What is the Philosopher?

Now before all the grammar nazis attack me, I chose the words of the title very deliberately, so yes, those are the proper words. Secondly, "philosopher" is capitalized because it's in a title. The question I am examining today is, "What is the philosopher?"

Before I can explain what the philosopher is, however, I must explain who a philosopher is. The simple definition, of course, is to define a philosopher as one who studies philosophy, coming from the Greek words meaning, "love of wisdom." Philosophy of course can take many subdivisions, but I will make the claim that most will agree that what all the divisions have in common is their search for truth.

These things alone do not make one the philosopher though, for there is something greater required to be part of the universal philosopher (I'm being very Platonic with my participation idea here). To him belongs the burden of defending the nobility of philosophy. For the true and complete philosopher, philosophy is but a means, it is what he uses, not only what he studies. I will hold that to be the philosopher carries a three-fold requirement: to study everything which pertains to the science of philosophy, to give, and most importantly, to contribute.

To study everything which pertains to philosophy of course means to study everything, not just within the subject of philosophy, but within all subjects. For all subjects have truths, which of course will contribute and be necessary in the study for Truth itself.

Now, I do not propose that anyone is capable of studying and knowing all things. This idea is not only preposterous, but it would make for a very boring social life (or maybe for a very interesting one, depending on how one goes about it). To accomplish this does not even require the philosopher to actively seek out the knowledge, but he must be open to knowledge. He must always be desirous of new information.

It is necessary that the philosopher be able to answer adequately all the claims brought against him. When a new discovery is made in science that seems to contradict the truths of religion, it is the philosopher's job to refute those claims by reconciling the two. This will of course require him to study both fields, so that he may know what each contributes to the argument. Although he may have a special area of focus, say the study of the soul, he should be able to apply his philosophical knowledge to answer a question in metaphysics. This he is capable of doing because philosophy has given him the method to do so. He will appeal to the experts for assistance in this task, for from philosophy he should have learned how to study and formulate an argument. And lastly, he will hold steadfastly to the truths he has discovered, but he will never turn away an attack against them. Nor will he simply argue against and disprove it. But he will look at it, and find the truth to it, and at least offer the claimant the ability to reconcile it with Truth itself.

The next requirement for the philosopher follows from this - the philosopher must give. I do not give a direct object to the verb "give," because it can take so many. The philosopher must give instruction, he must give opposition, he must give support, he must give clarification, and so much else.

The philosopher cannot be content simply with studying the science. Although I will not hesitate to say philosophy is worth studying simply for itself, this simply makes one a philosopher, not the philosopher which we are working towards here. Rather the philosopher wants to pass on what he has learned and discovered. Therefore, he will teach others; not necessarily in a university, but at least the basic truths will be upheld in everyday life and given to others as they may benefit from it.

He must also be willing to give opposition, for the claims of philosophy are as numerous as the stars in the sky, but the earth has only one sun. The philosopher can never allow other claims to be seen as equally worthy, for that would be the denial of Truth, which consequently is the denial of God. Therefore, he must oppose and refute those claims, not with hostility of course, but with the utmost charity, always keeping Truth before his eyes.

From this it also follows that the philosopher must lend support and clarify. He does this to all who are seeking Truth. To those who have found the Truth, but struggle to grasp it fully, he lends explanation. To those who have yet to find It, he clarifies. Due to the necessary precision of the science, the meaning of the great philosophers is often not readily understandable. Additionally the differences in writing styles over the ages make it hard to translate and understand them. Therefore, the philosopher will clarify what they mean, correct distortions in other interpretations, and even correct the greats when necessary, not destroying their system, but rather aiding it.

Before, I go on to the last point, I must explain the concept of the philosophia perrenis. This we could call the Truth. It is not a specific system of philosophy, but is rather contains within it all of the truths of the universe, and the best methods and ways of explaining them. All philosophies draw on this and contribute to it in greater or lesser degrees. It endures, because it cannot be destroyed. Philosophers may diverge from it, but they must always return to it. And it is this perennial philosophy which the philosopher has as his last goal.  

Now, lastly, and most importantly, I say that the philosopher must contribute to philosophy. This is the most important because it is the hardest. Thus, it is the rarest, but it is what makes one the philosopher! To contribute is not simply to give, because by "to contribute" I here mean that the philosopher must give of himself. He enters into what Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer Adler refer to as "The Great Conversation." It is a discussion that began when history began and will go on to the end of time.

The philosopher wishes to make his own contributions, no matter how small to the  philosophia perrenis. These contributions always value the work of those who have gone before, no matter how incorrect they may have been. I am reminded of Aquinas' proofs against the Monoslogion of St. Anselm. Although Aquinas disagrees with it (a point he and I differ on), he does not attack Anselm, but respects him and his work. 

This is a great shift which we see in many of the modernists. They do not value the works of many previous philosophers, just their specific teachers, and often not even those. I think specifically of the trend in universities to ignore and deny that Scholasticism is a philosophy. I can respect your choice to disagree with the Scholastics; I find it hard to respect the choice to deny an evident truth. Call them bad philosophers if you will, but at least call them philosophers. I do not hesitate to call Nietzsche and Peter Singer philosophers, even if I do not agree with their methods or premises. Aristotle did not agree with Anaximander or Pythagoras, but he called them philosophers. 

I want to state my belief that Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophy, primarily Thomistic philosophy, best embody what I mean by the philosopher. The main argument that modernists will make against these systems, primarily Scholasticism, is that they are integrally tied up with religion. I will not deny this claim. But this supports the points I have made above - philosophy must use all sciences in its support. Since both religion and philosophy seek truth, it seems logical to use them together. Philosophy can't give revelations, but it can support them. Additionally, Aristotle is known for all of the work he put into biology in his philosophy. Although he was incorrect in many things, he used other fields for his work and I praise him for this.

A small handful of other contributors to this Great Discussion in philosophy are Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Augustine, Origen, Bonaventure, and Benedict XVI. Like I said, it's just a handful. 

It would instantly seem that I skipped two ages of philosophy - the modern and contemporary eras. There is a reason I did not include philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Rene Descartes. It is not because they are not part of the Great Discussion, but because they did not contribute, but rather attacked it.

I don't deny these philosophers were intelligent, or that they in general sought truth (although some denied its knowability), but their methods were not methods of contribution. For example, I give the famous quote of Descartes from his Discourse on Method: Part II:

     But as regards all the opinions which up to this time I had embraced, I thought I could not do
     better than endeavor once for all to sweep them completely away, so that they might later on be
     replaced, either by others that were better, or by the same, when I had made them conform to the
     uniformity of a rational scheme. 

In contrast to this I give these lines from Aristotle's De Anima:

     For our study of soul it is necessary, while formulating the problems of which in our further 
     advance we are to find the solutions, to call into council the views of those of our predecessors 
     who have declared any opinion on this subject, in order that we may profit by whatever is sound in 
     their suggestions and avoid their errors. 

These two quotes present the polar opposites one can have in regards to how one goes about research and philosophy. We have Descartes who refuses to use the work of others, because of his method of spurning anything which he can "doubt." But Aristotle wants to begin his investigation of a subject by using the work of those who have gone before, to avoid having to redo their work, but also to correct their errors. 

This is a clearly reasonable way to go about studying philosophy and meets all of the criteria I have laid above for the philosopher. Descartes on the other hand, begins by his "reason" by throwing Reason out the window!

Philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas built upon the Discussion. Philosophers like Descartes tore down the Discussion and started what we may refer to as a "side-discussion." It's not necessarily that they did not want to discover truth, but they wanted that discovery to be done within their own universe and systems. It seems they couldn't have cared less about the philosophia perrenis. Aquinas may have had a philosophical system, but he attempted to conform it to the perennial philosophy. 

I can praise the modernists for wanting to incorporate science into philosophy, but they unfortunately often make the error of believing philosophical truths will come from science. Rather it is the other way around. Philosophy is the science which gives meaning, purpose, and principles to all the other fields.

This is an arena in which the philosophers of today have an opportunity to make their contributions. They have the opportunity to reconcile science and religion, to purge the errors from all of the schools of philosophy and guide them to the perennial  philosophy, and to bring philosophy into the public sphere to heal the wounds gripping society.

This then is what differentiates the philosopher from the majority of philosophers. He wishes to guide the world to God. Whether he does it consciously or unconsciously, he seeks to bring unity, truth, and goodness to philosophy and to society. These of course are all attributes of God.

I feel it appropriate to end with my favorite quote of Aquinas, "The purpose of philosophy is not to learn what other men thought, but to learn the truth of things."

Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, Pray for us!
St. Thomas Aquinas, Pray for us!

Homilies and a Battle Plan

I feel like it's a fairly common for people, that when the priest processes into Mass, a few different things run through their heads. For example, "Long homily today," or "I hope he doesn't try singing," or "Praise God, I'm going to receive the Eucharist today!!!" (I'm half joking on that last one.) Of course we all have more positive thoughts as well, I hope, such as "We're getting an awesome homily today!"

Well, based on my above examples, and general experience, most of the time our thoughts at this point seem to revolve around two things, the homily and the length of the Mass, (or if you're a liturgical nut like me, whether we're going to have chanting). 

To the latter thought, I will simply give the words of St. Josemaria Escriva, "'The Mass is long' you say, and I reply: "Because your love is short." I will note that I don't refer to the length of the homily or songs and chants here. Rome, herself, has said that there should be limits to those two. I am referring simply to whether the priest is fast or slower, for valid reasons, such as age and reverence. 

The former thought is what I want to talk about to segway into my topic for this post - the homily. I need to preface my discussion in that I don't want to talk about what makes a good or bad homily. Seminarians go through homiletics classes and trials to learn this. Many a priest struggle with homilies. I don't envy them; it is impossible to please every person with a homily. 

Rather, what I want to look at is something in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Paragraph 65 states:

     The Homily is part of the Liturgy and is highly recommended, for it is necessary for the nurturing of 

     the Christian life. It should be an explanation of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture 

     or of another text from the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into 

     account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.

We are all used to the priest preaching about the Readings at Mass, or the mystery being celebrated, or the particular needs of the listeners. What I feel we are not used to is the homilist preaching about another text from the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass. 

Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity to encourage priests to draw their homily from these texts as well. It should be evident that priests struggle with coming up with topics for homilies year after year, especially for the feasts like Christmas, where the Readings are the same. However, using texts from the proper or the Ordinary will give numerous sources to draw from as well. 

However, a clear problem suddenly pops up. Many parishes do not use any of the proper, besides the Collect and the Prayers before and after Communion. However, it should be noted that every Mass has both an Introductory Antiphon and a Communion Antiphon, which are often texts from Scripture and would provide an apt topic for the homily. If these were to be chanted, they would serve a twofold purpose, to direct people towards the mystery being celebrated and to provide the priest with more material for the homily. 

Additionally, there are all of the Ordinary texts of the Mass, which are fitting subjects for meditation. 

Just remember, try always to encourage the priest on their homilies. Most of them work very hard to do their best. Try to overlook their human failings, but focus merely on their words. Remember, it is often the Holy Spirit speaking, not them. And lastly, if you feel the necessity to critique, do so in charity and make sure it is constructive. If you don't like the homily and have nothing constructive to say, just politely greet him after Mass. Most importantly though, I think, when you like the homily, or something he does in it, let him know! Priests are human and need encouragement like everyone else. 

I now wish to share my plans for this blog. For the remainder of Ordinary Time, my posts will generally come on Sundays and will give some of my meditations and thoughts on the Ordinary of the Mass. Then during the Lent and Easter Season, I will give some meditations and thoughts on the Propers, excluding the Readings, for as I said, the homilist normally covers these. 

On Wednesdays, I will also generally post giving my thoughts on various topics. These will generally be related to philosophy or the Liturgy. I may also post on various feast days, as I feel inclined.

I wish to elaborate again that I welcome comments and discussion, both in support of my thoughts and against, and feel free to publicly post as long as what you say is charitable. I will do my best to reply. I especially welcome this for the Wednesday posts. As the Sunday posts will be more reflective, discussion opportunities will be limited, but I welcome you to share your thoughts and meditations as well. 

Lastly, please remember to share this blog with others (if you think it worthy). Remember, one of my goals is to use it when I need to show practical applications of my learning! 

Mary Immaculate, Pray for us!

Pray for us, St. Francis de Sales!

As I begin this blog, I humbly place it under the patronage of my patron, St. Francis de Sales, the patron saint of teachers and writers, and our Lady, Seat of Wisdom. 

I welcome all forms of discussion and comments, as long as they are done in charity. 

I now share my favorite quote  concerning St. Francis de Sales and of St. Francis de Sales:

"If you wish heretics to be convinced of their errors, you may send them to me, but if you wish them to be converted you must send them to the Bishop of Geneva (St. Francis de Sales)." 

-Cardinal du Perron

"The measure of love is to love without measure."

-St. Francis de Sales

I wish you all a Happy and Joyous Feastday!

St. Francis de Sales, Pray for us!

http://www.ucatholic.com/saints/saint-francis-de-sales/

"That they may be one" (John 17:21)

This is the beginning of one of my favorite weeks of the year! I've always loved it because it's filled with so many different subjects of meditation for me, both within the Church and in society. 

From January 18 to the 28, we celebrate two of my favorite feast days, St. Francis de Sales, my patron and the patron of this blog, and St. Thomas Aquinas. However, in the midst of those celebrations, we also commemorate and recal some of the great tragedies of our time; the anniversary of Roe v. Wade is on January 22, and thousands of people will march in the nation's Capitol in the March for Life . Tomorrow we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which while certainly not an ecclesiastical holy day, and without advocating for or against any of the more controversial civil rights issues, should at least be a day upon which we pause to reflect on how we may individually contribute to bridging the inequalities present in our society and world. 

But this is also the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, which is the subject I wish to share my thoughts with you all today. The theme this year is "Has Christ been divided?" and the Scripture passage given for our meditation is 1 Corinthians 1:1-17, a portion of which happened to be our Second Reading today. Within this passage, Paul is addressing the Chirch of Corinth and calling them to task for their many divisions. I share a portion of the passage: 

       Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there   

       be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same 

       judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there 

       are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of 

       Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for 

       you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)

Paul questions the Corinthians on whether or not Christ has been divided, because they have essentially put themselves into various cliques and follow their own leaders, when in essence we know that Christians have ultimately one leader, Jesus Christ. Now Paul is not saying that we cannot have any divisions or groupings within the Church, for this is absurdity! It would mean we could not have separate religious orders, it would mean we could not have dioceses, it would mean we could not even the Altar and Rosary Society and the Christian Mothers! Rather, he is saying that we cannot believe that those groups to which we belong are our ultimate end; we belong to Jesus Christ in the end, as all those groups do if they are truly of Christ. While the Franciscans may look to St. Francis of Assisi for guidance, they are really looking to Jesus Christ, as Francis was only a follower of Him. The bishop of a diocese leads it as Christ, not as himself, which is why obedience to the bishop is obedience to Christ, for he acts in persona Christi.

I shall return to these thoughts on unity within the Church later, but for now let us consider the unity amongst all Christians. The teaching of the Church is, and has always been that one is made a member of Christ's Mystical Body, the Church, by Baptism. Therefore, any church that maintains valid Baptism, baptizes them into the Mystical Body of Christ. But our thoughts now instantly rebel with the fact that many of the churches with valid Baptism are not united to Rome, or may even be in schism!

This brings us to the theme of this week, "Has Christ been divided?" For if any church that baptizes validly, baptizes into the Church of Christ, how can we hold that Christ is one and yet many churches? I believe that we must look to biology to aid us here. In the human body, we do not say that a paralyzed arm is any less a part of the body, than when it was not paralyzed. But we would certainly hold that it does not fulfill its true purpose, or that it is fully functioning; to do so would be insane! It is like that with the Mystical Body of Christ. All of the divisions between Christians have made an illness within the Body of Christ. The Head, Jesus Christ, is no longer able to communicate properly with all of the members. 

How deep is this illness! Imagine for a moment if your body was riddled by a most horrible disease, where your mind was fully intact, and you could think and will without trouble. Your problem is that no part of your body below your neck would respond. You are still able to speak, hear, and see, but you cannot control your arms or legs, or any other appendage. Granted, the heart is still working to keep you alive, but it is in such pain that it does so, for the body is fighting against itself. It is even attacking the heart and lungs, but they struggle on in such agony. But this is not simply paralysis, for your arms and legs will often thrash out, perhaps to your great detriment. Perhaps the hand will often hit you, or the leg kick you. Think also of the harm you would cause to those around you, you may often attack them without intending to; at the very least, they will think they must keep their distance for their own safety. How great would be the agony of this illness!

But this agony is what the Body of Christ undergos today! Has Christ been divided? NO! Is Christ sick? YES! 

We believe that the Catholic Church under the bishop of Rome, Christ's vicar on earth, contains the fullness of truth. When she speaks, Christ speaks. She sees and hears the truth, for it is Christ who speaks it to Her. She is the Head of all the churches upon earth, even if they are separated from Her by schism, heresy, or ignorance. Thus, She is like the head of the body in our above image. She calls out to the other churches, but they do not respond because of the illness which has afflicted them. The heart and lungs and lifeblood represent the grace of the Holy Spirit, which communicates grace unto the entire body, but under struggle due to the great conflict It undergos. 

Throughout the ages of the Church to the present day, there have been numerous conflicts amongst the various churches. How deeply these have injured the Body of Christ! And now let us recall in the above image how no one would approach this person for fear of being harmed. Can we be surprised that many do not want to approach Christianity when they see the harm the churches have done to each other? Must it not terrify them to think that this is what the Truth costs? 

While we know this to be untrue and not what Christ intended, it is what we unconsciously say to the world. But let us also consider the other part of the above image; we are not able to approach others while the Body fights Itself. We cannot call others to Christ while we quarrel amongst ourselves, and this is truly the greater tragedy! Christ called us to "make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28: 19)," and we fail in our Great Commission when we fail in this! 

Let us return though to our considerations of the divisions within the Church Herself. How can we expect to heal the Body, when the Head even quarrels with itself. The Church is unfortunately riddled by many separations, for we say, "I belong to this parish, not that one," "I am a conservative Catholic,  I despise liberal Catholics," "We must help the St. Vincent de Paul Society; do not worry about the Liturgy!" All of these statements, their reverses, and the many others cause further division, within the Body of Christ! We cannot follow Christ and only promote the Liturgy, we cannot follow Christ and only aid our parish, we cannot follow Christ and spurn our brothers and sisters in need! 

 "Can the blind lead the blind (Luke 6:39)?" We cannot heal the divisions among all Christians and churches, until we heal the divisions within our own churches and in ourselves. Let us continue to pray for Christian unity, but until we conform ourselves to fully following Jesus Christ, the reunification will remain only a dream. Of course there will always be problems and divisions, but once we resolve to follow Christ, we can rest assured that we will receive what Paul said unto the Corinthians:

       I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 

      that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, even as the 

       testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting 

       eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in 

       the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1: 4-8).

Mary, Mother of the Church, Pray for us!

St. Peter and St. Paul, Pillars of the Church, Pray for us! 

Diary of An Unborn Child

In commemoration of today's sad anniversary, Roe v. Wade, in 1973, and the approximately 55 million legal abortions since then, I give the following poem, which was first read to me in high school.

OCTOBER 5-- Today my life began. My parents do not know it yet, I am as small as a seed of an apple, but it is I already. And I am to be a girl. I shall have blond hair and blue eyes. Just about everything is settled though, even the fact that I shall love flowers.

OCTOBER 19-- Some say that I am not a real person yet, that only my mother exists. But I am a real person, just as a small crumb of bread is yet truly bread. My mother is. And I am.

OCTOBER 23-- My mouth is just beginning to open now. Just think, in a year or so I shall be laughing and later talking. I know what my first word will be: MAMA.

OCTOBER 25-- My heart began to beat today all by itself. From now on it shall gently beat for the rest of my life without ever stopping to rest! And after many years it will tire. It will stop, and then I shall die.

NOVEMBER 2-- I am growing a bit every day. My arms and legs are beginning to take shape. But I have to wait a long time yet before those little legs will raise me to my mother's arms, before these little arms will be able to gather flowers and embrace my father.

NOVEMBER 12-- Tiny fingers are beginning to form on my hands. Funny how small They are! I'll be able to stroke my mother's hair with them.

NOVEMBER 20-- It wasn't until today that the doctor told mom that I am living here under her heart. Oh, how happy she must be! Are you happy, mom?

NOVEMBER 25-- My mom and dad are probably thinking about a name for me. But they don't even know that I am a little girl. I want to be called Kathy. I am getting so big already.

DECEMBER 10-- My hair is growing.    

It is smooth and bright and shiny. I 

wonder what kind of hair mom 

has.

DECEMBER 13-- I am just about able to see. It is dark around me. When mom brings me into the world it will be full of sunshine and flowers. But what I want more than anything is to see my mom. How do you look, mom?

DECEMBER 24-- I wonder if mom hears the whispering of my heart? Some children come into the world a little sick. But my heart is strong and healthy. It beats so evenly: tup-tup, tup-tup. You'll have a healthy little daughter, mom!

DECEMBER 28-- Today my mother killed me.

--Author Anonymous--

The Spiritual Movement through Symbolism in the Mass

I'll confess that one of my pet peeves at Mass is when the responses "Have mercy on us," and "Grant us peace," are repeated in the Litany the Agnus Dei." (On a side note, I'm extremely frustrated that my phone keeps changing Agnus to Angus. That will make for some confusing theology!) I will also confess that I have no valid liturgical principle or historical fact to back up my animosity. It just seems to me that there's no need to repeat "grant us peace" twice, when we only said, "have mercy on us," twice. There's two petitions of, "have mercy on us," and one of, "grant us peace," not two and two, or four and four, etc.

As I said above, I have no principle to support my claim (rather liturgical musical history would actually work against me), but I do have one argument I would like to bring up - that of symbolism. What does this part of the Mass symbolize? What is actually going on here, and why are we saying or singing these words here? Why is the priest doing the actions he is doing at this moment?

This brings me to the point of what I want to discuss in this article. I want to look at the spiritual movements undertaken in liturgical symbolism. I want to preface this discussion by saying that I don't believe there are necessarily any right answers to some of these topics, but there are wrong ones. 

I'll demonstrate what I mean by an example. The question was recently proposed to me why, in the Agnus Dei, we have three petitions, with the last response being different. Now we can research the historical reasons for this, (and I did, see bottom) but I believe that it has endured primarily because the Church has found rich symbolism and spiritual benefit for souls in the threefold petitions. 

The Agnus Dei is said at the point of the Mass in which the priest drops the particle of the Sacred Host into the Precious Blood, which is generally seen as a symbol of the Resurrection (the reunification of the Body and Blood of Christ, which was shed). I like to see this threefold petition as a symbol of the three days in the tomb. On the first day, Christ died and we beg for his mercy. On the second day, He descends to the Land of the Dead to have mercy on the souls of the faithful before Christ, and we beg for His mercy on us again. Then, on the third day, He rises from the dead and grants us the peace which we pray for. 

Now I would not firmly hold that this is the symbolism the Church desires us to see within the recitation of the Agnus Dei, but I believe that we could certainly do so. I have also read that this is an address to, "the Lamb who was slain (Rev. 13:8)." Since the Resurrection has mystically taken place at Mass in the Comingling, Christ has arisen and we address Him now reigning in Heaven. I see no reason this symbol is not also correct, albeit it doesn't address the threefold petitions. There are numerous others I could discuss as well, but that's for the comments section. 

However, to say that the Agnus Dei is a symbol for the Incarnation of Christ, would seem to be rather a stretch; therefore, I would call that idea wrong as there doesn't seem to a supporting argument for it, as we generally don 'to combine the Incarnation with the phrase "Lamb of God," though the two are clearly related, and the threefold petitions do not seem to bear directly upon the Incarnation. 

I would further elaborate upon my original point, in that these sort of questions can be proposed all throughout the Mass. Why does the priest do that? Why do we phrase this, this way? What is the point of this?

Now, in order to clarify what I said before, I am not opposed to using practicality or history to answer these questions. However, I want to promote what I will call the "Spiritual Movement Method." I realize of course that this will now require further explanation, which I shall endeavor to do in the remainder of this article. 

Within this method, we are not primarily concerned with the history of the Liturgy, of course we are also not opposed to such study. We also do not look at the practicality of various aspects of the Liturgy, though we also would of course dismiss the completely impractical. 

Rather we wish to look at the catecesis of the Church and primarily what the Holy Father and bishops say in regard to the Liturgy. In accordance with this, we can then look at the spiritual movements that take place in various souls within the Sacred Liturgy. 

I would also now clarify that not all these movements will take place within every soul. These are vaguely similar to the experiences of the Mystics. While there will of course be similarities in each of them, the foremost being directing the soul closer to God, there is small chance that the experiences will be the same for many Christians, or even the same each time for the one Christian. 

What we want to look at primarily are not the differences in these experiences, but the similarities, and primarily in how they affect the soul. I emphasize soul because we are not interested in dealing with how the emotions are affected by Liturgy, as these feelings are often fleeting. Rather the spiritual movements will generally be more standard, and the soul becomes much more comfortable with these and they may become repetitive, either by simple practice or force of will. 

I will further elaborate upon this method in the future, once there are concrete examples we can use for it. For the moment, I simply wanted to introduce it. 

The history of the Agnus Dei can be found at this website: http://jloughnan.tripod.com/whyagnesdei.htm

A Philosophical Look at the Sacred Liturgy

I had a thought a while back in regards to the Liturgy. Many know the famous saying of Origen, taken up by the Scholastics that "Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology." 

Well I figured let's apply that in a less conventional way...to the Liturgy of the Church! Now I'm sure I'm not the first person to do this, but I will say that I've never seen it done before in such an obvious way. 

My method was simple; in philosophy we distinguish all existing things by potency and act. Let us attempt this with the Liturgy, and for the sake of clearer understanding use the terms matter (the potency principle) and form (the actuality principle). 

For those not familiar with the terms potency and act, and consequently matter and form, I will briefly explain them. We can speak of matter as that which has the potential to be, but which is not yet. For example, Aristotle in the "De Anima," uses the example of a stone, which has the "potency" to be a sculpture, but it also has the potency to be many other things, like a table. However, once the sculptor has sculpted the stone, it is given the form of a sculpture, or is "actually" a sculpture. We may then define form as, "that which makes that, that," and matter as, "that which may be that."

Let us now apply this concept to the Liturgy. For this example, we will use the feast of the Annunciation, primarily the Mass for the Solemnity. I hold that for this method of studying the Liturgy, we should view the rubrics, whether current, past, or by tradition, as the matter for the Divine Actions of the Sacred Liturgy. By this I do not mean that one may change or do what one wants in the Liturgy. The only rubrics which may be practiced are the current ones, as clearly defined by St. Pius X in "Mediator Dei," that no one, priest or laymen, may on his own authority change, add, or subtract anything from the Liturgy. However, we can certainly hold that it is possible that certain rubrics or traditions of the past, or proposed new ones, may better convey the Mystery. 

A further necessary clarification I believe, is that I am also not proposing this for the Sacraments, as their matter and forms have clearly been defined and taught by the Church. Coming from Jesus Chirst, through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, these are unchangeable by man. Nevertheless, how the Divine Mysteries are made present for us in the Liturgy, is subject to change, and has been changed and has grown and developed over the centuries. Therefore, when I speak of matter in regards to the Liturgy, I am speaking of the words and actions, or the red and black as they are so fondly called. 

We may view the rubrics as the matter of the Liturgy since they only have the potency to give grace and make present Divine Mysteries (once again I do not speak of the Sacraments). For example, some mystery must be attached to the solemn action for it to have meaning. Take the action of genuflection. In technicality, I genuflect to tie my shoe. However, we would never call this a sacred action; but when I genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament or to a Prelate of the Chuch, it is a sacred action due to the actual presence of Christ or His mystical presence. There is some Divine Mystery present.

What follows from this is why we must call the rubrics of the Liturgy the matter and potency principle. Alone these words and actions are simply that, words and actions. It is what they have the potency to bring before us when given their form. 

This now naturally leads us to the next question, "What is the form of the Sacred Liturgy?" What gives meaning to the words and actions of the clergy and the faithful? What gives grace to the solemn actions? I believe it is the words this last question which may provide us with the ability to pinpoint the formal principle of the Liturgy. 

We know that the source of all grace is God, Himself. Therefore, we must hold Him to be the source of the formal principle we seek, as is true for all for all formal principles ultimately. I am not content with this alone though, for if we say God is the form of the Divine Mysteries in the Liturgy, we really have no purpose in different rubrics or different rites of worship for two reasons. First, God is incomprehensible and indivisible. This means that every way we attempt to worship Him falls short of what it deserved by Him. This is of course always true of our liturgies; they always fall short. The point I am making is that what good would our differentiations in worship be? Why worship Him more on Sunday, with a Gloria and Creed, than on Tuesday? I conclude this reason that God in His essence is not the form of the Liturgy because there exists something we can divide in the various mysteries we make present at the Liturgy. 

Secondly, we have gradations in the Liturgy, primarily solemnities, feasts, memorials, and ferias. Without getting into a philosophical discussion of the gradations of being, God in Himself has no gradations, being pure act, but there is more or less being in the various things He has created. I would hold these liturgical gradations to signify that there is some more and less to what is made present in the Liturgy. 

I now bring us to our definition of what the formal principle of the Liturgy should be seen as. It must be the the Divine Mysteries in the Life of our Lord and the events of the Economy of Salvation. God is present in all of these events, and there are various ways in which we can rank them, the simplest way being to put the Pascal Mystery at the forefront. It is of course present whenever we make another one of the Sacred Mysteries in the Life of our Lord, but we wouldn't properly say the reverse. E.g. the Pascal Mystery is made present when we bring before ourselves the Assumption of Mary, but the Assumption is not made present when we celebrate the Pascal Mystery during the Triduum. 

This definition then, that the form of the Liturgy is the Divine Mystery we commemorate, allows both for God's presence in the conferral of grace in the Liturgy through the proper celebration of the rubrics and the gradations of feast days in the Liturgy. 

We now return to our example of the Mass of the Annunciation in order to apply what we have said. The rubrics for the Solemnity found in the Roman Missal, which differ from a standard weekday Mass, are that, "The Gloria in excelsis (Glory to God in the highest) is said," "The Creed is said. At the words 'and was incarnate' all genuflect," and we see it has its own proper preface. 

While I will not delve too fully into the use of the Gloria, Creed, and proper preface in this article, I will say that these rubrics clearly show the importance of the Solemnity. God is in such a way present in this Mystery, that the Church desires is to celebrate the feast with fitting solemnity. I feel the idea is best phrased as the Mystery of the Incarnation has so many potential graces we can obtain, Holy Mother Church supplies us with all means for obtaining by actually and fully celebrating this Mass. 

If the priest were to unfortunately omit the Gloria, the Incarnation would still be brought before us, but something would be lacking. The potential the Gloria offers us to obtain grace, would be loss. It is as if, and only as if, some part of the Mystery was missing. I say, "as if," of course, because we cannot divide God. When present, He is present, only our limits limit it. 

However, I primarily wish to look at a unique rubric to the day: that all genuflect at the words "and was incarnate." Here we are presented with an additional rubric. There is an additional potential grace we are offered, and this is to bear more actual and direct homage to the Incarnation of Christ, by actually bending our knees to the Mystery, rather than the normal bow. The Mystery of the Word mad Flesh is fully before us on the Solemnity of the Annunciation! It is not just in the back of our minds!

The rubrics offered potential for us to see the full importance of this actual Mystery of the Incarnation. They are not meant to be routine words and a simple genuflection, but an actual worship of the actual Mystery. This is what the Liturgy always is intended to do for us.

I conclude then, with the proposal that this is a manner we should not hesitate to use in the discussion of the Liturgy. While philosophy alone will not attain us to God, I recall the words of Blessed John Paul II, that Faith and Reason, 'Fides et Ratio,' are like the two wings of an eagle, which allow us to ascend to the Almighty. 

Praised be Jesus Christ! 

Mary Immaculate, Pray for us!