Reflections on the God of the covenant in light of chapter 3 of Gustavo Gutiérrez's The God of Life

“The covenant that God makes with the people is a central theme of the Bible,” writes Gustavo Gutiérrez at the beginning of the third chapter of his book, The God of Life (pg 33). But the indefinite article could easily be changed to the definite article to state that the covenant that God seeks to enter into with all people is the central theme of the Bible. In fact, this is precisely what the father of liberation theology sets out to show in the third chapter of The God of Life.

The covenant is the initiative of the One God who is love, which makes God the God of life because love is life-giving. It is through this covenant, which takes the form “I will be your God, and you shall be my people” (Jer. 7.23), that God seeks to give us life. As Christians we often think that it was not until the Incarnation of Jesus Christ that God is revealed as the God of love. While Jesus Christ is the definitive and explicit sign and symbol of divine love, which constitutes reality, Gutiérrez demonstrates how, beginning in the Hebrew Scriptures, God is unveiled. This revelation is perhaps best expressed in the form of a syllogism: if to give life is to love, to form community, to relate to others, then the God of life must love and must somehow be relational. It is here that the very essence of the divine life into which God seeks to draw each one of us and all of us together is love.

Nothing in our experience is more life-giving than conjugal relations between a man and a woman. This act is used time again as more than a metaphor to describe the covenant initiated by God. The author of the New Testament letter to the Ephesians, undoubtedly borrowing this image from the Hebrew Scriptures, also used this image to describe the Church, the people of the new covenant (Eph. 5.22-33). This primal image is used by the prophets time and again because, not only does love pick up where knowledge leaves off, love is the intellect’s point-of-departure. The urge to give life precedes life and life, in turn, precedes any self-conscious reflection.

Knowing God is not, in the first instance, an intellectual exercise, something learned by study, or earned by hard work, it is an apprehension at once more basic and more existential. This reality is well-expressed in the description of theology as faith seeking understanding. Therefore, true religion, which is the outward form and visible symbol of the relationship into which God seeks to draw us, is not reserved only for those who have the leisure and the means to study, but for all, and in a privileged way, the poor and the oppressed. Neither do we apprehend or perceive God on our own. Despite “the abiding temptation to understand faith as something purely individual,” we can apprehend God only in relation to others in the context of community. Hence, it is never a “question of a thou and an I, but of a thou and a we” (pg 34).

While a bit anachronistic, using to the conjugal image to describe God’s covenant-making puts us in mind of a sacrament, if by sacrament we mean a visible and tangible sign of God’s presence, not just in, but for the world. After all, what is more expressive of giving life than the act by which two people affect and effect a new person? By using the conjugal image to describe how God seeks to relate to humanity we see that sacraments do not come from above but originate from below, from God’s good creation, from the creatures who God loves and who God seeks to make children. As children we are to love our parent, God, who is father and mother, as well as each other. The insight that God is love, expressed by the covenant that has as its image the conjugal union, aids us because our faith, being our free response to God’s initiative, arises from our longing for completeness, for connectedness, and for community. Our free response is nothing other than receiving what God freely offers us, which is life. This is precisely why faith can never be individual. Faith is relational and it gives rise to community. The use of the conjugal image to describe the relationship that God longs to enter into with all humanity, even in the Hebrew Scriptures, which features as another of its great themes, along with God’s covenant-making, that profession of faith, “The Lord is our God, the Lord alone” (Deut. 6.4), leads us to conclude that God, in order to be love, must also be relational.

Because God is love, we are free to accept or reject the life into which God wants us draw us. Once we respond to God the covenant, like a marriage, is based on fidelity to the One God, who alone is Lord. Nonetheless, it is only because this God who reaches out to us in covenant is faithful, even when we, the people to whom it is offered, are not, that it is not broken. Hence, the continuation of the covenant rests on God’s fidelity, not to the covenant, which is abstract, but to the people God loves “with an everlasting love” (Jer. 31.3).

Saint Mary, Abraham and Sarah, Bride of God
1699 by Ulrich Utiger

The point that needs to be stressed, insists Gutiérrez, is that this profession of faith “in Yahweh makes it possible for Israel not only to know its religious status but also to assert itself as a people” (pg 34). To dig a bit deeper on this point, it is precisely the covenant, initiated by God, and not heredity, or purity of blood that gives this people their identity. After all it was a “mixed crowd” that was liberated from Egypt (Exod. 12.38). So, the covenant “is made with a people, with a human group,” a mixed group, “not an individual person” (pg 34).

That God enters into covenant with a people and not an individual, or even many individuals separately, is a point of biblical revelation that requires some explanation because God did enter into a covenant with an individual person: Abraham, our father in faith. “I will make my covenant between me and you, and will make you exceedingly numerous," God says to Abram just prior to changing his name to Abraham. The name change is made because the man from Ur has already been made by the God of life “the ancestor of a multitude of nations” (Gen. 17.2-5). The upshot is that God’s liberating and redemptive action, because it takes place in history, had to start not somewhere, but with someone. This someone of necessity had to be two people. Therefore, it is Abraham and his wife Sarai, who became Sarah because she is also our ancestor, not just by the fruit of her womb, which bore only Isaac, so our pre-historic, but revelatory, story goes, who are the progenitors of a multitude of nations (Gen. 17.2-5,16). So, from the beginning, “faith is something that lives within a community, the individual’s life of faith is put right, regulated, and judged by the entire people called to covenant with the Lord” (pg 34).

Because we are called into covenant as a people, as God’s people, and because God, while “tenderly loving” and always faithful, is also a demanding and even jealous covenant partner, the question, in what does this life-giving faith, this response to God, which response necessarily takes place in a community, consist, forces itself upon us. “One expression of the jealousy of this God,” writes Gutiérrez, “is the necessary connection between worship and the practice of justice, between sacrifice and fellowship among human beings, between religious offering and the work of liberation” (pg 45). There are “two fundamental dimensions of Christian life: contemplation and commitment” (pg 47). An integrated life consists in connecting these two dimensions. One concrete way of connecting worship and justice is forgiveness, which is gratuitous and brings about reconciliation. The gift of life is only fully realized when, once forgiven, we, in turn, practice justice. Our worship is only authentic if we practice justice, which, among its many implications, means standing ready to forgive, and to be members of a reconciling community, which is the only kind of authentically Eucharistic community. Being a truly Eucharistic community means standing in solidarity with the poor and the oppressed, who are formed as people by their “hunger for God” and “hunger for bread” (pg xii). “Solidarity with the poor and the oppressed should be a source of joy, not a strain” (pg 47).

This is a pre-residency paper I wrote for a Foundations in Theology class at St. Mary's University.

A connundrum

Courtesy of my friend, Peggy from Tucson

More on the motu

Since I am taking something like a Summer hiatus, I don't want to leave you all (both of you) in the lurch. Since I am, as previously noted, a big believer in accountability, I am happy to let two men whose knowledge and wisdom are far superior to my own have the last words on this blog regarding the Holy Father's motu: Bishop Wester and Msgr. M. Francis Mannion. I also want to remind readers that last Fall, around Thanksgiving, I had a very long and detailed post on Pope Benedict and the direction of the liturgy during his pontificate when it was far from certain there would even be a motu. This post from the Catholic Deacon archive is entitled Pope Benedict, Msgr. Klaus Gamber, the Universal Indult and the Reform of the reform.

In addition to his comments on the motu, Bishop Wester has two wonderful podcasts on Immigration, the committee of the USCCB of which he becomes chairman later this year. These podcasts are very good to listen to, especially given the polarizing nature of the immigration debate. While I am on the subject of immigration, Gregory Glenn's post on our parish blog, The People of St. Magdalene, on this subject is worth a reading as well.

Comments on Summorum Pontificium:

"I am very touched by the fact our holy father Pope Benedict XVI is a man of great charity and compassion. It is through the context of his first encyclical, 'God is Love,' that I see him reaching out with his latest motu propio, “Summorum pontificium,” to ensure the unity of the church, especially in the celebration of its sacraments and in particular the Eucharist which is the source and summit of our unity. This permission to use the Tridentine Rite of 1962 is yet another expression of the Holy Father’s desire to allow all of the faithful to participate in the celebration of the Eucharist.

I am grateful to the Holy Father for his pastoral concern and the emphasis to the unity and charity of the Body of Christ.

I take note that Pope Benedict has outlined very precisely and carefully the nature of this permission and how it is to be implemented. I find his directives to be very helpful.

The great grace of the Eucharist is that we come into the presence of almighty God who is truly present in substance in the eucharistic meal. Our God is so loving and so of us that he wants to be present to us in the great celebration of the Eucharist. The permission given in the motu propio allows the use of a very sacred ritual that is yet another pathway to approach that great mystery.

+ Bishop John C. Wester
Diocese of Salt Lake City"

Thanks to The Intermountain Catholic, our really great diocesan newspaper for both the podcasts and Bishop Wester's encouraging words on Summorum Pontificium. In addition to Bishop Wester's statement, the IC also offers the reflections of Msgr. M. Francis Mannion, a friend and mentor, without whose support and encouragement I would not be engaged in ministry, and who is a noted liturgical scholar, founding president of The Society for Catholic Liturgy, and a man whose well-informed views are always worth seeking and listening to, in an article by Christopher Gray, who is quite a liturgically astute person himself, entitled Local pastor responds to Pope Benedict's motu propio.

Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum wherein in the long awaited motu proprio is finally issued

Today His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI officially promulgated his much anticipated motu proprio allowing for the broader use of the 1962 Latin Missale Romanum, published by Pope John XXIII just prior to the Second Vatican Council. This form of the one Roman Liturgy, according to the motu, is to be used as an extraordinary form with the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI after the Council remaining the ordinary and normative form of the Roman Rite. This decision handed down on the Pope's own authority (which is what motu proprio means) goes into effect on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, which is 14 September 2007.

The motu was issued in the form of an Apostolic Letter and is entitled Summorum Pontificum. Along with the Apostolic Letter, Pope Benedict simultaneously published a letter to all Roman Rite bishops in the world in which, after giving a brief overview of the Roman liturgy from 1962 to the present, the Holy Father explains his rationale for issuing the motu. "This document," writes the Holy Father, "was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions - the liturgical reform - is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal form - the 'Forma ordinaria' - of the Eucharistic liturgy. The last version of the 'Missale Romanum' prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a 'Forma extraordinaria' of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were 'two rites.' Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite."

He continues: "In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."

Pope Benedict then gives "the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: 'Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return . widen your hearts also!' (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows."

Article 1 of Summorum Pontifice:
"The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite."

Without getting too deeply into it, I find this article dubious. Just as I am not convinced by the arguments set forth in the letter to Roman Rite bishops that seeks to assuage their fears about this change, which takes the celebration of the 1962 liturgy out of their hands, such a drastic change in the lex orandi of the Church must necessarily affect the Church's lex credendi, not to mention our lex agendi. It is a giant step in the wrong direction to allow any kind of normativity for the private celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy, which permitting the 1962 Rite clearly does in Article 2, which reads in part, "In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970." I have to admit in all fairness that when it comes to the eucharistic liturgy, I am a Sunday/Holy Day of obligation mass-goer and a Lauds/Vespers prayer the rest of the time. Hence, I am fairly Eastern Christian in this regard.

Finally, the Holy See's Press Office published "an explanatory note concerning the Motu Proprio 'Summorum Pontificum'. The most important paragraphs of the note are given below:

"The Motu Proprio 'Summorum Pontificum' lays down new rules for the use of the Roman liturgy that preceded the reform of 1970. The reasons for such provisions are clearly explained in the Holy Father's letter to bishops which accompanies the Motu Proprio (the two documents have been sent to all the presidents of episcopal conferences and to all nuncios, who have arranged to distribute them to all bishops).

"The fundamental provision is as follows: the Roman liturgy will have two forms ('usus'):

"a) The ordinary form is the one that follows the liturgical reform undertaken by Pope Paul VI in the year 1970, as it appears in the liturgical books promulgated at that time. There is an official edition in Latin which may be used always and everywhere, and translations in divers languages published by the various episcopal conferences.

"b) The extraordinary form: which is that celebrated in accordance with the liturgical books published by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962."

In paragraph 8 the note reads: 'The bishop of a particular place may erect a personal parish, wherever there is to be found a very substantial number of faithful who wish to follow the earlier liturgy. It would be appropriate for the numbers of faithful to be substantial, even if not comparable to those of other parishes.'

"The explanatory note also highlights some of the characteristics of the 1962 Missal:

"It is a 'complete' or 'integral' Missal in the Latin language, that is, it also contains the readings for the celebrations (it is not distinct from the 'Lectionary' as the later 1970 Missal is).

"It contains just one Eucharistic prayer, the 'Roman Canon' (corresponding to the first Eucharist Prayer of the later Missal, which includes a choice of various Eucharistic Prayers).

"Various prayers (including a large part of the Canon) are recited by the priest in a low voice inaudible to the people.

"Other differences include the reading of the beginning of the Gospel of John at the end of Mass.

"The 1962 Missal does not provide for concelebration. It says nothing concerning the direction of the altar or of the celebrant (whether facing the people or not).

"The Pope's Letter envisages the possibility of future enrichment of the 1962 Missal (inclusion of new saints, new prefaces, etc.)."

Friday

As a priestly people let us not neglect our daily sacrifice.

A few random notes

I am back and feeling a bit overwhelmed at present. I am still processing two weeks worth of intensive instruction, trying to complete 4 short and 2 long papers, beginning my reading on diaconal formation and identity, and the list goes on- lecture on St. Mary Magadalene and the resurrection, book club, preaching. Nonetheless, I am enjoying it all, but I feel tired tonight.


Rocco over at Whispers keeps up his excellent and irreplaceable reportage with the scoop on the long-awaited and mostly dreaded motu proprio, which is called Summorum Pontificum. He follows that up with the explanatory The Motu Proprio: Benedict's Decisive Compromise.


In the near future I may share some reflections and writings generated by my recent and current studies. It seems strange, but I feel like I need to find my voice again. One advantage of actually doing research is re-reading things with a more critical eye. To that end, I have re-engaged Edward Schillebeeckx, OP, specifically his book on ministry, The Church With a Human Face: A New and Expanded Theology of Ministry. I have been looking at attempts or approaches to developing a theology of the diaconate that takes a realistic account of ministry in the Church past and present, and the twin realities of the presbyterate and lay ecclesial ministers.


While visting Sacred Heart Cathedral in Winona, Minnesota, I discovered that the altar contains a relic of St. Gianna Molla.

It is a good night to invoke the saints:

Holy Mary, Mother of God - pray for us
St. Joseph - pray for us
St. Mary Magdalene - pray for us
St. Stephen- pray for us
St. Philip- pray for us
St. Lawrence- pray for us
St. Francis of Assisi - pray for us
St. Gianni Molla - pray for us

St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross- pray for us
Sts. Perpetua and Felicity- pray for us
Bl. Teresa of Calcutta- pray for us

Bl.Franz Jägerstätter
All holy men and women- pray for us

Blue Heron

For Fred & Alex.