Traditions are rooted in Scripture The Journal Gazette Fort Wayne, IN
The link above will take you to an article I wrote for the Fort Wayne newspaper when I stilled lived there. It was after my unpleasantness with the bureaucrats but before I finally decided to move back to Milwaukee. In other words, it was an interesting time. I was without "direction" in life; had no "plan." One thing I knew, however, was that I couldn't pass up a chance to engage a raving Protestant in the public square. I just about forgot about this article until I came across a link to it today. If I could do that article over again, I definitely would. It was my first attempt at such a form, and unfortunately that's quite obvious. Also, the title was imposed by the paper editor. It's an awful title, but she didn't like mine, I guess. Anyway, there it is, for what it's worth.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Sherwood Anderson on New Orleans
Spend even a short time experiencing the unique culture of New Orleans, as I did a couple years back, and you begin to appreciate what those who live there know in the core of their being, that it has an intangible quality which makes it conducive to the arts, and to an artistic view of life. In 1922 the great writer and friend of William Faulkner, Sherwood Anderson, articulated this truth in his own way, in an essay aimed at encouraging other artists to come to New Orleans. I came across it recently, and thought I would share it here. Cheers.
I address these fellows. I want to tell them of long quiet walks to be taken on the levee in back-of-town, where old ships, retired from service, thrust their masts up into the evening sky. On the streets here the crowds have a more leisurely stride...I stick to my pronouncement that culture means first of all the enjoyment of life, leisure and a sense of leisure. It means time for a play of the imagination over the facts of life, it means time and vitality to be serious about really serious things and a background of joy in life in which to refresh the tired spirits.
In a civilization where the fact becomes dominant, submerging the imaginative life, you will have what is dominant in the cities of Pittsburgh and Chicago today.
When the fact is made secondary to the desire to live, to love, and to understand life, it may be that we will have in more American cities a charm of place such as one finds in the older parts of New Orleans now.
I address these fellows. I want to tell them of long quiet walks to be taken on the levee in back-of-town, where old ships, retired from service, thrust their masts up into the evening sky. On the streets here the crowds have a more leisurely stride...I stick to my pronouncement that culture means first of all the enjoyment of life, leisure and a sense of leisure. It means time for a play of the imagination over the facts of life, it means time and vitality to be serious about really serious things and a background of joy in life in which to refresh the tired spirits.
In a civilization where the fact becomes dominant, submerging the imaginative life, you will have what is dominant in the cities of Pittsburgh and Chicago today.
When the fact is made secondary to the desire to live, to love, and to understand life, it may be that we will have in more American cities a charm of place such as one finds in the older parts of New Orleans now.
Monday, January 16, 2012
a liturgical irony
It is very common in Lutheran churches for the Gospel reading in the Mass to be read exclusively by an ordained priest, whether he be the pastor or some other priest. This is well-intentioned, and is, in the grand scheme, a positive tendency. I could comment on how making the Gospel reading the exclusive domain of the presbyterate is an inadvertent rejection of the office of deacon, hallowed as it is by millennia of churchly practice, but that is not the point of the present observation. Instead, and I don't say this against any particular pastor or church, but against an odd way of thinking that seems endemic in modern Missouri, I find an interesting irony. Namely, this rule is kept even in many of the places where lay preaching routinely occurs, such as seminary field education parishes and seminary vicarage parishes.
To be clear, I do not mean to imply that lay folk ought to read the Gospel in the Mass. They should not. Neither should they preach, though that also must be another discussion. My point is that I find it funny, and ironic, that we let these guys preach, but we don't let them read the Gospel. It is somehow inappropriate for them to read the Gospel upon which they will preach. Are you picking up on the queerness of this line of thinking? It's perfectly okay for a layman to publicly preach if he is deemed by the synodical apparatus to be an acceptable exception to what we claim in the Confessions, yet the reading of the Gospel is sacrosanct, the sole domain of the pastor. The question is, if a seminarian can be assigned preaching duty in the Mass, as they routinely are in the vicarage year, why is he kept from reading the Gospel? Why is reading the Gospel considered more important than preaching?
I will argue against seminarian preaching on another occasion. Here I just wanted to highlight a particularly odd example of what I would call inconsistent thinking.
To be clear, I do not mean to imply that lay folk ought to read the Gospel in the Mass. They should not. Neither should they preach, though that also must be another discussion. My point is that I find it funny, and ironic, that we let these guys preach, but we don't let them read the Gospel. It is somehow inappropriate for them to read the Gospel upon which they will preach. Are you picking up on the queerness of this line of thinking? It's perfectly okay for a layman to publicly preach if he is deemed by the synodical apparatus to be an acceptable exception to what we claim in the Confessions, yet the reading of the Gospel is sacrosanct, the sole domain of the pastor. The question is, if a seminarian can be assigned preaching duty in the Mass, as they routinely are in the vicarage year, why is he kept from reading the Gospel? Why is reading the Gospel considered more important than preaching?
I will argue against seminarian preaching on another occasion. Here I just wanted to highlight a particularly odd example of what I would call inconsistent thinking.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
a surprise gift
Last night a six-pack of Lakefront Beer was left at the back door of my apartment. It didn't have a note on it, but was clearly left right at my door, so while I was curious about it, I did the only natural thing, and put it in my fridge. I even drank one last night. Right now, as I watch one of my favorite movies (Into Great Silence) I am drinking another one.
Just a few minutes ago, there was a knock at my kitchen door. It was my landlord. We had a chat on various matters, and then I said, Say, I found a six-pack at the door. He was like, Oh, that's for you. It's your favorite beer, right? I said, Yes, it is. Thanks.
I have a kind friend for a landlord, and for this I am thankful.
Just a few minutes ago, there was a knock at my kitchen door. It was my landlord. We had a chat on various matters, and then I said, Say, I found a six-pack at the door. He was like, Oh, that's for you. It's your favorite beer, right? I said, Yes, it is. Thanks.
I have a kind friend for a landlord, and for this I am thankful.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
fleshly perception vs perception of Christ's flesh
One of the scripture texts cited by the deniers of Christ's real presence in the Holy Sacrament is the fifth chapter of Saint Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, where he speaks of the fact that it is not Christian to regard others, even Christ, in terms of the flesh.
But what is Paul really driving at in this passage? And who are the ones truly guilty of viewing matters from a fleshly point of view? As it turns out, these questions, and Luther's answer, are manifestly relevant in our Protestant Gnostic world. So I share what Luther says on this in his Great Confession.
It is well to understand that he does not refer here to Christ's personal flesh, as this spirit foolishly imagines, for that remains Christ's flesh in eternity and all the angels will recognize him in it eternally. But just as we regard our brothers in a spiritual, no longer a fleshly manner, so much the less do we regard Christ in a fleshly manner. Formerly, he means to say, when we were holy in Judaism and in the works of the law-which the false apostles are once again promoting-we knew nothing spiritually about Christ, but what we sought was merely fleshly. For "we had hoped that he would redeem Israel," Luke 24, and would regard our holiness and glorify us according to the flesh. This was really to know Christ according to the flesh-a real fleshly perception. But all this has now passed away and died with him. We no longer regard him so, for all this has vanished and we are entirely a new creation in Christ. This interpretation is given you by Paul himself; just read and examine the text rightly.
Now, all who regard and know Christ from a fleshly point of view are inevitably offended at him, as was the case with the Jews. For since flesh and blood thinks no further than it sees and feels, and since it sees that Christ was crucified as a mortal man, it inevitably says, "This is the end; neither life nor salvation is to be found here; he is gone; he can help no one; he himself is lost." But he who is not offended at him must rise above the flesh and be raised by the Word so that he may perceive in the Spirit how Christ precisely through his suffering and death has attained true life and glory. And whoever does this properly, whoever is able to do it, is a new creation in Christ, endowed with new spiritual knowledge. Just so, even now, all are offended at Christ if they view his Supper in a fleshly manner, as the fanatics do. They are the ones who regard Christ according to the flesh, as they accuse us of doing. For flesh cannot say or know more than, "Here is bread and wine," therefore it must be offended at Christ when he says, "This is my body," for it is an old creation in Adam. If it is not to become offended, it must rise above this flesh and believe the words, "This is my body"; then it will understand that this bread is not mere bread but the true body of Christ.
It grieves me, indeed, that the devil should thus ridicule God's words. But it moves me to pity that the poor people should not see how the fanatics use these vague ideas as the foundation of their fantasies. They boast, swearing by all they hold dear, that they have learned nothing from us. Really, this is not necessary. Their writings show it all too plainly, without boasting on their part.
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
But what is Paul really driving at in this passage? And who are the ones truly guilty of viewing matters from a fleshly point of view? As it turns out, these questions, and Luther's answer, are manifestly relevant in our Protestant Gnostic world. So I share what Luther says on this in his Great Confession.
It is well to understand that he does not refer here to Christ's personal flesh, as this spirit foolishly imagines, for that remains Christ's flesh in eternity and all the angels will recognize him in it eternally. But just as we regard our brothers in a spiritual, no longer a fleshly manner, so much the less do we regard Christ in a fleshly manner. Formerly, he means to say, when we were holy in Judaism and in the works of the law-which the false apostles are once again promoting-we knew nothing spiritually about Christ, but what we sought was merely fleshly. For "we had hoped that he would redeem Israel," Luke 24, and would regard our holiness and glorify us according to the flesh. This was really to know Christ according to the flesh-a real fleshly perception. But all this has now passed away and died with him. We no longer regard him so, for all this has vanished and we are entirely a new creation in Christ. This interpretation is given you by Paul himself; just read and examine the text rightly.
Now, all who regard and know Christ from a fleshly point of view are inevitably offended at him, as was the case with the Jews. For since flesh and blood thinks no further than it sees and feels, and since it sees that Christ was crucified as a mortal man, it inevitably says, "This is the end; neither life nor salvation is to be found here; he is gone; he can help no one; he himself is lost." But he who is not offended at him must rise above the flesh and be raised by the Word so that he may perceive in the Spirit how Christ precisely through his suffering and death has attained true life and glory. And whoever does this properly, whoever is able to do it, is a new creation in Christ, endowed with new spiritual knowledge. Just so, even now, all are offended at Christ if they view his Supper in a fleshly manner, as the fanatics do. They are the ones who regard Christ according to the flesh, as they accuse us of doing. For flesh cannot say or know more than, "Here is bread and wine," therefore it must be offended at Christ when he says, "This is my body," for it is an old creation in Adam. If it is not to become offended, it must rise above this flesh and believe the words, "This is my body"; then it will understand that this bread is not mere bread but the true body of Christ.
It grieves me, indeed, that the devil should thus ridicule God's words. But it moves me to pity that the poor people should not see how the fanatics use these vague ideas as the foundation of their fantasies. They boast, swearing by all they hold dear, that they have learned nothing from us. Really, this is not necessary. Their writings show it all too plainly, without boasting on their part.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
from the Great Confession
One of my favorite theological works of all time is Martin Luther's Confession Concerning Christ's Supper (usually referenced simply as The Great Confession) of 1528. Besides being a brilliant work in terms of its spiritual, theological, and exegetical qualities, the reader also gets some delightful bonuses. For example, in some places he gives the Zwinglians lessons in grammar. In some, like what you will see below, he also gives them lessons in logic. To round out the classic trivium, let me add that the whole book is a lesson in rhetoric. I thought I'd share a particularly juicy passage from what is truly one of Luther's most important works. Enjoy.
In the sixth place, he wishes to prove that Scripture also is opposed to our interpretation. The first passage is precisely this one: "This is my body which is given for you." It is not true that this is Christ's body in the form in which it was given for us, for it was given visibly for us. This we answered above, showing that this spirit makes a quality out of a substance, by a very faulty syllogism in which there are four terms, no universal premise, no essential predication, no distributed middle, and many other faults, for logicians know full well that "an accidental term cannot be subsumed under a substantial term." Such reasoning, however, passes for Scripture and God's Word with this spirit!
In plain language, we do not say that Christ's body is present in the Supper in the same form in which he was given for us-who would say that?-but that it is the same body which was given for us, not in the same form or mode but in the same essence and nature. Now a particular essence can very well be visible at one place and invisible at another. Oh, this is fool's play! No one will answer us. All they want to do is talk twaddle and show off.
Again, it is allegedly opposed to the text, "As often as you eat this bread," etc. Because here the word "this" refers to the bread, therefore in the other expression, "This is my body," it must refer to mere bread, etc. I reply, it is not necessarily so in every instance, nor can this be shown to be a necessary consequence; we have already proved the opposite, that in both places the word "this" refers to the bread, which is the body of Christ, and that neither refers to common bread only.
Again he cites St. Mark, "The Lord was taken up into heaven," and "I am leaving the world and going to the Father" (Jn 16), and, "I am no more in the world, but they are in the world" (Jn 17), and many other passages in which Christ is declared to be in heaven. Well, we also believe and teach all this. We did not need to be taught it. What they do need to teach, however, is that because Christ is in heaven, his body cannot be present in the Supper. This "impossibility" they ought to prove, then we would be convinced that these passages are opposed to our interpretation. But they always teach us with great loquacity what we already know, and meanwhile masterfully keep silent over points about which we are asking. Therefore we must hold on to our interpretation.
Indeed, Christ himself explains what "being in the world" means, in Luke 24, where he says, "These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you." What! Was he not still with them? And did he not eat with them after his resurrection? Certainly he was no longer with them in the manner in which he had once been with them, in mortal form and limited to this life in the present world, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 concerning the natural and the spiritual man. But from these expressions it cannot be proved that he cannot be present bodily. For as has been said, he sat and ate and spoke with them-and yet he is no in the world. Thus also, "You also have the poor with you, but you will not always have me with you" (Mt 26). What is meant here by the expression "with you" is explained by the text itself, and is easy to see, namely he is not with us in the same way as the poor are with us. And so forth. To whatever further passages they may introduce, one may briefly reply: Christ is not with us in mortal and earthly fashion, as the poor are.
Hence they cannot by this method succeed in proving that our interpretation is contrary to Scripture. But it is Zwinglian logic to take substance for accident and "which" for "of what kind," as if I should say, "Christ is not present in the Supper in a certain form, therefore he is not present bodily"; "Christ is not with us in a certain form, therefore he is not with us at all," jumping right from a particular to a universal. "The mayor is not in the bath in his red breeches, therefore he is not in the bath." "The king is not at the table with his crown on, therefore he is not at the table." All this is child's play and buffoonery, as the schools are well aware, but among these spirits it is supposed to pass for Scripture and the Christian faith.
If they insist on the basis of these passages that Christ is no longer with us, they must also conclude that Christ is not with us spiritually either. For the words stand there clearly, "I am no more with you," which declares positively that he is not with us at all. "Yes," they say, "bu we have clear passages to the contrary which assert that he is with us spiritually, such as John 16, "We will make our home with him," and Paul in Ephesians 3, "Christ dwells in your hearts," etc. I reply: My friend, why shouldn't they also find the text in the Supper to be opposed to the same? If Christ can be present with them in a certain form without contradicting the text, "I am not with you," then he can also be present with us in the Supper, notwithstanding the same text, "I am not with you." If that text does not invalidate their passages concerning the spiritual nature of Christ, neither does it invalidate our text concerning the invisible nature of Christ in the Supper.
Thus their objection is as sharply opposed to them as to us, and by whatever means they extricate themselves they extricate us also. And our interpretation remains unimpugned: "This is my body." For if they prove anything with their passages, they prove that Christ is not present in the Supper in a visible, mortal, and earthly mode-a thing which it is not in the least necessary to prove, for we acknowledge it all. But what they ought to prove is that our interpretation is false and that Christ lies when he says, "This is my body." But no one steps forth to prove it, for they are nothing but fickle windbags, soiling a lot of good paper with vain and worthless words and making fools of poor simple Christians.
(Robert H. Fischer's translation, AE 37)
In the sixth place, he wishes to prove that Scripture also is opposed to our interpretation. The first passage is precisely this one: "This is my body which is given for you." It is not true that this is Christ's body in the form in which it was given for us, for it was given visibly for us. This we answered above, showing that this spirit makes a quality out of a substance, by a very faulty syllogism in which there are four terms, no universal premise, no essential predication, no distributed middle, and many other faults, for logicians know full well that "an accidental term cannot be subsumed under a substantial term." Such reasoning, however, passes for Scripture and God's Word with this spirit!
In plain language, we do not say that Christ's body is present in the Supper in the same form in which he was given for us-who would say that?-but that it is the same body which was given for us, not in the same form or mode but in the same essence and nature. Now a particular essence can very well be visible at one place and invisible at another. Oh, this is fool's play! No one will answer us. All they want to do is talk twaddle and show off.
Again, it is allegedly opposed to the text, "As often as you eat this bread," etc. Because here the word "this" refers to the bread, therefore in the other expression, "This is my body," it must refer to mere bread, etc. I reply, it is not necessarily so in every instance, nor can this be shown to be a necessary consequence; we have already proved the opposite, that in both places the word "this" refers to the bread, which is the body of Christ, and that neither refers to common bread only.
Again he cites St. Mark, "The Lord was taken up into heaven," and "I am leaving the world and going to the Father" (Jn 16), and, "I am no more in the world, but they are in the world" (Jn 17), and many other passages in which Christ is declared to be in heaven. Well, we also believe and teach all this. We did not need to be taught it. What they do need to teach, however, is that because Christ is in heaven, his body cannot be present in the Supper. This "impossibility" they ought to prove, then we would be convinced that these passages are opposed to our interpretation. But they always teach us with great loquacity what we already know, and meanwhile masterfully keep silent over points about which we are asking. Therefore we must hold on to our interpretation.
Indeed, Christ himself explains what "being in the world" means, in Luke 24, where he says, "These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you." What! Was he not still with them? And did he not eat with them after his resurrection? Certainly he was no longer with them in the manner in which he had once been with them, in mortal form and limited to this life in the present world, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 concerning the natural and the spiritual man. But from these expressions it cannot be proved that he cannot be present bodily. For as has been said, he sat and ate and spoke with them-and yet he is no in the world. Thus also, "You also have the poor with you, but you will not always have me with you" (Mt 26). What is meant here by the expression "with you" is explained by the text itself, and is easy to see, namely he is not with us in the same way as the poor are with us. And so forth. To whatever further passages they may introduce, one may briefly reply: Christ is not with us in mortal and earthly fashion, as the poor are.
Hence they cannot by this method succeed in proving that our interpretation is contrary to Scripture. But it is Zwinglian logic to take substance for accident and "which" for "of what kind," as if I should say, "Christ is not present in the Supper in a certain form, therefore he is not present bodily"; "Christ is not with us in a certain form, therefore he is not with us at all," jumping right from a particular to a universal. "The mayor is not in the bath in his red breeches, therefore he is not in the bath." "The king is not at the table with his crown on, therefore he is not at the table." All this is child's play and buffoonery, as the schools are well aware, but among these spirits it is supposed to pass for Scripture and the Christian faith.
If they insist on the basis of these passages that Christ is no longer with us, they must also conclude that Christ is not with us spiritually either. For the words stand there clearly, "I am no more with you," which declares positively that he is not with us at all. "Yes," they say, "bu we have clear passages to the contrary which assert that he is with us spiritually, such as John 16, "We will make our home with him," and Paul in Ephesians 3, "Christ dwells in your hearts," etc. I reply: My friend, why shouldn't they also find the text in the Supper to be opposed to the same? If Christ can be present with them in a certain form without contradicting the text, "I am not with you," then he can also be present with us in the Supper, notwithstanding the same text, "I am not with you." If that text does not invalidate their passages concerning the spiritual nature of Christ, neither does it invalidate our text concerning the invisible nature of Christ in the Supper.
Thus their objection is as sharply opposed to them as to us, and by whatever means they extricate themselves they extricate us also. And our interpretation remains unimpugned: "This is my body." For if they prove anything with their passages, they prove that Christ is not present in the Supper in a visible, mortal, and earthly mode-a thing which it is not in the least necessary to prove, for we acknowledge it all. But what they ought to prove is that our interpretation is false and that Christ lies when he says, "This is my body." But no one steps forth to prove it, for they are nothing but fickle windbags, soiling a lot of good paper with vain and worthless words and making fools of poor simple Christians.
(Robert H. Fischer's translation, AE 37)
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Litany of the Most Holy Name of Jesus
If the circumcision of Christ is one of the focuses of this day in the Church Year, the other focus is the naming of Jesus. And one of the thoughts to which this led me, as I was sitting in church waiting for Mass to begin, is that this is an especially appropriate occasion on which to pray the Litany of the Most Holy Name of Jesus. It is one of those traditional, yet non-liturgical, litanies with which Lutherans are all too unfamiliar. After all, it's not in a CPH book. Luckily, I had with me this morning a book which does include this litany. What follows is the Litany of the Name of Jesus, and I recommend it to your devotion, today or any day.
Christe:
Eleison.
Kyrie:
Eleison.
O Jesus, hear us:
O Jesus, graciously hear us.
O God, the Father in Heaven:
Have mercy upon us.
O God, the Son, Redeemer of the world:
Have mercy upon us.
O God, the Holy Ghost:
Have mercy upon us.
O Holy Trinity, one God:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Son of the living God:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Splendor of the Father:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Brightness of eternal Light:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, King of Glory:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Sun of Justice:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Son of the Virgin Mary:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, most amiable:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, most admirable:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, the mighty God:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Father of the world to come:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Angel of Great Council:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, most powerful:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, most patient:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, most obedient:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Lover of Chastity:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, our Lover:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, God of Peace:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Author of Life:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Model of Virtues:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, zealous for souls:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, our God:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, our Refuge:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Father of the Poor:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Treasure of the Faithful:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, good Shepherd:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, true Light:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, eternal Wisdom:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, infinite Goodness:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, our Way and our Life:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, joy of the Angels:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, King of the Patriarchs:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Master of the Apostles:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Teacher of the Evangelists:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Strength of Martyrs:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Light of Confessors:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Purity of Virgins:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Crown of all Saints:
Have mercy upon us.
Be gracious unto us:
Spare us O Jesus.
Be gracious unto us:
Graciously hear us, O Jesus.
From all evil:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
From all sin:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
From the crafts and assaults of the devil:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
From the spirit of fornication:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
From everlasting death:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
From the neglect of Thy inspirations:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By the mystery of Thy holy Incarnation:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Nativity:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Infancy:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy most divine Life:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Labors:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Agony and Passion:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Cross and Dereliction:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Sufferings:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy precious Death and Burial:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Resurrection:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Ascension:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Institution of the Most Holy Eucharist:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Joys:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Glory:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sin of the world:
Spare us, O Jesus.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sin of the world:
Graciously hear us, O Jesus.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sin of the world:
Have mercy upon us, O Jesus.
O Jesus, hear us:
O Jesus, graciously hear us.
Kyrie:
Eleison.
Christe:
Eleison.
Kyrie eleison. Amen.
Our Father who art in heaven. Hallowed be Thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our Daily Bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation. X But deliver us from evil. Amen.
Let us pray:
O Lord Jesus Christ, Thou hast said, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you"; mercifully attend to our supplications, and grant us the grace of Thy most divine love, that we may love Thee with all our hearts, and in all our words and actions, and never cease to praise Thee. Make us, O Lord, to have a perpetual fear and love of Thy holy name, for Thou never failest to govern those whom Thou dost solidly establish in Thy love. Thou who livest and reignest, world without end.
Amen.
Kyrie:
Eleison.Christe:
Eleison.
Kyrie:
Eleison.
O Jesus, hear us:
O Jesus, graciously hear us.
O God, the Father in Heaven:
Have mercy upon us.
O God, the Son, Redeemer of the world:
Have mercy upon us.
O God, the Holy Ghost:
Have mercy upon us.
O Holy Trinity, one God:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Son of the living God:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Splendor of the Father:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Brightness of eternal Light:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, King of Glory:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Sun of Justice:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Son of the Virgin Mary:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, most amiable:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, most admirable:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, the mighty God:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Father of the world to come:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Angel of Great Council:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, most powerful:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, most patient:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, most obedient:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Lover of Chastity:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, our Lover:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, God of Peace:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Author of Life:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Model of Virtues:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, zealous for souls:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, our God:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, our Refuge:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Father of the Poor:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Treasure of the Faithful:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, good Shepherd:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, true Light:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, eternal Wisdom:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, infinite Goodness:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, our Way and our Life:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, joy of the Angels:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, King of the Patriarchs:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Master of the Apostles:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Teacher of the Evangelists:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Strength of Martyrs:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Light of Confessors:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Purity of Virgins:
Have mercy upon us.
Jesus, Crown of all Saints:
Have mercy upon us.
Be gracious unto us:
Spare us O Jesus.
Be gracious unto us:
Graciously hear us, O Jesus.
From all evil:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
From all sin:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
From the crafts and assaults of the devil:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
From the spirit of fornication:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
From everlasting death:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
From the neglect of Thy inspirations:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By the mystery of Thy holy Incarnation:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Nativity:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Infancy:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy most divine Life:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Labors:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Agony and Passion:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Cross and Dereliction:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Sufferings:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy precious Death and Burial:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Resurrection:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Ascension:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Institution of the Most Holy Eucharist:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Joys:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
By Thy Glory:
Deliver us, O Jesus.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sin of the world:
Spare us, O Jesus.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sin of the world:
Graciously hear us, O Jesus.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sin of the world:
Have mercy upon us, O Jesus.
O Jesus, hear us:
O Jesus, graciously hear us.
Kyrie:
Eleison.
Christe:
Eleison.
Kyrie eleison. Amen.
Our Father who art in heaven. Hallowed be Thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our Daily Bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation. X But deliver us from evil. Amen.
Let us pray:
O Lord Jesus Christ, Thou hast said, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you"; mercifully attend to our supplications, and grant us the grace of Thy most divine love, that we may love Thee with all our hearts, and in all our words and actions, and never cease to praise Thee. Make us, O Lord, to have a perpetual fear and love of Thy holy name, for Thou never failest to govern those whom Thou dost solidly establish in Thy love. Thou who livest and reignest, world without end.
Amen.
From the Divine Office today
R. Not knowing man, the Virgin Mother gave birth wihout pain, and brought forth the world's Redeemer ; * And he, the King of the Angels, received nourishment from a heaven-filled virginal bosom.
V. The mansion of the modest breast becometh a shrine where God shall rest : the pure and undefiled one within her womb conceived the Son.
R. And he, the King of the Angels, received nourishment from a heaven-filled virginal bosom.
V. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
R. And he, the King of the Angels, received nourishment from a heaven-filled virginal bosom.
(from the office of Matins for the feast of the Circumcision of Christ)
V. The mansion of the modest breast becometh a shrine where God shall rest : the pure and undefiled one within her womb conceived the Son.
R. And he, the King of the Angels, received nourishment from a heaven-filled virginal bosom.
V. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
R. And he, the King of the Angels, received nourishment from a heaven-filled virginal bosom.
(from the office of Matins for the feast of the Circumcision of Christ)
Saint Ambrose on the Circumcision of Christ
This day in the Church Year marks two things in particular, the circumcision of Jesus, which took place on the eighth day after His birth, and the holy name of Jesus, given on the same occasion.
Regarding the circumcision of Christ, let me share with you a wonderful litle word from Saint Ambrose, assigned to the Divine Office this morning. As you read this, take note of a few things: 1. the christological focus of Ambrose's reading of the Old Testament, 2. the rich imagery Ambrose employs as he develops the notion of Mary as an icon of the Church, 3. and what I find to be a subtle but significant point, namely, that Ambrose does not say that Christ opened His mother's womb (he couldn't say that, since that didn't happen) but nevertheless uses that imagery to make a point about the fruitfulness of the Church.
Regarding the circumcision of Christ, let me share with you a wonderful litle word from Saint Ambrose, assigned to the Divine Office this morning. As you read this, take note of a few things: 1. the christological focus of Ambrose's reading of the Old Testament, 2. the rich imagery Ambrose employs as he develops the notion of Mary as an icon of the Church, 3. and what I find to be a subtle but significant point, namely, that Ambrose does not say that Christ opened His mother's womb (he couldn't say that, since that didn't happen) but nevertheless uses that imagery to make a point about the fruitfulness of the Church.
But since the body and mind of man remain yet infected with a proneness to sin, the circumcision of the eighth day is meant to put us in mind of that complete cleansing from sin which we shall have at the resurrection. This is doubtless to be inferred from the words : Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy unto the Lord. That is, these words are literally true only of the delivery of the Blessed Virgin. Verily, he that opened her womb was holy, for he was altogether without spot. And we may gather that the Law hath this meaning because the Angel said almost the same words : That Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Among all them that are born of women the Lord Jesus Christ stood alone in holiness. He alone, because of this immaculate birth, felt no contagion from human corruption ; it came not near him because of his heavenly majesty. Otherwise (that is, if we are to apply this passage of the Law literally) we are obliged to say that without exception every male that openeth the womb is holy ; and how then shall we explain that so many were unrighteous? Was Ahab holy? Were the false prophets holy? Were they holy on whom Elijah justly called down fire from heaven? But he to whom the sacred commandment of the Law of God is mystically directed is the Holy One of Israel. And he alone hath opened the secret womb of his holy virgin-bride the Church, filling her with a sinless fruitfulness whereby to bring forth the People of God.
a christmas day picture
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Blessed Childermas
I wish you a blessed Childermas, and hope you have a chance to attend Mass, or at least to take a moment and remember the witness of the Holy Innocents in your prayer and meditation. Above is the slaughter as interpreted by Peter Paul Rubens.
Monday, December 26, 2011
the octave drenched in blood
The most important feasts of the Church Year are celebrated for a full octave of days, each day of which is treated as though it were a sort of replay of the first. Or to put it another way, each day of the octave is a celebrating of the same feast. Much as a wedding feast in the ancient middle east could last several days, so also the Church on certain occasions celebrates the life of her Lord and Redeemer, and the marital life she shares with Him, as a full eight day feast, the number of the fulfillment of the new creation, the resurrection life which we have in our Baptism (which assumes and is never separated from the Paschal mystery of the death of our Lord, into which we are baptized).
Yet the feast of the Nativity of Christ is unusual in that it does not take an unmitigated tone of joy, but is significantly filled with death, mortality, even violent martyrdom. It is called the bloody octave, for in its course we celebrate the victory of many holy martyrs, as we begin to see even today on the second day of Christmas. There is Stephen, whose holy diaconal witness to Christ, even at the cost of his life, is described by the Evangelist in downright Christic terms. Then we have the feast of the beloved disciple, who may or may not have died in bloody martyrdom, but whose whole life and episcopal ministry was a martyrdom for his beloved Lord. Then we have Childermas, on which we remember the heavenly reward of the children who suffered at the hands of a self-absorbed despot. After that, we get to celebrate the twelfth century witness of the holy bishop of Canterbury, Thomas à Becket, a man whose life, at once human and holy, and whose violent murder at the hands of men who despised both the Work of God (the Liturgy-in this case, Vespers) and the workers of God (in this case, the bishop) cannot help but move the Christian even eight centuries later. Two days after that we get the feast of St. Sylvester, who did not die a martyr in the classic sense, but much of whose life saw great persecutions of the Church in the days before its toleration with the Edict of Milan. And the Octave culminates in the observance of the first blood spilled for our redemption (for Mary shed none herself at the birth of her Son) namely, that of our Lord Himself at His circumcision.
It is a hard road that Jesus came to earth to travel, a hard and lonely way. For ultimately it is the way of the Cross. And His life, death. and resurrection (these things are really a singular Paschal mystery) is lived out in the lives of His members, even today. Our way, too, is the way of the cross, and ours is His victory. We are walking examples of the reality that Christ makes all things new, whether or not we feel it. For our lives are now patterned after Him, the New Man Who daily comes forth and rises in our life and confession and witness, no matter what end we might meet. The life of Christ is also the story of the life of His mystical Body, and each member thereof. Let this ocvate serve in part to help you meditate upon this truth in Christ.
Yet the feast of the Nativity of Christ is unusual in that it does not take an unmitigated tone of joy, but is significantly filled with death, mortality, even violent martyrdom. It is called the bloody octave, for in its course we celebrate the victory of many holy martyrs, as we begin to see even today on the second day of Christmas. There is Stephen, whose holy diaconal witness to Christ, even at the cost of his life, is described by the Evangelist in downright Christic terms. Then we have the feast of the beloved disciple, who may or may not have died in bloody martyrdom, but whose whole life and episcopal ministry was a martyrdom for his beloved Lord. Then we have Childermas, on which we remember the heavenly reward of the children who suffered at the hands of a self-absorbed despot. After that, we get to celebrate the twelfth century witness of the holy bishop of Canterbury, Thomas à Becket, a man whose life, at once human and holy, and whose violent murder at the hands of men who despised both the Work of God (the Liturgy-in this case, Vespers) and the workers of God (in this case, the bishop) cannot help but move the Christian even eight centuries later. Two days after that we get the feast of St. Sylvester, who did not die a martyr in the classic sense, but much of whose life saw great persecutions of the Church in the days before its toleration with the Edict of Milan. And the Octave culminates in the observance of the first blood spilled for our redemption (for Mary shed none herself at the birth of her Son) namely, that of our Lord Himself at His circumcision.
It is a hard road that Jesus came to earth to travel, a hard and lonely way. For ultimately it is the way of the Cross. And His life, death. and resurrection (these things are really a singular Paschal mystery) is lived out in the lives of His members, even today. Our way, too, is the way of the cross, and ours is His victory. We are walking examples of the reality that Christ makes all things new, whether or not we feel it. For our lives are now patterned after Him, the New Man Who daily comes forth and rises in our life and confession and witness, no matter what end we might meet. The life of Christ is also the story of the life of His mystical Body, and each member thereof. Let this ocvate serve in part to help you meditate upon this truth in Christ.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
the Christmas Eve Service
Last night we had a Christmas Eve Service at Luther Memorial. It was very nice. There were hymns, readings, more hymns, more readings, and some good preaching. I was a bit disappointed when I sat down and then looked up at the altar, and didn't see a chalice veil there. I was sort of expecting the Mass. But it's really no one's fault but mine for this surprise, and disappointment. Nowhere in the church literature did it claim Christmas Eve would be a Eucharist. What it said in the schedule, looking back, was "Christmas Eve Service" and I let it get into my head that it would be the Mass. When you think about it, that phrase Christmas Eve Service is really just shy of one word that would have signified, in modern LC-MS parlance, that there would be the Eucharist, namely, Christmas Divine Service. You see where I'm driving? My mind probably saw "Christmas Eve Service" and read into it "Christmas Eve Divine Service."
Again, I don't blame anyone at Luther Memorial. However, this all points to a couple of notions. One is that it would have been more clear and explicit if the schedule would have said something like, "Christmas Eve Lessons and Carols." But another thought regards the ambiguity of the term Divine Service. The phrase Divine Service, as I say, has come to mean in modern LC-MS parlance the Holy Mass. I suppose this started with Lutheran Worship's use of the term for its Mass orders back in the 1980s. In fact, however, it is worth pointing out that Divine Service does not imply the Mass. It implies public worship. It would be more accurate to say something like Chief Divine Service if you wanted to signify the use of the Holy Mass, which of course begins to beg the question of why we think we must always add more words to make something clearer.
There is another solution. Namely, there is a certain practical genius in the practice of using the word "Mass." For in that case there would have been no mistake. That is, one look at the church's schedule would tell you that one any given occasion you will either have the Mass, or you won't.
On another note, if modern Roman Catholic practice undervalues and under-utilizes noneucharistic aspects of the Church's liturgical tradition, like the Divine Office, modern Lutheran practice undervalues the Mass, and under-utilizes the Church Year's opportunities for celebrating the Mass. This is just the way it is. Many of my friends prefer to look at the glass being half full, and speak of how things have improved, etc. I don't deny that, but I also see it getting worse. How can both be true? I don't know, but it should alarm us. I think modern Missouri has become a "big tent" and you can see in it whatever you want to see. It's like a Rorschach test. But the test doesn't determine whether one is an optimist or a pessimist, like some claim. Rather, it determines what it is on which you are choosing to focus, and maybe whether you are being a realist or a positivist.
None of this is to deny, mind you, that I'm better off now than I was with the incompetence and false teaching at a former church. However, I can't go through life merely contenting myself with the thought that, at least this isn't as bad as that over there.
Again, I don't blame anyone at Luther Memorial. However, this all points to a couple of notions. One is that it would have been more clear and explicit if the schedule would have said something like, "Christmas Eve Lessons and Carols." But another thought regards the ambiguity of the term Divine Service. The phrase Divine Service, as I say, has come to mean in modern LC-MS parlance the Holy Mass. I suppose this started with Lutheran Worship's use of the term for its Mass orders back in the 1980s. In fact, however, it is worth pointing out that Divine Service does not imply the Mass. It implies public worship. It would be more accurate to say something like Chief Divine Service if you wanted to signify the use of the Holy Mass, which of course begins to beg the question of why we think we must always add more words to make something clearer.
There is another solution. Namely, there is a certain practical genius in the practice of using the word "Mass." For in that case there would have been no mistake. That is, one look at the church's schedule would tell you that one any given occasion you will either have the Mass, or you won't.
On another note, if modern Roman Catholic practice undervalues and under-utilizes noneucharistic aspects of the Church's liturgical tradition, like the Divine Office, modern Lutheran practice undervalues the Mass, and under-utilizes the Church Year's opportunities for celebrating the Mass. This is just the way it is. Many of my friends prefer to look at the glass being half full, and speak of how things have improved, etc. I don't deny that, but I also see it getting worse. How can both be true? I don't know, but it should alarm us. I think modern Missouri has become a "big tent" and you can see in it whatever you want to see. It's like a Rorschach test. But the test doesn't determine whether one is an optimist or a pessimist, like some claim. Rather, it determines what it is on which you are choosing to focus, and maybe whether you are being a realist or a positivist.
None of this is to deny, mind you, that I'm better off now than I was with the incompetence and false teaching at a former church. However, I can't go through life merely contenting myself with the thought that, at least this isn't as bad as that over there.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
merry christmas
Milad Majid
Joyeux Noël
Gëzuar Krishtlindjet
Feliz Navidad
Gaudete! Christus natus est.
Christmas Tree with Dorian
This is our Christmas tree. In years past we used artificial trees, since a real one would not have coexisted very well with our cats. Oddly, they had a habit of attacking the tree anyway. This year I decided to try a real one. I felt I knew Dorian well enough by now to know that he wouldn't be too freaked out by a real tree. So a few days ago I went to a Christmas tree lot downtown with my friend Mike. We went to the lot on Van Buren & Kilbourn, across from the cathedral. The guy didn't have many trees left; I told him I was interested in a small one, one that would fit a small apartment. He showed me the smallest one he had left, and it too was bigger than what I wanted. So he offered to cut off a portion and give me a deal on the price. I said, cool, and he pulled out a chainsaw, and cut off a whole section from the bottom, and even tied the tree to the top of the car for me. Very helpful and friendly man.
I am really loving this tree. I love the scent it gives the place, and I love the way it looks, with all of Ruth's decorations (some of which are her own origami ornaments). Ruth has been feeding it water every day or so, and Dorian loves to lay right behind it. I suppose he thinks he is in his own forest, or perhaps just a garden. I think we'll do the same next year.
Eucharistic Implications of the O Antiphons
The liturgy is filled with implications that we too often fail fully to appreciate. So it is worth meditating upon the liturgy of the Church, and praying that we may gain a fuller view of what it is teaching us. Through the Church's liturgical tradition, there is always more that God would show us of His wondrous love for us in Christ. Let us recall that while the liturgy as such is not divinely inspired, it is filled with God's creative Word. And so Saint Benedict calls it the Work of God. It is fitting to pray, in other words, that God would open our eyes, that we may see the wondrous things in the liturgy (Ps 119).
And so one thought that strikes me lately is in regard to the increased popularity in recent years of the O Antiphons, that is, the proper Magnificat antiphons for the seven days that lead up to the holy Vigil of Christmas. It is a fine custom to celebrate the Divine Office of Vespers, and to use these venerable antiphons; yet it is valuable to consider what the Divine Office, and in this case particularly the O Antiphons, might be assuming about our liturgical life. What is assumed in the Divine Office, including the O Antiphons, and indeed is an essential key to fully appreciating the Office, and the Antiphons, is the regular celebration of the Holy Eucharist.
In the final week before Christmas Eve, the Church focuses more intently on preparing for the coming celebration of the birth of the Theanthropos, the God-man, and does so, for example, by praying for His advent among us in the Magnificat antiphons, each one calling Him by a different name, and crying out for His presence. Veni, Come. Christ's coming in the world is always an intersecting of this world and the cosmic reality wherein Christ holds all of creation, and all of history, in His hand. Interestingly, we have come to view the final coming of Christ as a parousia, which connotes for many a glorious coming of Christ on the last day, but really it would be better to convert our thinking around, and see that in fact every coming of Christ is a parousia, a making Himself personally present in this world, which is a gracious and comforting presence for those buried by baptism into His death, and fearfully damning to those not ready for it. He comes to judge, but for the Christian covered by the blood of the Lamb that judgement is a gracious sentence. He came into the world about two millennia ago, assuming our human nature, and became man. He will also come again in glory at the close of this world. However, there is another coming of Christ. Namely, His coming, in the flesh, in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, in which the Christian is united with Him sacramentally. This also is Christ's Parousia among us. This, the celebration of the venerable Eucharist, is the fulfillment among us, in real time, of the prophecy that Christ is Emmanuel, God with us. Indeed, the seventh of the O Antiphons calls upon Christ as Emmanuel.
It is well worth meditating upon the O Antiphons in detail, but it is also worth stepping back, and gaining an appreciation for what we are confessing in them when viewed together. This comes out more clearly when they are read in the Latin. For there we see that the O Antiphons are designed in such a way so that the first letter (after the O) of each antiphon is part of an acrostic, read backwards, which spells Ero Cras, Tomorrow I shall come. Admittedly, for those who follow the English medieval custom of adding an eighth antiphon in honor of the Virgin Mary, the acrostic will spell Vero Cras, Truly tomorrow, which is only slightly different. What is this but a confession that on Christmas, which is fast upon us, the Church celebrates the solemn and joyful mystery of the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ among us. All that we ask for in the O Antiphons comes about in the celebration of the Christmas Mass. Christ, our Wisdom incarnate, comes to teach us what we need to know of Him. Christ, the Adonai, comes to us, that is, our Redemption draws near, the One Who saves us by stretching out His arms on the cross and bringing the fruit of His suffering to us. Christ, the Root of Jesse, Who has become for us the tree of life, comes to deliver us. Christ, the Key of David, comes in apocalyptic authority, and opens the kingdom of heaven to us right here and now. Christ, the Dayspring, comes and enlightens the darkness of our hearts with His good gifts. Christ, the King, comes to bring salvation to us. And indeed, Christ, our Emmanuel, proves Himself to be God Who is there for us. He is with us. All of this is fulfilled in the Holy Mass, where we hear our Shepherd's voice, and are united with Him personally in the most venerable Eucharist.
There are Lutheran churches that confess these things, with the revival of the O Antiphons, and yet will not have the Sacrament on Christmas because it falls on a non-communion Sunday. The praying of the O Antiphons, like the praying of the Divine Office in general, assumes and can only be fully appreciated in light of the regular and frequent celebration of the Holy Mass. We implore Christ to come to us. And this is not a hopeless cry, but a cry of faith, for all the while we are also confessing that He will come to us. And then He does. Let us not make of the liturgy a lie, but a confession of the true vitality of the sacramental life of our church.
And so one thought that strikes me lately is in regard to the increased popularity in recent years of the O Antiphons, that is, the proper Magnificat antiphons for the seven days that lead up to the holy Vigil of Christmas. It is a fine custom to celebrate the Divine Office of Vespers, and to use these venerable antiphons; yet it is valuable to consider what the Divine Office, and in this case particularly the O Antiphons, might be assuming about our liturgical life. What is assumed in the Divine Office, including the O Antiphons, and indeed is an essential key to fully appreciating the Office, and the Antiphons, is the regular celebration of the Holy Eucharist.
In the final week before Christmas Eve, the Church focuses more intently on preparing for the coming celebration of the birth of the Theanthropos, the God-man, and does so, for example, by praying for His advent among us in the Magnificat antiphons, each one calling Him by a different name, and crying out for His presence. Veni, Come. Christ's coming in the world is always an intersecting of this world and the cosmic reality wherein Christ holds all of creation, and all of history, in His hand. Interestingly, we have come to view the final coming of Christ as a parousia, which connotes for many a glorious coming of Christ on the last day, but really it would be better to convert our thinking around, and see that in fact every coming of Christ is a parousia, a making Himself personally present in this world, which is a gracious and comforting presence for those buried by baptism into His death, and fearfully damning to those not ready for it. He comes to judge, but for the Christian covered by the blood of the Lamb that judgement is a gracious sentence. He came into the world about two millennia ago, assuming our human nature, and became man. He will also come again in glory at the close of this world. However, there is another coming of Christ. Namely, His coming, in the flesh, in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, in which the Christian is united with Him sacramentally. This also is Christ's Parousia among us. This, the celebration of the venerable Eucharist, is the fulfillment among us, in real time, of the prophecy that Christ is Emmanuel, God with us. Indeed, the seventh of the O Antiphons calls upon Christ as Emmanuel.
It is well worth meditating upon the O Antiphons in detail, but it is also worth stepping back, and gaining an appreciation for what we are confessing in them when viewed together. This comes out more clearly when they are read in the Latin. For there we see that the O Antiphons are designed in such a way so that the first letter (after the O) of each antiphon is part of an acrostic, read backwards, which spells Ero Cras, Tomorrow I shall come. Admittedly, for those who follow the English medieval custom of adding an eighth antiphon in honor of the Virgin Mary, the acrostic will spell Vero Cras, Truly tomorrow, which is only slightly different. What is this but a confession that on Christmas, which is fast upon us, the Church celebrates the solemn and joyful mystery of the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ among us. All that we ask for in the O Antiphons comes about in the celebration of the Christmas Mass. Christ, our Wisdom incarnate, comes to teach us what we need to know of Him. Christ, the Adonai, comes to us, that is, our Redemption draws near, the One Who saves us by stretching out His arms on the cross and bringing the fruit of His suffering to us. Christ, the Root of Jesse, Who has become for us the tree of life, comes to deliver us. Christ, the Key of David, comes in apocalyptic authority, and opens the kingdom of heaven to us right here and now. Christ, the Dayspring, comes and enlightens the darkness of our hearts with His good gifts. Christ, the King, comes to bring salvation to us. And indeed, Christ, our Emmanuel, proves Himself to be God Who is there for us. He is with us. All of this is fulfilled in the Holy Mass, where we hear our Shepherd's voice, and are united with Him personally in the most venerable Eucharist.
There are Lutheran churches that confess these things, with the revival of the O Antiphons, and yet will not have the Sacrament on Christmas because it falls on a non-communion Sunday. The praying of the O Antiphons, like the praying of the Divine Office in general, assumes and can only be fully appreciated in light of the regular and frequent celebration of the Holy Mass. We implore Christ to come to us. And this is not a hopeless cry, but a cry of faith, for all the while we are also confessing that He will come to us. And then He does. Let us not make of the liturgy a lie, but a confession of the true vitality of the sacramental life of our church.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Lulu coupon for Dec 21st
If you buy a book today at Lulu.com, you can get a second one at 50% off by using this code at checkout:
21DEC
Shortning Bread on three harmonicas
The other night I saw Lil Rev, Steve Cohen, and Jim Liban down the block at Linnemans. A great show, as one might imagine. Here is a little taste. (This particular video is from the show they did a few months ago, which was also a great show.)
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Lulu coupon for december 20th
If you make a purchase today and use this code at checkout:
20DEC
you will get 30% off hardcovers. Do it. You won't regret it.
20DEC
you will get 30% off hardcovers. Do it. You won't regret it.
Monday, December 19, 2011
santa cycle rampage
If you were out and about in the city on Saturday, you too may have seen the army of Santas on their bicycles. It's at the same time one of the many expressions of Milwaukee's bicyle culture and one of the many signs that you are in Milwaukee at Christmas time. Admittedly, the Santa Cycle Rampage can be found in other cities as well. But this one is surely the best, and I say that for two reasons. 1. The people involved are the Milwaukeeest people of all the Santa Cycle Rampages. And 2. the Santa riders are riding through Milwaukee, which, let's face it, is hands down the Milwaukeeest place of all. So there's just no comparison. Convinced yet?
Check this link for one writer's take on the event, along with some great pictures. And while you're at it, take note of the picture of the beer hall at my brewery.
And here is a video of the santa cycle ride from a couple of years ago:
Check this link for one writer's take on the event, along with some great pictures. And while you're at it, take note of the picture of the beer hall at my brewery.
And here is a video of the santa cycle ride from a couple of years ago:
God is born
A now famous video by an imam, in which he decries Christmas as the observance of God being born on December 25th, has been well attacked and picked apart in the Christian blog world. I'd like to respond to what one person said over at bureaucrat Paul McCain's blog. (McCain and I have similar policies about allowing each other to participate in our blogs; nevertheless, sometimes I see something there that is worthy of discussion here.) The comment first proclaimed that the Imam is wrong, and at that point I thought, okay, he's going to point out that Christmas does not imply that Christ was born on this very date. But no, his point, it turns out, was that what was so fundamentally wrong with the Imam's diatribe is the view that Christians believe that God was born. This is an apt occasion, therefore, to make the point that indeed, there is nothing wrong with saying that God was born. On this point the Imam got the Christian message right. It is right and Christian to say that God was born.
Now of course we must add that such phraseology can be misunderstood. In a similar way, I know that the repulsion to the practice of referring to the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God can be divided between those who are true believing Nestorians on the one hand and those who misunderstand the intent of the phrase on the other.
It is vitally important, from a christological perspective, to be able to say that the One Who was born of the Virgin, the One Who allowed Himself to be held, first in a womb, and then in the arms of humans, and ultimately, to be carried and lifted up by the cruel nails and harsh wood of the cross, and finally held again in the arms of His holy mother, this man Who has assumed our flesh, is also the One Who made the world, and holds the universe; He, the man Jesus, is Himself God, the Pantocrator, the Uncreated Angel of Great Counsel Who goes ahead of us and fights His own battles and announces His own Message of victory. For He is the Message, and He is our Victory. God became man, and dwelt among us. Indeed, He still dwells among us in the Holy Eucharist. The liturgy is Good News, but not merely in some informational way; it is the holy ground of God's personal advent among His beloved people. What if all Christians were to behave in church as reverently as Muslims are reputed to conduct themselves at prayer? The reality of the Christian mystery might sink in and be taken more seriously by those within and without.
I think this particular Imam (I have not figured out his name) gets it, at least to some degree, and one of the lessons to be drawn from the fact that an Imam recognizes one of our major points of doctrine is that seeing it or "getting it" does not guarantee faith, but can be a great place in which to begin to really talk, unlike the foggy, vacuous dialogue promoted by the Christian theologians whose jello-like doctrine gets less real the more they talk.
Now of course we must add that such phraseology can be misunderstood. In a similar way, I know that the repulsion to the practice of referring to the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God can be divided between those who are true believing Nestorians on the one hand and those who misunderstand the intent of the phrase on the other.
It is vitally important, from a christological perspective, to be able to say that the One Who was born of the Virgin, the One Who allowed Himself to be held, first in a womb, and then in the arms of humans, and ultimately, to be carried and lifted up by the cruel nails and harsh wood of the cross, and finally held again in the arms of His holy mother, this man Who has assumed our flesh, is also the One Who made the world, and holds the universe; He, the man Jesus, is Himself God, the Pantocrator, the Uncreated Angel of Great Counsel Who goes ahead of us and fights His own battles and announces His own Message of victory. For He is the Message, and He is our Victory. God became man, and dwelt among us. Indeed, He still dwells among us in the Holy Eucharist. The liturgy is Good News, but not merely in some informational way; it is the holy ground of God's personal advent among His beloved people. What if all Christians were to behave in church as reverently as Muslims are reputed to conduct themselves at prayer? The reality of the Christian mystery might sink in and be taken more seriously by those within and without.
I think this particular Imam (I have not figured out his name) gets it, at least to some degree, and one of the lessons to be drawn from the fact that an Imam recognizes one of our major points of doctrine is that seeing it or "getting it" does not guarantee faith, but can be a great place in which to begin to really talk, unlike the foggy, vacuous dialogue promoted by the Christian theologians whose jello-like doctrine gets less real the more they talk.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
when does Christmas begin and end?
Lulu, the company that is facilitating my self-publishing efforts, is doing a series of promotional coupons which employs the theme of the twelve days of Christmas. That is, a different coupon is being offered each day for twelve days. I am glad to take advantage of this, and promote these coupons at my blog, etc. But the problem is that these twelve days of coupons for the twelve days of Christmas began a few days ago, and will end on Christmas Day. This confusion is found not only at Lulu, but really all over our American culture. I recall one year seeing Jimmy Falon's late night show, where the same thing happened; he did a comedy bit in which a different ugly Christmas sweater was highlighted for each of the twelve days of Christmas, and sure enough, those twelve days were the days leading up to Christmas. As I say, this seems to be the common view in secular American culture.
It just goes to show that the world's view or take on matters, even when it intersects in superficial ways with the Church's perspective, is skewed; it is off the mark. The accent is wrong, just by a little, but enough to show that it is incapable of truly appreciating the spiritual significance of these observances.
So let us be clear. We are in the season of Advent. It is a fasting season, a penitential season, though at the same time a season in which we look towards and prepare for the Christmas festivities. The two seasons, Advent and Christmas, are interrelated, interdependent, and interlocking; and yet each is distinct.
Advent culminates in a special way with its final eight days. That is, the 17th through the 23rd of December are days in which we cry out for the coming of our Lord among us, and look forward to the celebration of His holy birth. We do so, eg., with a special set of antiphons for the Magnificat at Vespers called the O Antiphons. In a sense this week of prayerful anticipation of the coming solemnity is like the novena of days in which the Church anticipates the coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Then, the final day of Advent is the 24th, ie., the Vigil of the Nativity of Our Lord. That is traditionally one of the so-called fish days, ie., it is a day in which Christians traditionally abstain from the meat of all land animals and fowl, making final preparations for the festive Christmas celebration in prayerful penitence.
Then, at midnight, as though we cannot wait any longer for the festivities to officially begin, and to mark the traditional nocturnal timing of the holy event, the Church begins her season of Christmas with the Holy Mass, the first of three proper masses that day. Christmas continues with a full octave, and since the next season doesn't begin until the 6th of January, there are really twelve full days of the holy and festive season of Christmas, from the 25th of December through the Twelfth Night, which is on the 5th of January.
Many things could be said of those twelve days, and how some take on their own liturgical character, etc. And I do not know if I will be able to get to any of that here this year, due to the fact that so much of my energy during the week is taken up with my job. But I did want to clarify and remind the general readership that Christmas does not culminate on the 25th. It only begins on that day. Let us celebrate the twelve days of Christmas, with devotions and festivities in our families, and with liturgy and prayer in the church, and thus once again be a positive example for the culture around us.
It just goes to show that the world's view or take on matters, even when it intersects in superficial ways with the Church's perspective, is skewed; it is off the mark. The accent is wrong, just by a little, but enough to show that it is incapable of truly appreciating the spiritual significance of these observances.
So let us be clear. We are in the season of Advent. It is a fasting season, a penitential season, though at the same time a season in which we look towards and prepare for the Christmas festivities. The two seasons, Advent and Christmas, are interrelated, interdependent, and interlocking; and yet each is distinct.
Advent culminates in a special way with its final eight days. That is, the 17th through the 23rd of December are days in which we cry out for the coming of our Lord among us, and look forward to the celebration of His holy birth. We do so, eg., with a special set of antiphons for the Magnificat at Vespers called the O Antiphons. In a sense this week of prayerful anticipation of the coming solemnity is like the novena of days in which the Church anticipates the coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Then, the final day of Advent is the 24th, ie., the Vigil of the Nativity of Our Lord. That is traditionally one of the so-called fish days, ie., it is a day in which Christians traditionally abstain from the meat of all land animals and fowl, making final preparations for the festive Christmas celebration in prayerful penitence.
Then, at midnight, as though we cannot wait any longer for the festivities to officially begin, and to mark the traditional nocturnal timing of the holy event, the Church begins her season of Christmas with the Holy Mass, the first of three proper masses that day. Christmas continues with a full octave, and since the next season doesn't begin until the 6th of January, there are really twelve full days of the holy and festive season of Christmas, from the 25th of December through the Twelfth Night, which is on the 5th of January.
Many things could be said of those twelve days, and how some take on their own liturgical character, etc. And I do not know if I will be able to get to any of that here this year, due to the fact that so much of my energy during the week is taken up with my job. But I did want to clarify and remind the general readership that Christmas does not culminate on the 25th. It only begins on that day. Let us celebrate the twelve days of Christmas, with devotions and festivities in our families, and with liturgy and prayer in the church, and thus once again be a positive example for the culture around us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)