On my least favorite hymn-writer

I don't know what the strange compulsion is to update the English in many wonderful examples of English hymnody, especially when the words would still be understood.  These texts are works of art, and examples of beautiful English poetry.

Many of these updates seem to have been made by someone named 'alt', who generally follows the listing of the original writer and perhaps the translator.  In some hymnals, he seems to have collaborated on almost every hymn written before 1970.

With some changes, I guess its just a matter of taste, whether you want to update 'thee' to 'you'; but there are some where the change makes absolutely no grammatical sense whatsoever.

Case in point:  Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence

Let all mortal flesh keep silence
And with fear and trembling stand
Ponder nothing earthly minded
For with blessing in his hand
Christ our God to earth descending
Our full homage to demand.


Descending is the chosen replacement for 'descendeth'.  Christ is the subject of the clause!  'descend' is the main verb of the clause.  'Descending' in this context makes absolutely no sense.  The proper form would be 'descends'.  I've seen it as 'descends now', but really, is that even  necessary?  Would anyone not get the meaning if they used 'descendeth'?  

This change is especially irksome when they do it to popular or often-sung hymns/prayers.  It's not a hymn, but the Angelus is a good example.  Most people who know the Angelus know its traditional translation.  You throw everybody off when you use a new one.

Sometimes a change might be necessary, I'll admit, when the phrases used a so far out there as to be unintelligible.  But 'thee', 'thou', '-eth', and the like do not fall into such a category.  

But in the end, even if you don't want to use archaic English, at least use meaningful, gramatically correct English when 'updating' hymns.  

And it's good to remember that all things of this world will fade away, even 'alt'.

Advent

Advent is not all that far away, only a few weeks left.  With that, I felt it might be good to discuss it, to show its importance, to strongly emphasize that only through it can we celebrate Christmas properly.

Even worse than the commercialization of Christmas is the retroactive extension of the Christmas season all the way back to Thanksgiving; thus, in all the culture except perhaps in church  (though it may have even crept there), Advent is gone.  Sure, there might be a wreath.  I would admit that people know that Christmas has not yet come- but we'd rather start the party before the guest of honor arrives anyway.

Penance doesn't sell.  Waiting doesn't sell.  Advent is all about waiting.  And, unlike Lent, there isn't the nice tending towards semi-Pelagian self-righteousness giving up of something like chocolate (I'm not completely discounting the practice- only when it leads to semi-Pelagian self-righteousness; which it tends to for many).  Advent gets the chopping block.  

But for our lives here and now, Advent is the most important time of the year.

It bears repeating: here and now,  Advent is the most important time of the year.

Why, one might ask.  Isn't it Easter, or maybe Christmas?  You know, the celebrations of the Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery?

I agree.  Easter, and secondly Christmas (with Pentecost in there somewhere) are the most important parts of the year.  I never claimed that spot for Advent.  Rather, Advent is the most important as regards our lives here and now!

Let me explain:

The Christian lives simultaneously in two worlds.  In one world, Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God has died for the sins of all and has risen gloriously, forever defeating death and making creation anew, bringing all who are in Him to the glory of the Father.

In the other world, the Christian struggles with sin and death (which seem not to have gotten the memo that they have lost the war), and all the problems that keep us from looking to and loving God.  In this other world (as in my first post), we live as though that described above hasn't happened yet.  We're still waiting for Jesus to come.  If someone asks me "Are you saved?", I ask them the same question phrased differently, "Have sin and death been completely overcome in your life?"  This usually confuses, and then begins a long conversation over what St. Paul really said (which, in the end, boils down to "I have been saved, I am being saved, I hope that I will be saved").

The first world is the truth.  The second world is the one we experience.  Though we have experienced the Resurrection and are being made partakers in the Divine Life, we're a lot closer to pre-Incarnation than post-Resurrection in the way we carry ourselves.  This is why Advent is so important- it doesn't allow us to become satisfied with ourselves or with the world or even with the state of the Church.  In Advent properly celebrated we experience most fully the lack of Christ which tends to resonate much more with our experience than the actual reality of how present Christ is in our lives.  We realize how much we need to change, how much we need God's grace, how much we need God.  

Living in both worlds, we are in a both/and situation, not either/or.  When one participates in the Eucharist, and experiences Christ made present under the forms of bread and wine, there is a reality and a non-reality.  Christ is truly and completely there, but it sure doesn't look that way- just like the two worlds described above.  Just as in the Easter season we emphasize the fact of the first world, Advent is the time for emphasizing the second- with Christmas being the definitive inbreaking of the former world into the latter.

So here's a challenge:  Try to live Advent as Advent this year.  Don't sing Christmas songs until Christmas (Especially for me, this is hard...But sing all the Advent tunes you wish!).  Wait, like you waited as a child for the presents on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.  Actually wait, be patient- pray!  Beg for God's coming.  Ask again and again.  Prepare a way for the Lord and make straight His paths.  Look at where you have not let God enter your life.  Look at where you have shut God out, where you don't want Him, where you think you don't need Him, where you want to make it on your own.  Celebrate Advent- and I guarantee that this Christmas may spiritually speaking be one of the best ever.

von Balthasar is wonderful

The greatest revelation of the Trinity is the revelation that God is Love (1 John 4:16). For if the Absolute was not Trinity, then the Absolute would be not Love, but Knowledge- merely Logos. (paraphrase of van Balthasar, Love Alone is Credible). There is no love without Other. And yet God was Love before creation. Thus, there must be some sort of multiplicity within the Unity. Alright, but why three Persons, and not only two? Because Love is fruitful. Loving produces an objective love that is more than the love of the subjects. The Father begets the Son, the Son returns Himself to the Father, and the Spirit is the Love between them so powerful that it is itself a Person.

Any who conceived of the Absolute before the revelation of the Trinity, or without it, did not conceive of it as Love. Absolute knowledge, absolute being perhaps, but not absolute Love. For the Greeks, it was Logos. For the Hindu, the great 'I'. For the Hebrews it was "I AM". For the Deists, the Prime Mover. In all cases, the Absolute was in some way One. The deepest reflections from all over sense a unity as the foundational principle of the universe. This was a start, a very good start. But it is not Love. If one wants Love to be the foundational principle of the universe, there must be Unity in Trinity. 

It is truly unfortunate that the Athanasian Creed has fallen into such disuse. It should at least be recited on Trinity Sunday, as I understand it is in most if not all of the liturgical Protestant communities (good for them!). Here is the Trinitarian section:

"...We venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness; neither [confusing] the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit; but the divine nature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, their glory is equal, their majesty is coeternal. Of such a nature as the Father is, so is the Son, so is the Holy Spirit; the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated; the Father is immense, the Son is immense, the Holy Spirit is immense; the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal: and nevertheless there are not three eternals, but one eternal; just as there are not three uncreated beings, nor three infinite beings, but one uncreated, and one infinite; similarly the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent: and yet there are not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent; thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; and nevertheless there are not three gods, but there is one God; so the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord: and yet there are not three lords, but there is one Lord; because just as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess singly each one person as God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or lords. The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. There is therefore one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits; and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be venerated..." (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 39)

This also shows quite clearly the error in the ideas of some who change the invocation of the Trinity to something like "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier" or some such in order to avoid masculine imagery. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit; but the Father is the Creator, the Son is Creator, and the Spirit is Creator. The name Father differentiates between the Persons, Creator does not. Same for Redeemer and Sanctifier. When the Trinity acts, the entire Trinity acts. We refer in general to the Father as Creator, the Son as Redeemer, the Spirit as Sanctifier by 'appropriation'. We conceptually assign each Person differing functions, but in reality this is not the case. One Person is best for expressing it, for creating a picture of it in our minds. But all Three perform each. Only Father, Son, and Spirit (Ghost) properly identify each Person as distinct Person, while preserving oneness of Godhead.

Of course, this is not a complete explanation. This is a mystery. A complete mystery. THE mystery. But that doesn't mean we ought not contemplate it. But the reason stems from a simple conditional: 

If God is not Trinity, God is not Love.

On Confirmation, leading to other things as I digress

Those who have had the experience of taking part in a conversation with me regarding the sacrament of Confirmation already know this, but that also means that they know that I harp on about it all the time:

Confirmation IS NOT the adult acceptance of faith, it IS NOT adult acceptance of God, which your parents did for you at baptism.  It IS NOT a coming-of-age ritual in and of itself.

I bring this up because in class today I learned of a new piece of ammunition in arguing against this idea, which is very prevalent.

The Council of Trent, when speaking of confirmation, states:

"If anyone shall say that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not rather a true and proper sacrament, or that in former times it was nothing more than a kind of catechism, by which those approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith before the Church: let him be anathema"  (Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Confirmation; emphasis added)

Apparently the problem has been around longer than I thought.

Of course, throw in as well the constant practice of the Eastern Churches, where chrismation has never been separated from baptism.  The sacrament certainly is not an adult acceptance for them; therefore, it cannot be the meaning of the sacrament.

And, once we've gotten this silly idea out of the way, there is absolutely no reason to be delaying confirmation until high school!  In the early medieval west, the bishops were shocked that people were waiting until age 7!  There are plenty of examples of clergy reminding people to get their children confirmed.  

Now, I am not of the opinion that in the Western Church we should return to giving confirmation to infants at their baptism.  By ordinarily reserving this sacrament to the Bishop, we keep a vital link with an ancient and universal tradition- that the bishop ought to preside over the initiation of people into his flock.  I think it is very good that the bishop should take a part in our initiation into the Church.  The local Church is most fully realized in that liturgy presided over by the bishop.  Remember that priests are the helpers of the bishop (thus, ordinarily, they need permission to celebrate the sacraments in another diocese).  For adults being initiated at the parish level, I think it is more important that all three sacraments of initiation be celebrated together than confirmation be reserved to the bishop.

As was said in my class today, baptism has taken over the meanings of the other sacraments in a sense.  Remember, Christ said that one must be born again of water and the Spirit, but he also said that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood.  But certain extraordinary events popped up.  What happens when someone dies after baptism but before they can receive communion?  Are they saved?  Of course.  What if they aren't confirmed?  Yes, they are still saved.  And so on.  And so, we began to define the sacrament of baptism as the salvific sacrament- when in reality it was so in extraordinary cases.  We shouldn't define the theology of the sacraments by the extraordinary.  Rather, we should see it all as part of one coherent whole.  And this is the point.  All the sacraments of initiation point towards the Eucharist (and indeed, all the other sacraments should do so too!). 

The importance of baptism lies not so much in its forgiveness of sins (which is quite important), but rather in its joining us to the Church, to Christ's Body, so that we may participate in the Eucharist.  For it is in the Eucharist that our salvation is effected.  And not simply at the consecration of the elements; but above all, in the Communion.

Why was the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist so important to people?  Because it is through the Incarnation of God as man that we are saved.  By coming into contact with Him who is both human and divine.  It is only because God took up human flesh that we can be clothed in His divinity.  And that is what salvation is: sharing in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).  God has not simply returned us to where we were before the Fall.  God has made us more than we originally would have been.  And this is what our liturgies should celebrate.  And this is what our liturgies should convey.  We aren't celebrating ourselves as a community.  We're not there to merely worship our Creator.  We are there to become more and more one with Him.  This is the marriage feast of the lamb.  This is the wedding of heaven and earth.  This should not be banal.  We should not be bored.  This is the very effecting of the new creation, the very inbreaking of eternity into time.  It is beautiful.  And should look it.

This is why I say that we should not be looking to engage people in the liturgy.  If I may play on the word slightly, 'engagement' is what happens before the marriage.  We should instead draw people into the liturgy.  Who needs to be engaged by the liturgy when they know what it truly is? St. Elizabeth Ann Seton was converted by the reverence with which she saw people receiving communion.  Would most of our parishes allow this sort of experience today?  But knowledge about the true nature of the liturgy will help us with this.  Knowledge of the liturgy as the marriage feast of the lamb, as the place where we become partakers in the divine nature, as that act through which our salvation is effected- all of this will make the celebrations more reverent, and more reverent celebration will in turn bring this idea more fully to the forefront.

What's with the name?

I've made a rather unfortunate decision.  I've decided to begin writing down some of the thoughts which make their way through the twisted paths between my ears.  My apologies to the world.

So what's with the name?  I take the idea from a sermon of Joseph Ratzinger found in What it Means to Be a Christian.  One part of his sermon "Are We Saved?" was quite striking:

"Will not the phrase about 'the years of salvation'- supposedly the years since Christ's birth, as opposed to those before his birth- die upon our lips, seem indeed maliciously ironic, when we think about dates like 1914, 1918, 1933, 1939, 1945- dates that denote the period of world wars in which millions of people lost their lives, often in the most horrific circumstances; dates that recall memories of appalling deeds that humanity could not have committed earlier for purely technical reasons?...When we reflect on such things, we shall simply no longer be able to divide history into ages of salvation and of iniquity.  If we then extend our vision and look at what Christians (that is, those people we call 'redeemed') achieved in the world by way of iniquity and devastation, in our own century and the previous centuries, then we will be equally incapable of dividing the peoples of the world into those who are saved and those who are not...Yet when we reflect like this, it becomes plain that...Advent is not just a matter of remembrance and playing at what is past- Advent is our present, our reality...[The Church] should make us face these facts, make us admit the extent of being unredeemed"

It is always Advent for us, because Christ has not fully transformed our lives.  We are still waiting for his definitive coming.  Not merely passively.  Waiting in active passivity.

And blogging is now one of those things I do while waiting.