What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  Pentecost Sunday

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2006

Week after week I have presented facts and analysis regarding the Translation Wars.  You regular reader’s have learned about the campaign being waged by His Excellency Donald W. Trautman, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) committee on liturgy, against the norms laid down in the document of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS) Liturgiam authenticam (LA) .  If you think “campaign” is an exaggeration, His Excellency has made public speeches far and wide to this effect and they are a matter of record.  Look them up and read them. 

There is a significant development.  The Catholic blogosphere’s master of snark “Diogenes” (on cwnews.com) along with the present writer and others divulged the text of a letter from His Eminence Francis Card. Arinze, Prefect of the CDWDS to His Excellency Most Reverend William Skylstad in his capacity as president of the USCCB.  The letter is a salvo, nay rather, a Normandy Invasion in the Wars.  Here’s the letter (emphasis mine):

2 May 2006

The Most Reverend William Skylstad
Bishop of Spokane
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Prot. n. 499/06/L

Your Excellency,

With reference to the conversation between yourself, the Vice President and General Secretary of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, together with me and other Superiors and Officials when you kindly visited our Congregation on 27 April 2006, I wish to recall the following:

The Instruction Liturgiam authenticam is the latest document of the Holy See which guides translations from the original-language liturgical texts into the various modern languages in the Latin Church. Both this Congregation and the Bishops’ Conferences are bound to follow its directives. This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is therefore not competent to grant the recognitio for translations that do not conform to the directives of Liturgiam authenticam. If, however, there are difficulties regarding the translation of a particular part of a text, then this Congregation is always open to dialogue in view of some mutually agreeable solution, still keeping in mind, however, that Liturgiam authenticam remains the guiding norm.

The attention of your Bishops’ Conference was also recalled to the fact that Liturgiam authenticam was issued at the directive of the Holy Father at the time, Pope John Paul II, to guide new translations as well as the revision of all translations done in the last forty years, to bring them into greater fidelity to the original-language official liturgical texts. For this reason it is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past thirty or forty years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes.entire translation of the Missale Romanum as well as other important texts, then the revised text should make the needed changes. The attitudes of Bishops and Priests will certainly influence the acceptance of the texts by the lay faithful as well.

Requesting Your Excellency to share these reflections with the Bishops of your Conference I assure you of the continued collaboration of this Congregation and express my religious esteem,

Devotedly yours in Christ,

+Francis Card. Arinze

Where there are good and strong reasons for a change, as has been determined by this Dicastery in regard to the <supportLineBreakNewLine]—>

Soon after LA was issued there was a plenary meeting of the USCCB.  That is when the first skirmish took place between Bishop Trautman and others more interested in fidelity to the norms of the document.   The precise argument referred to by Card. Arinze in the letter above was used on the floor of that meeting: Golly, we have been using this translation for a long time now and the people are used to it.  The brilliant repost was fired by one of WDTPRS’s favorites His Eminence Francis Card. George, who said that argument was tantamount to a “Lefebvrism of the left”.   Savor the irony of painting the progressivists with the same brush they always use to tar the traditionalists.  Progressivists often claim that a thing shouldn’t be maintained just because it’s “old”.  Delicious.

Put news items like this on the internet and you get a spike in stats and a surge of comments.  One fellow opined on CWNews: “Maybe the fact that many people have become accustomed to texts that don’t correctly express the inner meaning of the Mass is part of a larger problem. What the ‘liturgists’ are saying is like a medical doctor saying to a patient, ‘Sir you are 97% blocked in four arteries because of your high fat diet. But since you’ve become accustomed to eating unhealthy food we don’t want to change it. Keep on eating the way you have been.’ What idiocy.”   

The American bishops will meet in plenary session in June.  They will vote on the draft translation.  They must approve the translation by a majority in order for it to be sent to Rome for approval.  Opponents of LA want to block sending the draft to Rome.  Their goal is simple: persuade half the bishops to vote against the draft.  Rain a torrent of emendations upon it.  Consider: delay or block the process for a few years and perhaps the CDWDS will relent or Pope Benedict will die and a more amenable Pope will be elected.  The revelation of Card. Arinze’s letter will impact every bishop going to the June meeting.  Here is the message of the Cardinal’s letter: Don’t even think of presenting for a floor vote texts or emendations that do not conform to LA.  Don’t waste our time anymore.  The delaying game is over.  You are holding up the rest of the English speaking world. 

In the meantime, His Excellency Bishop Trautman has already reacted to Card. Arinze’s letter saying, “I see this letter as a clarification and further restatement of criteria for translation previously authored by the Congregation in its document Liturgiam authenticam. This recent correspondence offers additional input for the deliberation of the Bishops.”  Additional input?  Interpretation: “Same ol’ same ol’ from Rome.  It’s just another bit to consider, one among many.”

SUPER OBLATA (2002MR):
Praesta, quaesumus, Domine,
ut, secundum promissionem Filii tui,
Spiritus Sanctus huius nobis sacrificii
copiosius revelet arcanum,
et omnem propitius reseret veritatem.

This week’s prayer, new in the post-Conciliar Missale Romanum, has roots in the 11^th century Sacramentarium Bergomense. 

We need a brief look at vocabulary.  In the Lewis & Short Dictionary we find that the adjective arcanus, a, um is something “closed, shut up.”  Thus, is it something that keeps a secret and means “hidden, concealed, secret, private”.  It can be used as a substantive: “secret”.  In English we have the cognate “arcane.” An arcanum can refer to a something sacred.  For example, in the Vulgate it describes God’s special sanctuary (Exodus 7:11) and His treasured place Jerusalem (Ezekiel 7:22).   In contrast to something arcane, mysteriously shut up and hidden, our prayer has the verb resero.   Be careful!   In your dictionary you will find resero, resevi which is a third conjugation verb meaning “to sow, plant” and also resero, resavi, resatum, a first group verb which is “to unlock, to open; disclose, reveal.”   Today we are dealing with resero, resavi, resatum.  During Holy Mass and the renewal of Christ’s Sacrifice God opens for us something that our sins long ago slammed shut and bolted closed: the gates of heaven.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord,
may the Spirit you promised
lead us into all truth
and reveal to us the full meaning of this sacrifice.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Attend, we beg You, O Lord,
that, according to the promise of Your Son,
the Holy Spirit will reveal to us more abundantly
the hidden sacred mystery of this sacrifice,
and will graciously unlock for us all truth.

This Latin prayer reminds me of Jesus’ promise (Filii promissio) to His disciples in John 16:1215:

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.  When the Spirit of truth comes, he will speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.  He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you.  All that the Father has is mine.  For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 

The Sacrament of Confirmation, one of three sacraments of initiation, is rightly associated with Pentecost.  Just as the sacred mysteries of the Lord’s life from the Passion, Resurrection, Ascension and Decent of the Holy Ghost and all interrelated, so too are the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and Eucharist.  In ancient times when catechumens were brought into the Church, they were baptized, confirmed and given the Eucharist on the same night of Easter.  After Easter they were given further instruction concerning things kept secret from them as catechumens.  The policy of secrecy and the post-baptismal instruction of the newly initiated was called the disciplina arcani.  This was correctly thought to increase a catechumen’s interest, and longing for what was sacred.  As St. Augustine (+430) says, “The sacraments of the faithful are not divulged to (catechumens)…; that they may be more passionately desired by them, they are honorably concealed from their view” (Io. eu. tr. 96, 3).  This partly explains why the “orientation” of the altar and silent canon in the West as well as the iconostasis in the East were (and still are) so effective. 
<supportLineBreakNewLine]—>
One thing kept secret from catechumens was the Symbolum, the Creed.  In the time of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose (+397) they were taught the Creed only two weeks before Easter.  They were tested on it by the bishop in the baptistery the week before Easter.  Here is Augustine in a sermon:

The creed is learned by listening; it is written, not on tablets nor on any material, but on the heart.  He who has called you to his Kingdom and glory will grant that, when you have been reborn by his grace and by the Holy Spirit, it will be written in your hearts, so that you may love what you believe and that, through love, faith may work in you and that you – no longer fearing punishment like slaves, but loving justice like the freeborn – may become pleasing to the Lord God, the giver of all good things (s. 212, 2 and cf. symb. cat. 1.1).

Learning tenets of the faith is not just a matter of memory, but also of the heart.  They must be part of who we are at the most intimate level, indeed, where the Holy Spirit makes us His temple.  Again Augustine: “Say it on your beds; ponder it in the streets, do not forget it during meals; and even when your body sleeps, keep watch over it in your heart” (s. 215, 1). 

This is all true regarding the Creed.  It is just as true for the sacred mysteries celebrated at Holy Mass.

A new English translation, faithful to the Latin originals according to the norms laid down by legitimate authority, will help to unlock the content of and thus love more deeply what Christ wants to give us through the Holy Church into which the Holy Spirit breathed life on Pentecost.  Pray for our bishops who very soon will make decisions that impact our faith for decades to come.

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  Pentecost Sunday

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2005

I have been thinking a lot about the investiture Mass for His Holiness.  By now you have all seen the ancient form of the pallium that the Master of Pontifical Ceremonies Archbishop Piero Marini placed on Benedict XVI.  It was modeled on those depicted in ancient mosaics in Rome and one found in the tomb of the great St. Martin of Tours (+397).  This new old pallium had red crosses, was broader in width, and much longer.  Some years ago I put together a research piece on the pallium and got to know it pretty well.  The ancient pallium went to the ankles.  The pallium they put on Benedict XVI did not reach to his ankles.  Think about this: this new pallium had to have been prepared a long time before the death of John Paul II, sometime after Marini prepared the rites for the burial, Conclave and the first public Mass.  If the pallium used in the investiture Mass was supposed to go to the ankles (and that is the style) then it was obviously made for a Cardinal/future Pope shorter in height than Benedict XVI who, while he is a spiritual and intellectual giant, is not a very tall fellow.  After all, it is easier to shorten something than lengthen it.  On Benedict XVI the pallium lacked that element of its symbolic impact. On a taller man it would have looked stranger yet.  It is safe to guess that Archbishop Marini and the followers of his camp were behind this bit of “liturgical archeologizing” just as they were behind the introduction of innovations into the abovementioned rites.  I wonder which vertically challenged Cardinal they expected or hoped would be wearing that pallium one day?  On an unrelated note, during the TV coverage of the events in Rome in the past month did you notice how all the Cardinals towered over one of the huge front-runners, His Eminence Dionigi Card. Tettamanzi of Milan? 

In March I received a kind letter via snail mail from Fr. JT, SJ.  He wrote: “Thank you for your informative articles on the real meaning of prayers of the liturgy which the present translation has obscured.  I hope you will gather those into a book, leaving the details of the Latin meanings fully present, because this is the important basis for the illuminating comments.  Such a book (or books) would be a very useful permanent resource for laymen and clergy to enhance their understanding and appreciation of the theology and worship of the Church.  Since I know some religious seminarians are no longer required to learn Latin…, such a resource could motivate them – and their superiors – to appreciate a knowledge of Latin”.  Fr. JT then goes on to comment on a reference I made to Jesus’ use of “Abba” for God the Father being quite intimate, like a child’s use of “daddy”.  Fr. JT dismantled that point providing citations to articles in scholarly journals which I have subsequently looked up.  Guess what I found?  Our old friend Joachim Jeremias was a main figure in perpetrating this canard about Abba meaning “Daddy”.  The article Fr. JT cited pretty much took care of that theory.   Father then offered that “many” for pro multis in the Mass is a permissible translation and that some scholars have pointed out that it was a “Semitism”, etc.  Fr. JT even mentioned our old friend Fr. Max Zerwick, SJ whose work I cited in my four-part WDPTRS article on the consecration of the Precious Blood in the Roman Canon.  Thanks much, Fr. JT, but I am not convinced by the scholarship underpinning the mistranslation of pro multis.   I refer you back to the abovementioned four-parter, archived on the WDTPRS website.  Then Card. Ratzinger reacted well to those articles.  His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has commented in his writings that the Latin texts of the liturgy must be respected as their own source. The work of liturgical translation is not equivalent to exegesis of Scripture.   More than any linguistic argument, that is the decisive argument and it is Benedict XVI’s.  

More about our Pope’s liturgical thought.  In his book Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000), Joseph Ratzinger wrote that he was trying consciously to contribute to the beginning of a new liturgical renewal, indeed a new liturgical “movement”, in the same way the first Liturgical Movement was stimulated by the homonymous book by the German theologian Romano Guardini who had such a big impact on His Holiness when he was young.  Surely our Holy Father will be looking carefully at how Mass is celebrated and what liturgical language ought to express.  In this light, perhaps we might look again at a paragraph of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments’ document Liturgiam authenticam which laid down the norms for liturgical translations: 

7. For these reasons, it now seems necessary to set forth anew, and in light of the maturing of experience, the principles of translation to be followed in future translations – whether they be entirely new undertakings or emendations of texts already in use – and to specify more clearly certain norms that have already been published, taking into account a number of questions and circumstances that have arisen in our own day. In order to take full advantage of the experience gained since the Council, it seems useful to express these norms from time to time in terms of tendencies that have been evident in past translations, but which are to be avoided in future ones. In fact, it seems necessary to consider anew the true notion of liturgical translation in order that the translations of the Sacred Liturgy into the vernacular languages may stand secure as the authentic voice of the Church of God. This Instruction therefore envisions and seeks to prepare for a new era of liturgical renewal, which is consonant with the qualities and the traditions of the particular Churches, but which safeguards also the faith and the unity of the whole Church of God.  (Emphases added)

LA is intended “to prepare for a new era of liturgical renewal”.  This is so much in keeping with what Benedict XVI thinks that I cannot help but think that he had a hand in its drafting.  I think we can dare to hope that he will not let the ball drop, nor will he allow pesky delaying tactics on the part of those who want to continue the sub-optimal status quo. 

Deus, qui sacramento festivitatis hodiernae
universam Ecclesiam tuam
in omni gente et natione sanctificas,
in totam mundi latitudinem Spiritus Sancti dona defunde,
et, quod inter ipsa evangelicae praedicationis exordia
operata est divina dignatio,
nunc quoque per credentium corda perfunde.

Our Collect, rooted in the Gelasian Sacramentary, was not in editions of the Roman Missal before the Council.  Note that defunde and perfunde are linked by form and derivation.  This is useful for our work.  Now… it possible that we can find in the Latin something more than that which was provided to us by…

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):

God our Father,
let the Spirit you sent on your Church
to begin the teaching of the gospel
continue to work in the world
through the hearts of all who believe.

Lo these many years we have seen how sacramentum translates the Greek mysterion and sacramentum and Latin mysterium are interchangeable in many contexts.  Operata est could be from either the deponent verb operor or from the active opero.  Defundo means “to pour down, pour out” while perfundo means something more complex.  Perfundo means “to pour over, to wet, moisten, bedew, besprinkle” as well as “to steep, to dye” and also “to imbue, inspire.”  We have here imagery of gifts of grace as moisture, dew, flowing water, calling to mind our baptism in the name of the Triune God.   Think of the Collect response following antiphons in honor of the Holy Spirit: Sancti Spiritus, Domine, corda nostra mundet infusio (from infundo): et sui roris intima aspersione foecundet…”Let the infusion of the Holy Spirit cleanse our hearts, O Lord: and make fruitful our innermost selves by the sprinkling of His dew.”  Our Latin Dictionary of those distinguished Messers Lewis & Short tells us that dignatio is “a deeming worthy, respect, esteem; dignity, honor, reputation.”  Albert Blaise says in Le Vocabulaire Latin des principaux thèmes liturgiques (redone by Antoine Dumas, OSB) for dignatio, “condescendance (de Dieu)”.  However, Souter’s A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D. (a complement to Lewis & Short) says that dignatio is “favour, grace of God”.   Here is grist for the mills of your mind as you think about the possibilities of this layered word.

Exordium is really interesting.  It means, a “beginning, the warp of a web,” and also it is a technical term for the introduction or preface of a spoken or written rhetorical piece or speech.  Let us look more closely at exordium.  This word brings up the image of selvage, that part at the edge of a piece of woven cloth intertwined in such a way that the rest of the weave will not fall apart.  It also brings to the prayer the technical language of oratory.  When the Holy Spirit was poured down on the Apostles they poured out of the upper room and began to preach, to make public speeches to people from every nation.  The Holy Spirit, in the rhetorical preaching of the Apostles, suddenly began on that first Pentecost to weave tightly together a selvage which would provide the stable edge of the rest of the fabric of the Church through the centuries down to our own day.   Pentecost was anti-Babel, the counter to man’s division from God manifested in division amongst men.  Since the reweaving of Pentecost, there may be tatters and rips in the Church’s fabric, schisms, but the warp and weft has held and cannot be undone though hell tears with all its deceiving might.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, who by the mystery of today’s feast
does sanctify Thy universal Church
in every people and nation,
pour down the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon the whole breadth of the earth,
and, because divine favor was at work
amongst the very beginnings of the preaching of the Gospel,
make them now to flow also through the hearts of believers.

Unity and continuity are keys to this Collect.  The Holy Spirit wove the early Church together through the preaching of the Apostles and their successors.  In the Church the Holy Spirit extends to our own time the preaching of the Apostles.  The Church’s unity has continuity, both diachronic as well as transnational.

The presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church guarantees our unity and continuity across every border and century.  The Holy Spirit gives the Church her life’s principle, pouring spiritual life into the Body of Christ.  The Spirit imbues and infuses, virtually tints and dyes the fabric of the Church as He flows through it.  Our hearts, which in our Collect we pray to be imbued by the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, are in a certain way microcosms of the Church.  The phrase cor ad cor loquitur, the motto on the coat-of-arms of Venerable John Henry Card. Newman, pertains to us in the Church: by the working of the Holy Spirit the Church’s heart speaks to our hearts, and vice versa, for in the Holy Spirit the faithful are of one heart.

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  Pentecost – Station: St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2003

There was a real development for the whole issue of translations of liturgical texts last week.  On 24 May 2003 His Eminence Darío Card. Castrillon-Hoyos, Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” celebrated Mass using the 1962 Missale Romanum at the main altar of the Major Patriarchal “Liberian” Basilica in Rome, otherwise known as St. Mary Major.   Why is this important for translations?  Because it serves as a step toward reconnecting the way Mass is celebrated back into the Roman tradition.  I have long argued that we need wide-spread celebrations of Mass also using the 1962MR so that we can have in the Barque of Peter, to use nautical terminology, both an anchor and a rudder.  Anchors keep us from drifting into dangerous places we don’t want to be.  Rudders, by their attachment to where we have been, permit us to steer towards where we wish to go.  It is only through a thorough grasp of the Roman tradition of celebration that we can make progress toward an authentic liturgical practice in this Third Millennium of the Christian experience.  We must be connected to the past in order to pick a future.  Furthermore, if we have a solid grasp of the Latin Rite and the Roman tradition, everyone will benefit, non-Latin Catholics and non-Catholics alike, for it will also have an ecumenical impact: if Orthodox Christians see that we cannot respect our own Tradition and traditions – so important to them – how will they imagine that Catholics will respect their tradition should we take concrete steps toward unity?  Thus, I was quite pleased to hear that, in his homily, the abovementioned Cardinal celebrant said, “The old Roman rite preserves its right of citizenship in the Church and cannot be considered extinguished.”  I am guessing that the next logical step in the sequence of this campaign will be to have a Pontifical Mass in the Vatican Basilica of St. Peter, perhaps coram Pontifice.  I doubt that the Supreme Pontiff himself would offer it, but he might “preside” while another, perhaps Card. Castrillon-Hoyos, celebrates.  Surely the Master of the Pontifical Ceremonies, His Excellency Piero Marino would have a whole series of fits should any such outlandish thing be proposed.  I would pay money to be present when he opened the letter or received the phone call.

As far as the occasion of the aforementioned Mass itself was concerned, my spies tell me that it was a great event, though not without flaws.  For example, a priest friend wrote via e-mail: “It was obvious that it hadn’t been done in thirty years! Overall, the music was decent and the excellent MC (from Le Barroux) kept everyone basically in order. The homily quoted Vatican II twenty or so times just to make a point… whether to traditionalists or liberals I’m not sure. Five cardinals sat in choir and the church was packed. The real test will be the contents of the new disciplinary document this fall.”   Well, practice makes perfect.  As we say often in these WDTPRS offerings repetita iuvant.  And I agree, the forthcoming CDW document will indeed be the test not only of the journalists reporting on the putative content of that document but also of the resolve of both the more conservative side of the curial mandarins who must craft it and then get it through the necessary channels and also the more liberal side within the curia and without, whom we must assume are ready to fight with tooth and claw.

Today’s prayer, for the Mass in the day of Pentecost, not the Vigil, has no antecedent in pre-Conciliar editions of the Missale Romanum.  There seems again to be present an influence of the Veronese Sacrametary.

LATIN (2002 Missale Romanum – Ad Missam in die):
Deus, qui Eccelsiae tuae caelestia dona largiris,
custodi gratiam quam dedisti,
ut Spiritus Sancti vigeat semper munus infusum,
et ad aeternae redemptionis augmentum
spiritalis esca proficiat.

 The Lewis & Short Dictionary helps us with the verb vigeo which means, “to be lively or vigorous; to thrive, flourish, bloom; to be in honor, esteem, repute, etc.”  Largior is a verb deponent meaning, “to give bountifully, to lavish, bestow, dispense, distribute, impart”.   We have in English “largess”.   A donum is a “a gift, present” and can mean “present brought to a deity, a votive offering, sacrifice”.  A munus is fundamentally “a service, office, post, employment, function, duty (syn.: officium, ministerium, honos) but by extension means, “a present, gift”.   When put together as dona muneraque we have in classical contexts the overtone of “bribery”.  In our prayer today, while I do not want to rule out that munus can also be read as “office” or “duty” (give it a try), I believe that the author of the prayer simply wanted to say “gift” twice and thus used two different words, dona and munus for the sake of variety.

 Esca signifies basically “food, both of men and beasts”.   However, in a Christian, indeed liturgical, context, it carries with it layers and layers of connotations.  To be thorough, we could also explore the synonym cibus (“food”) go into the way Christ in John 6 describes Himself, His flesh and blood, as “real” food and drink, but space limits us.  Sticking with the more exact phrase in our prayer can yield something inexhaustible to chew on, however.  The phrase esca spiritalis is found in 1 Cor 10:1-3: “I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food (escam spiritalem) and all drank the same supernatural drink (potum spiritalem).  For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”   Paul is pointing to the fact that the manna the People of God received in the wilderness was special food, and the water which sprang from the rock Moses struck with his staff near to the Promised Land, both a foreshadowing of would Christians receive in the “real” spiritual food of the Eucharist who is Christ.  In Romans 14 Paul talks of regular esca as a contrast to the spiritual ideal real Christians long for: “The kingdom of God is not food and drink (esca et potus) but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit; he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.”  The phrase “kingdom of God” or “kingdom of heaven” in Pauline works and in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke) usually contains also the overtone of the very Person of Christ, as when the Lord during His earthly life told parables such as “The kingdom of God is like…” (e.g., Mark 4) and when He, chastising, instructed the people: “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28).   When you hear that phrase “kingdom of God” or “of heaven” at Mass or in your own reading, try rereading it as “Jesus said, “I myself am like…”, etc., and see what you glean from it.  So, in our “spiritual food” there is a dimension of the &ldquo