I don't suppose it's an unwarranted intrusion, any more than poinsettias are during Christmas, or any other extraneous decoration. Things like decorations, are not intrinsic to the liturgy, and are not really referenced in liturgical books.
Perhaps there is some violation of liturgical norms in some parishes where a kind of para‐liturgical Mass service is conducted for the lighting of the advent candle. I have observed where the families are invited to come up to light the candle while some verse of Scripture is read etc. These sorts of things might be considered an intrusion. But if the advent wreath is simply there, and the candles lit before Mass, there seems to be little harm in it. As for Lutheran roots, most historical researchers would probably confirm this. Catholic parishes have adapted the advent wreath by the use of purple, rather than red candles. You are certainly free to like or dislike the tradition of the advent wreath. Most Catholics I speak with find it meaningful. But some caution is in order regarding your rejection of something simply because it is either modern, or comes from outside Catholic sources. In the first place, your concern is somewhat at odds with the Catholic instinct, which down to the centuries has often taken up things from the secular world, or other religious traditions, even non‐Christian ones. It is part of the genius of Catholicism to take up whatever is good, true or beautiful in the cultures where she interacts, and give them a distinctively Catholic meaning and flavor. I would also caution you based on the words of Jesus, who counsels a kind of prudential wisdom about things like these when he says: Every scribe, trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old. (Matt 13:52) Therefore, categorically excluding something because it is modern, or outside explicit Catholic origins is not the instinct either of the Church or the Scriptures. Since the settlement of the colonies, Americans were familiar with setting aside days of thanksgiving, prayer, and fasting in response to significant events. In 1789, President George Washington issued a proclamation designating November 26 of that year as a national day of thanksgiving to recognize the role of providence in creating the new United States and the new federal Constitution. Later, President Abraham Lincoln took steps towards designating it a permanent federal holiday.
Americans traditionally recognize the "first" Thanksgiving as having taken place at Plymouth colony in the autumn of 1621. The Separatist Puritan settlers of Plymouth, known as Pilgrims, held a feast after their first harvest as a way of thanking God for their blessings. The 1621 thanksgiving celebration, however, did not become an annual event; rather, residents of Plymouth and the other colonies held days of thanksgiving and fasting over the years, at different times of year for a variety of reasons. President George Washington issued a proclamation on October 3, 1789, designating Thursday, November 26 as a national day of thanks. In his proclamation, Washington declared that the necessity for such a day sprung from the Almighty’s care of Americans prior to the Revolution, assistance to them in achieving independence, and help in establishing the constitutional government. Not ignoring the authority of state governments, Washington distributed his proclamation to the governors, requesting that they announce and observe the day within their states. Newspapers throughout the country subsequently published the proclamation and public celebrations were held. Washington himself marked the day by attending services at St. Paul's Chapel in New York City, and by donating beer and food to imprisoned debtors in the city. The 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation, however, did not establish a permanent federal holiday. Washington issued another proclamation in February 1795 to recognize the defeat of a taxation rebellion in Pennsylvania. Later presidents, including John Adams and James Madison, declared days of thanksgiving. But it was not until the Civil War of the 1860s that President Lincoln initiated a regular observance of Thanksgiving in the United States. SOURCE: https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/thanksgiving/ The purpose of a genealogy for ancient Jews was more complex and rich than to simply demonstrate physical descent. The modern science of genetics, chromosomes and the genetic code were unknown in the ancient world.
But even among us moderns, relationships are set up both by blood, and by marriage. That is to say, two people can be related either by direct physical descent, or “legally” through the marriage of themselves or others in their family. And thus, while Joseph and Jesus shared no physical genes, Joseph's family and Jesus are one through Joseph's marriage to Mary. So, Joseph’s family tree “matters” to us and to those in ancient Israel because, through Joseph and his marriage to Mary, Jesus relates to many others in Israel. In ancient Israel, genealogies existed to show that one was in fact a member of the nation of Israel. They located them in a particular tribe, and also to show their relationships with others. These are Matthew’s main purposes; namely, that Jesus belongs to the family of Israel both as a son of Mary, and through his relationship to Joseph, the husband of the Virgin Mary. Matthew also has other complex purposes in mind in the names he highlights and the way he groups them in patterns of 14, all laid out according to different periods of salvation history. There are also other numerological details too complex to lay out here. So, as you can see, there is more than a question of physical descent involved in the recitation of ancient genealogies. Human beings relate in more than physical ways, but also through a complex network of relationships we call families, tribes, and nations. There are many danger signs in the practices you describe. We ought to be cautious about various spiritual practices or exercises that have many different moving parts, or complex requirements. We ought to be even more suspicious of unqualified and overly certain promises of success.
At the heart of indulgence practices is a very proper notion that prayer has salutary effects. However, prayer should not be reduced to superstitious practices. We cannot force God’s hand; neither should prayer be likened to magic which seeks to manipulate reality. Every pious practice and prayer is always submitted to God's will; and through these things we commend ourselves to God's good graces, knowing that he will answer in ways that are ultimately best for all involved. No, you ought to first go to confession. The Catechism, in conformity with ancient teaching about the necessity of attending Mass says, “Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit grave sin.” (#2181). Hence you ought to go to confession first. There are some reasons that one might miss Mass that are legitimate such as serious illness, the care of the sick, or some lack of capacity due to weather or distance. So also struggle with work schedules. But in this matter they should consult with their pastor or confessor and also seek solutions.
The instructions in the Missal are silent regarding the posture of the faithful during the Communion Rite. Though after the Rite they may sit or kneel during the silence (# 43). A Bishop does have some authority to establish norms that do not violate universal norms. Other things being equal, it would seem the faithful should give due consideration and strive to follow these norms.
However, the norm you have articulated does present a few practical issues. Most notably, it would seem that the elderly, and others with issues of physical stamina, might find it difficult to stand for so long. Also, it does make prayer difficult at a time that is often very precious to people for a quiet moment with the Lord. Given the rather hurried nature of most American liturgies, it seems unlikely that significant time will be reserved after all are seated for quiet prayer. Given that the local bishop does have the authority to request certain norms to be observed, I might encourage you to strive to listen to what he's teaching. Perhaps there is an issue that the local church is trying to address. While prayer certainly pleases the Lord, obedience pleases him even more. Scripture says, Sacrifice or offering you wished not, but ears open to obedience you gave me” (Ps 40:4) In terms of answering your question in an absolutely legal sense, while not a canonist, I suspect that this norm should be interpreted in the same way that the norm for receiving communion standing in this country is interpreted. While the norm requests, for the sake of unity, the faithful receive Communion standing, an exception is to be made for those who strongly prefer to receive kneeling. (GIRM #160) So it seems allowance needs to be made for the faithful who strongly prefer kneeling in silent prayer. As in all things, balance is required in understanding the nature of Holy Mass. Mass is essentially the communal act of Christ with all his people, it is not essentially a private devotion. However, times of silent prayer and reflection are often mentioned in the general norms. But frankly, with the rather hurried masses of modern times, periods of silent reflection are often nonexistent. In this sense, your concerns are understandable. I surely encourage you to stay in communion with your bishop, and to continue to raise your concerns. So called “gluten free hosts” are not utterly free of all gluten. There are still some trace amounts. The US Bishops Conference allows the use of very low gluten hosts and urges additional caution by listing three reputable suppliers of them on the USCCB website.
As for the Blessed Sacrament making someone sick, it is not the Sacrament that does so, but the “accidents.” While your acknowledgement of the True Presence is laudable, it is important to remember that Catholic teaching states that though the bread is transubstantiated, the “accidents” remain. The "accidents" are the physical attributes of the bread and wine ‐ that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured. These remain, though the substance of bread and wine change to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Hence it does not follow that one could not be affected by gluten in a consecrated Host, or by alcohol in the consecrated Blood, for these attributes remain to our senses. The particular verse you reference reads as follows: And so I [Jesus] say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another, commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)
The phrase, "unless the marriage is unlawful" is from the Catholic New American Bible, and is a rendering of the Greek (me epi porneia) which most literally means, "except for illicit sexual union". The Greek word in question is porneia. This word refers generally to any illicit sexual union. Depending on the context, it most often means premarital sex, but can also refer to incest, and more rarely to adultery and/or homosexual acts. I say "more rarely" because adultery and homosexual acts have their own proper Greek words and descriptions that are normally used (e.g. Moichao (adultery) and paraphysin etc., for homosexual acts). Some, especially from the Protestant tradition, think porneia, as used here, means “adultery.” Hence, they hold that divorce and remarriage is allowed if one (or both) of the spouses committed adultery. But this seems unlikely, since, if the Lord meant that, he could have used the more specific word for adultery (moichao) which he uses later in the very same sentence! It also seems a strange logic that one can avoid a second marriage being considered adulterous if the first marriage is rendered adulterous by one or both parties. Catholic teaching and understanding regarding the word porneia holds it to mean in the context of this verse, “incestuous relationships.” This makes historical sense. The Jewish world had very clear understandings about permissible marital unions, forbidding marriage where the bloodlines ran too close, e.g. siblings, first cousins etc. But as the Gospel went forth into the Greek and pagan world, there were differing and unacceptable notions about who could marry who. Because of these many strange marital practices, the so‐called Matthean exception seeks to clarify the Lord’s teaching. Thus, the phrase “except for unlawful marriage” (sometimes also rendered “except for unchastity”) clarifies that those who are in marriages that are illicit, due to incestuous and other invalidating factors, should not stay in them. Rather, these are not marriages at all and can and should be set aside in favor of proper marriage. Drinking water does not break the fast before communion. The current rule, in place since 1964, says, “A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine.” (see Canon 919).
It is a bit odd for a liturgical minister to be drinking bottled water in the Sanctuary. Perhaps the deacon has a health problem. But, precluding that, one would think it was usually possible to go without water for an hour or two. Water bottles are a kind of modern fad. We used to manage quite well without them. You describe a difficult situation faced by many today. A brief column such as this cannot explore all the moral issues involved here, but the bottom-line answer is, no, you should not divorce.
The well-known axiom that the ends do not justify the means applies here. And while the “end” of trying to save your money, presumably to give it to your children, is a good and understandable end or goal, one cannot sin in order to obtain it. What is the sin involved in what you ponder? Fundamentally it is either to divorce, which God hates (see Malachi 2:16) or it is to lie. Regarding divorce, it is essential to recall the vow you made which is very pertinent in exactly the case described here. The vow said, “I take you to be my wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”: Clearly sickness and poverty were anticipated as a possible scenario in the vows you both made. But one might argue, “We are not really getting divorced, it is just a legal move regarding civil marriage. We will still consider each other as spouses.” But in this case, a lie is being told to the State for the purpose of Medicaid funds. Either way, it seems that what is proposed is that one do evil (sin) that good may come of it. This is not a valid moral solution to an admittedly difficult and painful issue. In recent years, Long Term Care Insurance has been a solution to some of this, but for an older person, this new device is seldom much help since, if they have it at all, the premiums were high and the payoff low. I pray it might be of some consolation to recall that the goal in life is not to die with a lot of money in the bank. The goal is to die in holiness. God has promised the Kingdom to those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, and who have done what is right, even at high personal cost. |
Author
"Building our Catholic faith one question at a time." Archives
April 2024
|