What is Christian Joy?
Gaudete Sunday, the third Sunday of Advent, named from the first word
of the Introit to the Mass (Gaudete, i.e. Rejoice).
On Christmas itself, the angels tell the shepherds, “I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10).
What is Joy in the midst of this world?
"Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice. Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Phil: 4:4-7)
Pope Benedict XVI reflected on this theme during an Advent homily in 2007. He mentioned a frequently asked question in light of the great suffering that still exists in the world. He said, “Some people ask: but is this joy still possible today?”
How we can rejoice when so many
of us suffer?
Benedict XVI pointed
to the saints for the key to unlock Christian joy.
"Men and women of every age and social condition, happy to dedicate their existence to others, give us the answer with their lives! Was not [St.] Mother Teresa of Calcutta an unforgettable witness of true Gospel joy in our time? She lived in touch daily with wretchedness, human degradation and death. Her soul knew the trials of the dark night of faith, yet she gave everyone God’s smile. In one of her writings, we read: “We wait impatiently for paradise, where God is, but it is in our power to be in paradise even here on earth and from this moment. Being happy with God means loving like him, helping like him, giving like him, serving like him”. Yes, joy enters the hearts of those who put themselves at the service of the lowly and poor. God abides in those who love like this and their souls rejoice."
The key to joy is in
serving others. This is something we don’t always understand, as we often try
to “make” happiness.
"If, instead, people make an idol of happiness, they lose their way and it is truly hard for them to find the joy of which Jesus speaks. Unfortunately, this is what is proposed by cultures that replace God by individual happiness, mindsets that find their emblematic effect in seeking pleasure at all costs, in spreading drug use as an escape, a refuge in artificial paradises that later prove to be entirely deceptive."
Lasting joy cannot be found in our own pursuits, but only in God.
He alone can give us the joy we seek.
"Dear brothers and sisters, one can lose the way even at Christmas, one can exchange the true celebration for one that does not open the heart to Christ’s joy. May the Virgin Mary help all Christians and people in search of God to reach Bethlehem, to encounter the Child who was born for us, for salvation and for the happiness of all humanity."
People often mistake joy for happiness; they aren't the same thing. Happiness is external, joy is internal. One cannot be happy in the midsts of suffering, but one can have joy, for joy is simply the presence of God. But to experience the presence of God, we must first cast out everything else and make room for him, which often involve suffering.
ReplyDeleteRumi wrote: "Sorrow prepares you for joy. It violently sweeps everything out of your house, so that new joy can find space to enter. It shakes the yellow leaves from the bough of your heart, so that fresh, green leaves can grow in their place. It pulls up the rotten roots, so that new roots hidden beneath have room to grow. Whatever sorrow shakes from your heart, far better things will take their place."
Today, Gaudete Sunday, is the 25th anniversary of my Confirmation and First Communion. My conversion and subsequent welcome into the Church is something I rejoice in, and thank God for, every day.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations, Ray. Happy 25th! What did you convert from, if you don't mind me asking?
DeleteAtheism. I was brought up in a nominally Anglican family, but I just drifted away. I wasn't motivated to put my name down for confirmation at the usual age.
DeleteHappy 25th, Ray.
DeleteMany happy returns, Ray! Leaving atheism must be a wonderful experience.
DeleteThanks be to God.
Delete@Lain, @Gadjo, @Jack, thank you all!
DeleteHappy 25th Ray. A silver jubilee, congratulations.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Prof!
ReplyDeleteHow many of us know the dates of and celebrate our baptism, first reception of the Eucharist and our conformation?
ReplyDeleteIn the Orthodox Church, baptism, confirmation (chrismation) and first communion occur simultaneously; they aren't separated out as they are in the West. So you just have one date to remember.
DeleteIn the first 500 years of the Church these sacraments were received together. Then in the West, Baptism came to be administered in infancy, Confirmation around the age of 7, and Communion around the beginning of adolescence.
DeleteSt Pius X decided that it was important for children at a younger age to receive Holy Communion became standard around the age of 7 years.
The Catholic Church requires that children possess the use of reason, know and understand what the Eucharist is, and are properly disposed.
Some bishops have now moved the rite of Confirmation to the age 7 years for children who were baptized as infants.
But Eastern Catholics, as far as I'm aware, continue to administer baptism and confirmation together, even for infants. Children receiving Holy Communion prior to confirmation has never made sense to me; they are not yet fully initiated members of the Church. It also causes pastoral issues where people fall away from the Church as teens, then come back as adults and continue to receive communion (as they did as children) having never been confirmed.
DeleteI think if one stipulates that communicants need the use of reason and understanding prior to receiving, then that rules out half the congregation straight away (I include myself here, I can barely begin to grasp at what the Eucharist means), and means that the severely mentally impaired can never receive Christ. There's also a case to argue that none of the participants at the first Lord's Supper had the slightest inclination about what they were doing...
The Orthodox position is that anybody who is baptised and chrismated is a full member of the Church and therefore entitled to commune. Infants receive spiritual nourishment from the Church in the same way that they receive bodily nourishment from their mother. Once they are old enough to discern right from wrong, children begin to make their confessions prior to receiving communion.
Yes, in the Eastern Churches, both Orthodox and those in union with the Holy See, the sacraments of baptism, Eucharist and chrismation/confirmation are all administered to infants. In the Western Latin-rite tradition, Eucharist and confirmation come later.
DeleteThe Code of Canon Law states:
“The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion."
The basic requirement is can the child "distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive Communion reverently." One doesn't have to have a fully worked out theology about the mystery!
However, I take your point about confirmation. As one of my favourite writers says: "Confirmation is the most ignored sacrament of our faith.".
Oh, and I would disagree about the Apostles at the Last Supper. It's sacrificial nature is evident in Luke's use of words in recounting this.
Delete“This is my body. . . . This is the blood of the covenant” (Mark 14:22–24). At the simplest level, they would have believed this is true because the Son of God Himself said it was true. Certainly, it was passed on to St Paul.
The basic requirement is can the child "distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive Communion reverently."
DeleteBut an adult convert has to go on a multi-month RCIA course (whereas a cradle Catholic can continue to receive with a 7 year old's understanding of the Eucharist for the rest of their life). And that still leaves the question of the severely impaired. I think there's a danger of sliding 'believer's baptism'-ward here. The Orthodox position is that nobody requires an infant to understand physical food before we feed them, so why should we insist that they understand spiritual food. This will come as they grow in faith and understanding. The scriptural requirement is not that we understand communion, but that we refrain from receiving the Eucharist unworthily, which children below the age of reason cannot do anyway.
Confirmation is regarded as the second of the rites of initiation, it makes no sense to me to do it last, especially as it's simply become a rite of passage in many parishes; a chance for children to dress up in little suits and wedding dresses. I remember a huge fuss in our parish when a young boy in confirmation prep refused to go ahead with confirmation because he didn't think he believed in God. His mother was most instant that this made no difference...
I think it's evident in Luke that the meaning of the Eucharist wasn't apparent until after the resurrection: the words of institution imply a reworking of Ex 24:1-8, but they didn't then know what the 'new covenant' was, because this wasn't revealed until after the resurrection (arguably not until Pentecost). The disciples failed to understand who Christ was, fled following the crucifixion and had no expectation of the resurrection. The only affirmation of Jesus as God (rather than the more ambiguous 'Son of God', which in Semitic use is applied to those having strong relationships with God and doesn't imply divinity) appears after the resurrection.
Insistent, not instant. These posts need an edit button.
DeleteThe Apostles would surely have known the meal they were eating was no ordinary food after the words of Christ.
DeleteThere are good arguments either side of this - it's a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine. In the West, the conditions for Confirmation have changed but not for reception of the Eucharist.
Persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities who may never attain the use of reason, can of course receive the sacrament of Confirmation.
However, the criterion for reception of Holy Communion is the same for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities as for all persons - namely, that the person be able to “distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food,”. The existence of a disability is not considered in and of itself to disqualify a person from receiving Holy Communion.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity teaches the soul of the recipient understands what is being received even if the conscious mind is incapable of doing so, and that the grace imparted by Communion "for the healing of soul and body" is a benefit that should not be denied. Hence the practice of infant Communion and dispensing with confession for those who are mentally or physically incapable of communicating their sins to a priest.
Perhaps, although the theme of St. John's account is that everybody thought it was a bit bonkers and deserted him. Those who stayed with Christ did so because 'to whom else should we go?' Trust in Jesus, rather than an understanding of his methods, was the key.
DeleteI've seen incommunicado adults with severe learning disabilities receive the Eucharist in Catholic Churches, and I don't believe for a moment that it was possible to discern whether they understood the difference between ordinary food and the body of Christ. I don't seen any reason why they should be denied the healing presence of Christ in the Eucharist because they can't communicate for themselves, any more than we deny baptism to babies on the same grounds. After all, it isn't always the faith of the individual in question that's most relevant (Mk. 2:5). Many Protestants also regard the Eucharist as something other than ordinary food, but they wouldn't be admitted to communion (like a 7 year old Catholic child, they are validly baptised but not confirmed, and a child can have no concept of assenting the wider doctrines of the Church nor imagine themselves in communion with Rome via their bishop).
Yes, the Orthodox Church believes that the Eucharist is beneficial and shouldn't be denied to children, who are full members of the body of Christ through their baptism and chrismation; there's no halfway house of being baptised but unable to receive the Lord (until all the children handily become mature enough in the same school term!) And, practically, if children haven't yet reached the age of culpability and cannot commit a mortal sin (although the OC doesn't speak of mortal and venial sins), then the worst case scenario is that the Eucharist does nothing except build a healthy habit of regular communion and familiarity with the rituals of the Church. So there's really no reason to deny communion to infants either way.
" ... the worst case scenario is that the Eucharist does nothing except build a healthy habit of regular communion and familiarity with the rituals of the Church."
DeleteUnfortunately, the results of poor teaching in the Western Catholic Church have resulted in the Eucharist becoming little more than a "habit" and a "ritual" for many. The majority apparently not believing it is the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ they are receiving.
“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:29)
"I've seen incommunicado adults with severe learning disabilities receive the Eucharist in Catholic Churches, and I don't believe for a moment that it was possible to discern whether they understood the difference between ordinary food and the body of Christ."
The benefit of any doubt is given to the recipient in such circumstances - just as it should be.
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven." (Mk 2:5)
Many Protestants do regard the Eucharist as something other than ordinary food, "but they wouldn't be admitted to communion (like a 7 year old Catholic child, they are validly baptised but not confirmed, and a child can have no concept of assenting the wider doctrines of the Church nor imagine themselves in communion with Rome via their bishop)."
But adult Protestants are not children and are capable of reason (well, most are!) Partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion. Doing so would be to proclaim a unity that does not exist.
Another reason is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion:
If what you say is true and the majority of Catholics do not believe in the real presence then in essence they are not Catholics.and should not receive the Eucharist. How do you know the majority do not believe in the real presence? Why don't the priests make this known from the pulpit at every Sunday Mass? It is all made very clear at the Primary School level. Catholicism is essentially simple uncomplicated
Deleteand natural ...no need for endless gospel quotes to justify every action you do or think....that is unhealthy.
A study in 2019 in the USA about the level of Catholic belief in the Real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist showed that a majority of Catholics do not believe that the bread and wine used at Mass become the Body and Blood of Christ.
DeleteThe report drew a strong rebuke from Auxiliary Bishop Robert Barron of Los Angeles, who posted a Youtube video on Twitter::
"It's hard to describe how angry I feel after reading what the latest @pewresearch study reveals about understanding of the Eucharist among Catholics. This should be a wake-up call to all of us in the Church. I'm blaming myself, bishops, priests and anybody responsible for transmitting the faith, We're all guilty. It's been a massive failure of the church carrying on its own tradition."
The Pew study, issued August 5th, 2019, showed that 69% of all self-identified Catholics said they believed the bread and wine used at Mass are not Jesus, but instead "symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ." The other 31% believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, known as transubstantiation.
"Most Catholics who believe that the bread and wine are symbolic do not know that the church holds that transubstantiation occurs," said Gregory Smith, associate director of research at Pew Research Center in Washington. "Overall, 43% of Catholics believe that the bread and wine are symbolic and also that this reflects the position of the church. Still, one in five Catholics — 22% — reject the idea of transubstantiation, even though they know about the church's teaching," Smith said.
The numbers who believe in transubstantiation are higher among Catholics who go to Mass at least once a week, but are hardly overwhelming. About five of every eight churchgoing Catholics believe in the church's teaching of transubstantiation.
Split among the 37% who don't believe that the Communion bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ are 23% who don't know what the church's teaching is, and 14% who know the church's teaching but don't believe it, Smith said.
According to Pew's figures, a majority in all age groups believe the bread and wine used at Mass to be symbolic, and the majority grows larger as the age group grows younger. Catholics with a high school education or less are less likely to believe in transubstantiation, Hispanic Catholics believe in it less than whites, and women believe in transubstantiation less than men.
Barron sounded astounded by the findings. "Any Catholic worth his or her salt knows this is a central teaching. It's a basic tenet of Catholicism."
He said some are bound to react, "Oh, well, who cares? As long as they're committed to the poor, or committed to social justice. Isn't that important?" But Bishop Barron called that "a reduction of religion to morality, which is repugnant to Catholicism. You take away the central teachings of our church at the doctrinal level, and trust me, you will take away our commitment to the poor," Bishop Barron said. "It belongs together as a whole,
I don't think American statistics should be taken seriously. They are known for their strange and individual interpretation of Catholicism....I don't understand why they are tolerated at all.Obviously there needs to be a serious overhaul of Catholic education globally....Instead of getting astounded the Bishops should unite and come down hard on all this nonsense....No compromise on Catholic doctrine...They can leave and become whatever...A smaller integral Church has my vote. I know why they don't leave. They don't leave because they know what's on offer as an alternative is a load of codswallop.
DeleteThank you for the youtube.....Our Mother Superior could have sorted all this out relatively swiftly....They don't make Catholics like they use to...She was formidable but fantastic...At the beginning of every year....she used to make a speech to remind us all there was an enormous waiting list for attendance at our school and how fortunate we were to be there and that poor behaviour would never be tolerated and the offending students would be expelled immediately and sent home
Deleteregardless if they were living in another country...
@Jack
DeleteUnfortunately, the results of poor teaching in the Western Catholic Church have resulted in the Eucharist becoming little more than a "habit" and a "ritual" for many. The majority apparently not believing it is the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ they are receiving.
I don't ever recall hearing preaching on the Eucharist during my Catholic days, and what we covered in my (admittedly abbreviated) RCIA was, frankly, sub-Sunday school level. I'd go so far as to say that the Christian faith can only be understood through the Eucharist. If communing becomes an empty habit or ritual, that's a failure of catechesis - which is generally woeful for adults in most churches. But habit isn't a bad thing per se, only if it's empty. I think it's important for churchgoing and receiving to be normalised for children. There's a fine line between making it special and making it strange.
Many Protestants do regard the Eucharist as something other than ordinary food,
But many don't; Anglo-Catholics, Lutherans and so on. Some have a higher view of the real presence than some Catholics do, by your study. On the argument from reason, there's no cause to bar them from communion.
Partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion. Doing so would be to proclaim a unity that does not exist.
Yes, but this is complicated by relocating confirmation to after first communion. The Orthodox view is simple: only members of the Orthodox Church are admitted to communion, and only those baptised and confirmed are members of the church. Because baptism and confirmation are delivered together in the Eastern Churches, any baptised person and any communicant is automatically a full member of the Church. On the Western view, communion is restricted to full members of the Church PLUS this aberrant set of older children who aren't fully initiated and cannot, by virtue of their age, have any concept of the doctrinal unity with the wider Church implied by a shared communion. If baptism alone ordinarily suffices for admittance to the Eucharist, what is the function of confirmation?
But adult Protestants are not children and are capable of reason (well, most are!)
But Protestant children are children, and, in most cases, validly baptised. Can an Anglo-Catholic child, who believes that the Eucharist is other than ordinary food, commune?
Another reason is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion:
Yes, but this doesn't apply to infants and young children. They cannot commit mortal sin, and the Eucharist forgives venial sin (CCC 1394). The Canons don't say that they need to believe in the RP, they need only believe that it's a special meal to the best of their capacity. It would be unreasonable to expect children to understand what many of Jesus' own disciples failed to grasp, according to Jn. 6.
PS. I think Cressie is right to treat the American studies with skepticism. Catholicism in the States is not Catholicism; it's American Catholicism, just as it's American Evangelicalism and American Orthodoxy. As David Bentley-Hart puts it, 'Christianity never succeeded in America. Most Americans think of themselves as Christians. But the only religion in America that ever flourished was America'. She's also right that the buck stops with the bishops, who need to actually do something other than express public dismay and expect a network of increasingly secularised faith schools and ignorant parents to magically pass on the basics of the faith.
@ Lain
DeleteJack can only say that as a 7 year old he received excellent teaching about the Eucharist from the nuns whom taught him at school and from the parish priest who was a regular visitor to the school and to his family home. One developed a hunger for the Eucharist, tinged with an awesome respect for it significance.
It was worth the wait, the anticipation and the preparation!
@ Lain
DeleteThe Catholic Church has now changed its discipline on Confirmation. This is now administered at the same time as the Eucharist.
Memories of Confirmation. We were told the Bishop would give us a slap in the face but only just a tap signifying the strength we would need as soldiers of Christ...Wow..Was certainly more than a tap.First Communion was good....big party afterwards....In my time Catholic children had a lot of parties celebrating Saints and whatever reinforcing the Catechismal instruction that we were supposed to love God and enjoy life here on earth. ..think Catholics of my era got the message and did that fairly well:)
ReplyDeleteThe whole Catholic network around children to help them understand and grow in their faith has fallen away. Children now are more reliant on schools and their parents, who, in turn, seem poorly taught.
DeleteYes ...first holy communion was treated as a momentous event and everyone looked forward to it because it was special and it made you special too !..It is terrible how so much has fallen away....I'm sticking with the Catholicism of my ancestors ...I was lucky enough to have experienced it ....All we can do is pray and remember we have been promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against us...as Catholics we believe in miracles we know that some things will always be a mystery ( and who would want to understand anyway...this is the real magic that inspires poetry music and art and brings you close to God and inspires a spiritual dimension which has been specifically given to us by the Divine) It is terribly arrogant setting oneself up as a God thinking if you have no hard material evidence it negates the truth and existence of a proposal Even Einstein understood this..He said logic will get you from A to B but imagination will take you everywnere
ReplyDeletePS
I would like to apologise to Lain for those mickey mouse courses she did on how to be a Catholic....just shameful....They have passed now but Lain would have been better served having afternoon tea with my Grandmother or Great Aunt who would have explained everything simply lucidly
with conviction and compassion. Sorry Lain !