Palm Sunday

Today is Palm sunday!


I went to St. Patrick's this morning for a TLM and it was fantastic. We started with the blessing of palms.


The feast commemorates Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. According to the Gospels Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem, and the celebrating people there lay down their cloaks in front of him, and also lay down small branches of trees. The people sang part of Psalms 117 (118): 25-28 - "benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini benediximus vobis de domo Domini Deus Dominus et apparuit nobis frequentate sollemnitatem in frondosis usque ad cornua altaris Deus meus es tu et confitebor tibi Deus meus es tu exaltabo te confitemini Domino quoniam bonus quoniam in aeternum misericordia eius"
"Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord. We have blessed you out of the house of the Lord. The Lord is God, and he hath shone upon us. Appoint a solemn day, with shady boughs, even to the horn of the altar. Thou art my God, and I will praise thee: thou art my God, and I will exalt thee. I will praise thee, because thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. O praise ye the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever."


The symbolism of the donkey may refer to the Eastern tradition that it is an animal of peace, versus the horse, which is the animal used in war. Therefore, a king came riding upon a horse when he was in war and rode upon a donkey when he wanted to point out that he was coming in peace. Therefore Jesus' entry to Jerusalem symbolized his entry as the Prince of Peace, not as a war waging king and serves as a symbol of the great peace he exemplified throughout his dolorious passion.

These palms that Father blessed are sacramentals and we processed around the Church, commemorating the great procession into Jerusalem by Christ himself, only to be quickly turned over to the Jews and crucified.

There are numerous Old Testaments references in the Entry into Jerusalem:

Matthew 21:1-11 refers to a passage from Book of Zechariah 9:9 and states:
"All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, 'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion, shout for joy, O daughter of Jerusalem: BEHOLD THY KING will come to thee, the just and saviour: he is poor, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass.'"
The location of the Mount of Olives is significant in the Old Testament in that Zechariah 9:9 and Zechariah 14:1-5 stated that the Messiah would come to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives:
"And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is over against Jerusalem towards the east: and the mount of Olives shall be divided in the midst thereof to the east, and to the west with a very great opening, and half of the mountain shall be separated to the north, and half thereof to the south."
The triumphal entry and the palm branches, resemble the celebration of Jewish liberation in the 1 Maccabees 13:51 which states:
"And they entered into it the three and twentieth day of the second month, in the year one hundred and seventy-one, with thanksgiving, and branches of palm trees, and harps, and cymbals, and psalteries, and hymns, and canticles, because the great enemy was destroyed out of Israel."
and finally, Jesus' entry on a donkey has a parallel in Zechariah 9:9 which states that:
"he is poor, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass."


The priest leads the procession wearing a red cope:


yeah...we always need a good pic of the Pope:


So yes, the priest wears a red cope for the procession, commemorating all of these nice things. Then, he vests into a purple chausible. And for the rest of Mass, he wears purple. The Gospel reading it the Passion Narrative (from Matt) and we, for Mass itself (outside the blessings of palms and the procession), are still in Passiontide and Lent. Our statues and Crucifixes are still veiled and we draw ever closer to Good Friday (and eventually, the glorious Easter Celebration).

As Father Z describes it, We lose things during Lent.  We are being pruned through the liturgy. Holy Church experiences liturgical death before the feast of the Resurrection.

The Alleluia goes on Septuagesima.  Music and flowers go on Ash Wednesday.   Last wee, statues and images are draped in purple.

Also, as part of the pruning, as of today in the older form of Mass, the “Iudica” psalm in prayers at the foot of the altar and the Gloria Patri at the end of certain prayers are no longer said.

The pruning cuts more deeply as we march into the Triduum.

After the Mass on Holy Thursday the Blessed Sacrament is removed from the main altar, which itself is stripped and bells are replaced with wooden noise makers.

On Good Friday there isn’t even a Mass.

At the beginning of the Vigil we are deprived of light itself!

It is as if the Church herself were completely dead with the Lord in His tomb.

This liturgical death of the Church reveals how Christ emptied Himself of His glory in order to save us from our sins and to teach us who we are.

Thus, though we commemorate the triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem, we are drawing ever closer to the tomb of Christ on Good Friday

A week ago, we heard and meditated on Christ the Eternal High Priest (yes this is redundant) who never dies. Today, we hear and meditate on Christ the Eternal Sacrifice who offers himself up, on behalf of us sinful humans, on the Wood of the Cross. Thus, we are reminded by the purple of Lent to stay true to Our Lenten Sacrifices and penances and to take Holy Week very seriously. As Father Gabet, FSSP, said today in his short sermon (after chanting the WHOLE PASSION BY HIMSELF, JUMPING TO DIFFERENT OCTAVES FOR DIFFERENT CHARACTERS) now is the time to prepare for the Feast of Easter, by fasting. Even if you have had a difficult Lent, even if you have done nothing, now is as good a time as ever to start.

HAVE A VERY BLESSED HOLY WEEK AND A VERY HOLY TRIDUUM!!!

Our Lady of the Sunbathers

Well here we are...the temperature has somehow reached 80 degrees in South Bend, IN. Y'all know what that means...its the Feast of Our Lady of the Sunbathers:

Look at how sad it makes Our Lady...


Hymn to Our Lady of the Sunbathers

When its 80 sing to Mary
Mystical Most Lovely Rose
We implore thee Blessed Lady
Pray for them who were no clothes
Cover them beneath thy mantle
Teach them Christian modesty
Do thou cover Blessed Mother
That which no one wants to see.




Have a great day, but not that great...it is Passion Sunday after all.

Facing our own Humanity

Well here we go...I am going to talk about myself.

Anybody who has been around me in the last month has probably noticed a slight change in my mood and especially a change in my energy. This last month, for me and a lot of my close friends, has been an extremely difficult one. Some of my PhD candidate friends are preparing for exams, undergrads preparing for life after graduation a mere 5 weeks away or something like that.

For me, I had the stress of a Senior Thesis, seminary application process, RA duties in my dorm (which are amazingly demanding), classes, and countless student group duties which are quite time consuming. Essentially I had 25hours or accounted for out of every 24hour day. Anywho, I do not wish to rant; I greatly enjoy everything I am doing and wouldn't have it any other way.

But at times, we realize that we cannot do anything...that we are humans. We are created, finite beings and we need a support system (family, friends, God). That coffee a friend will bring me, a smoke break with friends to just get out of the library if only for 3 minutes.

As much as we try to be, we are not self-sufficient. That would be the ideal.  Aristotle argues that there is a self-sufficient nature of the εὐδαιμον (fulfilled) life. Aristotle, in his great book the Politics, discusses self-sufficiency as a natural aspect of our natural ends as humans. Aristotle maintains that the city-state is the most complete community, because it attains the limit of self-sufficiency, so that it can exist for the sake of the good life (Pol. I.2.1252b27–30). Individuals outside of the city-state are not self-sufficient, because they depend on the community not only for material necessities but also for education and moral habituation. “Just as, when perfected, a human is the best of animals, so also when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all” (1253a31–3). 

Aristotle, in Chapter 2 in Book I of the Politics, is provides a single line of argumentation to show that the polis exists by nature, that human beings are by nature political animals, and that anyone who is unfit for a life in the polis is either sub-human or super-human. What will follow is a very brief and quick summarization of this line of argumentation (aka, it is prone to error):



Aristotle provides the following argument for the natural existence of the polis:

1. The first communities exist by nature.
2. The polis comes to be as a result of a natural process that proceeds via a sequence of stages, each of which is associated with a certain natural community (household and village).
3. The polis is the telos of the first communities.
4. The telos of a natural process and its intermediate natural results is itself natural/ a nature.
5. The polis is the nature of the first communities.
6. The nature of things that exist by nature must itself exist by nature.
7. Therefore, the polis exists by nature.

What is important here is the first two premises. Aristotle begins by noting that it is natural for human beings to procreate. Thus, they “necessarily form a couple as female and male for the sake of procreation” (1252a27-28). In a similar way, there is “a natural ruler and what is naturally ruled” (1252a30). The master and the slave is a natural couple, formed for the sake of survival (1255a1-3; It is evident, then, that there are some people, some of whom are naturally slaves, for whom slavery is both just and beneficial.”). Both these couples , viz., the husband/wife and master/slave, are formed naturally. They both have the telos of survival; continuing their existence either in species or individual. Thus, the husband and wife preserve the species through procreation “because of the urge to leave behind something of the same kind as themselves (1252a27) and the master and slave couple preserve the individuals through natural slavery. In order to seek existence, they must form a union called the household. It is the first self-subsisting community. It is formed for the sake of existence and is self-sufficient for the every day needs of life. “It comes to be or the sake of living...” (1252b28) Since the desire to procreate and survive are nature for Aristotle, the household, as a community of two couples that fulfill these natural desires, is a natural community. 
A natural offshoot of the household is the village. Aristotle argues that, in direct continuation of the household, the village naturally forms since there are natural desires others than those base desires for survival. It is formed through procreation,formed through the children's children and the interaction of several households. It is basically an extended household but is capable of fulfilling natural needs in addition to the every day needs. Since it is formed via the natural desire of procreation in the household, the village is likewise natural. Thus, the first communities (household and village) exist by nature (1).
Like the household, the village will continue to grow in pursuit of those needs that the village cannot satisfy until the village becomes many villages. Thus, the polis forms as a community of the villages. It is a combination of villages in the most complete way. It is complete and possesses complete self-sufficiency. Aristotle argues that it has reached the “limit of total self-sufficiency” (1252b27). Since it is formed from the village, it “comes to be for the sake of living, but it remains in existence for the sake of living well" (1252b28-29). The polis provides what is necessary, not only for living, but for living a good life. It is formed by the base, natural desire to survive and allows for the good life. Thus, the polis, stemming from natural communities, is formed in a natural process and is a natural community (2).



Aristotle is arguing for the natural-ness of polis...but he is also pointing out what makes it natural and perfect (i.e., the end of the natural desire to form communities)...our desire for survival and to be self-sufficient. At all of our levels of natural inclination, our rational nature directs us toward the Good (or a perceived good) which renders us more and more self-sufficient. At the very base level, we attempt to preserve our own existence...we seek survival. This is the sine qua non of self-sufficiency.


Yet, this self-sufficiency is only had, Aristotle would argue, in the polis. Man is by nature a social being...a polis being, that is, a member of the polis. In the Nichomachean Ethics, is addresses the individual's need, as a fully self-sufficient man, for friends. First he addresses the conflict by noting that "it is said that the blessedly happy and self-sufficient people have no need of friends. For they already have [all] the goods, and hence, being self-sufficient, need nothing added" (NE. 1169b4–6). He will eventually conclude that the excellent person labours for his friends and for his native country, and will die for them if he must" (1169a19–20) and ultimately, that the εὐδαιμον man will have friends. Finally, he argues that one's friend is "another oneself", and so the pleasure that the virtuous person gets from his own life is also found in the life of another virtuous person. "Anyone who is to be happy, then, must have excellent friends" (1170b19).We are human, created, finite things. As Catholics, nothing we do is an accomplishment apart from the aiding and guiding grace of God Almighty. It is interesting to reflect upon the fact that self-sufficiency is not understood by Aristotle, or Aquinas, as a mode of existence in isolation from a community. Our Beatitude is a perfection of our whole beings which includes our social nature. A community, in fact, is what makes self-sufficiency possible and allows for it to be exercised.

"non quod sufficientes simus cogitare aliquid a nobis quasi ex nobis sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est" (Not that we are sufficient to think any thing of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God.) (2 Cor. 3:5). Our self-sufficiency, Aristotle argues, comes from our community of friends. Above all, however, our true self-sufficiency where we will be perfected in Intellect and see God as God sees Himself in the Beatific Vision, is rooted in the sufficiency of Christ our Lord. We must form a relationship with Him in Whom we ultimately wish to exist, for all eternity, in community with. We can never achieve an individual self-sufficiency.

Rev. 3:14-22 - "et angelo Laodiciae ecclesiae scribe haec dicit Amen testis fidelis et verus qui est principium creaturae Dei scio opera tua quia neque frigidus es neque calidus utinam frigidus esses aut calidus sed quia tepidus es et nec frigidus nec calidus incipiam te evomere ex ore meo quia dicis quod dives sum et locupletatus et nullius egeo et nescis quia tu es miser et miserabilis et pauper et caecus et nudus suadeo tibi emere a me aurum ignitum probatum ut locuples fias et vestimentis albis induaris et non appareat confusio nuditatis tuae et collyrio inungue oculos tuos ut videas ego quos amo arguo et castigo aemulare ergo et paenitentiam age ecce sto ad ostium et pulso si quis audierit vocem meam et aperuerit ianuam introibo ad illum et cenabo cum illo et ipse mecum qui vicerit dabo ei sedere mecum in throno meo sicut et ego vici et sedi cum Patre meo in throno eius qui habet aurem audiat quid Spiritus dicat ecclesiis"
"And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot. ut because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. I counsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou mayest be made rich; and mayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness may not appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance. Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with me in my throne: as I also have overcome, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches."


They were blinded by their own self sufficiency. They had all the money and possessions they needed and they needed nothing. This Aristotle notes is wrong and as Catholics, we of course know it to be wrong. "omnia possum in eo qui me confortat" ("I can do all these things in him who strengtheneth me." (Phil. 4:13) We as finite beings have it impossible to be self-sufficient. Our life, our existence, and our eventual immortality is dependent on God.

"ixit autem serpens ad mulierem nequaquam morte moriemini scit enim Deus quod in quocumque die comederitis ex eo aperientur oculi vestri et eritis sicut dii scientes bonum et malum." ("And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.") (Gen. 3:4-5)


Our desire for self-sufficiency itself is not misplaced or sinful. It is natural. The sinfulness of it is when we fail to recognize our ultimate existence and self-sufficiency's dependence on God. We seek to see as God sees and exist forever naturally...that is the temptation the serpent gives to Eve. We are finite and we must face this reality lest we fall into the sins of our First Parents who, though rightly ordered towards a desire for self-sufficiency, failed to realize this desire's dependence on God who Alone is self-sufficient in the fullest sense. They tried to achieve independent and apart from God and well, you know the rest of the story.

The end point is this...we will FALL miserably if try to achieve our two ends (the two ends Satan himself uses against Eve) without the aid of God's Grace. "As stated above (Article 1), there is understood to be an effect of God's gratuitous will in whoever is said to have God's grace." (ST IaIIae, 110, 2, corpus.) It is the light of our soul and guides us truly to our ends, unlike the Deceiver. We will never achieve it on our own...that was Satan's big mistake. This willing to live self-sufficiently (in the sense of abandoning one's dependence on God) is the description of Satan provided by Dante...it is what led to his Pride. Satan is introduced as a failed rebel, who could not stomach the fact that he was a created being and not self-sufficient. Satan’s primal rebellion is the desire to be absolutely self-sufficient, to deny the message that inheres in all things: “We did not make ourselves.” Satan is the father of lies precisely in this assertion of self-creation.  (Canto XXXIV)

The Satanic understanding of self-sufficiency is what we need to avoid...we must recognize our own humanity. The portrayal of the Inferno is one so absolutely void of humanity...(as compared to the fulnesss (flourished) humanity of the saints dancing in beatitude in Paradiso).

One last point then...when I say we must recognize our own humanity, I mean we must assert our own vulnerability. Satan denied it and Adam and Eve denied it. Perhaps I will right a meditation here later on vulnerability but I have no time now. We must take the sub-ordinate role in our relation to God...he is the authority. We are simply the beloved that the belover loved so much that he took the initiative to send His Only Begotten Son to Die on the Cross so that, in the Cross, the bridge between Heaven and Earth is restored and we may once again develop a vulnerable dependence on and a relationship with God who loves us (and in vulnerability, opening up ourselves completely and without reserve, even if it means a painful martyrdom).

Fulton Sheen quote that seems fitting (mainly so I can put a great pic of him up):
“Hence the Mass is to us the crowning act of Christian worship. A pulpit in which the words of our Lord are repeated does not unite us to Him; a choir in which sweet sentiments are sung brings us no closer to His Cross than to His garments. A temple without an altar of sacrifice is non-existent among primitive peoples, and is meaningless among Christians. And so in the Catholic Church the altar , and not the pulpit or the choir or the organ, is the center of worship, for there is re-enacted the memorial of His Passion. Its value does not depend on him who says it, or on him who hears it; it depends on Him who is the One High Priest and Victim, Jesus Christ our Lord. With Him we are united, in spite of our nothingness; in a certain sense, we lose our individuality for the time being; we unite our intellect and our will, our heart and our soul, our body and our blood, so intimately with Christ, that the Heavenly Father sees not so much us with our imperfection, but rather sees us in Him, the Beloved Son in whom He is well pleased. The Mass is for that reason the greatest event in the history of mankind; the only Holy Act which keeps the wrath of God from a sinful world, because it holds the Cross between heaven and earth, thus renewing that decisive moment when our sad and tragic humanity journeyed suddenly forth to the fullness of supernatural life.”

Yeah, why not...a couple more
 

Petrine and Pauline roots

So I was recently having a discussion with a PhD student with whom I am very good friends with; a regular study buddy if you will...

Anywho, I asked him what he was working on recently and sad he just finished working through medieval Canon Law texts and that it was a really horrible experience; 12th century, unedited Latin...no thanks to that.

Now we always, during a smoke break, discuss issues with the world, Church, the university and how we would fix all of them...who doesn't? He then turns to me and explains that while working through this Canon Law, he thinks he figured out one big issue in the contemporary Church; a lack of a foundation in Petrine and Pauline traditions...and I very much agree.

I will get into that in a second but it will also allow me to revisit some of the most moving experiences in the Eternal City. 

St. John Lateran is the head and mother of all Churches in the world. At the entrance, you see Sacrosancta Lateranensis ecclesia omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput (Most Holy Lateran Church, of all the churches in the city and the world, the mother and head). 

The official dedication of the Basilica and the adjacent Lateran Palace was presided over by Pope Sylvester I in 324, declaring both to be Domus Dei or "House of God." In its interior, the Papal Throne was placed, making it the Cathedral of the Bishop of Rome. The official sear of the Bishop of Rome (making it the Cathedral the mother and head of the Church in Rome) is also the seat of the Pope (making it the head and seat of the Whole entire Church). Already, there is some evidence for the primacy and importance of the Pope, the successor to the Good and Holy St. Peter. 

In the upper part of the baldacchino are preserved the heads of the Apostles Peter and Paul

It is pretty amazing that have them looking down at you when you walk in. 

But why are they so important? Why has the Church, since the crucifixion of St. Peter, been so obssessed with his remains, never losing the location on the Vatican Hill where he was buried and building the greatest dome of the Basilica of St. Peter over the Chapel of Constantine over the bones of St. Peter?

Furthermore, why was the most moving experience being able to see the Holy Father with my eyes, the successor to St. Peter? If you look back on my post http://morelacemoregrace.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-roman-adventure.html you will see that the only time I had tears in my eyes was in the presence of the Holy Father. 

and why? Yes, I think that guy Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is a great guy...I like his philosophy and theology and he sure has published some great books. Rather, what was overwhelming was seeing Pope Benedict XVI. There is great symbolism in the Pope changing his name; It is symbolic of Jesus changing the name of Simon to Peter at the time he named him as leader of his Church and the first pope. Its the great office of the Pope. Our present Holy Father, when discussing changing his name to Benedict from Joseph Ratzinger, notes that it reinforces the fact that it not about him; rather it is about God. In the Pope, I am able to see the glory of God's work manifesting itself. That somebody like Simon could become the Petrus of the Church.

 

Anyways, what we as Catholics venerate is the Seat of Peter and the Successor of Peter...not Simon. He is the monarch of the Universal Church

Christ is the Lord of all but he left his authority to Peter to rule the Church on Earth. As successor of St. Peter, the Pope is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth: 

"And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt 16: 17-19)

This picture makes me happy but it also reinforces the Primacy of Peter:

Hence, Peter is the first to enter the tomb; John, arriving first, the beloved Disciple waits for the authority and the primacy of Peter:

"And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre: and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre. She ran therefore and cometh to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved and saith to them: They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre: and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple: and they came to the sepulchre. And they both ran together: and that other disciple did outrun Peter and came first to the sepulchre. And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying: but yet he went not in.Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre: and saw the linen cloths lying, And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place. Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Well this has taken longer than I thought but I just want to say a few more things

I think this is one of the biggest problems in the Church, especially in America that I think has never really had a good connection to Peter and Paul. In a more general sense, Theology (John) must wait for Authority (Peter) and must be grounded in Authority and Tradition (contra Luther and Protestantism that argues for sola scriptura)

and here we are...hard stop.

Happiness

Yesterday was Laetare Sunday!!!


Which means we get some of this action:



and some of this action:



and some of this action:



Ah yes the rose colored vestments...not pink as Fr. Roy likes to point out..."the vestments are not a fashion statement...no no, we do not wear pink, we wear rose"


Truly a symbol of your subdued joy of our anticipation for Easter in the middle of Lent. Anywho... I am in a show off cool pictures mood so there we are. 




And now, from my friends at newliturgicalmovement.org:
(this makes me really happy)

MONDAY, APRIL 04, 2011

Divine Liturgy Celebrated in Rome by the New Head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

BY GREGORY DIPIPPO

On March 23, the bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church elected as their new leader the youngest member of their hierarchy, 41 year-old Bishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, of the Eparchy of Santa Maria del Patrocinio in Argentina. He succeeds as Major Archbishop of Kiev-Halych Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, who retired on February 10 due to failing eyesight. After the confirmation of the election by Pope Benedict XVI on March 25, Archbishop Shevchuk was enthroned in the still-to-be completed Cathedral of the Resurrection in Kiev on March 27th. Almost immediately thereafter, he and several members of the Permanent Synod of the UGCC hierarchy came to Rome, and were received in audience by the Holy Father on April 1. Among the challenges which the new Archbishop faces will be the fostering of good relations with the various Orthodox Churches of the Ukraine, a task which has already gotten off to a good start; official representatives of the various groups of the Ukrainian Orthodox were present for his enthronement, and, as His Beatitude referred to the Holy Father, “When I came up to each of them during the singing to say the liturgical phrase ‘Christ is among us,’ each of them answered: ‘He is and shall be.’ It was a very promising indication of their openness and shows that we really have many more objectives and much more work to do in th(e) field (of ecumenical relations).” (Courtesy of RISU, the Religious Information Service of Ukraine.) A good friend of the NLM, the Rev. Dr. Athanasius McVay, a priest of the Ukrainian Eparchy of Edmonton, recently wrote an article on the election of the new Archbishop and what it means for the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, which is well worth reading.

Yesterday, His Beatitude celebrated the Divine Liturgy of the Fourth Sunday of Great Lent, also called the Sunday of St. John Climacus, at the Church of St. Sophia in Rome, together with a large number of bishops and priests of his Church, as well as Leonardo Card. Sandri, the Prefect of the Congregation of the Oriental Churches. (Card. Sandri was born in Buenos Aires, where Archbishop Shevchuk was serving as bishop until his election.) The church is attached to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic University of St. Clement, but was far too small to accommodate the large number of faithful who were present for this signal event in the history of their church; a sanctuary was therefore set up on the steps of the building, and the faithful stood close by in the large open space in front of it. The choir was formed of priests and seminarians from the Pontifical Russian College and Pontifical Ukrainian College, and provided music that was as solemn and beautiful as such a moving occasion deserved; one of the priests present told me that he was in tears for at least half of the Liturgy, an emotion shared by many present, including myself. More photographs are available from the indefatigable John Sonnen over at Orbis Catholicus.

The temporary sanctuary set up on the steps of the church.

Confessions were heard by four priests through the length of the service, well over two hours, in the customary manner of the Byzantines, with the faithful kneeling next to the seated priests.

The Archbishop was greeted by members of the faithful in traditional Ukrainian dress.

Senior members of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic hierarchy in the entrance procession, followed by Leonardo Cardinal Sandri.

His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Major Archbishop of Kiev-Halych.

The clergy enter the sanctuary.

The singing of the Gospel.

The Homily, to which the congregation listened with a silence unusual for such a large crowd.

During the singing of the Creed, the veil is waved up and down over the Archbishop's head, symbolic of the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles at Pentecost.

Cardinal Sandri and Archbishop Shevchuk exchange the Kiss of Peace.

At the Sursum corda, as at several other important moments of the Liturgy, a Byzantine bishop hold the two candlesticks which are part of his insignia.

The Our Father

Cardinal Sandri reads Pope Benedict's letter confirming the election of Archbishop Shevchuk.

The Archbishop with clergy and laity of his flock.

The faithful make there thanksgiving inside the church after the liturgy is over.

A view of the congregation.

Mark 12:28-34

"et accessit unus de scribis qui audierat illos conquirentes et videns quoniam bene illis responderit interrogavit eum quod esset primum omnium mandatum Iesus autem respondit ei quia primum omnium mandatum est audi Israhel Dominus Deus noster Deus unus est et diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et ex tota anima tua et ex tota mente tua et ex tota virtute tua hoc est primum mandatum secundum autem simile illi diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum maius horum aliud mandatum non est et ait illi scriba bene magister in veritate dixisti quia unus est et non est alius praeter eum et ut diligatur ex toto corde et ex toto intellectu et ex tota anima et ex tota fortitudine et diligere proximum tamquam se ipsum maius est omnibus holocaustomatibus et sacrificiis Iesus autem videns quod sapienter respondisset dixit illi non es longe a regno Dei et nemo iam audebat eum interrogare"

("And there came one of the scribes that had heard them reasoning together, and seeing that he had answered them well, asked him which was the first commandment of all. And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said to him: Well, Master, thou hast said in truth that there is one God and there is no other besides him. And that he should be loved with the whole heart and with the whole understanding and with the whole soul and with the whole strength. And to love one's neighbour as one's self is a greater thing than all holocausts and sacrifices. And Jesus seeing that he had answered wisely, said to him: Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.")

------------------------------------

This was today's Gospel reading... First, to Love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength (so seriously, with my whole being). Second, to love my neighbor as myself. There has a whole lot of stuff said on this specific Gospel reading

Lets begin with a look at what the good Angelic Doctor says:

"He mentions the first and greatest commandment of all; this is that to which each of us must give the first place in his heart, as the only foundation of piety, that is, the knowledge and confession of the Divine Unity, with the practice of good works, which is perfected in the love of God and our neighbor; wherefore there is added, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your soul, and with all your strength: this is the first commandment..."

"See how He has enumerated all the powers of the soul; for there is a living power in tire soul, which He explains, when He says, With all your soul, and to this belong anger and desire, all of which He will have us give to Divine love. There is also another power, which is called natural, to which belong nutriment and growth, and this also is all to be given to God, for which reason He says, With all your heart. There is also another power, the rational which He calls the mind, and that too is to be given whole to God..."

"The words which are added, And with all your strength, may be referred to the bodily powers it goes on: And the second is like, namely this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself..."

"He says, that it is like because these two commandments are harmonious one with the other, and mutually contain the other. For he who loves God, loves also His creature; but the chief of His creatures is man, wherefore he who loves God ought to love all men. But he who loves his neighbor, who so often offends him, ought much more to love Him, who is ever giving him benefits. And therefore on account of the connection between these commandments, He adds, There is none other commandment greater than these..."

Perhaps we should take a step back and look at exactly what caritas is.

St Pauls states: "nunc autem manet fides spes caritas tria haec maior autem his est caritas..." (I Cor. 13:13) - "And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity."

The Greek word he uses is αγαπη (agape)

Faith is the virtue whereby we assent to the truth of supernaturally revealed principles (Aquinas calls them “articles of faith”)

Hope is is the virtue whereby we trust God in obtaining final happiness. But because God is the one in whom final happiness consists (and not simply the one who assists us in achieving it), we must look to God as the good we desire to obtain (ST IIaIIae 17.6 ad 3).

Charity is the virtue whereby we love God for his own sake. He amplifies this idea when he (echoing Augustine) says that charity is an appetitive state whereby our appetites are uniformly ordered to God (ST IIaIIae 23.3 sed contra).

Charity is what abides in Heaven for we no longer have to have faith in or hope for God. 

Charity rectifies our fallen wills; that is, it perfects our deficient inclinations by orienting them toward God as the proper source of our fulfillment. Since our end is intimately tied up with our seeking the right ends, or End, charity is extremely important for our final happiness with God, our final end. Charity, then, inclines one to love God, whose goodness is perfect, unchanging, and eternal. Furthermore, it allows us to attain an end that all the other virtues are unable to attain; Charity is the form, mover, mother and root of all the virtues

For the Christian, it is quite obvious that we are called to love God for all eternity; why love of neighbor? On the one hand, charity is the Perfection of Natural Friendship. Aquinas describes a friendship as two people facing the same direction (namely God) and charity is what perfects it said friendship. So one could view the love of neighbor as integral to our loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.  This friendship with neighbor also helps us form a friendship with God. Charity is both love of God and friendship with God. Since charity is grounded in the Goodness of God and our participation in God, Aquinas states that “the love which is based on this communication is charity: wherefore it is evident that charity is the friendship of man with God” (II-II.23.1.corpus).

On the other hand, love of neighbor can be understood as loving God due to their imago Dei. What I will end here is an approach to this discussion through the len's of Aristotle's magnanimous man and its compatibility with Christianity. 

This is a topic I have been interested in all year; I think it is once we get notions like pride, humility, virtue, greatness, etc down clearly. I will be writing a paper on this soon so I will save the lengthy discussion of this for a later time; I will however, point to one aspect of the magnanimous man.

Aristotle states in the Nichomachean Ethics of the Great-Souled man that "The magnanimous man's disdain s justifiable, because his estimate is true; but most people's disdain is capricious." (1123b-1124a)

The magnanimous man has a rightly ordered disdain towards those of less virtue than him; if it weren't justified, he would be vain or prideful. 

On Aristotle's account, the great-souled man's contempt for others does not entail animosity toward them. On the contrary, the great-souled man is said by Aristotle to treat ordinary people with a kind of gentleness. He is "courteous" toward those of "moderate station," and he uses "ironical selfdepreciation" to conceal his greatness from common folk. His contempt, then, is simply a looking down upon others as beneath him. This I feel is in fact compatible with Christian morality...it is not a hatred towards the less virtuous/holy. 

The magnanimous man is constantly accused of being prideful; yet Aquinas clearly teaches that humility regards more one's relationship to God than to other men. Aristotelian magnanimity, in contrast, is concerned with the great-souled man's relationship to other human beings. Thus, insofar as their points of reference differ, the self-evaluations involved in humility and magnanimity need not come into conflict. A Catholic, full of charity for neighbor and God then, it seems may 'look down' on less virtuous human beings as long as he doesn't fail to look up to God. He may may recognize his superiority to others so long as he does not allow it to obscure his recognition of God's superiority.

Yes it is true that God calls us to serve and be humble to our brothers in Christ. This is, however, not a calling to abandon one's own justifiable recognition of his own greatness (through the grace of God). This calling is a calling to, as it were, once having emerged from Plato's Cave, to go back into the cave and lead the rest out of the cave to the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. The balance between humility towards neighbor and and the magnanimous man is perfectly phrased by Aquinas in the Summa IIaIIae, cxxix, 3, ad4:

The Magnanimous Angelic Doctor, humbled before his Creator

"There is in man something great which he possesses through the gift of God; and something defective which accrues to him through the weakness of nature. Accordingly magnanimity makes a man deem himself worthy of great things in consideration of the gifts he holds from God: thus if his soul is endowed with great virtue, magnanimity makes him tend to perfect works of virtue; and the same is to be said of the use of any other good, such as science or external fortune. On the other hand, humility makes a man think little of himself in consideration of his own deficiency, and magnanimity makes him despise others in so far as they fall away from God's gifts: since he does not think so much of others as to do anything wrong for their sake. Yet humility makes us honor others and esteem them better than ourselves, in so far as we see some of God's gifts in them. Hence it is written of the just man (Psalm 14:4): "In his sight a vile person is contemned [Douay: 'The malignant is brought to nothing, but he glorifieth,' etc.]," which indicates the contempt of magnanimity, "but he honoreth them that fear the Lord," which points to the reverential bearing of humility. It is therefore evident that magnanimity and humility are not contrary to one another, although they seem to tend in contrary directions, because they proceed according to different considerations."

Even in magnanimity, we love our neighbor as an imago Dei. Yet, we despise their existence away from God. They are greater than us as an imago Dei. 

Well there we are...