Focal point – does, should, the church change?
If our group is representative, two common reactions to the most recent changes in the Catholic liturgy: first is to think that they are merely changes in words and / or second to experience a disturbing feeling because the change in itself, especially change in the church is disruptive. Both the thought and the feeling are profoundly related to an historical understanding of the scriptures because both are a response to change and change is inherently historical. History is the record of human change in a similar way that your biography is a record of your changing. And history ultimately, if we are to know about it, is a matter of words. We weren’t there.
Let’s take an example in the life of the church that I think points at this issue of change but it is a change about which you probably have little or no knowledge or feelings. Certainly one of the fundamental and apparently unchanging distinguishing marks of Christianity is the fact that nearly all believe in the Trinity, that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As Catholic we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Every time we enter the church building we bless ourselves in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. There is something constant, unchanging. It’s not like we are going to wake up some morning and the church is going to proclaim, there is no Trinity.
On the other hand, it is not like our understanding of what there are three of in the Trinity cannot develop; in fact it has developed. We say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons. But … What does person mean? St. Augustine, for example, thought that “person” meant what there are three of in the Trinity. St. Thomas had a different definition. Study of ancient Greek literature provides us with a different understanding. The advent of depth psychology and the notion of consciousness has raised new questions and answers to what we mean by the word “person.”
So if the very meaning of the word “person” has changed, the real issue is not change itself but the more difficult act of discerning the direction of that change. Discernment of the direction of change applies to each of us individually. We are changing but are we developing or declining? This discernment applies to us socially too and thus to us as church. If you feel disturbed by the changes in the liturgy, or really any social movement, and even your self; that feeling might be a clue to how you are judging the direction. At this turn in the conversation, the fundamental issue becomes a question concerning your judgment, Is it true?
Let’s take a few words that have changed in the liturgy, we use to say “We believe,” we now say “I believe.” We use to say “One in being with the Father,” we now say “consubstantial with the Father.” The priest use to say “cup,” now he says “chalice.” Are these only words? Or do the words have a meaning, even if you don’t know what the meaning is exactly? How do you feel, now not about all the recent liturgical changes, but rather about each of these concrete specific word changes? Finally, do your feelings reveal to you the direction you think your church is taking? And do you agree with that direction or not? If you feel unsettled, probably you don’t agree with the direction of the change. The much more difficult thing is first to express the direction as you understand it, then give expression to why you don’t agree with that direction. And finally, to express the kind of change that take us in a direction that you could approve. If enough of us actually did that, like on this website, we would soon learn how the community felt, and that itself might be a change we would feel Ok or not with. I think that such is sufficient for you to mull over; your responses would be welcomed.
Noah and his Sons
Read notes and passage for Gen: 9:18-29 – http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/9. Leading questions seem to help us stay focused as we listen / read. So here are a few: What events does the story narrate? What’s the story all about? What captured your attention in the story? What seemed most significant? What does shame mean to you?
We had a lively discussion. A few remarks point to the value of group discussion.
As Ken remarked this is a story, like so many in the bible, of daily life. It is not just a story of Noah and his family, but of families, especially those living in a culture of shame. To hear God’s word is to break it open.
In the whole of your life, do you know of anyone who got drunk? Is everyone who gets drunk intending to do so? What do you think it would be like to have your private life made public? For Annette the really important point was the act of shaming the father, making it public.
To go outside the tent is a symbolic act just as walking backwards into the tent to cover their dad was a symbolic act. Both acts reveal constant themes, threads that make up our daily living. We are confronted by events and what we do at that moment in time makes all the difference.
Why does Noah curse Canaan the son of Ham, since it is Ham who shames Noah notCanaan? As Tim remarked, cursing Canaan was like cursing Ham’s descendants. It may seem simple, but Tim recognizing that the word “Canaan” is really talking about descendants is an example of breaking the word of God open. I may not be able to relate to “Canaan” but to my descendants I can. Finding connections in our day to day existence is what it means to break the word open.
As we concluded Tim commented that he had read this story twice on his own but didn’t get out of it what he had being a part of the group. I think Tim’s observation is right on. Gathering with others, having some leading questions, talking about the passage, makes a difference. You are invited to begin such a process on line.