It was an interesting phrase that I read, that words are real as they give adoration. An interesting concept. I remember having a discussion years ago over the concept of mute glory. That is that creation, by its very existence, gives glory to its creator. The older priest was saying it was impossible, as no thought could be expressed by a rock or flower, yet the pastor (an old time military guy who entered the priesthood after WWII) insisted that beauty is the gift given by the creator and in itself is a glorification of the deity. I guess it was growing up among these types of discussions that has shaped my love for words.
When I read the opening line, I thought of the word "insignificant" and thought, how can a word be insignificant, when words by their very nature signify something? It is amazing how words make things happen. In ritual, magic and everyday life we say things that make things happen. The simple greeting that awakes another. The salutations we give to people that shows our recognition of their existence. All are words, and the words signify what we intend. So often we limit our words to nonessential things. What a waste of words. Words should move us and make us better people and better communicators, yet we waste so much on the trivial.
Words, what a powerful thing they are. In ancient times the Romans would duck of a foul word was cast their way. They used analogies for evil so as not to have to say the word itself. In the ancient times of the Israelites names were kept close, for to call a person by name was a powerful event. If you called them by name you had power over them. Thus the idea of being called. When the god of the Old Testament called people, he called them by name, that was a powerful event. Words, such power and we waste them so easily.
Just thoughts, just ideas. But I am sure this will lead me elsewhere on my journey of words!
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Voting about God
Yes, voting about who and what God is. All in favor of the idea that God is three persons, each distinct equally sharing in the "godness" of the Trinity, say AYE. That was how the ideas of the early Church were decided. The great Councils of the first 5 centuries gathered and debated on the truths of theology. The rise of the idea of vox popoli = vox dei was very alive. That the people of God, as represented by their Bishops and clergy, could gather in council and decide on issues so complex as the nature of God, and arrive at the idea of homoousia is almost beyond thinking today. These ideas were not promulgated by a single person, but were arrived at by consent of the majority.
The Second Vatican Council was close to this idea. Both Pope John XXIII and Paul IV, stayed out of the sessions and allowed for a free reign in thinking and debate. Both made their presence known and felt, but stayed outside of the actual fray of debate. The Synod of Bishops that Paul VI instituted were to be part of this vox popoli, where ideas would be presented to the Pope and the Curia for change and modification or simple rethinking. However with the publication of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, the idea of the Synods changed. Canon 342 says that the Synod may "consider questions concerning the Church's activity in the world." what makes these synods different from the councils is that they have no legislative powers, they are consultive or are called to "express their desires about them (questions on the agenda) but not to resolve them." (canon 343, italics mine)
Canon 212§3 says, "(the laity) have the right and even at time the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinions on matters which pertain to the good of the Church...."(italics added). Strange and yet ironical is that if the present Pope listened with his heart at the funeral of John Paul II, he would have heard the proclamation of the People of God as they called out and Proclaimed John Paul II a Saint. This is still a valid way of canonization of an individual, the voice of the People calling out and proclaiming the fact. It is still allowed in the election rites of a new pontiff as well, when by acclamation, the College of Cardinals "in one voice" proclaim a man as pope.
What I see more and more is that the voice of the People of God is not being heard or even asked for. In the Early Church, the Laity had a place in the councils, though not a voting position, it was there. In the Second Vatican Council, there were lay observers, but no input was allowed, unless you consider the voice of the non-ordained theologians as the voice of the laity. I would not consider them laity, as they are thinking and acting as teachers of the Church, which is their role. This is a sad state of affairs, when you read the whole of the Canons on the Christian laity and the rights and duties they have. I added the bold and italic to duties, because you cannot have rights without duties.
The idea for this entry is from a book I am reading by the title "Voting about God". It is a bit didactic in its presentation, but interesting in what the premiss suggests.
The Second Vatican Council was close to this idea. Both Pope John XXIII and Paul IV, stayed out of the sessions and allowed for a free reign in thinking and debate. Both made their presence known and felt, but stayed outside of the actual fray of debate. The Synod of Bishops that Paul VI instituted were to be part of this vox popoli, where ideas would be presented to the Pope and the Curia for change and modification or simple rethinking. However with the publication of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, the idea of the Synods changed. Canon 342 says that the Synod may "consider questions concerning the Church's activity in the world." what makes these synods different from the councils is that they have no legislative powers, they are consultive or are called to "express their desires about them (questions on the agenda) but not to resolve them." (canon 343, italics mine)
Canon 212§3 says, "(the laity) have the right and even at time the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinions on matters which pertain to the good of the Church...."(italics added). Strange and yet ironical is that if the present Pope listened with his heart at the funeral of John Paul II, he would have heard the proclamation of the People of God as they called out and Proclaimed John Paul II a Saint. This is still a valid way of canonization of an individual, the voice of the People calling out and proclaiming the fact. It is still allowed in the election rites of a new pontiff as well, when by acclamation, the College of Cardinals "in one voice" proclaim a man as pope.
What I see more and more is that the voice of the People of God is not being heard or even asked for. In the Early Church, the Laity had a place in the councils, though not a voting position, it was there. In the Second Vatican Council, there were lay observers, but no input was allowed, unless you consider the voice of the non-ordained theologians as the voice of the laity. I would not consider them laity, as they are thinking and acting as teachers of the Church, which is their role. This is a sad state of affairs, when you read the whole of the Canons on the Christian laity and the rights and duties they have. I added the bold and italic to duties, because you cannot have rights without duties.
The idea for this entry is from a book I am reading by the title "Voting about God". It is a bit didactic in its presentation, but interesting in what the premiss suggests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)