Jesus, the Jews, the Eucharist and the Hermeneutic of Contenuity

I'm in the middle of reading two books right now. One is a book length interview of  Cardinal Robert Sarah (I understand it should be pronounced sar-AH), the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. It's called God or Nothing, and in it he he speaks of his early life growing up in Guinea, his years in priestly formation, and his becoming archbishop during a turbulent time in his nation's history (the interview is more far reaching than a simple autobiography, but that's what I'm up to at this point). The second is Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre, a professor of sacred Scripture at Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. Since the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ is coming up on Sunday, I'll say a few words about the latter book. I will have something to say about Cardinal Sarah's book soon, though.

I haven't finished either book, so I won't be offering an actual review or exhaustive critique Mr. Pitre's work. But I do have some first impressions.

As Catholics, and I'm guessing this is true of Christians in general, we tend to have an ambivalent attitude toward Judaism. After a tragic history of mistrust that saw the Christian majority in Europe oppress and segregate the Jews for centuries, and then having to come to grips with the unspeakable barbarism of the Holocaust, we have tended to at once come to appreciate our Jewish sisters and brothers, and their religious and cultural heritage, but we also want to simply leave them alone. I mean this in the sense that we fear adding unintended insult to the very grave injuries they have suffered, so we will praise, but not really make any other observations. 

Speaking for the Catholic tradition, the thaw in relations actually started before World War II, when Pope Pius XI opened up a dialogue with Jewish leaders as early as the 1920's (this initiative was unfortunately thwarted by more reactionary forces within the Curia), stating the incompatibility of antisemitism with the faith, and he famously proclaimed that Catholics are "all spiritual Semites." 

While we have taken into account the difficult history between us in how we conduct our interfaith initiatives, there is no doubt that the specter of the death camps has influenced how we relate with our elders in the Faith in a particular way. We are careful not to target evangelization initiatives toward the Jews, so as not to appear to be proselytizing. While the average Catholic today is probably more aware of the Jewish roots of Christianity, and of Jewish practice in general, than was the case in generations past, it strikes me that the focus is still on the uniqueness of the Jewish religious tradition, both ancient and contemporary, as opposed to it's possible continuity with Catholic ritual and belief. I think I understand why we would want to show the proper respect. But in stressing the "otherness" of Judaism, while still recognizing it's beauty and power (I don't know about you, but I get teary eyed when I talk about the Ma Nishtana to my Scripture classes), are we not overlooking Jesus' claim that he came not to abolish the Old Covenant but to fulfill it?

Though his is a popular treatment, Mr. Pitre does an impressive job combing through, not just the Old Testament but, the Talmud and Mishnah as well: the vast collections of rabbinic commentary and collected Jewish oral tradition in order to understand what 1st century Jews would have been thinking about in terms of the coming of the messiah, as well as the nuances of Temple worship that aren't mentioned in the canonical Scriptures. Just as we have the concept of Scripture and Tradition, the Jews also have a body of non-canonical literature they rely on to help them understand the Bible and how it's been interpreted over the centuries (I'm not qualified to really speak to a comprehensive Jewish theology of revelation, but there is no doubt that these writings are very important to understanding their religious and cultural tradition). The picture that is presented is of a religious practice that is certainly unique, but with more similarities to Catholicism that you may have thought. He also over turns some accepted presuppositions we've been laboring under for years.

One such premise that we take for granted is that First Century Jews were anticipating a political-military messiah who was going to liberate Israel from Roman rule and reestablish the Davidic Monarchy. Pitre contends that this is only partially true. Many Jews were actually awaiting something greater than simply political and economic liberation: they were awaiting a new Exodus, with a new Moses who would repeat the miracle of the manna in the desert. The miracle of the manna only lasted as long as Israel was wandering in the wilderness, and was recognized as something supernatural in origin. As soon as they entered into the Promised Land the manna stopped appearing on the ground, as did the appearance of quail in the evening, through which God had supplied His people with flesh to eat, something also considered to be a supernatural occurrence.

The idea here is that Jesus is the new Moses, who inaugurated a new Exodus by His passion, death and resurrection (Luke's Gospel makes direct reference to this in it's account of the Transfiguration). But just as the Hebrews didn't go directly into the Promised Land after leaving slavery in Egypt, Christians are wandering in the wilderness of this world until Jesus returns to lead us into the eternal Promised Land; the Heavenly Jerusalem. In the meantime we have the new manna, the Eucharist, the Bread of Angels, to sustain us on the journey. 

This is only one aspect of a rather complex and interconnected picture that Mr. Pitre offers the reader of ancient Jewish practice and its connection with the Catholic faith. I guess what I'm picking up after getting about halfway through the book so far, is that we tend to look at Christianity, and specifically Catholicism as some grand departure from the Jewish religion. In reality, if the entire record is examined, we come away with a clear continuity between the two traditions, that doesn't destroy the uniqueness of ether religion. 

What I'm also seeing is the wisdom in the Catholic insistence on Revelation being contained in both Scripture and Tradition, not Scripture alone. While the Bible gives us the basis of belief, and nothing in the Tradition can contradict Scripture, the ongoing oral tradition, liturgical rites, commentaries by the Fathers and Magisterial pronouncements passed on through the ages sheds light on what the Scripture means. It tells us how the eternal Word has been applied in the concrete situations of history on planet earth, and again, shows forth the continuity of the faith guided by the Holy Spirit. The more I read the Old Testament the more I've come to see this continuity between the two dispensations. But it's subtle and can be easy to miss. When the extra-Scriptural Jewish sources are taken into account the connections become much clearer. 

In all this, I've come to a greater appreciation of my own Catholic tradition, but this and other reading I've done in this vein, has also led me to a greater appreciation of the Jewish faith. It is unique, and needs to be cherished on its own terms. But it would be spiritual blindness on our parts to not acknowledge the clear continuity between our religions.

I'll finish both Cardinal Sarah's book and Mr. Pitre's, and have further thoughts soon.

The Harvard Controversy Wrap Up

In the end the atrocity planned for last night at Harvard didn't go on. The student organization that was to host the "Black Mass" thought better of it, or at least decided to move it off campus, but they couldn't find any one who would give them a room. Good for them, who ever they are. So, it was canceled. The New York "Satanist" group that was going to do the actual ritual sent out an email around 10:30pm saying that the ceremony was taking place at that very moment in a Chinese restaurant near by the campus. When a reporter called the place an employee identifying himself as Fred said that the principals involved were presently at the bar drinking and didn't appear to be performing any rituals (I'm not making this stuff up). Another report says that the ritual did go on on the second floor of the establishment, but without the consecrated host. 

My thoughts on all this.

johnnyc, who leaves comments now and again (something I strongly encourage, as long as they're not profane, and johnnyc's are always respectful, even if we may disagree), commented on an earlier post that we should be more concerned about dissent within the the Church as opposed to these "clowns." He points out the Leadership Confrence of Women Religious (LCWR), who have been under scrutiny by the Vatican and the USCCB for heterodox pronouncements, and a general disregard for Church doctrine and discipline. They are the ones, along with Catholic politicians who support abortion on demand, who should be the main focus of our concern, according to him. I agree that these satanist wannabees are clowns, but don't agree that we're misdirecting our fire upon them. Whatever the conflict between the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the LCWR, it should not be happening in the New York Times. These internecine battles played out in the public square are the very definition of the Church at her most self-referential, and irrelevant.

The outrage expressed at the Harvard affair is not a reflection of fear, but was a teaching moment in which the Church engaged the world and educated it anew about the centrality of the Eucharist in our life, the True Presence and the beauty of Eucharistic Adoration. All the LCWR battle comes off as is more Church politics that few outside of a small group within the community is paying attention to. For those in the main stream media who cover it, it's just an extension of the same old liberal-conservative battles, and to the world the Church just ends up looking like a political organization.  I have faith that the Spirit will sort that situation out, one way or another, and I don't see the need to air our family business in public. But if we are going to make a strong public stand let it be in these moments of engagement with the world when we are given these opportunities to show what what the Church really stands for.

My other thought is that as a Church we really do need to examine how Holy Communion is distributed, specifically if Communion in the hand while standing is the most reverent, and safest, way of distributing the Sacred Body of Christ. The problem is that this is usually broken down into a "progressive-traditionalist" battle, and that's wrong. In our parish we have had problems of non consecrated hosts being stolen, and of people having to be instructed to consume the host after they tried to walk away with it. A couple of our ushers had an altercation with someone on Easter who refused to consume the host and ran away with it.

Let me go on record: I don't speak Latin (mine was a social promotion out of the class) and, while I'm not opposed to it, I have no desire to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. I'm Novus Ordo born and bread, and proud of it. I am troubled though by the disrespect showed to the Blessed Sacrament and believe that in this time of increased occult activity certain aspects of our practice needs to be reexamined, free of prejudice and agenda. If we really believe the Eucharist is what we say it is; the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread; then we need to do all that we can to prevent such desecrations from happening.

Update: Harvard "Black Mass" Canceled

According to several news outlets, including Time Magazine, the "Black Mass" scheduled for tonight on the Harvard campus was abruptly canceled. More commentary to follow.

President Faust Speaks: Harvard "Black Mass" Controversy Update

President Faust of Harvard

As of this writing the so called "Black Mass" is still set to be held on the Harvard campus, with a Eucharistic Procession and Holy Hour to be held at St. Paul's Church in Cambridge as a sort of spiritual counter protest.

The President of Harvard, Drew Faust, issued a statement today that basically said, yes, this is wrong and not really what Harvard is all about, but we will leave the decision as to whether the atrocity will go on or not in the hands of the organizers. She made this decision in light of the "University's commitment to free expression, including expression that may deeply offend us." She went on to write that...

"I plan to attend a Eucharistic Holy Hour and Benediction at St. Paul's Church on our campus on Monday evening in order to join others in reaffirming our respect for the Catholic faith at Harvard and to demonstrate that the most powerful response to offensive speech is not censorship, but reasoned discourse and robust dissent."

I do not doubt Dr. Faust's sincerity, and am actually touched by her gesture of solidarity. But this does bring up other questions in my mind, not simply about Harvard, but about American academia in general, and how committed it really is to open discourse and debate; the reason she said the University wouldn't stand in the way of the "Black Mass" from being staged.  Unfortunately my schedule doesn't allow me to elaborate at this moment. Time to go hear confessions before celebrating the Holy Mass.

More to come...

Satan and Man at Harvard

Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here

CORRECTION: I link below to a post on The Anchoress blog, and go on to describe it's content. One big problem though: The description refers to a piece on the God and the Machine blog by Thomas McDonald (my bad). He makes the observations about real versus pretend satanists and gives a good review of the history of the black mass. If you follow the links on The Anchoress you will indeed get a good run through of the story at hand. Ms Scalia has been covering the story like a journalist, talking to all the concerned parties. Both sites, part of the Patheos network of religious blogs, are worth a read.  

I'm taking a detour from the series of posts on the missionary-evangelical Church to address a story that popped up in some corners of the web this past week. A so called Satanist group has announced that it will be holding a black mass on the Harvard University campus, using a consecrated host in the ritual. The event is supposed to take place Monday.

The secular story came with the usual caveat that there is no historical proof that such rituals, purportedly originating during the Middle Ages, actually ever took place. The argument goes that these were inventions of the establishment to persecute dissenters, mainly proto-feminists, much like how the Salem Witch Hysteria of 1692 is usually spun. And I do mean spun. Whatever one might think of the efficaciousness of satanic ritual, and witchcraft in general, there are scholarly studies to back up that such activities were going on in the Massachusetts Bay Colony at the time. Does this justify the witch hunts or mean that innocent people didn't get caught up in the hysteria, sometimes at the hands of malicious opportunists? No, it doesn't. But it does mean that we need to be honest about the reality of the occult. To perpetuate the idea that black masses and witches are a part of some contrived mythology is itself a myth. And I happen to believe that these rituals do have an effect and a certain power, even though it's not the effects intended by their practitioners.

Satanists, Fellow Travelers or Useful Idiots? Elizabeth Scalia, in an excellent post on her blog The Anchoress, gives a rundown of the story, and her own take on the so called satanists behind this atrocity. She comments that these aren't real satanists at all (as she points out the real ones don't put out press releases) but atheists who use the guise of the occult to attack traditional religion. Satan has long been used by otherwise secular types as a symbol of rebellion and "freedom." These posers would be eaten alive (literally?) by the real thing. She goes on to write that what the pseudo-satanists believe isn't so much the point, the Enemy is more than willing to take advantage of these "useful idiots." And it really is the best of both worlds for him. The devil gets some free publicity (Mephistopheles and his crew love to see their names in the paper more than a Kardashian), gains an opening with which to cause some mayhem and possibly destroy a soul or two hundred, while continuing to reinforce the notion in the popular mind that he really doesn't exist to begin with. What ever you want to say about him, the Prince of Darkness knows how to manipulate the media industrial complex like a pro.

As for Harvard. A cliche I've heard repeatedly from friends this week is some variation on the "Harvard would never have the guts to allow a Koran burning on campus" motif. Just because it's cliche doesn't mean it isn't true, and in this case it is. Of course I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HARVARD, OR ANY PLACE ELSE SHOULD BE HOSTING KORAN BURNINGS. On some level the what that's being desecrated isn't the point; it's that Harvard would take such a hypocritical stance and allow this highly offensive act to go on under their sign.

The great sin of modern academia is being offensive and insensitive to others' beliefs and "life style" choices. The point of the organization hosting this "event" is to share different cultural and religious expressions in a spirit mutual appreciation. But we aren't talking about the performing of an ancient and hollowed ritual adored by countless generations. They're essentially reenacting a scene from a 60's horror movie, based on nothing more than the warped imagination of the film maker. Harvard itself, if I can read into their statement a bit, would love for this thing to go away, but they've backed themselves into a PC corner. If they cave and stop the black mass from being held they look like they're giving in to the "Man," and being untrue to their pluralistic, inclusive goals. If they let it go on, somewhere, in someone's mind there has to be the understanding that they are cooperating in a cynical, craven act that has nothing to do with cultural awareness or inclusivity.

As for the Consecrated Host. To me what's being desecrated is important, above and beyond any other considerations. It really doesn't matter what these lost souls believe. It doesn't matter to me what the folks at Harvard believe, either. As far as I know none of them thinks that the Catholic Sacraments or their satanic inversion have any power what so ever. In their post modern, deconstructed world words have no meaning, ritual has no meaning, apart from what we give them, which in their case is nothing. But words do have meaning. And they know it; no one is quicker to take offense when contradicted than your average Ivy League academic. They know deep down that words have meaning. They inspire people to action. They can cause joy and break hearts.

I believe that the divine words of Jesus Christ have supreme meaning. So yes, my main devotion is not to a book, though that Book contains the Words of everlasting life. I believe the words themselves, and when Jesus tells us through that Word that he gives us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink under the appearance of bread and wine I believe it. When he tells us, in one of the only direct commands he gives in Scripture, to "do this in memory of me," I believe it. And when someone purposely mocks and desecrates the Eucharist I'm enraged.

I hope this atrocity is canceled. Yes, because of the hurt it will cause the faithful. But also because of the harm it will cause Harvard. Let no one be deceived; this is a door opener. I fear for the Harvard community if this goes on. These are foolish, frivolous people. They are like drunks who dive head first off a cliff into water that is far shallower than they can see. Only it will not be merely themselves who will be harmed. I've seen too much damage done by people who engage in occult practice, and most of the damage happens to others; family members, the target of a spell or incantation, or simply a family that had the misfortune of buying a house or living in a building where the rituals were performed. Whether they believe it or not, the administration of Harvard should keep clear of this. No good will come of it, in this life or the next.