Thomas Sunday, a missing "comma", and the Impact of Biblical Criticism on the Liturgy

I was struck today at Mass (EF) that the epistle was taken from 1 John-- and in particular the fifth chapter, verses 4-10.

Why is this so interesting, you may ask?

The key lies in verses 6-8, the only explicit reference to the unity of the Trinity in the whole of Scripture. In the Douay-Rheims, this verse is translated as

This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth.  And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

Never heard of it? Not surprising. This line of Scripture is known as the Johannine Comma, and has been omitted from most modern Bibles.

For instance, here is the usually very reliable RSV, same verses:

This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

Where is our reference to the Trinity?! It's gone!

Now, it is not my intention to enter into a whole exegesis of the tradition and modern Scripture scholarship on this particular verse-- it is enough to presume that there are variants in the manuscripts. The question is at what point did these variants enter the manuscripts, and what is the constant tradition of the Church regarding this text? Rather than giving a full exegesis, I'll simply be a good faithful Catholic, and defer to the judgment of Holy Mother Church on this particular matter.

The decree of the Holy Office, dated 13 January 1897 deals with the question of whether or not one can call into question the authenticity of the so-called "comma". Here is the text:

To the question: 'Whether it can safely be denied, or at least called into doubt that the text of St. john in the first epistle, chapter 5, verse 7, is authentic, which read as follows: 'And there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one?" -- the response was given on January 13, 1897: In the negative. (Denzinger 2198) 

Now, with the state of the question of the Comma resolved (that Catholics should indeed uphold the integrity of the passage), how does this impact the liturgy?

As I said in the beginning of this post, this was the reading of the Epistle at Mass today. It is retained in the Novus Ordo Missae for this feast in the year B cycle only. However, it seems that the folks who put together the new Lectionary did not want to make reference to the Triune God-- The verses for the reading stop at verse 6, and so avoid any possible controversy that may ensue over the greater issue, which is in fact the question of the official Latin text of the Lectionary, the Nova Vulgata, promulgated in 1979 and the product of a good bit of modern Scripture scholarship.

How is the use of the Nova Vulgata problematic, you may ask? Perhaps we should look to it to see the whole of the passage in question from 1 John:

Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Iesus Christus; non in aqua solum sed in aqua et in sanguine. Et Spiritus est, qui testificatur, quoniam Spiritus est veritas. Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur: Spiritus et aqua et sanguis; et hi tres in unum sunt.

Where is our key passage?! Even in the Nova Vulgata, the official liturgical Latin text of the Church, the reference to the Trinity (which was upheld by the Holy Office as a faithful transmission of the text) is missing from the text!

In contrast, the 1962 Missal, which is based upon the Clementine Vulgate of St. Jerome, has the text in its entirety:

Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus : non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et Spiritus est, qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas. Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra : spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : et hi tres unum sunt.

Here, we finally see the full passage with the two sets of three who give testimony-- one in heaven, and one on earth, and which the Douay-Rheims sets out an accurate translation into English for us.

The title of this post makes the inference that the modern Biblical criticism has had an impact on the liturgy. In my studies, I can't help but observe a certain parallelism in the Historical-Critical movement and the Liturgical Movement in the 20th c., but here is the rub: if we believe in Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, then surely the texts of the Mass which we pray and the Scriptures which are proclaimed have an impact on what it is we profess and believe as Catholics.

And yet, where is our "Comma"? What a text! It was such an inspiration to hear and read the profession of the Trinity found in Scripture during the Mass today.

This verse used in the liturgy, or not, as it were, seems to highlight a number of difficulties which we need to reconcile in the faith and life of the Church today. In continuing to implement the Council, in particular the texts on the Word of God and on the Liturgy, we are utterly dependent upon those great traditions that were handed down to us, "whether by word of mouth or by letter", in order to ensure that what we are professing is in fact the Faith of the Church as constantly believed by the great Saints and Martyrs of our history. If we are to become Saints, then it is most beneficial for us to know and pray the same things which were believed and prayed by all of the other Saints, that by following their example, we too will be guided rightly in our lives of faith toward the heavenly liturgy.

Why an American has no chance of becoming Pope

Or, practically no chance, at least.

Much of the world's punditry is focussed on "where" in the world the next Pope is to come from. I am a big fan of the idea that the Pope should be elected based upon holiness and suitability to the needs of the time; but I also think that where someone is from and suitability are not entirely unrelated.

While Conclaves can be somewhat of a surprise, and a dark horse candidate can emerge after much indecision, I think that an American-- or anyone from a particular church that is newly evangelized, for that matter-- simply has no real chance of being Pope.

The reason for this follows upon my last post, on the "scandal" of abdication: It is simply that new world countries, although where Catholicism may be on the rise, do not really have a concept of Catholicism, and the monarchy that comes with it, that goes to their bones.

That is not to say that the Cardinals from new world countries aren't good, holy, devout men who would not make good popes. On the contrary, it is simply because the culture from which they come has Catholicism added on to it; either as an afterthought, or alongside of any number of other good options for filling the religious vacuum in a culture. And to have Catholicism in your bones is an important thing for a Pope.

In Europe, Catholicism built the culture. It is so engrained into the DNA of a European that they can't escape it-- and incidentally, why there is such a violent reaction against it in the secular movement.

Europe, although trying to tear away the last vestiges of it, is also a society that is built upon the aristocratic system that comes with monarchy; a system that is even mirrored in the Church with the College of Cardinals. In this light, it should not be surprising that there are European Cardinals that come from aristocratic families.

An evangelized culture will always have that tension between the culture it lives within, and the culture of the Church. It becomes a sub-culture, as it were. While this is also capable of being true in an historically Catholic culture, more importantly, the remains of old Catholic culture are still present, be it in the organization of cities around parishes, or Corpus Christi still being a holiday with a procession and feast, etc. Catholic cultures live Catholicism; whereas evangelized cultures can only strive for this as an ideal.

This contrast between old and new, a Catholic Culture and an Evangelized Culture, is why at least it is more suitable for there to be a European Pope-- one who can be seen to be relatable to all cultures, not simply a particular culture.

The Conclave will no doubt be an exciting one-- there is no apparent future leader of the Church that sticks out-- ironically, perhaps because Ratzinger is still in relatively good health and not in need of that sort of assistance that enabled himself to become a papal contender in 2005.

I personally think that it depends upon how long the Conclave lasts. If it concludes relatively quickly, say, in the first 3 days, I think that it will go to an Italian. Scola is a front-runner, but I think Bagnasco has a good chance, as well.

If it goes longer, look for the Pope to come from the Curia or greater Europe. Only if the Conclave moves beyond a week, to, say 1 to 2 weeks, will the Pope have any chance of coming from outside of Europe.

I could be very wrong, but if this sort of prediction is correct, then perhaps Canizares Llovera is papabile.

If there were any North American contenders, I would guess that Levada, Oullet, or Burke are the only ones who have a chance at all-- and that is because they would have come from the Curia, and have come to know and live the Roman custom of things. They would have their best chances in the 3 days- 1 week timeframe.

Some people would say Dolan has a good chance-- perhaps the best of any American. He has a good record as rector of the NAC, he gave the address to the College of Cardinals last year at the Holy Father's choosing, etc. However, I am not inclined to think that Dolan will be the guy. As president of the USCCB, he represents the American Church, with all of its plusses and minuses. At the end of the day, as admired as many things are about American Catholicism, it is still looked down upon with disdain by many in Europe as that new kid on the block still struggling to belong-- this would be an impediment to the universality needed by a pope.

While we're at it, I'll go on record to say Bertone doesn't have a chance.

Outside of the one week time frame, it is anyone's guess and all I have said to this point would no longer be applicable; but perhaps Pell, or, if we are really playing fantasy league here, Ranjith wouldn't be a bad pick at all-- but I do think that this would be not unlike the pick of JPii; the Cardinals would, after a week or two, be looking to find someone they all can agree on and get it over with, and so would then be willing to entertain some ideas that are outside of the box.

All of that analysis given, I say that the head of the Church of Rome should be from Rome, or at least an Italian. Bagnasco for the win. (Pius XIII or Leo XIV, anyone?)

The "Scandal" of Abdication

I have seen so many commenters in the past days who have praised the Pope for his decision to step down as reigning Pontiff, viewing it as sign of his humility, his realization that he cannot lead because of his age, even (on the more extreme end) that he is setting a precedent for future Popes to feel free to resign after a term of years.

I must say that I strongly object to these sentiments, as, contrary to the prevailing headlines, the Holy Father did not in fact "resign". What he said was:

"I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005..."

The Supreme Pontiff is not merely an employee, free to retire as he will. He is a monarch. He is the Supreme Head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, endowed by God with the powers to bind and to loose those things pertaining to faith and morals, both on Earth and in Heaven.

What the Holy Father did was to abdicate, to renounce his claim to the throne. And this, perhaps rightly, can be perceived as scandalous.

Although Christ is the Eternal King, reigning gloriously in Heaven, the person seated on the Chair of Peter exercises the temporal rule over Christians universally in Christ's name. One does not abdicate lightly or for trivial reasons such as health or age, or any of the other reasons that have been touted as noble and good and right-- after all, he was chosen by God for the position that he holds.

For this reason, I can understand why many people have reacted to the news that the Holy Father is stepping down, not with praise, but rather with a sense of confusion, anger, and even betrayal-- I know for me personally, I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea that Benedict, a Pope so loved and who has done so much for the building up of the unity of the Church, is stepping down while leaving many projects largely unfinished.

There is a very poignant scene in the film, The King's Speech, which portrays Bertie (the future King George VI) just after his elder brother, Edward, renounces the throne. The scene shows Bertie's reaction to this turn of events, and you can tell that he has a sense of utter desolation, fear, abandonment, anger, an incapacity to handle what is to come-- all because of an act that was seen by many as selfish.

I think that this image, one full of uncertainty about the future, is perhaps an apt comparison to the feeling that many may have about the news of our Holy Father's abdication from the throne of Peter.

Edward VIII's reasons for abdicating the throne of the British Empire were most certainly not noble ones, and had an impact across the globe, especially in light of the rising Nazi powers at the time. However, the decision also paved the way for precisely the right leader at the right time to conquer the evil plight facing Europe.

Whether our beloved Holy Father truly made the right decision or not is something that we will never know-- that will remain between him and God. I do think, however, that if we have placed our trust in Pope Benedict during his pontificate up to this point, then we can at least give him the benefit of the doubt in this particular decision, which I am sure he did not make lightly.

For those who would praise his decision to abdicate, I would encourage you to celebrate the past and current leadership he has given, but not to celebrate his abdication as such-- I have no doubt that, though the Holy Father has deliberated long and has now made a firm decision, it is not one that has come without great personal suffering to him.

For those who are still at a loss at the nearly unprecedented action that Benedict has taken, I would encourage you to remember Christ, and use this as an opportunity to renew your faith in his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church.

With that faith intact, we can remain in hope that Benedict's abdication was indeed the right decision; but regardless, to trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit to bring forth the next Pope, who will be the right man for the right time, and through the grace of the Office of Peter, be able to navigate the barque of the Church through the turbulent waters which undoubtedly lie ahead.

In this sense, we are not unlike the disciples, who hoped in the Messiah's kingship to free them from their bondage, only to be utterly disappointed by the scandal of the crucifixion and death of their Lord and Savior.

Perhaps different from the Disciples, we have the benefit in hindsight of knowing of the Resurrection. And so, though perhaps scandalous to some, hopefully this event in the life of the Church may be an opportunity for further growth, vitality, and renewal for the faithful members of the Church Militant, that we too will be brought to the glory of his Resurrection.

Oremus pro Pontifice!

You Might Be Married to a Liturgiophile If...

I love attending a beautiful, prayerful, spiritually uplifting liturgy as much as the average Catholic.  (And, just for your information, I deliberately refuse - in this post at least - to further explicate what I mean by "beautiful, prayerful, and spiritually uplifting".) I would consider myself a reasonably theologically and liturgically informed Catholic laywoman. When dating my future husband, I would have said he possessed a similar attitude.

Recently, I forced myself to confront reality, the reality that since our marriage, my husband has exhibited the gradual onset of liturgiophila...indeed I would have to admit he now is a qualified, bona fide liturgiophile*. I can't say I have much hope of ever reversing this condition. The most I can do is to share a list of symptoms, documented from experience, so that other unsuspecting Catholic wives can accurately diagnose and cope with the condition in their spouses.

Your liturgiophile may exhibit some, all, or additional symptoms. Rest assured, the exhibition of one or two does not necessarily warrant a diagnosis of liturgiophila - it is the confluence of many (or additional) symptoms, sustained over a significant period of time that decisively indicates the condition.

Thus, and with no further ado, 

You might be married to a liturgiophile if...

..."Holy" is his standard response to "How was Mass, dear?"

...the New Liturgical Movement and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf are daily reads AND bookmarked.

...two of the family bookshelves are reserved for his "liturgical collection".

...the big purchases he negotiates with you for are tailored cassocks and embroidered surplices.

...the Ceremonial of Bishops is the most frequently consulted reference work in the house.

...you receive a mantilla for Valentine's Day (thank you, Fr. Z)...and the offer of a chapel veil in a color of your choice for Mother's Day so as to coordinate with various outfits.

...over supper, he reveals that he knows "ambones" is the plural of "ambo".

...he can advise an instituted acolyte on serving as subdeacon.

...he knows and discusses the use of obscure pontifical vesture, and repeatedly calls for the return of the use of the cappa magna by the Bishops, (and the triregnum by the Pope).

...(in that vein), you knew that the first thing to mention was the return of the papal fanon when he asked you about the broadcast of the recent canonizations...and you weren't surprised when he made the former the subject of a facebook post.

...(and still proceeding on this theme) his opinion on which particular style of Roman Chasuble is the best (it's a toss up apparently: the Philip Neri or the Italian style) qualifies as romantic conversation. 

...his friends guffaw knowingly when new acquaintances ask his opinion on Children's Liturgy.

...your spouse frequently debates the merits of Fortescue vs. O'Connell with random clergy.

...and while he owns both texts, his modus operandi is WWFS (What Would Fortescue Say?).

...he is determined to have a son named "Gregory", and your adamant refusal to even consider "Pius" is near occasion for argument.

...he spends hours researching to find you free PDFs of out-of-print books on ecclesiastical embroidery.

...your friends come for a casual cup of tea, and leave wide-eyed, asking, "How does he KNOW all this stuff about the Mass??"

...he knows which clerics can only wear wool, and which can wear silk. 

...Gammarelli's is top of the "tourist" list when your family travels to Rome.

...and he insists on taking a photograph to document the visit:

*As a qualification, though I am not overly naive on this point, I would generally expect the clergy to possess a working knowledge of and love for the liturgy and all things liturgical.  I am therefore identifying symptoms of this condition as manifested in the laity. 

We have a new saint!

If you're a Catholic hailing from the U.S. of A., you may be excited for today's canonizations because they include the first Native American saint, Kateri Tekakwitha, the "Lily of the Mowhawks".  In addition, our family is delighted that another, Anna Schäffer of Mindelstetten, Germany (whom I introduced in a post last autumn) has also been elevated to the canon of saints.  Like Kateri, Saint Anna Schäffer's life was one marked by great suffering.  If you know German (or recourse to the very useful, though not always accurate, google translate)  this address on her life given in 1999 by the then Cardinal Ratzinger is worth a read.

Saint Anna Schäffer, pray for us!

Need to Learn Ecclesiastical Languages? There's an App for that.

A good student of theology knows the sacred languages! By this standard, I am far from a "good" student, but I am trying to work hard at it, because I think it's important.

To that end, I have found an ingenious app (FREE!) for training on basic ecclesiastical vocab in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin! Even better, the app is optimized for the iPad, which I like very much.

The app is called iDoms Vocab, and seems to be a joint project between the Irish Province of Dominicans and the St. Joseph's Province in the USA. They have another app, called the iDoms Reader, which I haven't downloaded but looks like a news app of sorts.

The app works well! It is a very new app, only released a few days ago, but it has good navigability, and is a clever way of improving on the old handwritten flash cards, building in a nice scorekeeping feature to make it a little more fun. The ingenuity in the app lies in the repetition and introduction of new words. Each time you start a session, it gives you 30 words to do, so it only takes a few minutes. As you learn words consistently enough, the program replaces the words you have mastered with new words automatically. Go through the flash cards a few times a day, and you'll expand your vocabulary immensely! Because the app is so new, the word bank is limited, but they have intentions of expanding.

A clever integration of the Apple iCloud technology helps for those who have on-the-go lives. For those of you who don't speak Apple, that means that if you have an iPhone and an iPad with the app installed on both, whatever progress you have made on one of them, you can continue on the other, working seamlessly between the two.

Overall, a very impressive little app! It should be noted that it is only for memorization of vocab, and doesn't help with learning and memorizing declensions and cases-- a feature that, if they were able to figure out a good means of integrating, would be priceless for us students.

Some more pictures:

Your language options-- it comes with a free sample Greek vocab list, but then you can buy other word banks through their in-app store using your appleID. I downloaded their Latin word bank with words from the Prima Pars of the Summa for only $0.99.

A new word, "sicut," as in "sicut cervus ad fontes". You can choose "I know!," which skips immediately to the next word, or "Don't Know" or "View," which displays the translation.

What it displays once you click "View". You can then say that I got this one "Right", or "Wrong," which helps with the programs' ability to track your progress and create future study sessions.



Overall, a really great app, and many kudos to the Dominicans who came up with this app-- I know that it is going to help me out immensely this term.

In the Spirit of "Christmas Isn't Over Yet"...

Though many families have already bid farewell to their Christmas tree, holiday decorations, baked goodies (not a moment too soon for the pursuit of that ever elusive slender figure), and Nativity scenes, our household belongs to that variety of Catholic who obstinately refuses to relinquish our Christmas festivities until Candlemas, the traditional end of the Christmas season. Be the tree completely needle-less, be the Christmas cookies completely consumed, be the stores filled with Valentine's Day sweets, we persist in our Christmas celebration.

This was the first Christmas our little family has spent on our own - and as such, we found ourselves in need of Christmas decorations to suit our budget. Our aim for decorating was to make as many of our decorations as possible, using for the most part items we either had around the house or could easily collect. I began my planning and collecting back in November, stashing away these items in the weeks before and during Advent:

Beer and Irish cream bottles

Pinecones

Fallen pine tree bark

Platan seed clusters (they're slightly smaller than a golf ball)

Twigs

Cardboard boxes

Toilet paper rolls

Used tissue paper

Christmas napkins

Rags/worn clothing of all sorts

Candles (leftover from our Advent wreath)

Old jewelry

Stray ribbon and yarn

Used (but reasonably clean) aluminum foil

Brown construction paper

And what can one assemble with all these miscellaneous items, you may ask?

A beer bottle Nativity scene!

(with a dried fruit, pinecone and popcorn garland and crocheted Star of Bethlehem)

Each figure (the Baby Jesus excepted) is a beer (or Irish cream) bottle, with a platan seed head covered in fabric. I dyed a few rags using coffee grounds and tea bags for the heads, used some spare yarn for hair, and rags and other odds and ends for the clothing.

The cardboard served as a base for the stable, with pinecones and bark used to create a "natural" effect. Here are some close-ups:

I believe a "recycled" Nativity scene just may become a family tradition - especially when our children are old enough to participate in annual Nativity figure "makeovers". I already have plans for next year's additions: some animals, a new and improved stable, and possibly some more majestic clothing for the Three Kings.

Our beer bottle Nativity (barring any unforeseen accidents) will see us through Candlemas, in keeping with the longstanding tradition of displaying the creche until the end of the forty days of Christmas.

However, if your Christmas decorations have already been packed away, do not despair. It's never too early to start your Christmas 2012 recycling! If you've been bitten by the Martha Stewart bug, to increase the variety of your project, and considering the wealth of items that are often simply thrown away in the post-Christmas cleaning, I would recommend starting a little "crafts bin" now: a storage place for all the odds and ends that may come in handy for your own beer bottle Nativity, or other projects to celebrate the liturgical year.