Good Friday and the Easter Vigil

Good Friday is also just around the corner.  I hope that some of the readers understand the point of my post.  It would be best to simply ask a question if you don't understand anything.  

We also celebrate Good Friday in the home, but the celebrations usually starts late until 9:00 p.m. or 9:30 after the Parish mass.  We never hold our celebrations at the same time as the parish mass is going on.  Communities who do not have a priest also do not have their celebrations at a different time.  The reason being, the brothers would want to attend mass to receive the Eucharist on Good Friday.  Afterwards, they would head to the home celebrations.  By the time Good Friday mass is over, most people go home while many of the brothers walking in the Way head to the home celebration to listen more to the word of God.     

These home celebrations is pretty much the same as the celebration of the Word that we normally have on Tuesdays or Wednesdays with some minor differences. It is also not a private celebration that the NCW decides to hold on their own.  They follow the Statutes, which says:  

The Church progressively initiates the neocatechumens into the catechetical and spiritual riches of the liturgical year, in which she "celebrates the whole mystery of Chirst." 

The Easter Vigil is also not held at the same time as the parish Easter Vigil.  The NCW Easter Vigil is much longer than the parish Easter Vigil.  We stay up the entire night until Christ's resurrection.  At the Easter Vigil, we also have baptisms.  In the past Easter Vigil, we have had two former Protestants who joined the Catholic Church at our Easter Vigil.  

  








  

Holy Thursday

Holy Thursday is coming up very soon.  The Neocatechumenal Way celebrates Holy Thursday and Good Friday in a home.  If the community have no priest, the Responsible is the one who washes the feet of the brothers and sisters of the community.  If a priest is present, the priest washes the feet of the brothers and sisters.  Yes, the priest in the Way also washes the feet of the women in the community. Since I have started walking in the Way, this was the practice.  

And today we have a Pope who for the first time has washed the feet of two young girls. One of the girls was not even Catholic.  She was a Muslim. The Pope not only broke tradition, but the law of the Church.  Last year, many Traditional Catholics oppose his action and are baffled by it.  The Church's liturgical law holds that only men can participate in this rite, given that Jesus' Apostles were all male.  And here we were in the Neocatechumenal Way washing the feet of women long before Pope Francis was elected Pope.....the Providence of God. 

Many Traditional Catholics point to the Letter of the law.  They fail to see the Pope following the Spirit of the Law.   

Another Reply to Anonymous

This is in reply to Anonymous who posted two comments under my last thread.  Once again, his/her comments are in red and mine are in black, and anything in blue are quoted sources.

I am surprised, that for a lawyer, you seem to have trouble with formal and legislative texts. 

I am NOT a lawyer.  I was accused of being a lawyer by Tim Rohr and by some in Junglewatch. 

1.  Your purpose in quoting the GIRM and Eucharisticum Mysterium was clearly to suggest that references to the concelebration really can mean the involvement of the laity.  As I said, of course, the laity can attend and participate in concelebrated Masses, but not as "concelebrants" This is why the laity do not stand in the sanctuary and utter the words of consecration.  So, your assertion that the NCW Eucharistic practices can be justified by references to the GIRM is just plain wrong, as the GIRM clearly uses the verb 'concelebrate in relation to the ordained clergy." 

That is correct that I quoted the GIRM to show that the laity CAN participate in a concelebrated mass because in your comment, you stated: It is impossible, in the Catholic context, to speak of concelebration in respect to the participation of the laity.  It was not until after I quoted the GIRM that you changed your song and dance.  Now, you are claiming that the laity can indeed participate in a concelebrated mass.  Furthermore, in the concelebrant Mass, it is the principal celebrant who utters the words of consecration.  It is the same in the NCW.  Only the priest utters the words of consecration. 

2.  You correctly quote me as saying that the definition of "concelebration in the early Church is not relevant to the consideration of what "concelebration" means in the Church, and in the liturgical books now.  Are you really going to argue against that?  In any case you then go on to state: "I view all liturgies of the Catholic Church very beautiful, awe-inspiring, and worthy of respect regardless of how old it is.  I do not regard them as irrelevant."  This is disingenuous - I did not say, or imply, that the liturgies of the early Church were irrelevant or not worthy of veneration, but simply that your assertion of what concelebrate means is plain wrong.  You can, of course, choose to reject the Church's current position. 

You say that MY assertion of what concelebrate means is plain wrong??  In the first place, that was the assertion of the Early Church.  I quoted from the Sunday's Visitors Catholic Encyclopedia.  It was their defintion, their assertion, and their liturgy of how they concelebrated in the first century.  You are in error to think that the Early Church concelebrated the same way and manner as today when in the first place their definition of concelebration does not hold the same meaning as yours. 

For example, you pointed out that the laity does not stand in the sanctuary in the concelebrated Mass.  Well, in the FIRST CENTURY.....there wasn't even a sanctuary for the laity to stand on.  The Early Christians of the first century celebrated in homes or underground catacombs as they were being persecuted.  They did not have any "sanctuaries" or even "church buildings" in the sense that you have today.  And then of course, you wonder why the NCW celebrate in people's homes or outside the Parish building.  Nevermind the fact that we've always said that we are celebrating in small communites as the Early Church did.   

3.  I asked you where the NCW statutes say the Way celebrates Mass as the early Church did, and you provide this:  
"5 "An itinerary of a catechumenal type, which follows all those phases which the catechumens in the early Church followed before receiving the sacrament of Baptism....

It is inspired by various documents of the Holy See, including 
-chapter 4 of the RCIA [Part II: 4 of the 1988 US edition] which suggests an adapted use of the catechesis and certain rites proper to the catechumenate for the conversion and maturation of faith even among baptized adults...

Surely, it is obvious to you that this does not satisfy my request.  your quote simply refers to the phases which the catechumens in the early Church followed before receiving the sacrament of Baptism" which obviously cannot include the sacrament of the Eucharist, and "adapted use of the catechesis and certain rites proper to the catechumenate" which again explicitly excludes the Eucharist.

In your quote above, I bolded and underlined the following because you left out a pertinent information.  It actually says "adapted use of the catechesis and certain rites proper to the catechumenate for the conversion and maturation of faith even among baptized adults..."  

You left out the part that says "even among baptized adults", which DOES include the Eucharist.  Non-baptized persons can still attend the Mass and hear the word of God.  They simply cannot receive the Body and Blood of Christ until after they received the Sacrament of Christian Initiation.  

4.  I asked you to show one Catholic authority with your interpretation and ludicrous claim about the meaning of concelebration in the liturgical texts.  You didn't do that.  Rather you refer to a priest who thinks the Eucharistic practices of the Way are ok.  So?  I know a few of them too. Does this priest agree with your statements on concelebration?  Please show me one person that does.  I think I'll be waiting for a while.  

Once again, you think that I made up that definition of concelebration.  Every priest knows that the word "concelebration" today have a different meaning that it did in the first century.  I even pointed out to you in the Sunday's Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia that to concelebrate in the Early Church is a different concept than today.  In Christian antiquity, all Christians concelebrated according to their liturgical role in the Church.  So, why do you continue to make this my own definition?? 

6.  Your argument to show the legitimacy of the Way's Eucharistic practices by resorting to this concelebration argument (and the relevant GIRM instructions) is like fighting fire with diesel.  Your argument is along the lines of "because we do something different to what is allowed, we will change the meaning of the language, so that what we do doesn't look so much like something that is not allowed". Brilliant!  But futile, because what you do is still not allowed. 

I guess you did not read the encyclical letter of Pope Pius XII in my last post, which stated: 

This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites.  Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times.  Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew.  All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries.

What makes you think that the NCW liturgies were made up especially when it was already noted that the purpose of the NCW was to live as the Early Church did?  

9.  "Was it not in this light that the Early Church understood "concelebration" as pertaining to all Christians?"  No, as you have pointed out "concelebration" in the early Church simply meant "being present" or "participating in the Mass - whereas now concelebration has a formal, clear meaning that is understood by all (Well, nearly all obviously.

Where in any of my posts or comments did I ever say that "concelebration in the EARLY CHURCH simply meant "being present" or "participating in the Mass"??  I stated the definition of how "concelebration" was viewed by the Early Church through the Sunday's Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia, which stated: The verb to "concelebrate in the Early Church had a somewhat different meaning from the present, more technical understanding.  In Christian antiquity, all Christians concelebrated according to their role or liturgical role in the Church.... 

When I stated that the laity CAN participate in a concelebration mass, that was in response to your statement implicating that the laity cannot participate in the concelebration mass.  (See my response to your #1). 

10.  I recommend that you, and your readers should review the relationship between the common priesthood (of both clergy and laity) and the ministerial priesthood (of clergy only).  You might like to read this:  

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdflaity.htm 


Excuse me....did you not read my last post?  This is what I stated: The laity are the common priests while those ordained are called the ministering priests according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1547 and CCC 941). 

My Response to Anonymous Poster

This is in response to an anonymous poster who commented on March 29th at 4:41 p.m. under the Code of Silence thread here.  Anonymous poster's comments are in red while mine are in black.  Those that are in blue are quotes from certain sources.  

You quote the GIRM: "All the concelebrants, TOGETHER WITH THE PEOPLE sing or say the final acclamation Quia tuum est regnum" 

If concelebrate meant to include the people, the words "together with the people" would be superflous, would they not?  

Again the GIRM says "BOTH OF THE CONCELEBRANTS AND OF THE PEOPLE" which itself makes a distinction between those that concelebrate (the concelebrants) and the people. 

First of all, I quoted the GIRM BECAUSE of this comment you made on March 28th at 9:19 p.m.: It is impossible, in the Catholic context, to speak of concelebration in respect to the participation of the laity. Thus, those quotes from the GIRM were made to show that the laity can participate in the concelebration.  In addition, I also quoted the Eucharisticum Mysterium, which stated the following (The bold is my emphasis): 

47. Concelebration 
Concelebration of the Eucharist aptly demonstrates the unity of the sacrifice of the priesthood.  Moreover, whenever the faithful take an active part, the unity of the People of God is strikingly manifested, 105 particularly if the bishop presides. 106 

Concelebration both symbolizes and strengthens the brotherly bond of the priesthood, because "by virtue of the ordination to the priesthood which they have in common, all are bound in an intimate brotherhood." 107 ........

You quote the Sunday's Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia on "Concelebration", which clearly indicates that the present meaning of concelebrate is "exclusively the celebration by bishops and priests together."  

Whether the ancient meaning of concelebrate is different to now is irrelevant.  The GIRM provides for concelebration with the present, not the ancient meaning. 

Yes, I quoted the Sunday's Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia on "Concelebration" which stated the following. (The bold is my emphasis):  

The verb to "concelebrate in the Early Church had a somewhat different meaning from the present, more technical understanding.  In Christian antiquity, all Christians "concelebrated according to their role or liturgical role in the Church.....In the Middle Ages, this term came to mean exclusively the celebration by bishops and priests together." 

As you can see from the Sunday's Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia, the Early Church had a different concept of what it means to "concelebrate."  Then you tell me that how the Early Christians defined "concelebration" during their time is irrelevant, and you insist that the GIRM of the present day is what matters the most.
      
The Catholic Church recognized the many variety of liturgies she had, and all of them are beautiful.  None are irrelevant despite how old or ancient it is. According to Mediator Dei, Encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy His Holiness Pope Pius XII Promulgated on November 20, 1947 (The bold is my emphasis.): 

50.  The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements.  The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men.  But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.  This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites.  Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times.  Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew.  All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries.  They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love.  They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."

61.  The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately.  The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration.  But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity.  The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect.  They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the church in every age even to the consummation of the world.  They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the santity of man. 

The encyclical of Pope Pius XII says that the ancient liturgies are worthy of all veneration, and here you are saying that the ancient rites are irrelevant. In no way have I ever demean modern liturgies.  I view all liturgies of the Catholic Church very beautiful, awe-inspiring, and worthy of respect regardless of how old it is.  I do not regard them as irrelevant.  

As I've often stated in many of my posts, one of the purpose of the Way is to celebrate in small communities as the Early Church did.  And to do that, one must not only try to follow the process of the Early Church as a catechumen, but even think as they do.  In other words, their (Early Church) concept of "concelebration" would apply in this case.  And if one were to look at the Concelebration Mass in the GIRM, it is very similar to how the Way receives the Body and Blood of Christ.   

Where in the statutes does it say that celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities is as the early church did?  

In fact, the statutes explicity state: 

"3 For the celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite are followed,"

whereby we return to the GIRM and its use of the present meaning of concelebrate.


You should have read the "FOOTNOTES" in the Statutes.  The footnotes stated on pages 21-22 of the Statutes reads (The bold is my emphasis):  

5 "An itinerary of a catechumenal type, which follows all those phases which the catechumens in the early Church followed before receiving the sacrament of Baptism....

It is inspired by various documents of the Holy See, including: 
- chapter 4 of the RCIA [Part II: 4 of the 1988 US edition] which suggests an adapted use of the catechesis and certain rites proper to the catechumenate for the conversion and maturation of faith even among baptized adults;.....

You may be interested to know that your previous post about this subject became part of a discussion on Catholic Answers.

Actually, I'm not interested at all.  I don't even post on Catholic Answers.

Were you able to produce the opinion of one Catholic person of authority, a priest or theologian perhaps, who would agree with your opinion.  I would take back my objection.  You won't be able to though, because what you propose is so novel in the understanding of the Eucharist, that no one who claims to be Catholic and is of sound mind would ever say this about concelebration.    

Again, I did provide a written letter from a priest who has a Ph.D in liturgy. This priest has celebrated in the Way in many different countries including Guam.  You say that the liturgy of the Way is illicit, but Father Neil says it is not illicit.  Nevertheless, those who oppose the Way continued to label the Way's liturgies as illicit and question the credentials of Father Neil.  They might as well question the Pope who gave his blessings to the Neocatechmenal Way. 

As an example, one reason you say that the NCW is illicit is the fact that we receive the Body of Christ standing up, then we sit, but do not consume the Body until everyone receives the Body of Christ, and then until after the priest takes Holy Communion.  According to the GIRM in the concelebrated Mass: 

The concelebrants may, however, remain in their places and take the Body of Christ from the paten presented to them by the principal celebrant or by one or more of the concelebrants, or by passing the paten one to another. 

Then the principal celebrant takes a host consecrated in the same Mass, holds it slightly raised above the paten or the chalice, and facing the people, says the "Ecce Agnus Dei (This is the Lamb of God).  With the concelebrants and the people he continues, saying the Domine, non sum dignus (Lord, I am not worthy) 

Then the principal celebrant, facing the altar, says quietly, Corpus Christi cusodiat me ad vitam aeternam (May the body of Christ bring me to everlasting life) and reverently receives the Body of Christ.  The concelebrants do likewise, communicating themselves.  

The only slight modification I see here is that..... in the Way, the principle celebrant (the priest) approaches the people who remain standing in their place, and gives the Body of Christ to them.  The people do not take it from the paten.  Similarly to the concelebrated Mass, the members of the Way also do not consume the Body of Christ until after everyone receives it and then after the priest receives communion. We take communion together with the priest.  

According to you, this concelebrated mass is not illicit, but the NCW (which holds a similar liturgy) is viewed as illicit.  

My argument to you is this.....the Way's liturgy itself, with its slight modification, could not be illicit since it is very similar to the concelebrated mass.  Could it be then that what you view as illicit is the laity celebrating this type of liturgy simply because you do not see the laity as priests?   

And if this is the case, why then does the Catholic Church teach that the laity share in Christ's priesthood? The laity are the common priests while those ordained are called the ministering priests according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1547 and CCC 941).  Was it not in this light that the Early Church understood "concelebration" as pertaining to all Christians? 

After all, when the Apostle Peter said that we are a "holy nation and a royal priesthood", he was referring to all Christians (1 Peter 2:9).      
  

Does The Catholic Church Teach That Christ Was Murdered?

In Junglewatch, the NCW is falsely being accused of going against Church teaching.  According to Tim Rohr in his blogsite of Junglewatch, he stated:  

In an interview with the Hawaii Catholic Herald, Hawaiian-born and recently Guam-ordained priest, Fr. Michael Jucutan, a product of our local Neocatechumenal seminary, noted that his favorite philiospher was Rene Girard.

That would explain a lot (and not just about Jucutan). Girard is best known for his interpretation of Christ's death as a murder and not a sacrifice.  Much more to come on this.  

The only ones I hear claiming that the NCW teaches that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice are coming from those who oppose the Way.  The truth is....the NCW teaches that the Eucharist is BOTH a sacrifice and a meal, and this is aligned with Catholic teaching.  Now, they are claiming that the NCW is going against Church teachings by claiming that Christ's death IS a murder. The truth is....the NCW views Christ's death on the cross as BOTH a sacrifice and murder.  Apparently, those who oppose the Way only see it as a sacrifice and are unaware of # 312 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.     

The Catholic Church teaches through her Catechism that the death of Christ on the cross was not only a sacrifice, but also a murder.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (The bold is my emphasis):  

CCC 312   In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil even a moral evil, caused by his creatures.  "It was not you", said Joseph to his brothers, "who sent me here, but God.....You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive."  From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the rejection and murder of God's only Son, caused by the sins of all men - God, by his grace that "abounded all the more", brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption.  But for all that, evil never becomes a good.  

The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes on to say that the responsibility of Christ's torture and death was on us, not on the Jewish and Roman leaders alone of that time (See Catechism of the Catholic Church 597-598.)  

So, as one can see, even the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions that Christ was murdered.  His murder was caused by our sins.  And if this is what the Way teaches, then we are aligned with the teachings of the Catholic Church.    

Graven Images???

Protestants usually criticize the Catholic Church because of its many statues and images of Mary, Jesus, and the saints.  They often label Catholics "idol worshipers" due to these statutes and icons.  They don't understand that Catholics don't worship these statues, but venerate them.  They have no comprehension of the difference between adoration (which is reserve for God alone) and veneration.  

There are many Christian artists.  Leonardo da Vinci was one of those who loved to paint religious art.  A replica of his famous "Last Supper" sits in my dining room as I compose this post.  I find it unfortunate that some Catholics are beginning to think and act like Protestants in demeaning icons and Christian art.  How is it possible that some Catholics would look at a painting of baby Jesus and Mary and call it "horrible"?  

They don't like the crucifix beside the ambo.  They hate the Jewish menorah on the table. They dislike the songs of the Way.  They despise the paintings of Jesus and Mary.  I can easily excuse the Protestants because of their ignorance of veneration.  What excuse do some Catholics have for their hatred of Christian art and icons?  

Celebrate In Small Communities

As I stated in one of my posts many times, one purpose of the Way is to follow the Early Christians, and this is also stated in the Statutes.  According to the Statutes:  

5 "An itinerary of a catechumenal type, which follows all those phases which the catechumens in the early Church followed before receiving the sacrament of Baptism.....(See Postbaptismal Catechumenate, in Notitiae 95-96, [1974], 229)" (JOHN PAUL II, Letter, Ogniqualvolta, August 30, 1990: AAS 82 [1990] 1514).

The Statutes further states in Chapter III, Section II, Article 13:  

The neocatechumens celebrate the Sunday Eucharist in the SMALL community after the first Vespers of Sunday.  

It is highly recommended by our Catechists that the celebration of the Eucharist be done in small communities, and this is also stated in the Statutes.  Considering this fact, would it then make sense to understand why the words "open also to other faithful" does not mean that we are to publicly advertise where our Eucharistic celebration will be held in the Church bulletin or local newspaper?  If that were the case, we would not be celebrating in SMALL communities as the Statutes specified. However, members of the Way have invited others to the Eucharistic celebration.  If there are a large number of invited guests, the Responsible and Priest are notified so the group preparing can provide enough bread and wine for the celebration.  

In the same way, people with good intentions who attend a struggling Church in mass numbers to show support without notifying the priest will only frustrate the priest who only have a few hosts due to the fact that he was not informed nor did he expect such a large number.  The Way has been criticized for not advertising where their Eucharistic celebrations are located.  So, what happens if we do advertise where our Eucharistic celebrations are located in the Church bulletin? The answer is simple.....they will criticize the Way for not celebrating in small communities as the Statutes specified.  So, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.  When the Statutes specify that the Eucharistic celebrations are also open to other faithful, that is actually interpreted to mean that we can invite non-members to the celebration.        

Those who wish to attend the two hour Eucharistic celebration of the Neocatechumenal Way, the celebrations usually starts at 7:30 p.m.  Just ask the parish priest or a member where it is held.  When you do attend, we will introduce you to the community. 

Psalm 8: Oh Lord Our God.

I've published a few Neocatechumenal Way songs in my blogsite.  As I mentioned, my favorites are Shema Israel and Mary Little Mary.  Many of the songs sung in the Neocatechumenal Way comes from the Book of Pslams, so I see no reason why any Catholic should complain about it.  There are a few that were composed by Kiko Arguello.  Below is a video of Father Luis playing "Oh Lord Our God" in a Way celebration in Washington DC in 2010 while he was still a seminarian.  The song came from Psalm 8.  

The Joyous Dancing Around the Altar

It appears that even the dancing in the Neocatechumenal Way is a problem for those not walking in the Way.  Dancing is an expression of joy, and I don't see why being joyful in God's presence would be considered a desecration to those not walking in the Way.  How is our music and dancing in honor of God be a desecration?  Why do they despise our joyous dancing?  I would think that doing something sinful or unholy in God's sacred place and in His presence would be more unacceptable and intolerable.  But singing and dancing in honor and worship of God......a desecration??     

Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  God does not change.  The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament.  And one can see in the Old Testament how the Jewish people treated God, who resided with them in the Ark of the Covenant.  King David built a tent for the Ark of the Covenant.  This tent serves as God's sacred place and there was a lot of joyful music and dancing in God's presence.   

1 Chronicles 15:28-29   So all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord with shouts, with the sounding of rams' horns and trumpets, and of cymbals, and the playing of lyres and harps.  As the ark of the covenant of the Lord was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window.  And when she saw King David dancing and celebrating, she despied him in heart.  

Even St. John the Baptist leaped for joy in his mother's womb when he felt the presence of the Lord nearby.  So, even John the Baptist danced when he felt the Lord's presence nearby.  Below is a short video of the NCW dancing around the altar after Mass is over, displaying our joy and honor for God.    

    

Mountain Tops

Some people may be wondering why I chose a mountaintop as my template. Father Joel de los Reyes submitted an excellent article in the Umatuna about mountaintop, which is found here.

Father Joel writes that it's on a mountaintop where we meet God.  The Holy Bible is filled with stories about mountaintops and mountainsides.  These are a small sample:  

• Moses receive the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai. 
• It was on a mountainside that our Lord Jesus Christ delivered His Sermon on the Mount. 
• It was on Mt. Moria where Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac. 
• It was on Mt. Calvary where Christ gave His life to redeem mankind
• It was on Mt. Zion where God reigns.
• It was on a mountain where Jesus brought St. Peter, St. James, and St. John to witness the Transfiguration.