Here’s a bad joke I came up with just now:

Q: What did Pontius Pilate say when St Thomas Aquinas asked him to prove Christ’s divinity?

A: “I find no cause in him” (John 18:38).

Genesis 3:6:

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

At the point of the fall, Adam and Eve saw the pleasingness of form of the tree in opposition to what God had said to them, namely, that it would lead to death. The deception of the devil was that God had lied to them, that the fruit of the tree was really good for them whereas God had told them otherwise. Intimately bound up with the deception of the devil and the fall are the notions of truth, freedom, goodness, obedience, etc. Many important aspects of the fall must be examined. However, the fall also introduced into man’s heart a perceived split between Beauty and Truth.

The split that we experience between Beauty and Truth takes on different forms, perhaps, in every age, but it is fundamentally the same for all men with the stain of original sin. Man was made for Beauty as he was made for the Truth, and he seeks to fulfill these longings in many ways.

Classically, when the Gospel is unknown, the experience, appreciation, and appropriation of Beauty is sought through mythologies. The part of man that must be addressed through images, legends, myth, words, and song was not destroyed by the fall. Man without knowing the Gospel, then, uses primarily nature and the fundamental experiences of human life, conception, birth, mating, fighting, death, etc., to grasp at some encounter with the transcendent Beauty that eludes him. These longings are in themselves good, and the pagan expressions that arise spontaneously are not completely corrupt, but they are deficient and erroneous to varying degrees.

The knowledge of Truth is classically sought through philosophy. Part of man longs to know the First Cause of all things, to know what is eternal, solid, objective, and independent of man. Pagan philosophy grasps at the Truth and discovers it to certain degrees, but it cannot satisfy. What pagan philosophy discovers are perhaps facts; it is at best merely accurate. Man longs for more than this, for more than rote knowledge of true propositions.

In our own age, aesthetic relativism is rampant. In this attitude, the beautiful is seen to be radically and purely a matter of subjective taste. This leads modern man to seek to gratify his own taste without reference to what is true or good for him. Like a child who eats too much candy, modern man makes himself sick on entertaining trivialities and fleeting experiences. He needs an authentic experience of the transcendent but seeks it unknowingly through a flood of the superficial.

Christ offers the only remedy to the schism in our hearts between the longing for Beauty and the longing for Truth. He offers us the greatest story ever told, the true philosophy. In Christianity, man’s need for mystery and myth is super-satisfied but not with falsehoods that ultimately poison our souls. Rather, our capacity for Beauty is overwhelmed with Beauty himself, who is the Truth, not only in our imaginations but in reality.

Perhaps I spoke too soon on the question of sacramental form.

Cappello says on the sacrament of Penance (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. II, p. 65):

67. I. Sacramentalis absolutio verbis proferenda est.

Sane:

1. Omnes libri rituales continent formam absolutionis oralem seu vocalem, quatenus semper exhibent ministrum proferentem ore absolutionem, et nunquam aliter.

2. Concilia Florentinum et Tridentinum docent formam huius sacramenti esse verba: Ego te absolvo etc.; immo non solum indicant huiusmodi verba formam exprimentia, sed etiam doctrinam generalem tradunt, praesertim Florentinum, quod << omnia sacramenta perficiuntur verbis tamquam forma >>.
<< A qua generali regula, scite monet Suarez, non est facienda exceptio neque improprie vel secundum analogiam de aliquo sacramento interpretanda, nisi ubi ex traditione Ecclesiae et consensu antiquorum Doctorum id constiterit >>.

3. Accedit communis doctrina theologorum qui docent absolutionem esse ore proferendam.
<< Solus Deus per auctoritatem et a peccato absolvit, et peccatum remittit; sacerdotes tamen utrumque faciunt per ministerium, in quantum scilicet verba sacerdotis in hoc sacramento instrumentaliter operantur in virtute divina… Unde sicut in Eucharistia sacerdos sola prolatione verborum super materiam perficit sacramentum, ita etiam sola verba sacerdotis absolveventis super poenitentem perficiunt absolutionis sacramentum >>.
Ita S. Thomas.

Quare absolutio scripto vel signo aut nutu dari nequit, etiam in gravissima necessitate. Proinde sacerdos mutus potest absolvere. Hinc apparet distinctio in hac re inter sacramentum poenitentiae et sacramentum matrimonii, in quo forma, nempe consensus, valide exprimi potest etiam signis seu nutu.

68. Non solum ad liceitatem, verum etiam ad valorem absolutionis sacramentalis requiritur, ut ore proferatur.
Verum quidem est, hanc doctrinam probari non posse ex natura rei, scil. ex natura iudicii, cum sententiae iudiciali minime repugnet eam scripto ferri. At sacramentum poenitentiae est positivae institutionis, secundum voluntatem Christi, et non aliter, administrandum; atqui ex Traditione constat voluntatem Christi fuisse, ut absolutio voce humana detur; ergo.

Quidam veteres theologi docebant verba non requiri ad valorem absolutionis, atque idcirco censebant valide confessarium absolvere signo aut scripto, itemque valide tum confessionem tum absolutionem inter absentes peragi posse per litteras. Haec opinio falsa est, ut patet ex dictis ac statem dicendis. Utrum in extrema necessitate confessarius praesans, destitutus omnino usu linguae, valeat poenitenti praesenti impertire absolutionem scripto vel signo, disputatur.

My Translation:

67. I. Sacramental absolution must be given with words.
For:

1. All ritual books contain an oral or vocal form of absolution, insofar as they always present the minister as giving absolution orally, and in no other way.

2. The Florentine and Tridentine Councils teach that the form of this sacrament is the words: I absolve you etc.; indeed they indicate not only the words expressing the form in this way, but they also hand on a general doctrine, especially the Florentine, which states “all sacraments are completed by words as the form.”
“From this general rule, carefully warns Suarez, we must not make an exception nor interpret it regarding some sacrament either improperly or by analogy, except where it is considered as being from the tradition of the Church and the consensus of the ancient Doctors.”

3. The common doctrine of theologians agrees who teach that absolution is to be given orally.
“Only God through his authority absolves from sin and remits sin; nevertheless priests do both through their ministry, inasmuch as the words of the priest are clearly working instrumentally in this sacrament with divine force… Wherefore as in the Eucharist the priest completes the sacrament only by the offering of the words over the matter, so also the words alone of the priest absolving [over] the penitent complete the sacrament of absolution.”
So also St. Thomas.

Wherefore absolution cannot be given by writing or sign or a nod, even in grave necessity. No more can a mute priest absolve. In this matter there appears a distinction between the sacrament of penance and the sacrament of matrimony, in which the form, namely consent, can be validly expressed even by signs or a nod.

68. It is required not only for liceity, but also for the validity of sacramental absolution, that it be given orally.
This is true however, that this doctrine cannot be proven from the nature of the matter, namely from the nature of judgment, since it is not repugnant in the least to a judicial sentence that it be given in writing. But the sacrament of penance is of positive institution, according to the will of Christ, and in no other way, is it to be administered; moreover there is an agreement from the Tradition that it was the will of Christ that absolution be given with the human voice; therefore.
Certain older theologians used to teach that the words are not required for the validity of absolution; and therefore they reckoned that a confessor validly absolved by sign or writing, and moreover that confession and absolution could be validly given through a letter. This opinion is false, as is manifest from the things said and to be said shortly. Whether in extreme necessity a present confessor, absolutely deprived of any use whatsoever of the tongue, would be able to impart absolution to a present penitent by writing or sign is disputed.

Can American Sign Language be used to supply the essential sacramental form of the sacraments? For example, can a priest sign “I absolve you” or “This is my body” or “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” and validly administer/confect the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Baptism?

This question is not new.

Dr. Ed Peters writes: “Rather, the ASL liturgical language question really comes down to whether a celebrant could offer Mass solely in sign language, without using an approved oral language (here, English) at the same time, even inaudibly.”

Dr. Ed Peters also writes:

Thanks for your kind words, as always, Jimmy. About your question on sacramental form and orality, I have (what I think is) an exhaustive analysis of that topic already finished. It is being juried for the professional journals now. In short, I think what we see is an example of, how to put it, Ecclesiae praxis aliquando docet doctrinam Ecclesiae. It really wasn’t hard to work it all out; St. Thomas, Regatillo, and Cappello provided the necessary tools.

Sacramental Form

Cappello, in the context of the history of the usage of the terms “matter” and “form” as applied analogously to the sacraments, writes (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. I, p. 12):

Materia est pars determinabilis; forma est pars determinans, ea nempe quae determinat materiam ad rem individuam. Ita pariter in sacramentis: res sensibilis, v. g. aqua, est indeterminata; forma, v. g. verba, materiae applicata specialem significationem ipsi tribuit.

My translation:

Matter is the determinable part; form is the determining part, it is certainly that which determines the matter toward an individual thing. Thus likewise in the sacraments: the sensible thing, e.g. water, is undetermined; the form, e.g., the words, when applied to the matter gives it a special significance.

Cappello says on sacramental form (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. I, p. 13):

Forma Est pars sacramenti, quae materiam determinat ad effectum sacramentalem producendum; et consistit generatim in verbis a ministro prolatis, vel, pro Matrimonii sacramento, etiam in signis, nutibus, facto, quae verborum locum tenere possunt.

My translation:

Form Is the part of the sacrament, which determines the matter in order to produce the sacramental effect; and it consists generally in the words offered by the minister, or, for the sacrament of Matrimony, even in signs, in nods, or in deed, which can take the place of words.

Regarding the form of Matrimony, Cappello further writes (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis iuxta Codicem Iuris Canonici, Vol. III, #31):

Diximus verior certissime est, et vix non certa nobis videtur, quia verba Benedicti XIV in Const. << Paucis >>, 19 mart. 1758, sunt clara atque explicita: << Legitimus contractus materia insimul et forma est sacramenti matrimonii, mutua nempe ac legitima corporum traditio verbis ac nutibus interiorem animi sensum exprimentibus materia, et mutua pariter ac legitima corporum acceptatio, forma >> .

My translation:

We have said this is most certainly more true, and it seems scarcely uncertain to us, because the words of Benedict XI in the Constitution “Paucis“, 19 March 1758, are clear and explicit: “The legitimate contract is at once the matter and form of the sacrament of matrimony, indeed the mutual and legitimate giving of bodies by words or nods expressing the interior thought of the mind is the matter, and likewise the mutual and legitimate acceptance of bodies, the form.”

Aquinas says (STh. III, q. 60, a. 6, resp.):

Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that “words are the principal signs used by men”; because words can be formed in various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of words. And therefore in order to insure the perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the signification of the sensible things by means of certain words.

He adds (STh. III, q. 60, a. 6, ad 2um):

And under words are comprised also sensible actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they have a like signification with the things.

In Latin (according to Corpus Thomisticum) this is:

Sub rebus autem comprehenduntur etiam ipsi actus sensibiles, puta ablutio et unctio et alia huiusmodi, quia in his est eadem ratio significandi et in rebus.

My translation:

Under things, however, are contained even sensible acts themselves, for example washing and anointing and other things of this kind, in these is the same principle of signifying [ratio significandi] as in the things.

My Thoughts

It seems to me, then, that the essence of the concept of form (as applied analogously to the sacraments) is that it determines the proper significance of the matter, that is, it expresses what is to be brought about whereas the matter on its own would be ambiguous in this regard. The notion of expressing the significance of the matter is taken to be objective, that is, even if the recipient of the sacrament does not understand what the words mean or even if the minister (with the proper intention) does not literally understand what the words mean the form is valid. Thus, the words of the form have a certain stable meaning. This is one reason why the Church is so keen on Latin; it guarantees that the meaning of the words does not change.

The issue, then, as regards the concept of what is essentially a “word” seems to me to be whether it is capable of signifying a meaning according to the mode of language. It seems a safe bet to me that older documents from ecclesiastical sources which use the term “word” regarding the form of the sacraments, even if they insist on the spoken character of the word, are presuming that all languages are spoken. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be contrary to these definitions of form to say that signs as employed in American Sign Language are “words.”

American Sign Language is a true, natural language with its own vocabulary and grammar. Thus, it is sufficiently complex to determine properly the significance of the matter of the sacraments.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recently issued a response to two questions about whether baptism conferred “in the name of the Creator and of the Redeemer and of the Sanctifier” is valid. The answer is an unsurprising “No.”

Cappello doesn’t address this particular question–probably because the answer is obvious–but he does list as doubtful baptism “in nomine Genitoris et Geniti et Procedentis ab Utroque.” This formula, however, uses names which actually signify the divine Persons in their relations to one another whereas the invalid formula does not.

When people find out that I am researching angelology in association with the rite of Anointing of the Sick, it is fairly common for them to ask whether the prayers mention angels. I am usually forced to respond–unfortunately–that the current rite gives angels only a cursory–and even then optional–mention. However, this is really to lose sight of the reality, which is that there are angels everywhere (because they are acting everywhere) whether we acknowledge them or not. Usually, we do not even think about them much less talk with them or pray to them.

It is true that the older Rituale Romanum in the rite of Extreme Unction had important prayers asking for the protection of the good angels. I would argue that their role has not changed although the rite has. Everyone has an angel assigned to him for protection and guidance. Imagine how important that angel’s role is when the person is close to death! Really, the spiritual battle of the angels is so much larger than we can imagine (if we could imagine angels at all). We are caught up in it to some degree, but what if we try thinking of earth in the context of the angelic world rather than trying to fit angels into our world? Creation is much bigger and much more astounding than we can understand.

If angels are in charge of meteors and planets and stars¹ not to mention persons, countries, dioceses, etc. what about very small phenomena? What if there were an angel in charge of each electron? After all, if quantum theory is correct, then it seems that electrons can move from one orbit to another instantaneously. This is how angels travel (although they are not “in space” like bodies are). What if what we consider physics (and the laws of physics) is really morality–really the effects of personal creatures moving around matter? Don’t worry, I’m not really going to go so far as to say that God does not give to material things their own principles which guide their movements of necessity, but why not imagine that the occasional meteor (or electron) gets an angelic nudge Deo volente, of course? It does not seem to me to be too much to say, though, that angels are given a certain custody over material things (as a participation or a mediation of God’s Providence). It didn’t seem too much to Aquinas, either, if I recall.

There are more angels than men (probably very many more), maybe we should pay more attention to the majority rather than focusing on ourselves who are really only a small part of Creation? Once we see the larger world, we can recognize even more Christ’s great humility when he was made “lower than the angels” (Hebrews) by taking our human nature. We, now, through God’s graciousness can be in Christ above the angels.

---

1 Perhaps this is what St. Paul meant when he said that the gentiles “worshiped the creature rather than the creator” in Romans: the gentiles ended up worshiping the angels who were put in charge over the natural elements (not to mention the demons who wanted to be worshiped).

I returned the other day from the Society of Biblical Literature’s annual convention, which was in San Diego this year. I had never been before, but I went with some of the other seminarians from Kenrick and Dr. Kitz, our Old Testament professor.

I enjoyed the conference very much, and some of the talks I attended were very good. At a minimum, almost all of them were thought-provoking. My overall impression is that Catholics have a huge advantage in interpreting the Bible for several important reasons: the living Tradition¹, the Magisterium, the sacraments², having the lived experience of ritual and liturgy, etc.

There was one talk on morality as presented in the Gospel according to John, which was particularly good. The thesis of the presentation was basically that scholars usually presume that John contains no moral teaching (other than, obviously, the Mandatum), but that, in fact, because of the genre of the Gospel as a biography, the emphasis of the entire work is on following the example of Jesus. This is heading in the direction indicated by Veritatis Splendor, which says “The way and at the same time the content of this perfection [of the moral life] consist in the following of Jesus” (19).

From a philosophical position, it’s nice to see somebody who can see Positivism for what it is. I’m not surprised that people don’t see “moral teaching” unless it’s spelled out in the form of “do this; don’t do that” commandments. While it would be impossible for this one talk to encompass the full consequences of the direction in which it was heading, it brought to my mind the following considerations.

The question about morality is summed up in the Synoptic Gospels by the question of the rich young man: “Good teacher, what must I do to have eternal life?” In John, the question does not need to be asked, and, in fact, Jesus gives the same answer in both the Synoptics and in John. In the Synoptics, he replies “keep the commandments,” but ultimately his answer is “follow me.” In John, he tells us, “I am the [...] life.” Thus, the Person of Christ himself gives us the content of morality.

The talk also mentioned how the Mandatum has been interpreted as exclusive to “the world,” that is, as something for the Johannine community alone. The presenter did well to point out that not every instance of “the world” in John is negative. One has only to attend any sporting event to see the guy in the rainbow “wig” testifying to John 3:16.³ In fact, if we understand the Mandatum properly in the context of John 3:16 (”love one another as I have loved you“), we necessarily regard loving as Jesus loves as non-introverted.

The question this raises is: “How is that possible?” We can’t love as Jesus loves. The only way we can fulfill the great commandment, indeed, the only way we can follow Jesus is if the love of God is “poured into our hearts” (Romans 5:5). Now, especially if John is written as late as is usually thought, this Gospel presumes the sacramental life of the community.

Therefore, John answers the question about morality in very concrete terms in a catechesis on the sacraments. How is the love of God poured into our hearts? John 3:5 tells us about Baptism, which makes it possible for us to have the Spirit that gives life (Cf. John 4, John 6). John 6, especially, answers the question about morality with the Eucharist.

“What must I do to have eternal life?”
“I am the life.”
“The water that I will give will become a spring welling up unto eternal life.”
“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

The sacraments! Following Jesus is not an external imitation. Indeed, even if one were to give up his life but not have the love of God in his heart, he would profit nothing (Cf. 1 Corinthians 13). This love (the grace of Charity) is given through the sacraments. John’s catechesis to his community on the power of the sacraments is not only theologically profound but concrete; it directs them and us to the Lord where he can be found and not as if he were a distant exemplar from the past.

---

1 See the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. “So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’” (Acts 8:30-31)

2 I believe that unless someone receives the Eucharist, he is not going to be able to understand the Bible; even the literal sense of the text will sometimes escape him. See the story of the Road to Emmaus in Luke 24.

25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

[ ... ]

30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

3 You can thank “the brother” for the colorful phraseology.^3a
3a And for suggesting the phrase “colorful phraseology.”

Jn. 20:29:

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

If you’re like me, then on first hearing those words you interpret them to mean that faith is something provisional, something that makes up for a lack, even something which tries to compensate for a deficiency but doesn’t quite do it. We often treat faith this way: faith is what we have when we’re missing out on the “seeing.”

In a way, of course, all this is true. Our intellect is darkened because of sin, and we cannot easily know the truths which we ought to know. However, faith is much more than a patch for faulty reason. First of all, we have to remember that faith is a gift, an infused virtue. Faith is not the same as “I don’t know, but I just believe it.” Faith is not our human attempt to understand the transcendent.¹ Faith does not come from our efforts at all; it comes from God as a grace.

Faith means that we believe the truth because God has revealed it; faith is the virtue that allows us to believe on God’s authority. This means that faith (lumen fidei) is “more certain than all human knowledge”(lumen naturae) (CCC, 157). How often do we treat faith as the least certain element in our lives?

What does Jesus tell us, though? He says that it’s better for us to have faith than to have mere human knowledge. This is one reason that we are not created with the Beatific Vision: we learn to trust God. However, faith does point to that greater light (lumen gloriae) we will have in Heaven. In this way, faith is a foretaste of Heaven on earth.

---

1 Even the fact that we often speak of “different faiths” shows that we consider faith a product of human ambition. God does not contradict himself; the truth is one. If faith comes from him, then two people cannot have faith in contradictory doctrines. Perhaps it’s simply not polite to imply that people have imperfect faith these days.

This reflection came about because of a discussion on the Catholic Answers Forums.

A definition of art might be “an authentic human expression in a sensible medium.”

This means that art comes from human nature and human experience. Therefore, art is directed in some way to the Truth and the Good. These correspond to man’s spiritual faculties of intellect and will. Now, what makes art to be art rather than a purely intellectual exercise is the sensible expression. This is also why art is human: the visible is in harmony with the invisible. We are material bodies informed by spiritual souls.

To say that some art is ‘better’ than other art is to say that it accomplishes its end more effectively, namely, it expresses more profoundly human nature and human experience. Even art that is not explicitly Christian, to the degree that it expresses Truth or Beauty, references Christ in an implicit way. This is not only because Christ is the Truth and is Beauty in his divine nature but because Christ is fully human and without sin. Therefore, in his Person humanity and divinity are united perfectly, and Christ himself is the authentic expression of what it means to be human.

Now, if a piece or genre of art by its nature is misleading about human nature or about the human end (Truth, Good), then it could also be an occasion of sin because it could frustrate in those who experience it the achievement of man’s end: this is sin by definition.

This is not to say that art can never depict or express sinful things. By no means! Sometimes art presents a conflict. It could present a division in man between the visible and the invisible or between man’s end and where he actually finds himself. This does not make art less an authentic expression of human nature because it is expressing the truth of where man finds himself due to original sin. This very conflict makes us desire the resolution for the conflict–Christ–even more and, therefore, helps man to achieve his end.

We have to avoid, therefore, even aesthetic relativism. There is no Beauty without Truth, and there is no Good apart from these. This is simply because God himself is the Truth, the Good, and Beauty.

Some art, then, is more fully art than other art because it is more fully human.

Christ, then, is art par excellence: he is more fully human than we are because sin makes us less human. Why? Man is “in the image and likeness of God” (Note that this is the language of art). Sin defaces that image, but Christ is “the image of the invisible God.” In other words, Christ is “art of God”–a sensible expression of the invisible.

This is on a divine level in Christ’s divine nature: the Second Person is the perfect image of the First Person such that he is actually consubstantial with the First Person.

This is on a human level in Christ’s human nature: Christ’s human nature was flawless and perfectly subordinated to his divine nature. Thus, Christ in his human nature was a perfect human image of the Father: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

Therefore, if Christ is perfect art in himself, divine and human, what are the sacraments? The sacraments–and especially the Eucharist–become more fully than anything art because in them is Christ. The sacraments are our visible, bodily, human encounter with Christ. This is more powerful than any other art because the sacraments not only point to Christ, but they were instituted (or “authored” or “composed”) by Christ and Christ is contained in them.

Because Christ is man’s end and also a perfect man himself, these sacraments instituted by him are a more authentic expression of true human nature and true human experience than anything we could come up with.

Not only that! The sacraments bring about grace in us. By our very reception of them, they help us achieve our end (if we do not resist). They not only dispose us to grace as other types of art might, but they confer grace to us: they give us the Holy Spirit.

Why is Gregorian chant the music most suited for the liturgy of the Roman Rite? Isn’t which music we find most beautiful or sacred a subjective judgment? No. We are in constant danger in this age of regarding beauty as subjective. In fact, God is Beauty. Beauty, therefore is beauty insofar as it corresponds to God, that is, to the Truth, that is, to the Good.

Gregorian chant has several qualities that make it sacred in an objective sense. One is that its instrument, properly speaking, is the human voice. Thus, in a very direct way, the instrument for chant was devised by God himself and calls to mind Christ’s perfect prayers to the Father and the psalms he chanted with a human voice.

Gregorian chant, also, has for its content primarily Scripture. Chant is not only for the liturgy or for the Scripture; it is of the liturgy and of the Scripture. The nature of the melodies, too, is such that it serves the text most effectively. The text and its musical expression are scarcely considered as separate in Gregorian chant. Thus, God may be said to be the author of the chant since its content is given by him in the Scriptures.

We must also not forget the Church’s role in the liturgy. Indeed, the essential and primary liturgies are given by God to the Church (e.g., the essential elements of the sacraments). However, the other rites and things which embellish these essential forms are given to us by the traditions of the Church. The Church, then, is a true mother because she teaches us how to pray, that is, she responds to God because she is united to Christ who perfectly responds to God.

We, then, are taken into the Church’s response, which is Christ’s response to the Father. The Church, therefore, teaches us an authentic and integral human response to God through her liturgical rites and by her presence in the world. We absolutely must pray, then, in continuity with the Church’s tradition. This is not only by following the rubrics but also by praying in the same words and with same melodies which are very ancient.

The traditional liturgical expressions of the Church can never be foreign to us because they are an authentic human response to God. We must allow ourselves to be formed by them so that we may be more fully human. In this way, the Church’s traditional liturgical responses to God: the rites, Gregorian chant and the Latin language (in the Roman Rite) etc. become an authentic personal response to God. We become conformed to the mind and heart of the Church and in doing so become conformed to the mind and heart of Christ. Thus, we become more authentically and integrally the image of God.

St. Augustine, Confessions:

O eternal truth, true love and beloved eternity.

We often find ourselves in this age in the habit of considering “religion,” “faith,” and “belief” as merely subjective realities. Due to Relativism–with roots in Kant’s notion of the mind’s activity in creating reality/morality–we can think of the object of faith as created by the person who has faith. There are other tendencies as well, such as regarding the subjective experience of a person as more important than reality.¹

For instance, even our use of the term “faith” is often incorrect because of the subjective qualities we give to it. Faith is, in fact, the virtue by which we believe God on his own authority: it is a truly human act, our adherence to God in obedience. However, do we find ourselves talking about “different faiths”? What do we mean, there? Do we mean that God reveals contradictory truths to us?

No. In fact, what has happened in our minds is that we have become more concerned with the experience of believing something than with the truth of what is believed. Even then, we ought to be more concerned with God’s activity. Faith is a gift; it is an infused virtue, not something we can acquire but which God can freely give to us. We should not treat faith–or the life of faith, then–as something which we ourselves construct.

We are not active before God. We are passive, and we must recognize that in humility. We do not find ourselves in a world where everyone is trying to get to know God by different paths. We find ourself in a world where God became man and revealed himself to us fully. God himself established the Church into which we must be incorporated. This Church is here in our day and age, and she can be found at your local Catholic Church.

Why do we all pretend to be agnostics, searching for an unknown God when God must always and has already taken the initiative?

From Dominus Iesus, #7:

The proper response to God’s revelation is “the obedience of faith (Rom 16:26; cf. Rom 1:5; 2 Cor 10:5-6) by which man freely entrusts his entire self to God, offering ‘the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals’ and freely assenting to the revelation given by him”.15 Faith is a gift of grace: “in order to have faith, the grace of God must come first and give assistance; there must also be the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and gives ‘to everyone joy and ease in assenting to and believing in the truth’”.

The obedience of faith implies acceptance of the truth of Christ’s revelation, guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself: “Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed”. Faith, therefore, as “a gift of God” and as “a supernatural virtue infused by him”, involves a dual adherence: to God who reveals and to the truth which he reveals, out of the trust which one has in him who speaks. Thus, “we must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

For this reason, the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held. If faith is the acceptance in grace of revealed truth, which “makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently”, then belief, in the other religions, is that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute.

This distinction is not always borne in mind in current theological reflection. Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.

---

1 One of the books I encountered over the summer even claimed that “true Christians” would not be disturbed by the discovery of Jesus’ tomb with his remains present there since the “experience of resurrection” is what is important rather than the historical event of the Resurrection. (I’d like to introduce that author to my good friend St. Paul. “If Christ is not risen, your faith is in vain.” Doesn’t sound like a “true Christian,” I guess.)