Facing East - not just an Islamic Tradtition

OK, so everyone(ish) knows that,when Muslims pray, they face east, towards Mecca.  Technically, they don't face "east," though - in America, they face northeast, and in other places they face whatever direction that makes the shortest distance to Mecca.  Now, this isn't going to be 100% theologically correct on the Muslim side (I apologize - it's been 4 years since I took Western Religion and even then, we only learned so much about each tradition), but from what I can gather, they pray in that direction because they're facing the "House of God," or the Kaaba.  Now, did YOU know that, prior to Vatican 2, the Church really emphasized facing east, too?  Think about it - that's where our holy city is (Jerusalem), too.  The church building itself would face east, with the altar and tabernacle on the eastern wall.  Part of the reason why it was such a big deal originally for the priest to face east was because he, though leading the people, was first and foremost worshiping.  This isn't to say that's not what he's doing now, but the direction thing was super important then - they didn't think about God being "up" or "everywhere" the same way we often do now.  Plus, before tabernacles were always at the front of the church behind the altar, the crucifix that the altar server carried up was placed directly behind the altar (or near it if it was pushed against the wall, to be practical) - the sun rises in the east, and the belief went with the Son rising in the east.  Neat, right?  Wouldn't you want to be facing the Son when He rises?  Of course!

Something interesting to note is that Pope Benedict was a really big supporter of everyone facing east.  However, now he fully supports the idea of the "liturgical east" - basically, churches are getting reoriented, but by putting a crucifix on the altar (a little one at the very edge, closer to the congregation than the priest), everyone is rightly oriented to where the Son will rise, or the "liturgical east."  I personally think this is a very clever way to get around the problem.  On first hearing the the Pope liked everyone facing east, I was a bit concerned, because I think, at least in this day and age, it makes more sense to have the priest face us.  The Mass is just watched/witnessed by the people anymore - we actively participate in it - so having the priest face away from us towards a wall doesn't seem to be the best idea anymore.  But I love the symbolism of facing east, ready to witness His second coming - how cool is that?  Even though it's a bit silly to have a "liturgical east," I like that it emphasizes the tradition without creating a crazy uproar.  Basically, our Church is awesome - I love learning about all these symbolic things the Church fathers have put into the liturgy.  It just makes it mean so much more!


*Did you know?  We are buried to this day with our feet facing east - traditionally, it was so that when Christ came back, we'd be able to pop right up and head over to the holy land!  hahaha

* Also, remember that Islam developed after Christianity - so if the idea of facing east rubbed off from one to the other, it might have been Christianity tradition onto Islamic tradition!

Food for Thought: the new Roman Missal

A specific thought on the new Roman Missal (USA translation) for you all:

 _________________________
A lot of people (aka a bunch of my friends) don't understand why the memorial acclamation

"Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again"

is not included in the new missal.  I didn't fully understand why either, until tonight.  The reason why that particular acclamation is not being included is because it does not fit with the rest of the Eucharistic prayers - all of the other ones are directed to God the Father.  It doesn't make sense to all of a sudden say something that is not directed to Him but instead is just kind of said as a reminder to ourselves, not directed to anyone in particular.  In that same line of reasoning, the acclamation

"Dying, you destroyed our death
Rising, you restored our life.
Lord Jesus, come in glory."

is not being used either, since it directs itself to God the Son.  Since we are offering God's gift of Jesus back up to Him, it does not make sense to address the one we are currently offering, right?
_________________________



It's interesting how the theology in the Mass is slightly different with a lot of the new translation - but it really does make more sense if you look at it.  It's going to be frustrating, and some of the phrases do not roll off the tongue very easily, but overall, I can see how it's going to be beneficial.  We shouldn't grumble* about having to learn something new just because we're used to the current one - we should invite the experience!  Right now, the language is so common - if it's for God, shouldn't it be more poetic, higher, or at the very least make us think about what we're saying instead of repeating things like robots or parrots?

* I know I will grumble about music things on here as I learn more about them - But it's all for God and being a truly universal Church, so it'll be for the best (I hope).  :)

3+4=7 Sacraments!

I'm sure you're thinking, well duh, 3+4=7.  But did you know that's how we got precisely 7 sacraments?  Yup!  Here's the abbreviated history of how this happened (as told to my class by Lizette, my Christian Lit professor).  This guy, Peter Lombard (author of the Book of Sentences, which are 4 theology textbooks used at the Vatican, written in the 12th ce.), was trying to figure out how to teach his students about sacraments in an orderly manner, and he wanted them to actually be able to call specific things "sacraments" (the term was thrown around a lot more before his time - anything that was "sacramental," aka anything that is a sacred sign that both signifies and causes grace, was referred to as a sacrament - the word was being used for almost everything, since tons of things can be pointed back to what we now know to be THE sacraments).  Now, Lombard really liked the number 7, and he really wanted to be able to make it work.  You see, 3 is the number of the divine (trinity), and 4 is the number of nature (1 more than 3, the divine is part of it and had to come immediately before it to make it possible).  These 2 numbers, which describe God and us (we are part of nature) are the 2 things needed for sacraments to take place - God's grace comes to us through the sacraments (in a different and more direct way than any other time we encounter His grace).  Therefore, the number 7 is the perfect number of sacraments.  Now, there's nothing wrong with this, but it is undeniably kind of silly.  But why not?  God can and does work in mysterious ways - he can inspire the silly and the serious.

Now, Lombard had to actually figure out what 7 liturgical events/actions/happenings would make up these 7 sacraments.  Obviously, the 3 initiation events (Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist) were going to be part of them - they are how we are fully part of the communion of believers.  And then Confession was necessary to be able to partake of the Eucharist, so that needed to be there.  And sure, Last Rites (now Anointing of the Sick) were important for the idea of life everlasting, so those should be part.  Holy Orders could be one - if the priest is supposed to remind us of Jesus, that makes sense.  And them... hmmm...  well, Marriage is important(ish) - it's only between the 2 people, but God is love and there need to be witnesses and Jesus gave us the Church, His Bride, and the Holy Spirit unites the 2 into 1, so why not (see how much that one has to be justified?  theologians are ridiculous).  We couldn't have only 6 sacraments, since that number falls one short of 7 - that's just no good, that's like saying, if 3 is God's number, that there are 2 Gods.  And no, funerals just did not make the cut - the person was already dead, if they didn't get Last Rites, well, too bad for their soul, grace can't directly come to it if it's not here, and the number is 7, not 8 - this isn't paradise!

Now, of course, this is making light of how it happened - but it is true that that's the order he picked them in, and funerals were considered but did not make as much sense with the other 7 with the idea of a sacrament being a sign that both signifies and causes grace.  Though I do think that these 7 are the most important, most significant liturgical events they could have chosen, and God can inspire in odd ways, I also think Lombard is ridiculous, basing his foundational reasoning of 7 sacraments purely on the fact that the number 7 was a good number - numerology is stupid, but it does seem to have gotten us somewhere at a different point in history, so okay.  This is why Alley and I coined the term for this ridiculously silly divine inspiration as "inspired retardedness."  hahaha

Jesus is Emmanuel , "God with Us"

In the academic/theological setting, I truly find the idea of Jesus being God (yes, the Son of God, but as part of the Trinity, He is truly God) to be super challenging.  Personally, I know it's true whenever I think about the Eucharist - He's REALLY present there, in a different way than He is present in other aspects of life.  Definitely not something I can explain well tonight - all I know is that, when I see the Eucharist, my heart opens up, and I know I'm gazing at Jesus, who is gazing back at me.  The only way it's really Jesus there is because He's God.  Period.  However, my mind has been thinking more lately and wants an explanation that I can express in words and not just feelings.  Jesus never said that He was God - He said He was "the way, the truth, and the life," but He never outright says "I am God."  And how can He be fully human and fully God?  Did He know from the moment that He was born that He was God?  Now, I've had quite a few thoughts on the human-and-God question, but here are a couple that I thought were cool enough to write about:

In  Jesus the Christ, Walter Kasper says, "The Son is the person who submits himself unreservedly in obedience to God.  Thus he is wholly and entirely transparent for God; his obedience is the form in which God is substantially present.  Obedience effected and brought about by God himself is the historical mode of existence and manifestation of the divine Sonship.  In his obedience Jesus is the setting forth of God's nature."  This totally makes sense to me.  Of course!  How is Jesus the Son of God, therefore being God?  This is a great way to start thinking about it.  (Sidenote - this is totally an extra book for my Mystery of JC class.  I am officially a nerd. lol.)

I also thought of Mary.  If you want to get to really know a person, you look to their parents, and especially their mom, right?  It tends to explain a lot!  The angel of the Lord told Mary told her she was to conceive the Son of God.  The angel also reminds her that nothing is impossible for God - so why can't Jesus be fully, authentically human and fully, authentically God?  God can do anything!  And Mary was the one who was upbringing Jesus - she was told who He was, how His kingdom would have no end - so she would be able to steer her son, as a human, toward His ministry and everything (think Wedding at Cana).  And she was told to name Him Emmanuel, which means "God with us."  How much clearer could the angel get?  Jesus was humble, and He didn't want to be persecuted by the authorities before it was the right time, so He didn't go boasting about His mission - then God wouldn't have been able to work through Him.

And God is alive in us, right?  We don't always let Him work through us, but when we do, awesome things happen.  Jesus was different - He ALWAYS let God work through Him.  We are freer the closer we get to God, more authentically human since He made us as His creatures with free will.  Jesus was the most free, most authentic human because He was as close as possible to God - He was God.  (A lot of people could ask why Mary isn't God.  Sure, she was sinless and let God work through her, but she is not the one that achieved our salvation.  Remember the Old Testament teachings & prophesies and the Paschal Mystery, which then leads you back to the Eucharist.  Plus, Jesus was "begotten, not made" - Mary was made a creation like we were, even though she had no original sin.)

Also, the Nicene Creed totally defines how Jesus is God (and human, for that matter).  His Father is God, His mother is Mary/human, so He is both divine and human.  No one else has that combination of parents!

There's also this thing called faith... the mind will never be totally satisfied with the answer, it's truly a mystery.  Jesus lived up to His name 100% of the time - God was, and is, with us through belief in Him.  Absolutely amazing.

I'm not the only one!

My friend Alley also has entirely too much to think about after her class (luckily, I am not taking Fundamental Theology, which makes you read Tillich - at least not yet!).  See her post on Love and Faith and my comment on it!

About Eastern Catholics

OK, so I don't actually have all that much literature behind this one (don't worry, I'm sure most of them will), but they came up in my Christian Liturgy class today when we were talking about the changes Sacrosanctum Concilium brought about (and since it's the 1st document from Vatican II, it obviously just led into the rest of Vatican II, which is obviously many years of material, not just 1 class).  Basically, Vatican II only affected the Roman Rite - aka, Roman Catholics, what I assume the majority of the people inclined to read my blog are.  But I've never really thought much about these Eastern Catholics - you know, the Mozarabic Rite (in Spain), the Byzantine Rite, etc.  They are super confusing to me.  They aren't Eastern Orthodox - they are in full communion with the Pope (the Bishop of Rome), recognizing His infallibility and such - they don't follow the Archbishop of Constantinople of anything like that.  BUT did you know that, since they aren't Roman Rite, Vatican II doesn't apply to them?  It's something I had never thought about.  How can they think so much of Rome but not be Roman?  How can they have such different theologies and terminologies from us Roman Catholics, but still be in full communion with the Catholic Church?  They can receive the Eucharist from us, we can receive it from them, but we're held to different standards?  How can they be so independent with it being okay to the Roman Church - how are they really Catholic?  It's so weird to me!

Take, for example, the way they perform the Sacraments of Initiation (o the sacraments - something that might just be the topic of my next blog/rant).  They do them the way the earliest Christians did - Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist - in that order, mind you.  First you were bathed in water, than anointed with chrysm, and THEN you could receive your 1st Communion.  And the Eastern Catholics (and yes, I might well be generalizing here, so forgive me) do this with INFANTS.  What?  Sure, we baptize infants, with our parents and God-parents speaking for us, but that's just not the same as receiving the Eucharist, right?  They can't even say "Amen" and actually proclaim that the Body/Blood of Christ is true - their parents say it for them on their behalf!  It just has some more implications than baptism does... at least it sure seems to on the surface (not that sacraments are to be taken on their surface level, but still).  Now, Roman Catholics did it in this order (though not at that age - we like people to be super aware of what's happening to them - we would push back 1st Communion until people were in their 20s a lot in the late 1800s) before Pope Pius X.  The laity wasn't receiving the Eucharist more than once a year at Easter, and he knew it was an important part of their participation, so he said people should receive once they hit the age of reason (aka, about 7 years old), when they can discern between the literal and the abstract - so our order of initiation sacraments was then changed to what it is now.  It just seems weird to me that this was so important for the Roman Catholics and not for all the other Catholics...

...And then what about Confirmation?  Why do we leave it until last now?  Does that make sense?  Though does it make more sense in the Eastern tradition, where babies are confirmed?  In the US, we can't decide whether it makes more sense for kids to make Confirmation in 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th grade - but all of those are significantly different from an infant.  What makes sense?  Won't God's grace be there no matter when we do it?  Why is it okay for Eastern Christians to be so different from us, but yet be in full communion with the Roman Church?  What in the world?

Welcome to my confusion!

A blog!

So, though I have always said "no" to writing blogs, here I am - a grad student with lots on her plate starting a new activity.  Why, you ask?  Because graduate school in pastoral ministry is confusing!  Everything you had thought made sense no longer does - once you start to know the history of how the Church decided on different things, it takes a lot of thought to wrap your head around it, and you still won't be able to completely understand.  Every day, I realize more and more how much of a mystery God is, something I used to not truly realize or appreciate.  Instead of scribbling down notes in random places about the concepts that boggle my brain, I've decided (with the encouragement of a dear friend of mine) to organize them, and all in a public place where I can confuse others!  hehehe.  I hope you enjoy my reflections, and feel free to give me your opinions on whatever I bring to the table...

...Also, I decided on the books background, at least for the time being, because they (well, the ones on theology, liturgy, and history of Christianity)  are the source of my confusion!  But with enough reflection, that confusion always leads to complete and utter awe at our Creator - it takes a pure genius to come up with creatures crazy like us!