A Pastoral Provision (not promotion) of the 1962 Missal

Rev. Deogratias Ekisa, S.T.D

July 19, 2021

“The Holy Father has asked us to provide, not to promote the Extraordinary Form.”  That sentiment, uttered by a wise Archbishop Alfred Hughes many years ago, is what helped me understand the purpose of Pope Benedict XVI’s liberal expansion of the use of the 1962 Missal, in the 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (SP).  I would like to propose that the same sentiment could help us understand Pope Francis’ reversal of that license in his recent motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (TC).

What do you call this Mass?

To understand the motivations of both papal documents, we must use correct terminology.  While both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis speak of the 1962 Missal and its liturgy, colloquial use has come up with shortcuts to describe this reality.  The most common phrases used are, Latin Mass, Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), Tridentine Mass, and Extraordinary Form.  However, this less technical but convenient terminology can also be misleading.

Latin Mass:  While this phrase is partially correct since the 1962 Missal could only be celebrated in Latin, while the revised Missal is often celebrated in the vernacular, it is incorrect because even the newer form of the Mass promulgated after Vatican II can be celebrated in Latin.  I know that because I often celebrate it in Latin.  That is probably why some qualify the term and speak of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Traditional Latin Mass:  But again that term is also misleading because all forms of the Mass, right from the beginning are just as traditional, because they encompass Tradition.  In fact, as Pope Francis argues, the current Mass is just as traditional.  Writing to the bishops to explain the motu proprio he says:

It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”.[SC 3] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.

Tridentine Mass:  This phrase, like its parallel “Vatican II Mass”, has some truth since the 1570 Missal on which the 1962 Missal is based was the fruit of the Council of Trent, just like the 1970 Missal is the fruit of the Second Vatican Council.  But it is also incorrect since the 1962 Missal is not an exact replica of the 1570 Missal that arose from the Tridentine Council, but had some significant changes made to it, first by Pope Pius XII and then by John XXIII.  That is probably why traditionalist groups reject even the 1962 Missal.

Extraordinary Form: This phrase has papal authority behind it.  In Summorum Pontificum, after indicating that the current Missal of Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the Church’s liturgy, Pope Benedict rightly calls the 1962 Missal the “extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.”  Unfortunately, the technical meaning of the Latin term “extraordinarius” was lost in translation.  While in Latin it means “secondary” or “the exception”, in everyday English it is understood as meaning “special” or even “outstanding.”  (The original meaning of the term is reflected in its use in Roman Pontifical Universities where ordinary professors are senior to extraordinary professors, the latter being the US equivalent of “Associate Professors” and the former being the equivalent of “Full Professors.”)

And so, while these terms are helpful shortcuts, they carry with them the inherent danger of misrepresenting the Church’s mind on the liturgy.  For example the 1962 Missal does not have a monopoly on use of the Latin language, nor is it the exclusive reservoir of the Roman liturgical Tradition, and is extraordinary, not in the sense of being outstanding, but only in the sense of being an exception to the normative liturgy.  Therefore, in this essay, I will refer to the 1962 Missal or older usage rather than any of these terms. 

Inch to mile: Benedict’s well-intentioned experiment exploited

To understand what Pope Francis has done, we must first return to the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI in granting a greater license in using the 1962 Missal, expanding on what his predecessors had granted in a limited way.  Contrary to some commentators, and as his use of the term “extraordinary” indicates, Pope Benedict did not intend to promote the older form of the liturgy as an alternative to the reformed liturgy.  As he unequivocally indicated, “The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite” (SP Art. 1).  Instead he wanted to provide the older usage for those who sincerely needed it, to preserve the unity of the Church.  In his Letter to the bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum he indicated that the reason for his magnanimity was “to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.  . . . [to] generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.”

Pope Benedict himself had asked that after three years the bishops would send to the Holy See their experiences of the experiment.  Thirteen years later, perhaps when with more data a more mature evaluation could be made, Pope Francis formalized that request by surveying the college of bishops.  This is what he found.

The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[SP] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

My own anecdotal experiences are consistent with these more formal findings.  For example some of the communities attached to the older usage present themselves as normative rather than the exception, in doctrine, in liturgy and discipline.  Some of them vehemently rejected the bishops’ legitimate liturgical restrictions and certain other directives during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Also, there is a tendency among some seminarians and young priests attached to the older liturgy, to primarily celebrate the liturgy of the 1962 books rather than the normative one, sometimes even substituting the older breviary for the newer one in its entirety.  And when they must learn and celebrate the newer liturgy, this is often done through the lens of the older liturgy, rather than through the principles of the liturgy promulgated by the Second Vatican Council.  They see the newer liturgy not just as being imperfect, since all liturgies on this side of heaven are inherently imperfect.  They see it as also being defective and needing to be fixed by additions from the 1962 rubrics, even those that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II chose not to include in the liturgical reforms, in what might be called a “Trentification” of the normative liturgy.

A doctrinal crisis beyond and behind liturgical choices

But a far more serious problem that prompted the Holy Father’s intervention is doctrinal rather than liturgical.  While Pope Francis decries all liturgical abuses in all forms of the liturgy, there is something more fundamental in the abuses associated with the 1962 Missal.

. . . the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” (DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council,[LG 23] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.

While this rejection of conciliar and papal authority by no means applies to every adherent of the older usage, it is still widespread enough to raise alarm bells.

Even when not overtly articulated, this rejection is inherently contained in the very choice of the older form over the newer one.  Put simply, such a choice sets aside the authority in the Church, that it is the bishops of the Church in an ecumenical council that decide what should be normative in teaching or discipline.  An expanded use of an older form on par with the newer form (rather than as an exception serving a specific need as Pope Benedict intended) implicitly questions the wisdom or even the validity of the conciliar change.  And while individual members of the faithful may not explicitly articulate that rejection of the conciliar changes, it seems to come with the territory, being ipso facto contained in their choice.

Time for reset: provide, not promote

And so, that is why the Holy Father has imposed restrictions on the usage of the older liturgy, so that even the unintended confusion of the exception for the norm, the privilege for the right, may not be promoted.  Most of these restrictions affect the priests and not the faithful.  In line with the principle of providing and not promoting the older liturgy, the Holy Father has ensured that the older liturgy is provided for those who are attached to it and need it for their spiritual benefit.  What he has done is, as it were, removed it from the main menu, and put it on the specials menu.  Priests are ordained primarily to provide the normative liturgy for the faithful (main menu), and not their particular predilections (specials menu).  That is why it is now the bishop, whose place it is to regulate the liturgy in his diocese (not the individual priest), who will oversee the provision of this exception to the norm.

The bishop will grant permission to priests who want to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, in the same way that the bishop grants other liturgical permissions that respond to the spiritual needs of his flock.  The bishop will see to the spiritual welfare of individuals and groups attached to the 1962 Missal, providing priests and places for them to be served.  In addition, the readings in particular will now be proclaimed in the vernacular language, and not in Latin as previously done, so that the people can understand the Word of God being proclaimed to them.  And the bishops will make this provision on condition that those served “do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs,” just as Pope Benedict had hoped.

Despite the fact that the short notice of Pope Francis’ document has not allowed them ample time to study the document, the initial reactions of many bishops, excepting the usual suspects, have been quite positive.  They have indicated that, after studying the instructions with the help of experts, they will do exactly what the Holy Father has asked of them.  They will both see to the spiritual welfare of that small portion of the flock that is still attached to the 1962 Missal, as well regulate the celebration of Mass according to that Missal, as is their responsibility.

Would I celebrate with the 1962 Missal?

One of my students once suggested that I take the trouble to learn and celebrate the “Extraordinary Form” Mass. He noted that my command of Latin was superb, my liturgical demeanour reverent, and my penchant for observing rubrics obsessive (in a healthy manner), these being the minimum requirements for any priest who wishes to celebrate the 1962 liturgy.  “When hell freezes over” was perhaps the answer he expected.  But I gave him a different answer.

After simultaneously appreciating his kind words about my liturgical style and also suppressing my surprise at this blatant attempt at promoting rather than providing the older liturgy by recruiting me, I told him that I did not have any particular predilection towards the 1962 Missal, and was quite happy with the normative liturgy.  And since Pope Benedict had offered the concession of using the 1962 Missal for those who were attached to it, my celebrating it simply because I could, would be treating the this sacred mystery as if it was lagniappe or a hobby.

I told him, however, that as a priest, I am ordained to serve God’s people.  And so, I could foresee myself learning and celebrating the 1962 Mass in these three situations of service to God’s people.

1. If the bishop asked me to do so (after all I am an obedient son of the Church), for example, to serve a community in need of this Mass.
2. If I discerned a need for such a ministry, for example, in a nursing home with people whose only experience of the Mass is the older form and who would find the normative Mass impossible to pray; I would of course need the bishop’s permission to proceed with said initiative.
3. If the Holy Father made the 1962 Missal or suchlike Missal the normative liturgy of the Church.

In reaching these conclusions I am operating out of the same principle, that the Mass of the 1962 Missal should be provided when needed, not promoted as a parallel experience of the Mass.

What is the end game?  A unified normative liturgy

A point that is often overlooked and not spoken of enough is that all these provisions have as their end goal, a unified liturgy, the liturgy arising from the Second Vatican Council.  In summarizing how the bishops are to implement the motu proprio, Pope Francis said the following:

Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.”

Clearly, the Holy Father intends “to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite” “the unity of one, single Rite, in which is preserved the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition.”

Perhaps unintentionally, some commentators about these things give the impression that nothing significant happened at the Second Vatican Council or that if something happened it is about to be reversed and we can go back to the good old days of the pre-conciliar liturgy.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  And when theologians and clergy do this, they sell the faithful a pipe dream.  In the pithy words of Monsignor Eric Barr: "The TLM is not going to be a parallel rite with the ordinary form of the Mass.  There will still be times when it is celebrated, but it will never be the hinge upon which the Catholicity of the Church swings.”

The continuation of the usage of the 1962 Missal is a concession to a perceived pastoral need.  How long that need will exist will be seen down the road.  Because provision rather than promotion is the principle to be followed, the 1962 Missal probably will eventually go the way of the Mozarabic Rite that still continues to be used, but just in the Cathedral of Toledo in Spain.  It might go the way of the Gallican Rite or even some of the Rites of the religious communities that are preserved and only occasionally used by them.  Especially given the radical change in the understanding of liturgy arising from the teaching of the Council, it is a vain hope to think that the 1962 Missal will now or in the future become part of the main liturgical fare, on par with the normative liturgy of the Church.

The universality of the Catholic Church means that it will always have diversity, including diversity of liturgical expressions.  But this diversity is not the selfish kind witnessed at the Tower of Babel, but the Pentecost kind that is guided by the Holy Spirit who inspires the Holy Father and the college of bishops.  They are the ones who indicate what diversity is allowed and how it is allowed.  It is they who indicate what is to be merely provided and what is to be promoted as normative.

A good example of this principle is the Pastoral Provision in the USA that allowed former Anglican married priests to be ordained Catholics priests while remaining married.  As the name of the program indicates, this is a provision, not a promotion of the idea of married priests.  By allowing these married men to be ordained priests, nothing was changed about the discipline of priestly celibacy, which remained normative and intact.

Therefore, what we have in both Summorum Pontificum and Traditionis Custodes is a pastoral provision, not a liturgical promotion of the 1962 Missal.

Going beyond the literal meaning of "All Lives Matter."

 THE PERFORMATIVE MEANING OF SPEECH

Anyone who has been presented with the proverbial question of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" will immediately appreciate that speech communicates more than just a literal meaning.  For whether he answers "No, I have not stopped beating my wife," because in fact does not engage in such beastly acts, or he answers "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife" because he does not wish to engage in wife-beating, his answers, without the necessary qualifications, will communicate guilt.

The argument of those who respond to "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter" is often that those words have a literal meaning, i.e. all lives matter, including Black lives.  But like the person who asks the husband about wife beating in this manner, they ignore the meaning of that phrase beyond the literal.  In fact, the same "All Lives Matter" will offer similar, perhaps unintended offence, when used in the context of any life situation such a particular funeral, advocacy for the lives of babies, or even the parallel "Blue Lives Matter" advocacy for law enforcement.  And this offence does not come from the literal meaning of the words, but from the extra meanings that language has.

I offer an excerpt from my doctoral dissertation on this subject of the performative meaning of language, hoping to show that we must be concerned not only with the literal meaning of what we say, but also with the other meanings of what we say, meanings, which whether intended or unintended, often carry more weight in certain situations.

******************************

An excerpt from:

PONTIFICIUM ATHENAEUM S. ANSELMI DE URBE

FACULTAS SACRAE TEOLOGIAE

 Thesis ad Lauream n. 212

 DEOGRATIAS OPADA EKISA

THE SACRIFICIAL BANQUET AS THE SACRAMENTAL FORM OF THE EUCHARIST, WITH THE MASS OF PAUL VI AS A TYPICAL CASE

2.2.4.1. John Austin – How to do things with words

The thinking of John Langshaw Austin (1911-1960) was inspired by the desire to unmask what he called the descriptive fallacy of logical positivism.  According to positivism, the main purpose of sentences was to describe facts or the state of affairs and thus sentences were true or false based on their correspondence to reality or the lack of it, respectively.[1]  Austin saw another type of meaning in sentences, other than truth or falsity, the meaning of performance.  While formal logic might be helpful in providing certain truths, for Austin ordinary language is the guide to useful truths.[2]

 Language is a guide to useful truths because language is performative, as expressed in Austin’s theory of speech acts.[3]  The performative dimension of language comes from speech having three levels: "locutionary", "illocutionary" and "perlocutionary.” These are not separate acts, but three distinct levels of the same act of making an utterance.  Let us identify these levels in the simple utterance, “The Light is red.”  (1) The first act, the locutionary, is simply the ordinary act of saying something; in this case that the light in question is red.  At this level the speaker makes a meaningful utterance, which anybody familiar with the grammar and vocabulary of that language can understand.  In our example the utterance makes sense and transmits some information, namely, that the colour of the light is red.  As a locution, this statement can be judged true or false, depending on whether the light in question is indeed red in colour. (2) But in making this locutionary act, the speaker could also be doing something else, such as warning the listener.  Let us take the example of a father, seated in the passenger seat of a car, teaching his daughter how to drive.  If he makes the statement “The light is red,” when they are approaching a traffic light, he does more than just inform her about the colour of the light.  He is also performing the act of warning, the illocutionary act.  It is important also to stress that what the illocutionary act effects is not achieved separately from the locution, but is achieved in the very locution itself.  In other words, the father does not first utter the sentence “The light is red,” and then give the warning; but in the very uttering of the sentence he also issues the warning.   (3) Besides the locutionary and illocutionary acts, the father in making the utterance may also perform another act, namely, eliciting a response from the daughter, such as having her stop the car.  “Saying something will often, or even normally, produce certain consequential effects upon the feelings, thoughts, or actions of the audience, or of the speaker, or of other persons: and it may be done with the design, intention, or purpose of producing them. . . .”[4]  This is the perlocutionary act.

And so, the three distinct acts of the one utterance could be distinguished thus:

a)      The locutionary act is the act of saying something, and thus has meaning.

b)      The illocutionary act is the act accomplished in saying something and thus has a certain force e.g. warning, promising, affirming, ordering, and questioning.

c)      The perlocutionary act is the act accomplished by saying something, and thus achieving certain effects e.g. eliciting a reaction or response, persuading, inducing, convincing, and deceiving.

Since our work is dealing with the efficacy of rituals words (and actions), let us focus briefly on the illocutionary dimension of the speech act.

By virtue of the illocutionary force, the utterance goes beyond merely saying something meaningful and actually does something else such as “asking or answering a question, giving some information or an assurance or a warning, announcing a verdict or an intention, pronouncing sentence, making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism, making an identification or giving a description, and the numerous like.”[5]  In doing these things an utterance has the force of impacting its hearer beyond simply passing on its sense and meaning.  That is why the same utterance (with the same meaning) can have different illocutionary effects depending on the context.  And so our utterance “The light is red,” when referring to a reading light, may have the illocutionary effect of complaining about the inadequacy of the light for reading a book, instead of the warning effect when referring to the traffic light.[6]  Besides context, the aspect of convention also affects the illocutionary effect of the utterance; for example if green rather than red was the colour associated with warning, then our utterance would not have the same illocutionary effect of warning.  To use another example, the utterance “We find the defendant guilty,” has the illocutionary force of issuing a verdict, not necessarily from the meaning of those words, but from the conventionally agreed conditions, such as their being said in a court proceeding, by a jury, etc.

The perlocutionary act must also be distinguished, and yet not separated from the illocutionary act.  In our driving lesson example, the perlocutionary act elicits a response from the young lady, the response of stopping the car.  This act operates simultaneously as the locutionary act utters a meaningful sentence and as the illocutionary act issues a warning.  This was probably the intended outcome of the utterance.  But there could also be an unforeseen perlocutionary act, such as causing the driver to panic and lose control of the car.  Thus the relation between utterance and the perlocutionary effect is not necessarily cause-effect.  It is the convincing (or dissuading) power of the utterance that achieves it.[7]

---

[1] See especially: Bertrand Russell, The Principles of Mathematics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1903); and Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, Principia Mathematica (London: Cambridge University Press, 1910).  It should be noted that in his later life, as described in his posthumous work Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1953), Ludwig Wittgeinstein repudiated these views of logical positivism.

[2] Mervyn Duffy, How language, ritual and sacraments work: according to John Austin, Jürgen Habermas and Louis-Marie Chauvet (Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2005), p. 23.

[3] John L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955, eds. James O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), pp. 94-132; see also Idem, “Performative Utterances,” in Philosophical Papers, eds. James O. Urmson and Geoffrey J. Warnock, pp. 233-252, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 251.

[4] Austin, How to do Things with Words, p. 101.

[5] Ibid., pp. 98-99.

[6] Austin classifies these illocutionary functions into three groups: “securing uptake, taking effect, and inviting a response.”  The “securing of uptake” is the assurance that the utterance has been understood in its meaning and its force.  The “taking effect,” is the transformation of the context such that, for example, after baptising the ship Queen Elizabeth, it is no longer appropriate to call it Generalissimo Stalin.  The effect of “inviting a response” can be seen in a question requiring a response, a promise requiring its maintenance, an order its accomplishment.  See Austin, How to Do Things with Words, p. 118.

[7] Ibid., p. 107.

Homily Trinity B: The Trinity at the Centre of our faith and life

 Homily for Trinity Sunday Year B 2021

Deuteronomy 4:32-34,39-40, Romans 8:14-17 · Matthew 28:16-20

Introduction

Imagine someone asked you: “What is the central mystery of the Christian faith and life?  Perhaps you would point to the resurrection, that great event that save us; or for those who like Christmas very much, it would be the birth of Our Lord.  Others might look at the Eucharist, and others still the Blessed Mother, through whom the Saviour came into the world.

But these answers, while not wrong, would not be entirely correct.  For the Catechism 234 tells us that “The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life.”  This is because, the mystery of the Holy Trinity, “is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the ‘hierarchy of the truths of faith’”.  In fact, “The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men ‘and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin.’"  Today’s feast, even though it is not as glamourous as Christmas or Easter or even Pentecost, celebrates the most central mystery of our faith and life as Christians. 

But the mystery of the Trinity, that God is One, and yet three persons, is neither easy to understand nor easy to explain.  That is why theologians throughout history have tried to use various analogies to explain how there can be three persons in one God: St. Patrick used the three-leafed shamrock, St. Ignatius used the musical chord which has three notes, and modern theologians use the image of water, which can assume the three states of steam, ice and liquid.

But all these images fall short; they don't really leave us understanding the Trinity any better.  For God is a mystery whom the human mind can never fully grasp. That is why in some Eastern religions, before people pray in front of a statue representing God, they apologise for having to pray to him in that form, when in fact he is formless and he is everywhere.  They understand that the human mind is limited in its ability to grasp God completely.

Scripture and Theology and Christian Life

And so, we too have to humble ourselves before God and admit that our knowledge of him has limits.  And yet we don't give up on the Holy Trinity.  And so, I would like to offer three ways we can relate with the Holy Trinity: knowledge, prayer and action.

First, we must attempt to know our God as much as he has revealed himself to us, as much as we are able.  Perhaps the best way to understand the Trinity is to reflect on the Scriptures, on what he himself has told us.

Although the mystery of the Trinity was only fully revealed in the New Testament, scattered in the Old Testament are hints of this mystery.  Of course, the focus of the Old Testament is on monotheism, belief in One God, given the presence many nations at the time that believed in many gods.  And so, for example, in today’s first reading, Moses reminds the people of Israel to believe in this one God and Lord of theirs and no other.  And yet during creation, this one God who creates the world says, “let us make man in our own image,” speaking in the plural and so hinting at a God with more than one person.  And the name by which he is addressed, Elohim, is not in the singular, but in the plural, as other Hebrew plural words like anawim (God’s poor people), goyim (the Gentiles).  It is this God, whom Jesus comes to reveal as Father, and Son and Holy Spirit.

Perhaps the clearest indication of the Trinity are the words of Jesus as he commissions his disciples in today’s gospel telling them, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Notice that Jesus indicates the Christians are to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, clearly naming the three persons of the Trinity.  But he also doesn’t say, baptize them in the names (plural) of but in the name (singular) of because the three persons are One God.

Our Second Reading from Paul’s letter to the Romans also screams the Trinity.  Without even directly naming the three persons, Paul is simply assuming that the God he is preaching is a Triune God.  In that short paragraph he reminds us that when we pray, we pray to an “Abba Father,” a God who is Father.  He says we are able to do that only because we have received the Spirit of adoption, adoption as sons and daughters of God; thereby testifying to faith in God the Spirit.  And the only reason we are adopted sons and daughters of God is because of the Son, Jesus Christ, with whom we are joint heirs of the Kingdom; because God the Son has conquered death and brought about glory, he has shared that inheritance with his followers, who will now be gloried with him.  For St. Paul, therefore, there is no doubt that our God, is one God in three persons.

And so, perhaps instead of looking for helpful analogies of what the Trinity is, let us just listen to the words of God himself.  He is God the Father who creates and provides for us.  He is God the Son who gives his life for the world.  And he is God the Spirit that continues to inspire and guide us today.

Second, after knowing that our God is a Trinity then we pray to him as such.  In the Creed we are about to recite, in the sign of the Cross with which we begin every prayer, in the formula of with which our children are baptized and our sins forgiven in confession, and in the formula by which we are blessed by the deacon or priest, we acknowledge the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Even the basic prayer, the Our Father, reminds us of the Trinity; for it in we address God the Father, using the words taught us by the Son, inspired to do so by the Spirit.

Thirdly, after knowing and praying to this Trinity, we must put this knowledge and prayer into action.  Let the Trinity be a model of our own Christian lives.  Pope Benedict XVI suggests that we look at the Trinity as a family in love.  Such a family is a community of love where differences, such as being a father or mother, a parent or child, male or female, contribute to forming a communion, a life of love.  Similarly, the distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ways of loving within the Trinity.  In fact, only the Christian God is a God who does not just love but is love itself.  Our God is love.  His very being is an eternal love shared by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  In the Trinity we see a union, a working together of three persons for the same end of loving us.  At one moment the Father takes centre stage, at another, the Son, at another the Spirit; but they always work together and nobody hogs the credit.

And so, this shared love of the Trinity should inspire our own lives.  We should see the human community as one, and yet as diverse in the same way the Trinity is One and yet threefold.  Like the Trinity, let us live out the motto of this country e pluribus unum (out of many one), building a diverse but united community.

Yesterday morning I attended the priestly and diaconate ordinations in the Diocese of Houma-Thibodaux.  In his homily Bishop Fabre decried the contemporary temptation and tendency to individualism, which expresses itself in many ways.  One of these is the mistaken belief that “I am able to accomplish many things solely on my own efforts, because I am totally self-sufficient.  I don’t need anybody and other people’s involvement is more of a hindrance rather than a blessing.”  The bishop warned the newly ordained to avoid this temptation.  We would also do well do heed the bishop’s warning and instead turn to the love and union of the Trinity, which works as one, even if they are distinct individuals.  There should be no lone rangers among Christians.  On our journey to heaven, we need the help of others, who are often diverse from us.  But we act as one, just as the Son and the Father are one, in unity with the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

And so, let our celebration of the Most Holy Trinity inspire us not just to live in love with each other so as to get along here on earth, but let it be a preparation for life on the other side.  There, we shall live in love and union, not only with each other, but especially with the Father and the Son, in fellowship with the Holy Spirit.  That should be our hope and inspiration; let the love of the Trinity draw us into itself, so that one day we shall share that love for eternity.

Homily for Pentecost B: The Holy Spirit: the score behind the symphony of holiness

 Homily for Pentecost Year B 2021

Acts 2:1-11; 1 Corinthians 12:3-7,12-13; John 20:19-23

Introduction

As we celebrate the feast of Pentecost, I would like to borrow a line that Jesus used a lot and ask: “To what shall we compare the coming of the Holy Spirit?”

Scripture and Theology

But before I answer that question, I would us to remember that Pentecost was not the first time nor the last time, that the Spirit came into the world.

·        At the very beginning, in the book of Genesis, we are told that God created man by breathing his Spirit into him.

·        And then whenever God appeared to the people of Israel, he usually did so in a cloud of the Spirit.

·        Later, as the Prophets announced the coming of the Messiah, they also spoke about the coming of his Spirit.

·        In the New Testament, when the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would bear a child, he told her, “The holy Spirit will come upon you.”

·        And as Jesus begins his ministry in Luke Chapter 4, he declares that the Spirit of the Lord is upon him, and is the inspiration of all his work.

And so, when on Pentecost the Spirit came upon the disciples, he was continuing a long tradition.  But there was also something special: at Pentecost the Spirit comes to complete saving work of God in Jesus Christ and has continued since.

And so, to what shall we compare the work of the Holy Spirit?  I will give you three images, not because I doubt your capacity to understand, but because I don't trust my capacity to explain effectively.  The Holy Spirit could be compared to an executor of a will, an advocate in a court of law and a composer of music.

Christian Life

First, the Holy Spirit is like an executor of a last will and testament.  When you make a will and testament, you appoint an executor to ensure that your instructions will be faithfully and completely followed.  Jesus left a rather important will, which we heard in last Sunday’s gospel when he told his disciples: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.”

Clearly the disciples could not do this job by themselves without help.  A few weeks earlier we had seen them running away from the Lord when he was arrested.  They needed help.  This help came on Pentecost day, when after receiving the Spirit, we see them carrying out the Master’s instructions.  They are now fearless and effective preachers of the Word, because the Holy Spirit gives them clear directions and the courage, to proclaim the gospel to the whole world.

Even today as we carry out our various duties in the Church, we do so effectively only with the help of the Holy Spirit.

·        For example, as a preacher of the Word, I know that it is not my words alone, but rather the Holy Spirit working through my poor words, that enables you to hear God’s word.

·        Also, when I celebrate the sacraments, it is the Holy Spirit who brings about God’s grace.  At Mass, for example, listen carefully during the Eucharist prayer, and you will hear the priest asking the Father to send down his Spirit to change our humble gifts of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.  Only with the Holy Spirit, as executor, can the sacraments of the Church produce grace for us.

The Spirit continues to be the power behind everything we do as a Church.

To what shall else we compare the Holy Spirit?  Jesus himself suggests another image when in the gospel he says: “When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.” The Holy Spirit is like an advocate, a lawyer, an attorney, who speaks up for a client in a court of law.

Although lawyers are often the butt of many jokes, we need lawyers, because they know the law well, to help us navigate what is often a legal minefield.  As the cliché goes, “A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client."

We could say the same for the Church and for us Christians.  If we act without the Holy Spirit as our advocate, we act foolishly.  We need the Holy Spirit as advocate to help us remain on the right side of God’s commandments.  We need the Holy Spirit as advocate to help us face persecution.  We need the Holy Spirit as advocate to help us fight off temptations.  How else would you explain those occasions when, despite every inclination in you, you succeed in avoiding sin!  How else could you explain those situations when despite your unworthy self, you do good!  On the last day, we shall be found not guilty, we shall be found innocent only because the Holy Spirit as our Advocate intervened on our behalf.

To what else shall we compare the Holy Spirit?  The third and final image of the Holy Spirit is that of a symphony orchestra.  The orchestra is made up of a hundred different musicians and dozens of instruments.  But each of them is not the real source of the music.  Even the conductor, the visible focus of everyone's attention is not the real source of the music.  The composer is the real source of music; in front of every musician is a music stand holding a few pages marked with black lines and dots - the score, the music.  No one in the audience sees the score, but that score is what brings all those minds together, coordinates everyone's efforts, and produces a beautiful, inspiring performance.

The Church too is like an orchestra, with the Pope as the conductor and the rest of us being musicians, who contribute our own unique talents to the symphony of holiness that resounds throughout the world and history.  But behind our work is the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul writes: “There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.” 

And so, the Holy Spirit is the living musical score, the one who tells us what notes to play, when to play them, how fast to play them, how loud to play them, how soft to play them.  He is the silent force behind the holiness of every saint, behind the growth of every Christian, and behind the unity of the Church.  That is why after the consecration, we pray to God, that "we who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ."

But what kind of unity does the Spirit bring?  It is a unity in diversity and not the unity of a melting pot.  Unlike at Babel where diversity of voices created confusion, at Pentecost the Spirit used the diverse voices to hear the one message of God.  Catholic unity therefore does not mean we lose our individual gifts and talents, nationality and ethnicity, colours and races, femininity and masculinity, but that we use our individual uniqueness for the good of all.

Conclusion

And so, this Pentecost Sunday is as good a time as any other to remind us of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.  The Holy Spirit acts as executor of Jesus' will, as advocate for us and as the musical score providing us with the road-map of our lives.  And he acts in every aspect of our lives, not just in times of excitement, but even quietly as we go about our daily duties.

Let us therefore make the words of today’s Psalm our own: “Lord send out your spirit and renew the face of the earth.”  Like he did at Pentecost, may the Holy Spirit allow us to hear God’s word in our own individuality and yet keep us united as one until the Last Day, when we shall be one in heaven.

Homily Ascension B: Equipped for the ministry of witnessing to Jesus

 Homily for Ascension Year B 2021

Acts 1:1-11; Ephesians 1:17-23; Mark 16:15-20

Introduction

I would like to compare today’s feast of the Ascension, to the proverbial middle child.  The middle child, sandwiched between the over-achieving first born and the pampered baby of the family, often feels neglected and can’t find his niche.

For, coming as it does between Easter and Pentecost, sometimes we forget about Ascension.  While everybody knows that at Easter, we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, when he conquered death once and for all and at Pentecost, we celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit to empower and inaugurate the Church, one might ask, what is left to celebrate at the Ascension?

Scripture and Theology

If you are asking that question, you are in good company; for the Apostles were just as clueless.  On Ascension Day, when the Lord gathered them together, they knew that something big was about to happen; but they were not sure what. They thought, perhaps he was finally going to re-establish the Kingdom, the Kingdom that the Jewish people had been waiting for, for hundreds of years.  They thought that perhaps this was the big payday for which they had been working and waiting, to take up positions in his Kingdom.  That is why they asked: “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

To their great surprise, Jesus instead said: "You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”  In other words, he was saying, “Look guys, I have done my part in establishing the Kingdom – I am going back to the Father. You now have to carry on the job that I started and bring the Kingdom to completion.”

·        And so, we could think of the Ascension as being like the day when a successful CEO takes a step back from actively running the company and hands the reins to his successor.

·        We could also think of the Ascension as being like when the runner in the relay race, who has run a good race, now hands the baton on to the last runner and says “off to the finish line; win this one for us.”

Jesus is that successful CEO, Jesus is that star athlete on the relay team who pass on the task.  And we the Church are the new CEO, we are the last athlete, and we have been given the task of completing the mission.  The feast of the Ascension is therefore the line that marks the ushering in of the age of the Church, when the disciples take over God's mission of establishing the Kingdom.

But were the disciples qualified to carry on this mission of establishing the Kingdom of God?  They were good fishermen; but what did they know about running a worldwide religious organization?  Some were tax-collectors and that expertise might help with the collection; but what did they know about preaching God's word?  Thankfully, Jesus did not just throw them into the water and tell them to swim or sink.  He had empowered them for the task in two ways.

First Jesus had taught them, by his word and by his example.  For three years as they lived with Jesus, they heard him teach, they saw his miracles and his example of prayer and compassion, and most importantly, they saw his suffering, death and resurrection, the cause of our salvation.  And these are the things they were to preach to the nations; these are the things of which they were to be witnesses. Like the retiring CEO who has been grooming his successor for several years by teaching him things, Jesus had indeed groomed the disciples.

Secondly, and unlike the CEO, Jesus gives spiritual muscle to the apostles.  “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you,” he tells them.  In other words, in carrying on the mission of the now departing Jesus, they are not going to rely just on their own power and abilities; remember, they are only weak human beings.  Instead, they will be empowered by the life-giving Spirit of God, for which they have to wait in Jerusalem, which we celebrate on Pentecost. 

·        And so, if Pentecost is the birthday of the Church, when the Holy Spirit comes down upon the apostles, Ascension is the conceiving of the Church, when Jesus gives the great commission: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

·        If Pentecost is like the wedding day when the bride and groom seal their love with the grace of the sacrament, Ascension is like the engagement when the couple make the firm commitment to get married.

And so, after all, Ascension, like the middle child, has its niche.  Ascension reminds us Christians of the great commission given to us by Jesus.

Christian Life

The Apostles did indeed carry out the great commission.  They preached the Good News, not only in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, but indeed to the ends of the earth.  They in turn passed on this baton of faith to their successors who continued the work until the Good News reached us who believe today.

We today, are responsible for restoring the Kingdom of God.  Each of us has been given a role to play in this great commission.  And by we, I don’t mean just Pope Francis, the bishops, priests and deacons; I mean all the Christian faithful, all the baptized.  In fact, last week Pope Francis instituted a lay ministry of catechist.  This ministry, which in a way goes back to the position of teacher described in the Scriptures, shows have even the laity have an important role in witnessing to the gospel.  In fact, in many mission countries like Uganda, the catechists assist the priest in running the 20 or so missions that each parish has.

What St. Paul in today’s second reading told the Christian community of the Ephesians, he tells our Christian community gathered here.  “. . . grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.”  In other words, like the disciples received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to enable them carry out their mission, Christians have also received the grace of the Holy Spirit, particularly from the sacraments:

·        At Baptism, we are cleansed of sin and made worthy for ministry.

·        At Confirmation, we are strengthened by the Holy Spirit for witness.

·        At Eucharist, we receive the Word and Sacrament, food for the journey.

·        At Matrimony and Ordination, we each receive the graces we need to serve God and others, as married people or as ordained ministers.

·        And when our witness is weakened by illness or sin, we are healed and strengthened by the sacraments of Anointing of the Sick and Penance.

We have no excuse!  We have the power to do the work Jesus left us.

That is why St. Paul in the same reading goes on to say: “And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers . . ..”  In other words, there is something for each of us to do.  And Paul continues to explain that these various callings are given “to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature to manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ.”  These are powerful words that should assure us that we have been equipped for the work of ministry, for the building up the Body of Christ, so that the Kingdom of God is established forever.

Conclusion

I like to summarize the three ways we do this, the three ways we witness to Jesus like the apostles, in three W’s - Word, Worship and Works, that is, teaching the word, celebrating worship and performing good works.

Like the apostles, let us be "witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Let us be witnesses to him everywhere, at Walmart, Walgreens and Winn-Dixie. Let us be witnesses to him always. 

Homilia Pascua 6B: Dios es amor, y quien permanece en el amor permanece en Dios y Dios en él.

Homilía de Pascua - VI Domingo Año B 2021

 Acts 10:25-26,34-35,44-48; 1 John 4:7-10 · John 15:9-17

Introducción

El amor es una de las palabras más utilizadas. Pero, ¿qué significa el amor? La misma palabra se usa para referirme a mis sentimientos hacia los gatitos, así como a mis sentimientos hacia cosas más importantes como mi madre. ¿Los ambos pueden ser realmente lo mismo? Y mientras espera a ver al médico, las revistas de la sala le darán un millón de significados diferentes del amor.

Por fortuna, tanto en la segunda lectura como en el evangelio San Juan dice algo sobre el amor real, enseñándonos tres cosas sobre el amor.

1.    Que Dios es amor.

2.    Que Dios nos ha amado primero.

3.    Que debemos responder al amor de Dios con amor.

Escritura y teología

Cuando Juan dice: "El que no ama, no conoce a Dios, porque Dios es amor," está haciendo una afirmación muy singular. Juan no solo dice que Dios nos ama, sino que Dios es amor. Piénsenlo. El mismo ser de Dios es el amor.

Cuando el Papa Benedicto XVI (dieciséis) fue elegido Papa en 2005 (en el año dos mil cinco), algunos en la Iglesia estaban preocupados. Porque su trabajo anterior en el Vaticano era corregir y sancionar a los teólogos y sacerdotes. Y así, algunos pensaron que como Papa iba a ser muy estricto y severo. ¿Pero qué hizo él? Su primera encíclica o documento importante se tituló Deus Caritas Est, que en latín significa "Dios es amor". El Papa inició correctamente su ministerio con este mensaje, porque este mensaje es el núcleo de nuestra fe.

Por ejemplo, volvamos a la Trinidad, que está en el centro de nuestra fe. La Trinidad misma es amor, con Dios Padre como el que ama, el Hijo como el Amado y el Espíritu Santo como el amor compartido. Las tres personas de la Trinidad comparten un amor eterno e infinito al que nos invitan. Y entonces, esto significa que, a diferencia de nosotros, Dios nunca puede desenamorarse, incluso cuando lo ofendemos terriblemente. Además, la esencia de lo que significa ser cristiano no es aprender algunas doctrinas o verdades morales, sino de enamorarse de una persona, Dios; porque Dios es el amor en sí mismo.

Pasando al segundo mensaje, si Dios es amor, entonces se sigue que nos ama. Pero eso no es todo. San Juan dice algo más diciendo: "no en que nosotros hayamos amado a Dios, sino en que él nos amó primero y nos envió a su Hijo, como víctima de expiación por nuestros pecados." Juan quiere que sepamos que es Dios quien comienza esta relación con nosotros, al crearnos y también al redimirnos. En algunas religiones orientales e incluso en algunos programas espirituales, la religión se trata de impresionar a Dios, hacer que nos ame, incluso sobornarlo con nuestras obras. En la religión cristiana de la Biblia, es Dios quien nos busca primero. Incluso en el evangelio de hoy, Jesús dice claramente: "No son ustedes los que me han elegido, soy yo quien los ha elegido".

En otras palabras, el amor de Dios no es algo que nos ganemos o merezcamos, sino algo que Él nos da gratuitamente. Con demasiada frecuencia olvidamos esta verdad, tal vez porque usamos nuestro amor humano como la norma del amor de Dios. Con amor humano, a veces debemos tomar la iniciativa para acercarnos a nuestro amado. Pero no, en el caso de Dios, porque él se ha acercado a nosotros primero; él es el primer amante, no nosotros. Y nos amó más cuando envió a su Hijo, Jesús, quien dice: "Nadie tiene amor más grande a sus amigos que el que da la vida por ellos". El Hijo nos amó de esta manera.

Y eso nos lleva al tercer punto de Juan. Si Dios es amor y si Dios nos ha amado primero, entonces la única respuesta lógica es que debemos amarlo a él. Y lo amamos también, no porque necesite nuestro amor, sino porque eso es lo que hace un corazón agradecido cuando Dios le ama.

Eso es lo que Jesús nos manda hacer en el evangelio de hoy. Nos dice: “Como el Padre me ama, así los amo yo. Permanezcan en mi amor. Si cumplen mis mandamientos, permanecen en mi amor; lo mismo que yo cumplo los mandamientos de mi Padre y permanezco en su amor". Jesús nos muestra el camino de amor. Así como respondió al amor del Padre amándolo, amándonos y cumpliendo sus mandamientos, nosotros también deberíamos hacerlo. Debemos volver a amar a Dios cumpliendo sus mandamientos.

Muchas veces, cuando viajo por el país, me detengo como invitado en casas de mis amigos. Seguramente la expectativa es que responde a su amable hospitalidad comportándome bien.  Por ejemplo, debo llegar a una hora razonable, debo limpiar después de mí mismo, debo llevar un pequeño regalo, debo ser un huésped agradable en general. Así es como también nosotros debemos responder al amor de Dios, cumpliendo ciertas expectativas. Por eso, Jesús dice: "Esto es lo que les mando: que se amen los unos a los otros".  Haciendo esto es la respuesta natural al Dios que nos ha amado primero.

Vida cristiana

Nuestro mundo de hoy todavía necesita los tres mensajes sobre el amor.

Primero, vivimos en un mundo donde, a menudo se asocia a Dios con la venganza, el odio y la violencia. Por lo tanto, debemos recordarnos a nosotros mismos y enseñar a los demás que nuestro Dios es amor. Eso significa que nuestra relación con él debe basarse en el conocimiento de que él es amor y no es un Padre enojado que quiere atraparnos. Como un buen padre, incluso cuando nos castiga, es por amor. Saber que Dios es amor ayudará a amarlo en libertad, no con miedo. Para todo lo que hacemos, lo haremos porque estamos enamorados de un amante, Dios.

Una vez escuché una historia sobre una pareja que durante años fue a la ópera. Sin embargo, varios años después de casados, se le escapó casualmente de la boca al marido que no le gustaba la ópera en absoluto. Cuando la esposa le preguntó: "¿Por qué entonces fuiste conmigo todos estos años?" Él dijo: "Me encantó la ópera, porque amas la ópera y yo te amo". Fue entonces cuando la esposa también dijo: “Yo también fui solo a la ópera, porque pensé que te encantaba y como yo te amaba, tenía que amarla”. Nosotros también debemos amar a Dios, porque él es amor, porque él es nuestro amante.

En segundo lugar, saber que es Dios quien nos ha amado primero, nos ayudará a vivir nuestra vida en agradecimiento al amor, no en un intento de ganarnos su amor; porque él ya es amor y nos ama no importa mucho lo que hagamos. Vivimos en un país que atesora la autosuficiencia y la iniciativa personal. Pero cuando se trata de Dios, debemos dejar de lado estas normas culturales y recordar que Dios toma la iniciativa, no nosotros. No hay nada que podamos hacer para ganarnos su amor; más bien, todo lo que hacemos es por su gracia y en respuesta a su amor.

Y eso nos lleva al tercer punto, que es cómo debemos amar. Debemos amar como Dios nos amó primero en Jesucristo. Debe quedar claro que el tipo de amor que Jesús nos pide no es el amor cariñoso, efímero de los adolescentes, sino más bien el amor que conlleva compromiso, como el de los esposos que llevan 40 años juntos, 50 años, 60 años, en enfermedad y en salud, a través de alegrías y tristezas. Es el mismo tipo de amor de las madres, que recordamos hoy, en el Día de la Madre. Las madres, incluso en el reino animal, harán todo y cualquier cosa por el bien de sus hijos. Porque amar no es solo una emoción, sino un acto de la voluntad, querer el bien de otra persona.

Conclusión

¡Que amemos como Jesús nos amó, amándonos incluso a nosotros que éramos sus enemigos, pecadores, exiliados, pobres, inútiles, que no éramos nada! ¿Y por qué amamos así? Porque como nos dice Juan: “Dios es amor, y el que permanece en el amor permanece en Dios, y Dios permanece en él” (1 Jn 4,16).