Catechumenate Guy

Matthew 14: 22-33 — Prayer in Quiet and Prayer in Chaos

Posted on August 5, 2020 by Jerry

This Sunday’s Gospel is the story of Jesus walking on the water (Mt 14: 22-33). The phrase “He dismissed the crowds” is repeated in the first verse.

Jesus “made” the disciples get into the boat and go ahead to the other side while he dismissed the crowds. After he dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain to pray. Jesus made space for himself so that he could go up the mountain by himself.

Elijah does somewhat the same thing in the first reading, one of my favorites from the Hebrew Scriptures (I Kings 19: 9 – 18). The difference is that Jesus makes a conscious effort to go up the mountain whereas Elijah seems more on a journey and finds himself at a mountain cave. Granted that it is not just any mountain. It is God’s mountain. Later in the story the “Word of the Lord,” –is it God?–tells Elijah to stand on the mountain. I have always imagined this as Elijah being in a cave on the mountain.

Both prophets find themselves on the mountain and praying, for that is what listening for God is all about. Elijah hears God; he hears the Voice of the Lord in the silence that follows the wind and the earthquake and the fire. He steps out of the cave after hearing the silence and prays in a different way. He talks with God and finds direction.

We don’t know anything about Jesus’ time of prayer other than he is by himself. Does he listen for God? Does he hear God? Does he talk with God? We don’t know. He is there to pray in the evening but by morning he is down from the mountain and walking on the sea. In the past I have assumed that Jesus is at peace when he has come down from the mountain but Matthew doesn’t tell us that.

I am in the boat with my fellow disciples. I am caught up in the wind, in the noise. Am I terrified because of the wind that batters the boat or am I terrified because I see Jesus walking on the water or because of both? I am not the one who gets out of the boat. I let someone else take that risk. Sometimes I have been the one to step out alone and explore the risky, the unknown. Sometimes I find that others follow and sometimes I feel that I am “out there” by myself. It is during the latter times that I become frightened. I become frightened enough to call out, “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on me.” That is my version of Peter’s plea, “Lord, save me.” This is my prayer in the midst of chaos, not in the midst of silence.

Jesus and Peter get into the boat, the wind ceases and all of the disciples worship Jesus. Is Peter’s worship different from the others? He has had an intimate encounter with Jesus. He is the one whom Jesus has saved from the waves. But the battering wind ceases for all of them. Peter’s risk seems greater. Jesus’ grace is for all. Is Peter more aware of that grace and more appreciative for it than the others? Perhaps. We don’t know. That is the end of the story.

It only matters, if it matters at all, because the one who seeks Jesus, even in a conditional way — “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you” — is the one who takes the greater risk and is the one who is more aware of the grace, of the salvation. There is a part of me that says that this doesn’t matter. Yet it does. We are left with a bunch of “what ifs.” For me, the greatest is “what if Peter had not responded to Jesus’ call?” Peter is the one who overcomes the fear of seeing a ghost. Peter is the one who calls out to Jesus. Peter is the one who steps out of the boat. Peter is the one who becomes frightened in a different context than the others. Does that mean that Peter’s experience of Jesus’ saving touch is greater that that of the others? It is certainly a bit different.

I see Peter in more of a partnership with Jesus than the other disciples. His moment of salvation may be earlier than that of the other disciples but they all experience Jesus’ saving grace. Their salvation, their experience of the new calm, their realization that Jesus is the Son of God is no different than Peter’s, or at least the story doesn’t tell us that it is. It only tells us that, because Peter took the risk, he becomes frightened and Jesus reaches out to him in particular. But Jesus only questions Peter’s faith as well.

I hear my own guides telling me that, in the end, it doesn’t matter whether Peter experiences Jesus’ saving touch before the others or not. Jesus saves all of them from the chaotic winds. But it does matter, maybe not at the end of the story but certainly in the middle. Peter is the one who steps out of the boat into the unknown. And Peter is the one Jesus saves before he calms the sea for all.

I need to remember this the next time I am fearful of stepping out into a leadership position. I don’t expect that I will be saved any “more” than others but only that someone needs to take the first step. Someone needs to recognize the grace filled chance in the midst of chaos and fright. Someone needs to have the courage to call out and to step out. That courage may help good things to happen even while I am doubting and risking. We may all be saved but that salvation needs to start somewhere.

Lord, save me!

Posted in Lectio Divina, Personal, Spirituality, Theology | Comments Off

The Grain and the Weeds — Mt 13: 24 – 30

Posted on July 16, 2020 by Jerry

This Sunday (Seventh Sunday after Pentecost) we hear the Parable of the good seeds, the wheat, being choked by the weeds. The pericope skips verse 31-35. There are two more parables, that of the yeast and that of the mustard seed, in that section. Matthew also adds a comment that Jesus taught in parables.

What we have here is similar to last week’s pericope. Last week’s Gospel passage was about the random sowing of seeds, where they landed and the consequent success in growing. This one talks about the “someone” who sows good sed specifically in a field, presumably plowed and prepared for the sowing. And the weeds do not come naturally. An enemy sows weeds among the the wheat. What are the consequences?

I grew up on a farm. We had two fields that we plowed, fertilized (with chicken manure…a powerful stinky soil enhancer) and sowed with alfalfa seeds. The weeds came by themselves. But alfalfa is a hardy plant and survived the attack. And we had no enemies other than nature who planted the weeds. I do remember one crop in which the weeds won. We ended up using the final product as mulch. But usually there was more alfalfa than weed so that the cows had good food for the winter.

Jesus explains that the enemy is the devil. But neither the seeds of wheat nor the seeds of weeds have a choice in terms of their growth. They are planted, grow and are harvested together. In the end the parable says, that it is the causes of sin and all evil doers who will be thrown into the furnace of fire. The enemy, the evil doers, are the ones who are cast into the furnace.

What happens to the weeds? According to Jesus’ explanation, they are “the children of the evil one.” They too are “burned up with fire.” This makes sense in the Israelites’ ethics, where the evil of the son inherits the sins of the father. But it doesn’t seem to make sense with Jesus’ message of an ALL loving Father.

How does this make sense? In the great battle between God and the Devil, between good and evil, are the weeds, the “children of the evil one” collateral damage? No, there seems to be some intentionality in their punishment, just for being “born” as weeds. Maybe the key is in the phrase, “while everybody is asleep.” If we are asleep, if we ignore the power of evil, then we and those around us suffer consequences. This is the only time in the parable or the explanation that we are told that the enemy is able to come because there was no one on watch. Everybody, that must include the sower, his entire household and his slaves, the gathers, are asleep. But the parable does not hold them responsible for giving the enemy the opportunity to sow weeds while they were sleeping.

There are several parables about those who fall asleep and suffer the consequences. One that comes to mind is of the bridesmaids who fall asleep while waiting for the groom to come. He goes right past them and they are not able to go to the wedding feast.

Perhaps the hidden message in this parable is that we must be vigilant. There is a great deal of temptation. We can and do fall asleep. Falling asleep may not even be intentional. It just happens. Does the all forgiving God, the God of the Good News that Jesus proclaims, understand our lack of diligence? I think so. But there are consequences and some of those can be more serious than we’ll ever know.

Posted in Catechumenate, Lectio Divina, Spirituality | Comments Off

Romans 6: 1-11

Posted on June 16, 2020 by Jerry

Before I begin this reflection on the Epistle for the 3rd Sunday after Pentecost, Year A, I want to comment on Jeremiah 20:7, the beginning of one of the two possible Hebrew Bible readings for the day. “O Lord, you have enticed me, and I was enticed.” (NRSV) Or, as translated in the King James: …”thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived…” Another translation uses “duped” rather than “enticed.” The Jerusalem Bible translates it as “You have seduced me, Yahweh, and I have let myself be seduced…” According to Rolf Knierim, my Hebrew Scriptures professor at Claremont, “seduced” may be the most accurate translation of the Hebrew. It connotes the tempting, tantalizing draw to which Jeremiah felt he had succumbed. As with most “victims” of seduction, Jeremiah tacitly admits that he has no one to “blame” for all that befalls him as a Prophet but himself. I like The Jerusalem Bible translation because it injects a bit of the sexual into Jeremiah’s otherwise difficult adventures as Yahweh’s prophet.

Now on to Paul’s letter to the Romans. The Epistle for the Easter Vigil uses the same passage, except that it starts with verse 3 (“Do you not know…” rather than 6:1. I like to start the Vigil proclamation with “My sisters and brothers, do you not know…”

As Jim Dunning pointed out many years ago, this is the first mystagogical reflection for all of us after the Vigil baptisms. Indeed, in the ’80’s, when we were still enjoying the flexibility of the RCIA in its early days of implementation, we discussed moving this passage so that it would be proclaimed immediately after the baptisms and associated initiatory rites. This was controversial at the time (and increasingly so as the rites of initiation become more “solidified) because it took the Epistle passage out of its “proper” order in the Liturgy of the Word. In 1984 I had the opportunity to drive Balthasar Fischer to the airport after he had spent several weeks at Notre Dame working with those who were studying and discussing the catechumenate. Dom Fischer is credited as the person who developed the RCIA to respond to the needs recognized in the Vat II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. In fact he chaired the study group that created the book of rites. I asked him what he thought of the idea of moving the Romans reading. He said, “Move it where you think best. The entire Liturgy of the Word in the Vigil is flexible.”

I like the idea of moving the reading because it is Paul’s reflection on the significance of baptism, of what the newly baptized and the assembly have just experienced. One could argue that the same selection “works” just prior to the baptisms. Leave it in its “proper” order in the Liturgy. But Paul is addressing those who are already “baptized into Christ Jesus,” not those who are about to be baptized. Paul is saying, now that we have experienced and witnessed this most recent baptismal event, remember — all of us have died so as to be raised. We have died to our old lives. We have died to sin so that we can be alive to Christ. New life overcomes death as long as we die to our old life.

One, two, three, four; what are we looking for? Are those traveling the path toward baptism looking for death? At the beginning of the Catechumenate journey, we ask the inquirers, “What do you seek?” The formulaic response is “faith.” (At Trinity, we let our seekers give their own responses. In my experience those responses are about seeking faith in the Christ Jesus.) We aren’t looking for death but we will find it along the path. We will find Jeremiah’s torment because God has murmured sweet somethings in our ears and we have let ourselves be seduced. But we will also find new life as we shed our old ways, our old lives.

Do you not know, my sisters and brothers, that we all celebrate death and resurrection during baptism? We celebrate Jesus’ resurrection to be our Christ. We celebrate our resurrection to be members of the Body of Christ. We celebrate new life.

“So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Rom 6:11)

Posted in Catechumenate, Lectio Divina, Liturgy, Theology | Comments Off

Catechumenal Ministries–Who Does What?

Posted on June 15, 2020 by Jerry

“Q. Who are the ministers of the Church?” A. The ministers of the Church are lay persons, bishops, priests, and deacons.” [The Episcopal Catechism in the BCP]

The catechumenate is primarily a ministry of the laity. — [Jim Dunning and others.]

What is the role of the laity and the role of the clergy in catechumenate ministry? I have always ministered in the catechumenate with the perspective that this is primarily a ministry of the laity. By and through baptism, all Christians are called to proclaim the Good News and work to bring others into the Body of Christ. How each participates in catechumen ministry depends upon his/her gifts and role in the faith community. Some are called to be sponsors; others, catechists; still others, musicians. Some laity may be spiritual directors. Clergy often minister in this role. but spiritual direction is not an exclusive gift to clergy. Deacons can catechize about service but so can others. Bishops and priests preach and officiate at the various rites. It is true that both laity and ordained ministers can direct the catechumenate. When I do work with clergy, especially pastors, on the catechumenate, one of the things I emphasize that they do not have to direct another program. They can help identify and train lay persons to direct and catechize.

There is a tension that develops at this point. Do clergy trust laity to catechize “correctly” in the catechumenate? Many priests think that they need to be in charge and lead the catechumenate “classes” because they have a better grasp of the doctrine that needs to be passed on. There are several errors in this. The most important is the assumption that catechumenal catechizing is about passing on ecclesiastical doctrines. Catechizing is about allowing the Spirit to speak Truth through silent listening to the Gospel. In the catechumenate, a good catechists is one who knows how to lead lectio divina. This is not a ministry reserved to the clergy.

What about the Catechumenate Director? Again, this does not have to be a priest or deacon. The minister needs to have good organizational skills and needs to guide evangelism, discernment of sponsors, scheduling of rites and many other aspects of the catechumenate.

At Trinity Cathedral, the clergy told me that they felt excluded from the catechumenate. They felt that the team had decided that the clergy’s only role was to officiate. They didn’t know what went on or what was “taught” in the “classes.” They didn’t feel that they knew the catechumens and candidates that we lay leaders were asking them to bless. They wanted some class or meeting time with the candidates. They want to get to know the candidates better. Their solution for this is to join some of the meetings or “teach” some of the sessions.

I, on the other hand, thought I was doing the clergy a favor by assuming the responsibility for leading meetings and catechizing. I directed the catechumenate, drafted the rites, oversaw the catechists. I interpreted “lay led” or “lay-driven” as meaning that the clergy did not need to be involved in the weekly meetings. And I didn’t trust that they knew what the process and what catechesis were all about.

The clergy do need to be involved with the catechumens and candidates. The question is “how?”, besides those roles that are exclusive to the ordained. In the past several years at Trinity, we have tried various things. One member of the team suggested that we give the clergy beads that the candidates had to request, thus giving them an opportunity to meet and talk with various clergy. That turned out to be superficial. The clergy handed out beads but did to take the opportunity to meet and talk with each candidate. This past year members of the clergy said they specifically wanted to attend some meetings. This is difficult, given that there is an intimacy and trust that develops in the small groups as the weeks and months go by. Our solution was to ask each of the staff and main associate members to lead a meeting on a Baptismal Promise during Lent. It turned out to be a challenge to schedule those.

James Wilde edited “A Catechumenate Needs Everybody; Study Guides for Parish Ministers” in 1988 (LTP). I have used it a lot while training people in catechumen ministry. Various people wrote essays on the various ministries: the Sunday Assembly (i.e. the entire congregation), Evangelism, Hospitality, Prayer,, Discernment, Peace & Justice Minister, Catechist, Catechumen, Sponsor, Sponsor Coordinator, Director, “Ordained Presider,” Lay Presider, Deacon, Bishop, Spiritual Director, Preacher or Homilist, Liturgist, Msic Director, Mystagogue. Many of these ministries get consolidated into several people, depending upon the size and structure of the parish.

There are only a few of these ministries that clergy cannot do: the Sunday Assembly (they can lead this), the catechumen, and the lay Presider. There are ministries that are exclusively reserved to the ordained: Bishop, Ordained Presider and Deacon.

The main criteria for who does what may be defined as identifying the gifts of the Spirit that members of the congregation possess. Numerous works on the catechumenate emphasize that “the primary minister of rites of initiation and the periods around them” is the assembly. (A Catechumenate Needs Everybody, p. 1). It is the business of the entire congregation to participate in the formation of catechumens and candidates. Thus initial task for the discernment minister is to help members of the congregation discern their gifts. The Director needs to coordinate all of the ministries. In a small parish, one person may assume several catechumenate ministries. In a larger parish, there may be more people to assume the different ministries.

All this being said, we come back to the role of the clergy in the process. My concern is that the clergy in a parish not see the catechumenate as another program that she/he needs to direct. The catechumenate is an important ministry. In some ways, because it is about preparation for baptism or renewal of baptismal vows, it is a central or core ministry in the parish. But this does not mean that the clergy-in-charge needs to lead or direct.

The most important role for the clergy is to get to know the catechumens and candidates before celebration of the rites. The preacher can personalize sermons, not only for the occasion but also for the candidates. How the personal connection happens will vary. We have tried several ways at Trinity and will continue to work on it in conversation with the clergy.

Posted in Catechumenate, Church, Lectio Divina | Comments Off

The Road to Emmaus (Luke 24: 13-35)

Posted on June 13, 2020 by Jerry

This is the story that we often use to describe the Catechumenate process. I think that it was a description of that process for the early church as well. We, that is the current church, recognize its importance. We read it during every Eastertide.

There is one other reference to this day trip that the two disciples take. That is Mark 16: 12-13, part of the longer ending of Mark. When I hear the brief reference there, I often think that the story is much earlier than Luke until I realize that the longer ending of Mark was added, perhaps in the 2nd Century , perhaps even later, certainly after Luke was written. But all of this distracts from seeking the meaning of the story that Luke tells.

When I hear the story, I often wonder about the start of the disciples’ journey. They were already drawn to Jesus and were among his followers. But how did they get there? Is this an important question when hearing the story? I’m not sure. By the time we use the story to describe the catechumenate, our listeners are already disciples as well. They have, to some degree, already taken a step or two toward discipleship. And so the journey begins.

There is an assumption at the beginning that they are coming from Jerusalem. They are close to there, if the Emmaus referred to is a village within 7 miles of Jerusalem. To this day no such village has been found. There is an Emmaus in the Holy Land but it is much further away than 7 miles. Yet other verses lead us to believe that their journey that day began in Jerusalem. “Are you the one stranger in Jerusalem…?” The the phrase “they returned to Jerusalem” pretty much clinches this.

The story is very dynamic. They’re going to to Emmaus. They were talking with each other. Jesus came near and walked with them. Later, he walked ahead as if he were going on. They got up and returned to Jerusalem. The continuing movement is so descriptive of the continuous catechumenate journey. It begins in some mysterious place. Perhaps the traveler can identify that place. It does not have a definite. What happens to these disciples after they tell the eleven and their companions the story.

There are two travelers. One is Cleopas. “Cleopas” means “glory to the father” or “the whole glory”. Is he a guide or sponsor? If so, he has much to learn about Jesus as the other disciple. Jesus interprets the scriptures for both of them. Of course, sponsors also need to listen, not only to the other but also to the voice who guides them.

Who is the other? The only indication that he might have said anything is the use of the pronoun “they.” He may be the one who takes it all in, the one who is silent and listening, the catechumen.

That the “stranger” who may be someone more than a stranger comes to them while they are on the road listening to Jesus interpret the Law and the Prophets. It comes to them only through reflection after the meal when they were reflecting upon the entire experience (mystagogia). After this, they returned to Jerusalem.

The other part that always strikes me (any many others) is the phrase ‘he walked ahead as if he were going on.” Is there epiphany partly because they lived up to the test of hospitality? Is it as important as recognizing him in the breaking of the bread?

Finally, I often hear this reading as implying that they returned to Jerusalem on the same day. The interpretation that I often hear and have always accepted is that their return trip was the same day. All the passage says is that they got they started back to Jerusalem “that same hour.” Did they get all of the way there? Probably. According to scholars, it was dangerous to travel at night. But that is not what Luke emphasizes. He does not tell us when they return but that they did return and are part of the group that meets Jesus right after this. “While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.'” (Luke 24: 36)

These are just a few scattered reflections. Much has been written about this story. We will continue to use it as a scriptural description of the catechumenate because it is a compact description. I often refer to the entire three year journey that Jesus takes with with his disciples as a description of the catechumenate. Both the story and the larger Gospel story are what the catechumenate is about. It is about journeying with Jesus, listening to his interpretation of how the Hebrew Scriptures tell us about him, realizing that our hearts are burning inside of us, recognizing Jesus in our communion with him and with members of the Church in the breaking of the bread, returning to other disciples who, like us, continue to try to figure out what this is all about.

The journey does not end but it is amazing.

Posted in Theology | Comments Off

Luke 24: 44-49 — Catechesis vs Didactic Teaching

Posted on May 21, 2020 by Jerry

Today we celebrate the Ascension of Jesus. Luke 24: 50 – 53) is about the actual ascension. The “Great Commission,” as Luke expresses it, is in Acts: “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. (Acts 1:8). This is part of the first lesson for Ascension Thursday.

What grabbed my attention this morning was the following: “‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures….” (Lk 24: 44-45)

I often take special note of passages that have Jesus referring to the fulfillment of the words of the Hebrew Scriptures. Matthew and Luke are especially good at this. This may be the only passage that adds the psalms to the usual reference to the Torah and the prophets. The story of the Road to Emmaus is the other Lukan passage that I often remember. In that one, as in this one, he opens the disciples minds to understand the Scriptures.

These descriptions of how Jesus guided (more than taught, in our usual understanding of “taught”) are the model of how to catechize in the catechumenate. The catechist helps open the minds of those seeking greater understanding of the Christ Jesus. We help facilitate, rather than do this by ourselves because we understand that the Holy Spirit guides our ministry. We do this for each other as well as for the catechumens and candidates for whom we are responsible. We do this while we are open to being catechized by all in the group. We do this by guided reflection. The structured reflection of Lectio Divina works well; there are probably other ways.

The catechist does not teach about doctrines and dogmas or about church history or textual criticism and exegesis, unless these matters arise in the course of the reflections. Then the catechist needs to be able to discern if the move to the “facts” of doctrines and dogmas, of church history, of textual criticism and exegesis is an attempt to avoid the indwelling of the Spirit. For example, this passage goes on to say that “repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his [the Messiah’s] name to all nations…” (vs 47). This is an opportune time to discuss how forgiveness of sins is celebrated in the Catholic Churches, including the Episcopal Church. It is an opportunity to understand the General Confession in the Mass and the pastoral office of reconciliation. It is also a moment to explicitly talk about repentance or conversion or transformation (all three express the same concept). The catechist needs to be open to these opportunities but should not force the topic. What is discussed and how the faith sharing develops and proceeds is up to the guidance of the Spirit. We must trust in the work of the Spirit in our midst.

The catechist must prepare for these moments through prayer and reflection. A quick perusal of the text just prior to the meeting is not adequate. The catechist must develop the art of reflection and prayer with Scripture. The catechist must develop the gift of discernment. The catechist must devote prayer and reflection on the passage for hours prior to the meeting. The catechist must be able to guide the reflection as the Spirit would have it. Otherwise we will not teach as Jesus did.

In the past, when I read this litany of “musts” in books on spiritual development and catechesis, I have been skeptical. As I have begun to realize that the catechumenate is primarily about spiritual formation, I have begun to appreciate the litany.

Posted in Catechumenate, Evangelizing, Lectio Divina, Spirituality, Theology | Comments Off

John 14: 15-21: If you love me…

Posted on May 15, 2020 by Jerry

John 14: 15-21 is the Gospel pericope for this Sunday, the 6th Sunday of Easter, 2020.

“If you love me you will keep my commandments.” So much has been written about this small phrase and so much more can be written. Is it that easy? Is it that difficult?

It is not: “Keep my commandments if you love me.” That is more of a command. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” is a request. It is a challenge. It is a challenge that I daily forget to meet. It is a challenge that daily I am not able to meet. It is a pious platitude if I don’t even try to meet the challenge. Meeting the challenge is not hopeless. “The Father will give you another Advocate to be with you forever.”

So maybe this is the way to go: try to keep the request before me today. When I do not respond adequately, remember that Jesus has sent the Spirit to sustain me. Remember that it is not impossible. Remember that there is help to continue trying. Remember that, as much as I try, I remain afraid to love as I am able. Remember that this challenge is a direction sign of how to proceed.

I had a virtual meeting with my psychiatrist yesterday. I am bipolar. (I don’t know if I have revealed this in my post thus far.) I have been on medications for 30 years and have grown to accept being bipolar as part of who I am. For insurance reasons I recently changed from seeing Dr. Marietta Almazon to seeing Dr. Bottone. Dr. Almazon and I would sometimes talk for about 30 minutes about a variety of topics, all related to my illness but not entirely clinical. We developed a friendship. But she was there primarily to renew my prescriptions every three months. I would come in and she would ask how I am doing. Most of the time I was doing well and she would give me a new prescription and off I would go. Fifteen minutes. Dr. Bottone surprised me during our second meeting. I was expecting another 15 minute conversation and prescription renewal but he extended the visit to an hour. He wants to do some actual therapy!

But I digress. I brought up my new psychiatrist because, in our time together, we nibbled on the edges of my low self-esteem. (He uses cognitive behavioral therapy.). The point is that he wants me to get away from negative thinking. That includes setting reachable goals. What does that mean for the current request?

Keeping Christ’s commandments if not a reachable goal. But I can take baby steps. The first is to try to remain conscious of the request, of the challenge. The challenge begs the question: what are your commandments? Jesus has told us. “Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind.” Let all who I am love the Lord. And the second is like the first: love your neighbor as you love your self. The bottom line is that, in and of themselves, I cannot ever completely fulfill these commandments. I can keep them before me all the time. Even that is too ambitious. I can try to keep them before me all the time. And, when I don’t, I need to pick myself up and try again without sinking into negative thoughts and dismissing the effort.

So how do I move forward with this challenge today? With the help of the Spirit, I will keep the challenge before me. With the help of the Spirit, I will find and realize ways to act upon the request. With the help of the Spirit, I will not give up when I fail to meet the challenge. With the help of the Spirit, I will respond as best I can right here and right now. That is all I can do. Or is it?

Peace! Amen!

Posted in Lectio Divina, Personal, Spirituality, Theology | Comments Off

The Gate, the Gate Keeper and the Sheep — John 10:1-10

Posted on April 29, 2020 by Jerry

Philip Devenish once told me that the person to reflect upon in this passage is the gatekeeper. Philip was my mentor at Notre Dame. His words come to mind every time I hear this pericope. It is the gatekeeper who has the awesome task of recognizing the shepherds (yes, multiple shepherds are assumed). It is the gatekeeper who opens the gate for them.

The gatekeeper controls the gate! The gatekeeper makes the decisions for the gate! Why is this so amazing? Because Jesus identifies himself as the gate! We may be all those who have anything to do with the gate — we may be the gatekeeper or the shepherds or the sheep but it is Jesus who is the gate.

Another thought: What if the gatekeeper refers to the Holy Spirit? Does the gatekeeper “control” the gate? Does the gatekeeper control Jesus? This image could lead to fryer reflection on the relationship between the Spirit, the Christ Jesus and us.

How does the gatekeeper know the shepherds? If there are multiple shepherds, there must be multiple herds. But all of these herds gather in one sheepfold. And all of the sheep recognize their respective shepherds. Are there strangers in the story who might pose as shepherds? Jesus does mention the possibility of thieves and bandits but they would come into the sheepfold by another way, perhaps by climbing over the fence. Or, as mentioned in verse 8, all who come before the gate are thieves and bandits. How can this be since clearly the shepherds are not part of this “all”? How does the gatekeeper discern who are the proper persons to let into the sheepfold? The gatekeeper needs to know all of the various shepherds. Presumably she must be able to ward off the thieves and bandits.

The immediate task of the shepherd is not to lead the sheep into the pen but rather out of it. It is the beginning of the day, not the end when all the sheep of all of the herds would again be penned together. The shepherds lead the sheep out of the pen in the morning and back into the pen in the evening.

The gatekeeper has a larger task. The gatekeeper must be able to recognize multiple shepherds. The gatekeeper must also recognize those who thieves and bandits and keep them out of the pen. Each shepherd has her own sheep and each of the herds recognizes its own shepherd. But the gatekeeper is not tasked with knowing who has each flock of sheep. There are multiple shepherds each calling his/her own sheep. Are there mutual discernment of leaders and followers by the shepherds and the sheep? The shepherds call; the sheep respond. The sheep are called by name. They respond. Each shepherd leads her/his herd out of the pen. But Jesus is not the shepherd. Are some of us shepherds? Are we shepherds some times and sheep at other times?

As with many passages of the various gospels, it is important to look at what comes before and after this passage. In hearing just the particular passage one can make all sorts of assumptions. In this case it is the possible identity of those whom Jesus is addressing. Heard by itself, it is easy to presume that Jesus is talking to and teaching his disciples. But the story just before this passage is that of the Man Born Blind. The final group that Jesus addresses in that story are the Pharisees. So this entire story and the Good Shepherd story that follows it are addressed to the Pharisees. Interestingly, Jesus switches his identity between the two stories. In this passage he identifies himself as the gate. In what follows, he identifies himself as the good shepherd. It seems that he switches analogies. No wonder, at the end of both stories, that of the gate and that of the good shepherd, the Pharisees conclude that Jesus is possessed by a demon and is out of his mind.

So the questions are legend for those who go deeper than the surface with this passage. For one thing, Jesus gives the possibility of numerous other shepherds. This could be seen as referring to those who follow other paths toward enlightenment. In verse 16 Jesus does recognize that he has other sheep who are not of his fold. Are they members of other folds or are they lost sheep?

It is better to recognize the myriad of questions rather than to try to answer them. For lectio leaders one definite lesson from this passage is that there are different ways to hear a passage. Participants can identify with or focus on many different characters in any particular story. One may be a shepherd or a sheep or a gatekeeper. You may be a shepherd or a sheep or a gatekeeper at various times in your life. But Jesus makes it clear in this passage that he is the gate. Who are you? Who are we?

Posted in Lectio Divina, Theology | 1 Comment

The Catechumenate — A Process of Spiritual Formation

Posted on April 20, 2020 by Jerry

Will you open your heart and mind to receive the Good News of Jesus Christ? Answer: I will, with God’s help. (Rite of Admission of Candidates) Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship…? I will, with God’s help. (The Baptismal Covenant)

The Catechumate is all about spiritual formation!

When I first began catechumenate ministry in 1981, the priest at St. Theresa’s responded to my request to take part in the adult education program. When I became the Director of the RCIA for the Diocese of Ft. Wayne-South Bend, the new position was part of the Department of Adult Education. One of the national discussions at Notre Dame and in the North American Forum for the Catechumenate was whether or not the RCIA was part of Liturgy and Worship or of Adult Education. In the spirit of Catholicism, the answer was “both/and.” When I became part of the RCIA team at St. Rose Catholic Church in Roseville, that team was part of Adult Education. When I joined the catechumenate team at Trinity Cathedral, the catechumenate was part of “Adult Spiritual Formation,” (ASF) Trinity’s name for adult education. Or, at least, that was how I saw Adult Spiritual Formation. When I did diocesan workshops on the catechumenate, I did them, and they were received, as part of the “sacramental development” of adult education.

There was no discussion at any of these organizations during all of this time of the catechumenate being essentially a process of spiritual formation . The placement of the catechumenate within ASF implied that it was about classes for adults. The assumption was that these classes, and all others that ASF offered would somehow contribute to the participants’ spiritual formation. My team has campaigned for several years that we don’t hold classes; we have meetings. I don’t think we realized the implications of this change of language. At least I did not.

I continued waffling between whether the catechumenate should be part of liturgy and worship or part of ASF. I was pretty sure that no one would agree to moving it to Liturgy and Worship because the most significant part of the catechumenate was preparing participants for baptism and confirmation through classes.

Another part of this background is that I have participated in a long running debate as to whether or not there is sufficient doctrine taught in catechumenate. Jim Richardson, the Interim Dean at Trinity Cathedral, is the latest person raising this argument against the value of the catechumenate. My response has been that the catechumenate strictly speaking, i.e. as designed specifically for the unbaptized, is not about teaching Roman Catholic or Episcopalian or Lutheran doctrine but rather preparing people to be baptized into the Body of Christ. One is not baptized into the Catholic Church or into the Episcopal Church or into the Lutheran Church. St. Paul clearly gives us the Scriptural basis for this claim (I Cor 1:8-18). However I do concede that, because the formation is taking place within a particular denomination, that denomination’s ethos will envelope the formation. And I agree that confirmation involves committing oneself to entry into a particular denomination and hence could include teaching in the doctrines of the particular denomination. All candidates for the catechumenate and it’s related rites are asked the questions cited at the beginning of this blog. None are asked “Do you commit yourself to following the doctrines and dogmas of “X” Church?”

I am somewhat ashamed that my realization of the essential nature of the catechumenate has come late in my ministry. I have provided the above history partially as a justification of why is have been so blind to this understanding. And, in all fairness to Trinity, the placement of the catechumenate in ASF is part of how and why I came to this revelation. When the catechumenate is placed in the context of spiritual formation, all discussions of adequate doctrinal teaching become irrelevant. We are not about teaching. We are about reflecting on the Gospel and upon the apostles’ teachings, which are essentially the same as the gospels. (The Gospel narratives are the embodiment of the apostles’ teachings.). We are about incorporation into the Body of Christ, as that is reflected in the Gospels. I did not come to this realization until I retired. I did reflect on it while employed but the reflections were brief. I spent more time trying to figure out how to meet the objections of inadequate doctrinal education.

Now that we talk about the catechumenate as spiritual formation, how will it fit into the ASF department at Trinity? One can argue that the writing classes and chat groups serve the same function. Centering Prayer certainly is about spiritual formation but I don’t think we see it as part of ASF unless we are pressed as to where it “fits” in the Trinity organizational structure. Advocates of EfM argue that the faith sharing in the EfM classes makes that program “more than” classes. But the readings are in Scriptural exegesis and commentary, in Church history and in doctrinal theology. They are classes and EfM is a course of study.

It will be interesting to see if the new Dean will see this essential nature of the catechumenate. It is clear that Bishop Megan “gets it.” Her comments thus far on the nature of the catechumenate make that clear.

Posted in Catechumenate, Church, Spirituality, Theology | Comments Off

Easter 2020

Posted on April 14, 2020 by Jerry

Many have commented that, because of the Covid 19 pandemic, this Easter is unique. Christians have not gathered physically to celebrate and worship. We have not heard the readings together. We have not shared communion. I recommend researching the many commentaries, sermons, articles and more that comment and reflect upon our current situation.

The inability to be physical together to celebrate the Triduum, including the Great Vigil, is difficult. But what has arisen from this are new electronic “virtual” ways to gather. Media technicians have joined with liturgists to help bring communities together through Zoom and other interactive meeting software, through Facebook streaming, through webinars. Zoom and Webinars have include the capabilities for “dialogue” in the form of Q&A and texts/comments. Facebook, often combined with YouTube, is more limited. Friends of the group can make comments on the Facebook event post but it is really more one-way. Hopefully the faith communities who have taken advantage of these media will continue in the post-pandemic world.

Trinity has been wrestling with how to take advantage of these media forms for quite awhile. When I was Operations Manager, I did not take the time to pursue the various means. We used meetings-to-go for remote connection to vestry and some other meetings. But we did not use Zoom. I’m not sure we had a license. I did participate in some JBL zoom meetings but that was because I had the software on my laptop and iPad. Now we are using it for Adult Spiritual Formation groups. Kelly Mieske used it for catechumenate meetings. Lectio sessions adapt well to this media. Establishing a home sacred space is important for remote lectio and for participation in other on-line liturgies. People have developed instructional You tube videos on how to create such spaces. Setting up such a space can be a challenge f there are others in the house who do not respect the need for such a space. Youth and Family ministry used Zoom for meetings. It would be easy enough to set up some youth meetings with it. In fact, one of the things has not done is seek tou our teens who probably have much more knowledge on how to develop and use this media.

Trinity is using Facebook streaming to broadcast the Sunday liturgies. They also used itl for broadcasting the Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Great Vigil Triduum. For them as well as other faith communities a challenge is how to have “remote participation.” Trinity asked people to wash their hands on Maundy Thursday, to have a cross present for Good Friday and to have candles, bells and paper “Alleluias” with them for the Vigil.

Mary and I have “participated” in several different faith community broadcasts. We have chosen to join in All Saints’ Episcopal Church in Pasadena more often than in Trinity Cathedral’s offerings. All Saints’ uses Zoom whereas Trinity uses Facebook streaming. Zoom allows more than one remote site at a time. The celebrant/officiant can be in one space; a lector in another; musicians in other spaces and so on. For us, there is more of a sense of participation in this rather than in Facebook streaming. We did participate in Trinity’s Good Friday and Easter Vigil services. Trinity usually has a noon-3:00 reflection service on Good Friday. That would lend itself well to either media. Instead they chose to have noon and evening services duplicate.

Mary and I have done several things to enhance our sense of participation. We stand and sit at appropriate places (e.g. sitting for the readings but standing for the proclamation of the Gospel). We do the responses out loud. We have had bread and wine that we receive from each other. We washed each others feet on Maundy Thursday. And she nailed me to a cross on Good Friday (just kidding).

My first experience of the Great Vigil was in 1971 when I stayed at Mt Angel Seminary for Holy Week. The entire Triduum experience was good, though I didn’t appreciate it at the time. I did appreciate the drama of the Vigil. It starts out on the church plaza. The Abbot and fellow priests wear gold colored vestments. The fire burns as we gather. The Abbot marks and blesses the Paschal Candle. Then all those gathered process into the dark Church. The monk who is carrying the candle leads the procession. The Abbot and then all of the monks and other participants follow. At Mt. Angel all of the Scripture readings are proclaimed with chanted psalms following each. This is done in the dark. The only lights are for the lector, the Abbot for the collect prayers, and the organist. These lights go on and off at the appropriate moments. They light the entire church before the reading from Romans Chapter 6. They process and incense the Book of the Gospel. The Abbot preaches.

Mary and I watched this year’s Abbey Vigil. It was good to “go back” in a sense. I think my love of the Easter Vigil has its roots in that early experience at the Abbey. Abbot Jeremy preached a wonderful sermon. His deep knowledge of the Scripture, of the liturgy, of all that the Vigil encompasses showed through in the reflection and teaching that we heard.

I hope Mt. Angel continues to broadcast their liturgies after we gain some liberty from the coronavirus. The Abbey has also broadcast some parts of the Liturgy of the Hours. I suspect Trinity will continue to stream services. We have wrestled with streaming the Sunday liturgy for years. The National Cathedral used Facebook and Youtube prior to the shelter-in-place practices. Grace Cathedral did the same.

The Good News (for there is always Good News in the midst of travail) is that many faith communities, including Jewish and Muslim, have discovered these media during this pandemic. Some larger churches have had the resources to incorporate them for years. Others, like Trinity, have not expended resources for this until now. Trinity will go forward with this technology.

Posted in Catechumenate, Church, Lectio Divina, Liturgy, Personal | 1 Comment