) There are any number of scripture passages which are problematic for one reason or another, and we don't do any favors by editing or expunging them. We need to wrestle with them.
ReplyDeleteWe're
"There are any number of scripture passages which are problematic for one reason or another, and we don't do any favors by editing or expunging them. We need to wrestle with them." Yes! I don't feel that we are free to cancel or expunge any Scripture.
DeleteAnd point well taken about Nostrae Aetate. A lot of clergy, not to mention lay people, need to revisit that document. It has now been long enough since Vatican II that many people who didn't live through it are not even aware of how ground-breaking Nostrae Aetate ( and many other VII documents were and are.
I would guess a lot of Catholic clergy don't talk about anti-Semitism from the pulpit because they don't feel confident about the topic.
ReplyDeleteIf clergy in any Christian faith are hinky about speaking out against bigotry of any kind, how can they preach "love your neighbor"?
DeleteI get that it's not popular to carp constantly on the misery and evils of the larger world in a rich white suburb where the goal is to protect oneself from unpleasantness. But there must be ways to nudge people about this occasionally.
You often reference the work your parish does with the down and out in your sermons in ways that probably make listeners feel good about being connected to these activities--and encourage them to want to do more.
An appeal to better natures--"when we talk about Jews in the Gospel, we are reminded that this refers not to the Jewish people collectively, but to a small faction of zealots like St Paul before his conversion and that the Church teaches Christ died because of our original sin"--gets the point across, no?
Excellent, Jean. Maybe you could have a new part- time career as a homily consultant. :)
Delete"If clergy in any Christian faith are hinky about speaking out against bigotry of any kind, how can they preach "love your neighbor"?"
DeleteIf all that is needed to address Anne's concerns is to stand before everyone and say, "Love your neighbor", then great: problem solved. I thought the call here was for preachers to give a discourse on the history of Jewish/Christian relations over the last 2000 years. I wouldn't feel confident getting all my facts straight on that topic, without doing a lot of homework first.
"An appeal to better natures--"when we talk about Jews in the Gospel, we are reminded that this refers not to the Jewish people collectively, but to a small faction of zealots like St Paul before his conversion and that the Church teaches Christ died because of our original sin"--gets the point across, no?"
DeleteEh - it might. It's a pretty superficial gloss of a complex history. I'd feel like I was setting the record straight about one thing, and then possibly confusing it on others. There are some cans of worms you just don't want to open in a homily - or at least I don't.
Sorry, maybe I'm not being clear.
DeleteIn the same post I suggested a clergyman might say something like, "When we talk about Jews in the Passion from John, we are reminded that this refers not to the Jewish people collectively, but to a small faction of zealots like St Paul before his conversion and that the Church teaches Christ died because of our original sin."
I don't think anyone needs an advanced degree in historiography or a ton of homework to make these kinds of brief points. You also don't need to turn the entire homily into a meditation on anti-semitism. The bit above takes about 15 seconds to read.
Not that you need suggestions on how to do yr job from an uppity female apostate. :-)
Jean - you are not wrong in your point, and I really do welcome all your feedback and suggestions. I wish you made more.
DeleteSorry, I didn't see your comment of 2 p.m. and our posts crossed. Sometimes the Internet off-ramp to Hicksville here gets clogged and I don't see posts coming in in real time.
Delete"Superficial" and "mixed message," so nix that idea, but you welcome all my feedback and wish I'd make more.
Haha, talk about mixed messages.
Just a little bit of interesting Scripture trivia; yesterday the Mass reading was Luke 24:35-48, which is the Road to Emmaus account. Jesus asks the disciples "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of baked fish; he took it and ate it in front of them."
ReplyDeleteBoth my husband and I remembered that in some translations a piece of honeycomb was also given to Jesus. My Confraternity version mentions the honeycomb. And K grew up with the KJV Bible, which also notes the honeycomb.
What I was able to find indicates that there is a translation difference, the honeycomb reference appears in Greek manuscripts, but not in others. It was included in the Vulgate. Doesn't really matter. But we kind of liked the idea that they gave Jesus a piece of honeycomb.
I remember the honeycomb, too. Jarring the first time I heard that it was fish instead, though that seems a bit more substantial to feed a hungry stranger. I guess the point is that Jesus ate to prove he had been resurrected and was not just a spirit.
DeleteMy Confraternity version says both fish and honeycomb. Jesus deserves dessert!
DeleteI've never heard the honeycomb before. I don't know the reason for it being omitted from some versions, but I suppose that folks are aware that there are multiple manuscripts and manuscript fragments which don't always agree with one another in every respect.
DeleteThe fish interest me, because it seems fish may have been part of the Eucharistic repast in some ancient communities. Cf the feeding of the 5,000.
Jim, have you ever noticed that the gospel of Matthew doesn’t count women and children as being among the 5000? Because only men were counted ( worthy of being counted)? The real number was probably closer to 20,000. Maybe more since families were large. There is a lot of casual misogyny in the scriptures, because the culture did not respect women or children. The Catholic culture now puts big families on a pedestal, and still tries to limit women to choosing the traditional role of child-bearer, supporter of the male “ head” of the family as priority. JPII was pretty explicit about this. Sadly, Francis is not as enlightened on this subject as he is on some others.
DeleteMatthew 14:21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.
Of course the Emmaus story is full of Eucharistic theology. What the honeycomb makes me think of is the antiphon used at Benediction "You have given them bread from heaven", and the response, " Having within it all sweetness".
DeletePre-Vatican II the translation in use mentioned the honeycomb. I suppose it was either Douay -Rheims or Confraternity. And of course most of the Protestants used the King James. I think now most have probably updated.
"Jim, have you ever noticed that the gospel of Matthew doesn’t count women and children as being among the 5000? Because only men were counted ( worthy of being counted)? "
DeleteOh yes. It's actually worse, or better, than you think, depending on whether you are glass 3/4 empty or glass 1/4 full type of person. Empty because, in the Latin edition of the Bible, the Vulgate, all four Gospels (the feeding of the 5000 is the only miracle recounted in all four) report that the men were 5000 in number, and all use some form of the word "viri" for men. As you probably know, there is no ambiguity of meaning in Latin as there is in English; "men" meaning those of the male sex are "viri", whereas "men" as the archaic word for "people" are "homines".
Why glass partway full? Because this means that Matthew wasn't markedly more misogynistic than the other three authors. My guess is, he was cribbing from Mark in telling this story, and added the remark, "not including women and children", not because he wished to denigrate them, but because he wished to intensify the marvel of Jesus's miracle (it was actually many more than 5,000 who were fed! It may have been 20,000 or even more!)
So maybe blame St. Jerome?
That little twerp that leaked all the classified documents on his gaming site is being described in the Wash Post as a "devout Catholic" and "gun enthusiast" from a "patriotic" military family. He posted vids of himself on social media firing a handgun while screaming anti-Semitic slurs and racial epithets.
ReplyDeleteWill be interesting to see what, if anything, the Catholic press or clergy makes of this.
They're not going to claim him. He's like that third cousin on my mother's side that nobody wants to talk about. But they need to. Because there's some shared spiritual DNA and we need to figure out how we got here.
DeleteI would guess that there is more going on with that kid than poor catechesis. But we know people fold terrible ideas into religion sometimes, and it ought not to be swept under the rug when one of our own does it.
DeleteThat poor kid is in so far over his head it's hard to see how he could dig himself out. Whoever decided he was a good candidate for security clearance needs to answer some pointed questions, too.
DeleteI would hate to see a rush to judgment on a story this recent, but I hope some enterprising reporter for Catholic media uses it to springboard into a larger story that looks at Catholics in the ranks of white nationalists, however that might be defined.
DeleteOK, enough outta me.
Jean, the Catholic media are all bent out of shape right now because of a report that the FBI/DOJ may be looking at traditionalist Catholic groups to determine if some members of these groups are inclined to support white Christian supremacy. If they aren’t looking into it, maybe they should be.
DeleteFBI man Robert Hanssen was an Opus Deist and sold secrets directly to the USSR. What's with these guys? Of note to me in this last episode is that there is a lot of press hoopla about the leaker but not much about what was leaked. Mainstream media seems to talk about how great the brave, intrepid Ukrainians are doing but the leaks paint another picture.
DeleteAs someone who worked for the government, none of this surprises me. You used to have a cadre of competent technical people in the government who did the work and closely monitored what was farmed out. Now, everything is farmed out, even some program management. Once the center of mass is in private industry, forget it. There's so much subcontracting, they'll never have a handle on security. And what happened to 'need-to-know? This kid had THAT much access?
The kid was not a private contractor like Snowden. He was a full-time member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard, which is a government military entity. However, he apparently had access to stuff that is of no direct, immediate concern to the Mass. Air National Guard. Unfortunately, way too many people have security clearances and there are way too few firewalls to stop them t from accessing information that they have no need to know. It’s a mess. Ames, Hanssen and several others were high level in national security agencies. Hanssen was initially part of the FBI team tasked with figuring out who the agency mole was. His own brother in law, also FBI, reported his suspicions to the honchos and they didn’t initially take him seriously, so he continued to sell secrets to the Russians (resulting in the deaths of some American spies) and confess it every time to his Opus Dei confessor. Apparently he would vow to his confessor that he would stop, receive absolution, and then do it again as soon as he needed more money. He attended the same parish that Scalia did, and that Thomas and Alito attend. Perhaps Barrett too, but I don’t know where she lives.
DeleteI probably haven't followed the story as closely as some others here, but - is there any evidence or credible reporting that he is a white nationalist? What I've heard is that he leaked the docs and there was a gun magazine on his desk in some of the photos. Did not know he was a Catholic, but not all pious Catholics reveal government secrets or read gun magazines or hang out with white nationalists.
DeleteThey talk about cyber security but is such a thing possible in a world connected system that transfers data at gigabytes per second? The place where I worked had Ben-Ami Kadish who stole American nuclear secrets for Israel. It took years of "borrowing" secret documents and photographing them. Now you press a button and zing. Off they go.
Delete