"Christians Do Not, Like Some, Proclaim Themselves the Advocates of Any Merely Human Doctrines"

Flailing in the morass that is US politics as we Americans find oursleves, in a year when questions such as, Can a Catholic really vote for....? and, Is by statute or civil legislation the best way to accomplish....? and, Doesn't Catholic social doctrine require the position that....? and of course, the ever-popular, Is your head up your....? the second reading from this mornings Office of Readings was a tonic.

From Mathetes' Epistle to Diognetus:

The Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. ...
They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. 

Father, Thy will be done.

St Augustine Was a Lot Like Many Priests, Huh?

From today's Office of Readings, in a sermon wherein St A. delineates the two aspect of his vocation -

I must distinguish carefully between two aspects of the role the Lord has given me, a role that demands a rigorous accountability, a role based on the Lord’s greatness rather than on my own merit. The first aspect is that I am a Christian; the second, that I am a leader. I am a Christian for my own sake, whereas I am a leader for your sake; the fact that I am a Christian is to my own advantage, but I am a leader for your advantage.

 Many persons come to God as Christians but not as leaders. Perhaps they travel by an easier road and are less hindered since they bear a lighter burden. [emphasis added, need I say?] In addition to the fact that I am a Christian and must give God an account of my life, I as a leader must give him an account of my stewardship as well.

I have more than once challenged someone complaining about how a priest couldn't find the time to do this or that, as if he's so busy.

It is hard for us as laity to imagine how very much most parish priests have on their plates, (liturgical musicians have a little insight into it from closer observation, and similarly both visible and invisible duties.)

But I also note that there are very few priests, at least in comfortable urban and suburban areas of the US, who have a clue  how busy most of their parishioners are, what their lives entail, how much work goes into parenting, for instance, how different it is for those not essentially guaranteed housing, occupation and livelihood, and who don't "live above the shop," essentially. (I heard a pastor decrying the devotion of his flock after a snowstorm led to a sparse turn-out on Christmas day, oblivious to his advantages over the situation of someone who might live a couple miles down the hill, own a ten year-old beater and have five kids to wrestle into their boots and winter coats.)

Many priests seem to believe, in their heart of hearts, (they hopefully do not say as much aloud,) that the laity have it easy.

And "bear a lighter burden."

No Official English Version of the Rite of Exorcism?

There are a few liturgical matters on the USCCB's fall meeting agenda.

The bishops will vote on a revision of the current (1989) translation of the rite of dedication of a church and altar, vote on the first-ever official translation of the current rite of exorcism, and discuss modifications to the Revised Grail Psalms, which are eventually expected to be used in a revised English translation of the Liturgy of the Hours.

In addition, the bishops will consider a new supplement to the Liturgy of the Hours, which would take into account saints canonized in the last three decades, and discuss ministry to those with Celiac disease.

I remember how much work it was to put together orders for completely sung LotHs for the Triduum at my old parish.
There were differences of opinion as to what versions of the psalms and canticles I should be setting, and what were the easiest tones for a congregation, and whether the psalm prayers needed to be there, and finding proper hymns...

Liturgical wasteland in which I now reside, I didn't appreciate that parish enough at the time....

But enough -- really? there was no English exorcism option?

No wonder nobody does'em....

Jesuits, Jesuits, Everywhere, and Not a....

This thread at the Musica Sacra forum has devolved, partly through my own offices,  into a bit of Jesuit-bashing, through jokes at the expense of those good men, (I kid! I kid because I love....)
"A good liturgy by Jesuit standards is any where there are no serious injuries."

And in the strange synchronicity of life, my interest in matters Benedictine led me belatedly to this post.

So, H/T to The New Liturgical Movement for directing me toward a fantastic series of articles by the great Dom Mark Kirby at Vultus Christi, the best Blog-I-Forget-To-Read, (in my defense, since I always have an excuse, like New Liturgical Movement, it is a beautiful, often graphic-heavy site which my puny 'puter is wont to balk at loading.)

You understand, I knew nothing about the liturgical reputation of the Society of Jesus, I have, to my knowledge, only encountered them as teachers.

But a commentator at Dom Mark's blog says that he is a Jesuit, so naturally his liturgical formation is wanting, as if that were stipulated by all and sundry as a matter of course.

That is wonderful humility, (a dear friend who is CPPS speaks quite frankly about the liturgical lacuna in their society's current approach to formation where Liturgy is concerned, and I cannot think but that such honest self-examination is a good sign of better days ahead.)

Anyway, I knew nothing of a Benedictine/Jesuit controversy/conundrum, but it seems to me that all this is an explication of the thought that is behind my unconsciously profound statement of belief when I coined the phrase, "Save the Liturgy, Save the World.")

The Benedictine—Jesuit controversy over the place of the liturgy in the Christian life was ignited when, in 1913, Dom Festugière, a monk of Maredsous, published a lengthy article in La revue de Philosophie, in which he developed the teaching of Pope Saint Pius X in Tra le sollecitudini (22 November 1903): the liturgy is the primary and indispensable source of the authentic Christian spirit. Certain Jesuits, alerted to Dom Festugière’s article, took offense at its premise, and set out to counter it with their own arguments in favour of the Spiritual Exercises. Zealous sons of Saint Ignatius, among them the learned Father Navatel, director of the Jesuit review Études, argued, even in the face of Pope Pius X’s clear affirmation, that the liturgy need not be considered the primary and indispensable source of Christian piety, and that one could grow in holiness without engaging in the liturgical life of the Church save, of course, in the sacraments. Many Jesuits, as well as a multitude of religious congregations and pious sodalities under Jesuit direction, felt shaken by the new wave of emphasis on liturgy, fearing that it would gain popularity and, in the end, diminish the appeal of the Spiritual Exercises and of the various currents of piety derived from them.

By the way, I've never delved much into the frequent blogosphere argument about whether or not a layperson who is not bound to praying the Office engages in a liturgical actions or not when he does so alone, and maybe I should.
Himself joined in Compline and Lauds at the end of the Colloquium, and except for the fact that we had arrived at a totally Latin singing of those Hours by that point in the week, (against which his Protestant upbringing more than disinclines him,) found it both edifying and do-able.

The USCCB and Morning Prayer

A bit disappointing, the choice to begin the day with a kind of random, (and not very good,) praise song.

If you weren't going to use the proper hymn, wouldn't Veni Creator be the right way to go, considering the tasks at hand?

The Liturgy of the Hours seems to have been put together with... less than exemplary care.

There seems to be a complete ignorance in some liturgical and musical circles, of the virtues of unaccompanied  song.
If a little electric keyboard is your alternative, a capella is almost always, yes, almost ALWAYS the way to go with an intentional community, (I allow that if the attendees are merely fulfilling an obligation or obeying their parents, an instrument may be useful in an attempt to hide the lack of participation...)

I cannot but believe that a Gregorian or Meinrad tone would have elicited less fumbling, embarrassed participation.