Just barely getting back into my routine after entertaining dear, dear houseguests, the dearest really, my other mother, Nature decided we were right, the water pressure in the bathroom was not what it could be, so how 'bout this? Water gushing out of the light fixture!
That's right, the storms Monday night were so violent that the one that hit about midnight blew our flowering plum so flat to the ground that I thought it had blown it completely away; and the storm at 2:30 in the morning (oh yeah, I was still up,) was accompanied by such strong and nearly sideways winds that the cap atop it, and the twists and turns throughout the conduit venting the fan through the attic and to the outside was no obstacle at all for the streams of rainwater that ended up in our bathroom.
We only heard the warning sirens twice, (I'd never heard one before, ever, except in Saturday morning, let's-test-her-out mode) and only the first was for a tornado, so we didn't have to spend all that long in the basement, (a "PDS" from the Weather center for mere storms didn't seem to require our vacating the main floor, the house is pretty sturdy.)
But between various basement puddles and the torrents in the bathroom (who knew a little "oriental" rug could be so absorbent?) we had lots to dry out yesterday.
It was pretty exciting though.
And as I'd said, swept up with visitors, and saying novenas, and various to-dos re: church, I have not been as faithful as I ought to the Office of Readings.
But I'm back on track now, and today, for the first time, although I do the LotH by myself silently, as a rule, it being the Feast of the Transfiguration, I sang the Te Deum.
I have never done it by myself before. And I "cheated", used modern notation.
Nonetheless, I am puffy as the Michelin man with pride!
Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
RIP, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The great Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is dead.
I am reminded that I once had a copy of an essay, found on the internet, about beauty and the liturgy that extensively quoted from him, but I cannot remember the gist of it, the source, or the author....
Anyone? anyone?
(A mind is a terrible thing to lose, or not to have had one at all....)
I am reminded that I once had a copy of an essay, found on the internet, about beauty and the liturgy that extensively quoted from him, but I cannot remember the gist of it, the source, or the author....
Anyone? anyone?
(A mind is a terrible thing to lose, or not to have had one at all....)
If we just "get over" evil, evil will stop?
The recent actions of that imbecilic assistant professor with his anti-Catholic, anti-Civilization desecration, (yes, I'm obsessing over it a bit,) seem to me to be a near relative of trolling. And sometimes when I see, (or more often read the words of,) Bill Donohue of the Catholic Defense League or whatever it's called, I think, dude, you're right but STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS.
But I am wrong -- you don't ignore evil and it goes away.
Yes, sometimes when you pay attention to the man behind the curtain he's just part of the Forces of Dimness; but sometimes the Forces of Dimness are the Useful Idiots of the Forces of Darkness.
The NYTimes Magazine has
an article on the ugliness at the heart of trolling, because of the ugliness at the heart of trolls.
[A troll] proceeded to demonstrate his personal cure for trolling, the Theory of the Green Hair.
“You have green hair,” he told me. “Did you know that?”
“No,” I said.
“Why not?”
“I look in the mirror. I see my hair is black.”
“That’s uh, interesting. I guess you understand that you have green hair about as well as you understand that you’re a terrible reporter.”
“What do you mean? What did I do?”
“That’s a very interesting reaction,” Fortuny said. “Why didn’t you get so defensive when I said you had green hair?” If I were certain that I wasn’t a terrible reporter, he explained, I would have laughed the suggestion off just as easily. The willingness of trolling “victims” to be hurt by words, he argued, makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it.
But I am wrong -- you don't ignore evil and it goes away.
Yes, sometimes when you pay attention to the man behind the curtain he's just part of the Forces of Dimness; but sometimes the Forces of Dimness are the Useful Idiots of the Forces of Darkness.
The NYTimes Magazine has
an article on the ugliness at the heart of trolling, because of the ugliness at the heart of trolls.
[A troll] proceeded to demonstrate his personal cure for trolling, the Theory of the Green Hair.
“You have green hair,” he told me. “Did you know that?”
“No,” I said.
“Why not?”
“I look in the mirror. I see my hair is black.”
“That’s uh, interesting. I guess you understand that you have green hair about as well as you understand that you’re a terrible reporter.”
“What do you mean? What did I do?”
“That’s a very interesting reaction,” Fortuny said. “Why didn’t you get so defensive when I said you had green hair?” If I were certain that I wasn’t a terrible reporter, he explained, I would have laughed the suggestion off just as easily. The willingness of trolling “victims” to be hurt by words, he argued, makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it.
In Italy? ITALY??!?#?$?%??!??!
I thought it was only US Attorneys General who were likely to cavil at making press appearances in front of nippleage....
I am afraid I must concur with Senor Sgarbi.
And to a Tiepolo?
http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSL425123120080804
ROME (Reuters) - The government cover-up that Italians are whispering about these days has nothing to do with politics. Instead, it's about a missing nipple.
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's staff have altered a reproduction of a famous 18th-century painting by Giambattista Tiepolo to cover an exposed breast on full display in the press room in the Palazzo Chigi, the prime minister's palace.
Nude artwork rarely offends in Italy, home to innumerable classical nudes in painting and sculpture. But this particular bare breast, in Tiepolo's "Time Uncovering Truth", was the backdrop for press conferences and often caught on camera.
Aides decided to repaint the woman's gown to cover the offending nipple.
"It was an initiative by those on the presidential staff who look after Berlusconi's image," his spokesman Paolo Bonaiuti, was quoted telling the daily Corriere della Sera.
"That breast, that nipple ... it ends up exactly inside the frame captured by TV news stations at press conferences."
Vittorio Sgarbi, an art critic and once a culture undersecretary in a previous Berlusconi government, called the move "crazy".
"What should be done with all the statues of women at dozens of Italian museums, where breasts can be admired that would even leave Pamela Anderson breathless?" Sgarbi told Corriere.
I am afraid I must concur with Senor Sgarbi.
And to a Tiepolo?
http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSL425123120080804
ROME (Reuters) - The government cover-up that Italians are whispering about these days has nothing to do with politics. Instead, it's about a missing nipple.
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's staff have altered a reproduction of a famous 18th-century painting by Giambattista Tiepolo to cover an exposed breast on full display in the press room in the Palazzo Chigi, the prime minister's palace.
Nude artwork rarely offends in Italy, home to innumerable classical nudes in painting and sculpture. But this particular bare breast, in Tiepolo's "Time Uncovering Truth", was the backdrop for press conferences and often caught on camera.
Aides decided to repaint the woman's gown to cover the offending nipple.
"It was an initiative by those on the presidential staff who look after Berlusconi's image," his spokesman Paolo Bonaiuti, was quoted telling the daily Corriere della Sera.
"That breast, that nipple ... it ends up exactly inside the frame captured by TV news stations at press conferences."
Vittorio Sgarbi, an art critic and once a culture undersecretary in a previous Berlusconi government, called the move "crazy".
"What should be done with all the statues of women at dozens of Italian museums, where breasts can be admired that would even leave Pamela Anderson breathless?" Sgarbi told Corriere.
That sinking feeling....
Mary Jane, the musician I wish I were, has a post that will, I'm sure resonate with almost everyone "in charge" of any music program.
How to Avoid Sinking
I came across this comment recently while searching for a solution to a problem with one of my singers:
I would say that the greatest help I have had in choir directinghas come from singing in better choirs; it stops you sinking to the averagelevel of the choir you are directing, keeps you fresh and keeps in sight thegoals that they should be striving for.
And that struck me as a great truth. Often, when struggling with new groups and/or weak singers, I become allergic even to listening to great choral music. It's too much of a slap in the face and I'm afraid I will resent my ensemble. Or become fatally discouraged. And my own skills do deteriorate – rapidly.
But, never one to leave her readers despairing, she presents a remedy!
attend next year's CMAA Colloquium at Loyola Chicago.
How to Avoid Sinking
I came across this comment recently while searching for a solution to a problem with one of my singers:
I would say that the greatest help I have had in choir directinghas come from singing in better choirs; it stops you sinking to the averagelevel of the choir you are directing, keeps you fresh and keeps in sight thegoals that they should be striving for.
And that struck me as a great truth. Often, when struggling with new groups and/or weak singers, I become allergic even to listening to great choral music. It's too much of a slap in the face and I'm afraid I will resent my ensemble. Or become fatally discouraged. And my own skills do deteriorate – rapidly.
But, never one to leave her readers despairing, she presents a remedy!
attend next year's CMAA Colloquium at Loyola Chicago.
Monday, 4 August 2008
I would have used "Twinkies"...
... in place of "candyfloss."
I can't remember who pointed me toward this:
Quote for the Day
"Mankind cries out in the wilderness for Living Bread and we give them candyfloss instead!"
But I thank them.
I can't remember who pointed me toward this:
Quote for the Day
"Mankind cries out in the wilderness for Living Bread and we give them candyfloss instead!"
But I thank them.
And as long as I'm just sayin'...
... I'll say this:
124. Then the priest, with hands outstretched, greets the people:
The Lord be with you.
They answer: And also with you.
The priest immediately adds:
May almighty God bless you and, as he blesses with the sign of the cross, continues:
in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
All answer: Amen.
On certain days and occasions another, more solemn form of blessing or the prayer over the people precedes this form of blessing as the rubrics direct.
Immediately after the blessing, with hands joined, the the deacon (or priest) sings or says:
Go in the peace of Christ, or:
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord, or:
The Mass is ended, go in peace, and the people answer:
Thanks be to God.
124. Then the priest, with hands outstretched, greets the people:
The Lord be with you.
They answer: And also with you.
The priest immediately adds:
May almighty God bless you and, as he blesses with the sign of the cross, continues:
in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
All answer: Amen.
On certain days and occasions another, more solemn form of blessing or the prayer over the people precedes this form of blessing as the rubrics direct.
Immediately after the blessing, with hands joined, the the deacon (or priest) sings or says:
Go in the peace of Christ, or:
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord, or:
The Mass is ended, go in peace, and the people answer:
Thanks be to God.
The Specific Intercessions
I'm just saying....
From the Specif... I mean, GENERAL Instruction of the Roman Missal
The Prayer of the Faithful
69. In the Prayer of the Faithful, the people respond in a certain way to the word of God which they have welcomed in faith and, exercising the office of their baptismal priesthood, offer prayers to God for the salvation of all. It is fitting that such a prayer be included, as a rule, in Masses celebrated with a congregation, so that petitions will be offered for the holy Church, for civil authorities, for those weighed down by various needs, for all men and women, and for the salvation of the whole world.
70. As a rule, the series of intentions is to be
For the needs of the Church;
For public authorities and the salvation of the whole world;
For those burdened by any kind of difficulty;
For the local community.
Nevertheless, in a particular celebration, such as Confirmation, Marriage, or a Funeral, the series of intentions may reflect more closely the particular occasion.
71. It is for the priest celebrant to direct this prayer from the chair. He himself begins it with a brief introduction, by which he invites the faithful to pray, and likewise he concludes it with a prayer. The intentions announced should be sober, be composed freely but prudently, and be succinct, and they should express the prayer of the entire community.The intentions are announced from the ambo or from another suitable place, by the deacon or by a cantor, a lector, or one of the lay faithful.68The people, however, stand and give expression to their prayer either by an invocation said together after each intention or by praying in silence.
From the Specif... I mean, GENERAL Instruction of the Roman Missal
The Prayer of the Faithful
69. In the Prayer of the Faithful, the people respond in a certain way to the word of God which they have welcomed in faith and, exercising the office of their baptismal priesthood, offer prayers to God for the salvation of all. It is fitting that such a prayer be included, as a rule, in Masses celebrated with a congregation, so that petitions will be offered for the holy Church, for civil authorities, for those weighed down by various needs, for all men and women, and for the salvation of the whole world.
70. As a rule, the series of intentions is to be
For the needs of the Church;
For public authorities and the salvation of the whole world;
For those burdened by any kind of difficulty;
For the local community.
Nevertheless, in a particular celebration, such as Confirmation, Marriage, or a Funeral, the series of intentions may reflect more closely the particular occasion.
71. It is for the priest celebrant to direct this prayer from the chair. He himself begins it with a brief introduction, by which he invites the faithful to pray, and likewise he concludes it with a prayer. The intentions announced should be sober, be composed freely but prudently, and be succinct, and they should express the prayer of the entire community.The intentions are announced from the ambo or from another suitable place, by the deacon or by a cantor, a lector, or one of the lay faithful.68The people, however, stand and give expression to their prayer either by an invocation said together after each intention or by praying in silence.
Challenges
This is a blog from Fr Fox at Bonfire of the Vanities on the fact that he sometimes (shhhh! don't tell the liturgonazis!) offers a private Mass, and the reasons for his practice.
How this resounds with me, and surely many, many musicians, particularly those who through circumstances or lack of backbone (red-facedly raising hand....) find themselves wincing through, or worse contributing to unworthy* offerings of praise:
And, honestly, a priest has both a right and a need to ensure that his own encounter with the Sacrifice of the Mass is fully prayerful, and there are times when as celebrant at a Mass for the people, this is very hard. This is something perhaps not many priests admit, and perhaps not many of God's people understand or realize: but it can be a challenge for a priest to offer Mass prayerfully.
Yes, it can be a challenge for us lay "ministers' to perform our tasks prayerfully, as well. There are some necessary distractions, of course, and dealing with them is part of the service we can render to God and His people.
It's the unnecessary ones that are so corrosive...
Fr Fox also speaks of celebrating ad orientem. A bishop of my acquaintance once opined (though not for public consumption,) that having him pray the Mass facing the assembly "does violence to the priest."
Does violence.
Strong words.
Something to ponder...
*Don't get all up in my face, as if I'm being elitist. (The opposite of which would be, what? "inferiorist?") "Unworthy" does not mean bad. It is possible for the offering to be not very good, even poor, yet worthy. "Bad" may be "good enough" if it is truly the best one can do. "Good" may be unworthy for an offering of praise if we could do better.
How this resounds with me, and surely many, many musicians, particularly those who through circumstances or lack of backbone (red-facedly raising hand....) find themselves wincing through, or worse contributing to unworthy* offerings of praise:
And, honestly, a priest has both a right and a need to ensure that his own encounter with the Sacrifice of the Mass is fully prayerful, and there are times when as celebrant at a Mass for the people, this is very hard. This is something perhaps not many priests admit, and perhaps not many of God's people understand or realize: but it can be a challenge for a priest to offer Mass prayerfully.
Yes, it can be a challenge for us lay "ministers' to perform our tasks prayerfully, as well. There are some necessary distractions, of course, and dealing with them is part of the service we can render to God and His people.
It's the unnecessary ones that are so corrosive...
Fr Fox also speaks of celebrating ad orientem. A bishop of my acquaintance once opined (though not for public consumption,) that having him pray the Mass facing the assembly "does violence to the priest."
Does violence.
Strong words.
Something to ponder...
*Don't get all up in my face, as if I'm being elitist. (The opposite of which would be, what? "inferiorist?") "Unworthy" does not mean bad. It is possible for the offering to be not very good, even poor, yet worthy. "Bad" may be "good enough" if it is truly the best one can do. "Good" may be unworthy for an offering of praise if we could do better.
Ite, missa est...
And sent they were.
The Chant Masters of the future, (as Jeffrey? referred to them,) indeed have gone out into the world, and spread the good news.
Scholas begun, bishops spoken to, Vespers sung, Masses planned.... well done, brothers and sisters!
Janet of VoxFemina has gathered in one post, Aftermath of Chant 'Boot Camp' wonderful stories of daring and success.
Me, I'm playing Sing to the Mountains....
The Chant Masters of the future, (as Jeffrey? referred to them,) indeed have gone out into the world, and spread the good news.
Scholas begun, bishops spoken to, Vespers sung, Masses planned.... well done, brothers and sisters!
Janet of VoxFemina has gathered in one post, Aftermath of Chant 'Boot Camp' wonderful stories of daring and success.
Me, I'm playing Sing to the Mountains....
Sunday, 3 August 2008
NO, Tom, AUGUST is the cruelest month...
I knew there was a reason I have always had the gnawing beginnings of that despairing, Oh no! my freedom is dribbling away!!!! feeling 'round this time. And NOT just from channeling school days end-of-summer-vacation mindset...
Lughnasadh marked the beginning of the harvest season>
So.
It's all over, my dear... (although the coming year is, now, so utterly up in the air -- 0ooooh, shall I toss out the psalms and gospel acclamation at the end of each weekend this year? -- that there may be no drudgey back-to-work malaise falling over me this year....)
Anyway, happy Lughnasa.
Lughnasadh marked the beginning of the harvest season>
So.
It's all over, my dear... (although the coming year is, now, so utterly up in the air -- 0ooooh, shall I toss out the psalms and gospel acclamation at the end of each weekend this year? -- that there may be no drudgey back-to-work malaise falling over me this year....)
Anyway, happy Lughnasa.
Is it just me...
... or is there something a little, I dunno, creepily patronizing about this?
Peter Steinfels in the NYTimes on Humanae Vitae hitting the big four-oh says some thoughtful things, but:
The pope endorsed “responsible parenthood”; but unlike his advisory commission, he believed that the poor couple who had six children or a disabled child had no more leeway in choosing the means for being responsible than the affluent couple with no children.
... stuck in my craw.
The unmistakable subtext is I, Peter Steinfels DO believe "that the poor couple who had six children or a disabled child have more leeway in choosing the means for being responsible than the affluent couple with no children."
That there are things that might be objectively sinful for the well-to-do but them po' folks, they's got be cut some slack, they can't be expected to live up to the standards of their betters.
Oops, that was condescending, I meant, "they can't be expected to live up to the standards of their richers."
Peter Steinfels in the NYTimes on Humanae Vitae hitting the big four-oh says some thoughtful things, but:
The pope endorsed “responsible parenthood”; but unlike his advisory commission, he believed that the poor couple who had six children or a disabled child had no more leeway in choosing the means for being responsible than the affluent couple with no children.
... stuck in my craw.
The unmistakable subtext is I, Peter Steinfels DO believe "that the poor couple who had six children or a disabled child have more leeway in choosing the means for being responsible than the affluent couple with no children."
That there are things that might be objectively sinful for the well-to-do but them po' folks, they's got be cut some slack, they can't be expected to live up to the standards of their betters.
Oops, that was condescending, I meant, "they can't be expected to live up to the standards of their richers."
Committee-al Infallibility
Committee Infallibility, com'on, we all remember when that doctrine was declared, don't we?
By, uhm.... well, by some committee, I guess.
The Irish Time on Humanae Vitae, 40 years on...
The more I read of Paul VI and his brave decision, the more I thank God for him.The Holy Spirit must have been working overtime for that much abused man.
At the root of much of the dissent was the very simple fact that a commission set up by Pope John XXIII in 1963 to address the issue of the use of artificial means of contraception had recommended, by a significant majority, that they be allowed.
Pope John's commission was made up of six lay people, who were asked to address birth control issues. Shortly after he became pope in 1963, Paul VI expanded the commission to 72, including 16 theologians, 13 doctors or people with medical experience, and five women. It had an executive of nine bishops and seven cardinals.
Its report in 1966 concluded that the use of artificial means of contraception was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to use them or not.
One member of the commission, an American Jesuit theologian Fr John Ford, prepared a minority report, signed also by three other theologians on the commission. It said that the church should not and could not change its teaching on the issue, which banned the use of artificial means of contraception.
This intervention, and a response to it by the majority on the commission, was leaked to the media, which led Catholics to expect the Pope would accept the advice of the majority on the commission. But he did not do so.
Referring to this in the encyclical, he said "the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the church".
In fact, of the 72 people on the commission, all were in agreement that the use of artificial means of contraception should be allowed except six of its members - the four theologians who signed Fr Ford's minority report (including Fr Ford), the commission president Cardinal Ottaviani and the papal theologian on the commission Bishop Colombo.
(Incidentally, did you catch that?
The writer's words, the writer's thinking: they had "doctors and theologians and women." Kinda like, "musicians and singers.")
You remember in the Bible, where God said, Thou art Commission, and on this Rock I will build my Church... not.
I wonder what became of Fr Ford. How did he fit in with the other Jesuits of the part 40 years, one wonders.
By, uhm.... well, by some committee, I guess.
The Irish Time on Humanae Vitae, 40 years on...
The more I read of Paul VI and his brave decision, the more I thank God for him.The Holy Spirit must have been working overtime for that much abused man.
At the root of much of the dissent was the very simple fact that a commission set up by Pope John XXIII in 1963 to address the issue of the use of artificial means of contraception had recommended, by a significant majority, that they be allowed.
Pope John's commission was made up of six lay people, who were asked to address birth control issues. Shortly after he became pope in 1963, Paul VI expanded the commission to 72, including 16 theologians, 13 doctors or people with medical experience, and five women. It had an executive of nine bishops and seven cardinals.
Its report in 1966 concluded that the use of artificial means of contraception was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to use them or not.
One member of the commission, an American Jesuit theologian Fr John Ford, prepared a minority report, signed also by three other theologians on the commission. It said that the church should not and could not change its teaching on the issue, which banned the use of artificial means of contraception.
This intervention, and a response to it by the majority on the commission, was leaked to the media, which led Catholics to expect the Pope would accept the advice of the majority on the commission. But he did not do so.
Referring to this in the encyclical, he said "the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the church".
In fact, of the 72 people on the commission, all were in agreement that the use of artificial means of contraception should be allowed except six of its members - the four theologians who signed Fr Ford's minority report (including Fr Ford), the commission president Cardinal Ottaviani and the papal theologian on the commission Bishop Colombo.
(Incidentally, did you catch that?
The writer's words, the writer's thinking: they had "doctors and theologians and women." Kinda like, "musicians and singers.")
You remember in the Bible, where God said, Thou art Commission, and on this Rock I will build my Church... not.
I wonder what became of Fr Ford. How did he fit in with the other Jesuits of the part 40 years, one wonders.
Martha Argerich
Back when I was living just outside of NYC and Chriso had an even more intense job, with an even crazier boss, sh often had tickets to events that would otherwise have been out of my reach, which is how I happened to see Martha Argerich in concert.
Utterly thrilling.
What a fascinating woman.
The NYTimes discusses a new DVD of an interview with Miss Argerich.
This struck me: Ms. Argerich recalls her first musical epiphany. She was 6, at a concert with her mother, listening to Claudio Arrau play Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 4. The trills in the second movement gave her goose bumps. “I was dozing off, and suddenly,” she says with a sharp intake of breath, experienced “an electric shock.” Ms. Argerich refuses to play the concerto, she says, because “I’m afraid what would happen, it’s so important to me.”
At 9, before performing a Mozart concerto, she knelt down and thought, “If I hit one wrong note, I’ll die.” That sense of perfection stayed with her.
Note, I am NOT claiming that I ever felt that sense of purpose about anything.
But I have, at points in my life, thought that what I was doing was important.
And lately, I have felt that I am pulled further and further from what matters and swamped in the trivial, and I just don't want to do it anymore.
I am not being melodramatic to say I don't have enough time or energy, I don't have enough VOICE, I don't have enough LIFE to waste.
And that is why, for all the whining I have done in the past few weeks, I'm really not as angst-ridden as my poverty of expression might imply, I'm really good with the decisions Himself and I are on the verge of making.
I am going to get to the core of my life, I am going to do what is crucial, and try to edit out the rest.
Utterly thrilling.
What a fascinating woman.
The NYTimes discusses a new DVD of an interview with Miss Argerich.
This struck me: Ms. Argerich recalls her first musical epiphany. She was 6, at a concert with her mother, listening to Claudio Arrau play Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 4. The trills in the second movement gave her goose bumps. “I was dozing off, and suddenly,” she says with a sharp intake of breath, experienced “an electric shock.” Ms. Argerich refuses to play the concerto, she says, because “I’m afraid what would happen, it’s so important to me.”
At 9, before performing a Mozart concerto, she knelt down and thought, “If I hit one wrong note, I’ll die.” That sense of perfection stayed with her.
Note, I am NOT claiming that I ever felt that sense of purpose about anything.
But I have, at points in my life, thought that what I was doing was important.
And lately, I have felt that I am pulled further and further from what matters and swamped in the trivial, and I just don't want to do it anymore.
I am not being melodramatic to say I don't have enough time or energy, I don't have enough VOICE, I don't have enough LIFE to waste.
And that is why, for all the whining I have done in the past few weeks, I'm really not as angst-ridden as my poverty of expression might imply, I'm really good with the decisions Himself and I are on the verge of making.
I am going to get to the core of my life, I am going to do what is crucial, and try to edit out the rest.
Humbling Oneself
It occurs to me that if such things are kept secret, there is little humiliation, neither the concomitant spiritual benefit.
So, in the interests of further mortifying my pride, a little list.
Hail Mary, Gentle Woman
We Are the Light of the World
Sing to the Mountains
We Are Many Parts
Be Not Afraid
Come to the Water
I Have Loved You
I Am the Bread of Life
Blest Are They
And nary a chanted psalm, all month... well, maybe on Assumption.
So, in the interests of further mortifying my pride, a little list.
Hail Mary, Gentle Woman
We Are the Light of the World
Sing to the Mountains
We Are Many Parts
Be Not Afraid
Come to the Water
I Have Loved You
I Am the Bread of Life
Blest Are They
And nary a chanted psalm, all month... well, maybe on Assumption.
Saturday, 2 August 2008
Don't you dogs DARE drink the margaritas before the pork roast is done
Between "scientists" who have gone from childish to evil in one swell foop, and careless, careless "worshippers" putting on their own performance art at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I've been thinking a great deal lately about desecration and risk management.
Is the former a necessary risk the Church must assume to avoid denying the sacrament to those in need of His grace?
Can we have "closed Communion" without any actual closures?
I seem to be doing copious amounts of thinking about this, (admittedly without having anything that even approaches a level of coherence that I dare call "a thought." )
It's roiling around in my brain and soul, and I am upset and hopeful and confused and curious.
A new to me blog, (.... I'ze GOTSTA update my blogroll,) with some thinking about some of the same things, or at least tangents off a similar initial incident.
(Incidentally, Himself has a cousin, a protestant minister, who has no problem at all taking communion at Masses at which he finds himself on family occasions. And he cannot possibly claim ignorance of what the Church asks, so he is clearly deliberately flouting the "rules.")
Why does the unbeliever even WANT to receive the Blessed Sacrament?
Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos
I have not had much opportunity lately to write, nor have I had occasion to do so since we have mined out so many apologetic topics here. In fact, the myriads of equestrian corpses with post mortum blunt trauma wounds are stacked so high that it is likely to drive away all but the most determined apologist, Catholic or Protestant.
But recently, I have seen something come up more than once which really drives me to ire and is something I have decided to address. The broader topic is the Catholic practise of closed communion, something that has been practised in the Church since the earliest days. And in spite of the many objections often made by Protestants, the fact is that all but the tiniest minority of Protestants practise it. Protestants will not hesitate to bar Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mohammedans, &c. from their table. True, most Protestants would allow fellow Protestants to commune with them, but they all (with the exception of the extremely liberal Episcopalians) draw the line somewhere.
Nevertheless, these same Protestants, when confronted with the Catholic practise of closed communion, object vehemently, insisting that all Christians should be allowed to take the Sacred Host at a Catholic Mass. What is their reasoning? Most of them insist that we are all part of the same religion and therefore should all share the same Sacraments. Following this line of reasoning, all baptised peoples should be equally admitted at everybody’s version of the Eucharist, be they Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic, Orthodox, &c.
But from the earliest days of the Church, there were many people who possessed valid baptisms who were denied the Catholic Sacraments for their unreconciled public sins or their association with hereticks or schismatics. The ancient teaching of One, Holy, Catholick, and Apostolick Church is foundational to understanding this. Not everybody who is baptised is automatically in the Church regardless of what he believes or does. And despite what the Protestant and Catholic false œcumenists say, the Catholic religion and the Protestant religion are not the same religion. As if this needed demonstration, here are a list of things that the few Protestants I have in mind most assuredly reject in the teachings of the Catholic Church:
We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Unam Sanctam]
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful. [Fulgens Corona]
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. [Pastor Æternus]
There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors. [Fourth Lateran Council]
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. [Constitution Munificentissimus Deus]
An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. [Catechism of the Catholic Church]
Now these doctrines are not mere side issues. These doctrines are central to salvation, dogma, truth, and the person of Christ. These are issues over which Catholics and Protestants disagree substantially and cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant or unimportant. One question immediately comes to mind. Why in the world would a Protestant who denies such things vociferously even want to have Sacraments from a religion who believed and taught all of these things, and taught that they must be believed for salvation?
One such Protestant, Jon Amos, writes:
I tend to think as charitably as possible of [Catholics]…to the extent that I try to forget that there are actually Catholics out there, like you, who zealously cling to the worst and most dangerous-to-body-and-soul of Catholic errors.
Of course, part of being a Catholic is believing what the Catholic Church teaches. If I wanted to be a Protestant, I would not have gone through the trouble of being reconciled to the Church. According to Mr. Amos, however, the only truly faithful Catholics are those who reject the Church’s teachings. For more on this, read his comment here.
Mr. Amos continues:
That said, my position is – and has been for some time – that Holy Communion is what it is, regardless of what Catholics say it is or believe it to be. And it’s for this reason that I receive without hesitation whenever I go to a Catholic Mass (rare as that may be). I know it’s against the rules, but the rules are against Jesus’s rules, so screw them. I also know that there are probably folks there (including even maybe the priest) who, like you, are wilfully committing idolatry, but that doesn’t make the Mass idolatry, just as an idolater performing Holy Baptism doesn't make the Baptism idolatry.
It is hardly even believable. This man obviously has little respect for the Catholic faith, less respect for Catholics who actually take their faith seriously, and finally, no respect for the laws of the Church. Now I ask you, why would any such soul who had so much scorn for the Catholic Church want anything to do with the Catholic Mass? Let us suppose that Jon Amos is correct and that the Catholic Church teaches bad and dangerous “body-and-soul” heresies, and that Catholics are idolaters as he believes. Where does Jesus ever say that you should involve yourself in the rituals of idolatrous hereticks?
He does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches, neither about herself, nor about the Sacraments, nor about salvation, nor about anything. Yet he insists that the Catholic Mass is “Jesus’ meal” and that both he and every other soul on the planet are entitled to eat it. Why does he even think it is the same religion as his? On a side note, I wonder why he just does not become Catholic if the “faithful” Catholics reject the Church’s teachings? Of course, I know why – he does not believe the teachings of the Church and obviously acknowledges the folly of joining a religion with which you do not agree. So why he continues to insist that the Catholic Church is the same religion as his is beyond me. By his own words, they are not even close.
If my church is celebrating the meal that Jesus instituted for His whole church and you can’t receive with us, our divisions are being deepened, not healed. Our Lord has given us this wonderful sacrament - a meal that is (among many other things) powerfully, mysteriously unifying, but, no, we know better than Him. What a shame. If it's Jesus’ meal for all of His people, and if we recognize one another as brethren, we must be able to commune together.
This is what continues to baffle me. The Catholics do not think that you are part of His people, and historically Protestants have denied that Catholics are part of His people. There is one tiny minority here, a veritable church-of-one that has asserted his own authority in all these matters, declaring that what he believes and only what he believes are “Jesus’ rules” and that all others are guilty of dividing the Church.
What the Catholics think of the Sacrament is extremely different from what he thinks it is, yet he continues to insist that they are really the same. And amidst all this inane double-talk is the absurd claim that everything he is espousing is really Jesus’ teaching.
Yet Mr. Amos insists, against every rational cue:
…if the priest won’t serve me, I’ll go get in another line, mumbling to myself, “Bullshit. This is not your table, man. This is Jesus’ table.”
One thing here is for sure: it is not your table either, Mr. Amos. The priest who denies you the Sacred Host is merely being faithful to his bishops and to his Church. By your theft of the Host, you are not being faithful to anyone or anything other than your own precepts, which have no place in the history of the Church and no place in Catholic theology.
I do not expect you to become Catholic, or to change your position on the Church, or anything else. But if the Catholic Church does not allow you to receive her Sacraments because you are not Catholic, the absolute very least you could do is show some decency and some respect for the Church. Your ecclesial community probably does not allow its own share of things in its liturgy. I would never dream of showing up to disrupt your worship in any way, or do things contrary to what your sect allows. I may not agree with anything which your sect does, but interfering with another person’s religion is just rude.
Stealing the hosts may make you a progressive in your own mind, but it does nothing to further Church unity. If you want unity in the Church, pray for unity and encourage your bishops to seek dialogue with the Catholic Church. Please do not profane Catholic Sacraments as a means to unity. There are legitimate means to promote unity amongst Christians. This is not one of them.
Is the former a necessary risk the Church must assume to avoid denying the sacrament to those in need of His grace?
Can we have "closed Communion" without any actual closures?
I seem to be doing copious amounts of thinking about this, (admittedly without having anything that even approaches a level of coherence that I dare call "a thought." )
It's roiling around in my brain and soul, and I am upset and hopeful and confused and curious.
A new to me blog, (.... I'ze GOTSTA update my blogroll,) with some thinking about some of the same things, or at least tangents off a similar initial incident.
(Incidentally, Himself has a cousin, a protestant minister, who has no problem at all taking communion at Masses at which he finds himself on family occasions. And he cannot possibly claim ignorance of what the Church asks, so he is clearly deliberately flouting the "rules.")
Why does the unbeliever even WANT to receive the Blessed Sacrament?
Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos
I have not had much opportunity lately to write, nor have I had occasion to do so since we have mined out so many apologetic topics here. In fact, the myriads of equestrian corpses with post mortum blunt trauma wounds are stacked so high that it is likely to drive away all but the most determined apologist, Catholic or Protestant.
But recently, I have seen something come up more than once which really drives me to ire and is something I have decided to address. The broader topic is the Catholic practise of closed communion, something that has been practised in the Church since the earliest days. And in spite of the many objections often made by Protestants, the fact is that all but the tiniest minority of Protestants practise it. Protestants will not hesitate to bar Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mohammedans, &c. from their table. True, most Protestants would allow fellow Protestants to commune with them, but they all (with the exception of the extremely liberal Episcopalians) draw the line somewhere.
Nevertheless, these same Protestants, when confronted with the Catholic practise of closed communion, object vehemently, insisting that all Christians should be allowed to take the Sacred Host at a Catholic Mass. What is their reasoning? Most of them insist that we are all part of the same religion and therefore should all share the same Sacraments. Following this line of reasoning, all baptised peoples should be equally admitted at everybody’s version of the Eucharist, be they Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic, Orthodox, &c.
But from the earliest days of the Church, there were many people who possessed valid baptisms who were denied the Catholic Sacraments for their unreconciled public sins or their association with hereticks or schismatics. The ancient teaching of One, Holy, Catholick, and Apostolick Church is foundational to understanding this. Not everybody who is baptised is automatically in the Church regardless of what he believes or does. And despite what the Protestant and Catholic false œcumenists say, the Catholic religion and the Protestant religion are not the same religion. As if this needed demonstration, here are a list of things that the few Protestants I have in mind most assuredly reject in the teachings of the Catholic Church:
We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Unam Sanctam]
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful. [Fulgens Corona]
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. [Pastor Æternus]
There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors. [Fourth Lateran Council]
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. [Constitution Munificentissimus Deus]
An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. [Catechism of the Catholic Church]
Now these doctrines are not mere side issues. These doctrines are central to salvation, dogma, truth, and the person of Christ. These are issues over which Catholics and Protestants disagree substantially and cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant or unimportant. One question immediately comes to mind. Why in the world would a Protestant who denies such things vociferously even want to have Sacraments from a religion who believed and taught all of these things, and taught that they must be believed for salvation?
One such Protestant, Jon Amos, writes:
I tend to think as charitably as possible of [Catholics]…to the extent that I try to forget that there are actually Catholics out there, like you, who zealously cling to the worst and most dangerous-to-body-and-soul of Catholic errors.
Of course, part of being a Catholic is believing what the Catholic Church teaches. If I wanted to be a Protestant, I would not have gone through the trouble of being reconciled to the Church. According to Mr. Amos, however, the only truly faithful Catholics are those who reject the Church’s teachings. For more on this, read his comment here.
Mr. Amos continues:
That said, my position is – and has been for some time – that Holy Communion is what it is, regardless of what Catholics say it is or believe it to be. And it’s for this reason that I receive without hesitation whenever I go to a Catholic Mass (rare as that may be). I know it’s against the rules, but the rules are against Jesus’s rules, so screw them. I also know that there are probably folks there (including even maybe the priest) who, like you, are wilfully committing idolatry, but that doesn’t make the Mass idolatry, just as an idolater performing Holy Baptism doesn't make the Baptism idolatry.
It is hardly even believable. This man obviously has little respect for the Catholic faith, less respect for Catholics who actually take their faith seriously, and finally, no respect for the laws of the Church. Now I ask you, why would any such soul who had so much scorn for the Catholic Church want anything to do with the Catholic Mass? Let us suppose that Jon Amos is correct and that the Catholic Church teaches bad and dangerous “body-and-soul” heresies, and that Catholics are idolaters as he believes. Where does Jesus ever say that you should involve yourself in the rituals of idolatrous hereticks?
He does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches, neither about herself, nor about the Sacraments, nor about salvation, nor about anything. Yet he insists that the Catholic Mass is “Jesus’ meal” and that both he and every other soul on the planet are entitled to eat it. Why does he even think it is the same religion as his? On a side note, I wonder why he just does not become Catholic if the “faithful” Catholics reject the Church’s teachings? Of course, I know why – he does not believe the teachings of the Church and obviously acknowledges the folly of joining a religion with which you do not agree. So why he continues to insist that the Catholic Church is the same religion as his is beyond me. By his own words, they are not even close.
If my church is celebrating the meal that Jesus instituted for His whole church and you can’t receive with us, our divisions are being deepened, not healed. Our Lord has given us this wonderful sacrament - a meal that is (among many other things) powerfully, mysteriously unifying, but, no, we know better than Him. What a shame. If it's Jesus’ meal for all of His people, and if we recognize one another as brethren, we must be able to commune together.
This is what continues to baffle me. The Catholics do not think that you are part of His people, and historically Protestants have denied that Catholics are part of His people. There is one tiny minority here, a veritable church-of-one that has asserted his own authority in all these matters, declaring that what he believes and only what he believes are “Jesus’ rules” and that all others are guilty of dividing the Church.
What the Catholics think of the Sacrament is extremely different from what he thinks it is, yet he continues to insist that they are really the same. And amidst all this inane double-talk is the absurd claim that everything he is espousing is really Jesus’ teaching.
Yet Mr. Amos insists, against every rational cue:
…if the priest won’t serve me, I’ll go get in another line, mumbling to myself, “Bullshit. This is not your table, man. This is Jesus’ table.”
One thing here is for sure: it is not your table either, Mr. Amos. The priest who denies you the Sacred Host is merely being faithful to his bishops and to his Church. By your theft of the Host, you are not being faithful to anyone or anything other than your own precepts, which have no place in the history of the Church and no place in Catholic theology.
I do not expect you to become Catholic, or to change your position on the Church, or anything else. But if the Catholic Church does not allow you to receive her Sacraments because you are not Catholic, the absolute very least you could do is show some decency and some respect for the Church. Your ecclesial community probably does not allow its own share of things in its liturgy. I would never dream of showing up to disrupt your worship in any way, or do things contrary to what your sect allows. I may not agree with anything which your sect does, but interfering with another person’s religion is just rude.
Stealing the hosts may make you a progressive in your own mind, but it does nothing to further Church unity. If you want unity in the Church, pray for unity and encourage your bishops to seek dialogue with the Catholic Church. Please do not profane Catholic Sacraments as a means to unity. There are legitimate means to promote unity amongst Christians. This is not one of them.
Cheesehowdy
I love words, but I am extremely lazy and as a kid, rather than lug out the ol' unabridged, I would just invent plausible (only to me!) definitions sometimes.
As a child, for instance, I figured "Pentecost" was short for "Repent at any cost."
Similarly, when I first learned that Eastern Catholics had something called "Cheesefare" Sunday, I assumed it was like Carni-vale, (which I accurately knew meant "so long, meat,") and I decided that kewl word must mean "CHEESE,FAREwell."
Fasting is a worthy spiritual practice, but so are more active penances.
For instance, I have submitted myself to a musical mortification, tomorrow is "Cheesehowdy" Sunday.
Actually, I have an entire month of Velveeta in store.
Just call me Marshall Fields -- give the lady what she wants...
See also, Cheeze in Church
As a child, for instance, I figured "Pentecost" was short for "Repent at any cost."
Similarly, when I first learned that Eastern Catholics had something called "Cheesefare" Sunday, I assumed it was like Carni-vale, (which I accurately knew meant "so long, meat,") and I decided that kewl word must mean "CHEESE,FAREwell."
Fasting is a worthy spiritual practice, but so are more active penances.
For instance, I have submitted myself to a musical mortification, tomorrow is "Cheesehowdy" Sunday.
Actually, I have an entire month of Velveeta in store.
Just call me Marshall Fields -- give the lady what she wants...
See also, Cheeze in Church
A Canadian Music Director at St Peter's
Hmmm... how did I miss this news?
A Canadian bucks tradition to please the Pope
August 2, 2008 ROME -- The Baroque sacristy of St. Peter's Basilica, the Vatican's church, is alive with movement. Vespers, the traditional evening prayer service, is about to begin in the apse behind the papal altar and no one seems quite ready.
Musicians and singers with the venerable St. Peter's Choir hunt for their gowns and music while priests and several archbishops make sure that their own violet, red and white robes are in order. But where is Rev. Pierre Paul? The maestro, or director, of the Music Chapel of St. Peter's is running late, and when he arrives, looking distinctly unpriestly in black jeans and a blue shirt, the hefty cleric is sweating profusely in the church's dank, still air.
"The choir is in good shape," he says. "I'm not. I'm tired."
A moment later, he is a man transformed, clad in violet and purple and charging off to a job that can trace its lineage back 1,400 years to the pope who later became Saint Gregory the Great and founded the Schola Cantorum, the school of ecclesiastical chant.
Today, the first Canadian ever to hold the post has drawn a big audience. Officially appointed in April (though he had already been on the job for a year), he brings fresh appeal to a choir grown tired and undisciplined in recent years. With a chuckle, one priest refers to the old group as the "St. Peter's Screechers," because they were prone to shouting.
Father Paul is attached to traditional music and is a reformer. He is a devotee of the official and pure Gregorian chant - the archconservative [:oP] Pope Benedict XVI would have it no other way - and yet to get the right sound, he is using female singers at vespers on a regular basis for the first time in the choir's history.
The 45-minute performance is rousing. The 38 or so singers - priests, student priests and laymen along with the women, about two-thirds of them Italians, the rest from elsewhere in Europe and Latin America - have strong, full voices.
The small orchestra is flawless, testimony to Father Paul's insistence on regular practices. A minor miracle: Antonio Vivaldi's Magnificat goes off without a hitch, even though the orchestra had played it only once before. Not bad for a man trying to hold down two full-time jobs. "The sound of Father Paul's new choir is an order of magnitude better than the old one," says Donald Smith, who until last month was Canada's ambassador to the Holy See, where he employed the priest as his ecclesiastical counsellor and, on occasion, to entertain at residence parties.
ONE MAN, TWO OCCUPATIONS, 'I LIVE LIKE A CRAZY MAN'
At 50, the maestro is a man possessed with work and usually looks worn for good reason. He says he has the equivalent of two full-time jobs, labours through the evenings, goes to bed at midnight and is up at dawn. "I don't balance either job," he says. "I live like a crazy man."
His other occupation is general secretary of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, a small order that he describes as neither conservative nor liberal ("we're just normal priests"). Founded in 1826, it has members preaching in Africa and makes its home in a pretty villa with a fountain and gardens on the hill behind Trastevere, the medieval Roman neighbourhood south of the Vatican. No doubt his workaholic disposition, along with demands for perfection and discipline from the choir and orchestra, have added to the stress of running the St. Peter's Choir. The choir required an overhaul - new singers, different music, regular practice, revamped music booklets, some of which he designed and printed. "I had to build everything from scratch," he says. "I try to be firm. I request from them some commitment, that we be serious. We do this in the service of God."
But the workload makes him worry about his health. He is overweight, but he has put himself on a diet and rarely drinks alcohol. Once in a while, he has time to take a walk. He is able to truly relax, he says, only on trips home to Quebec, where he visits his parents and sneaks in a few days of trout fishing. He was born in Trois-Rivières in 1958, and he says that "I have had music since I was in the womb." His father, Maurice, 81, is a former provincial bureaucrat, but his mother, Marie-Thérèse, 80, was a travelling opera singer. His aunts and sisters also were musicians and, as a kid, he was something of a musical prodigy. He could listen to a record and then, more or less, replicate it on the piano.
After formal musical training through the Royal Conservatory of Music of Toronto, the young organist became interested in liturgical music and sacred chant.
About the same time, he "felt the call from God," he says, and decided to become a priest. He entered the Diocese of Trois-Rivières in 1976, finished his theology studies in Rome, joined the Oblates, was ordained by Pope John Paul II in 1984 and has yet to leave the Eternal City.
His musical talents were not lost on the Vatican. In the early 1980s, he began collaborating with the Office of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations as an organist and conducted the choir for some papal masses. In 2003, he was appointed music director of the Pontifical North American College in Rome.
In April, 2005, when Pope John Paul died, he was chosen as the musician for the cardinals' secret [:oP] conclave just before they elected Joseph Alois Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. The next morning, Father Paul was the organist and cantor, or liturgical singer, at the new Pope's first mass in the Sistine Chapel.
"That was a great honour for me," he says.
Three years later, the archpriest of St. Peter's, Cardinal Angelo Comastri, appointed him maestro of the St. Peter's Choir. While the Pope had no direct role in the selection process, it's impossible to imagine the Canadian priest would have landed the job unless he were devoted to the purest forms of ecclesiastical music.
"I think the Pope might have known about my music in the basilica," he says, adding that liturgical music is "so important" for the pontiff.
NOT JUST ANY MUSIC, THE CHANT'S THE THING
Indeed, there is no higher art form than ecclesiastical music, as far as the Vatican is concerned. In the early 1960s, the Second Vatican Council highlighted its importance: "The music tradition of the universal church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for pre-eminence is that, as sacred melody united to words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy." I
n 2003, Pope John Paul II wrote a chirograph (a letter to the clergy) on sacred music that singled out Gregorian chant, saying it "has a special place" and was considered by St. Pius X (who was pope from 1903 to 1914) the "supreme model of sacred music."
The church does not know who exactly wrote the original chants named after Saint Gregory, who was pope from 590 to 604, but they are considered special because the text is almost always from sacred scripture. "It's the word of God that has become music," Father Paul says. "It carries the strength of the word of God. Yes, they reach directly into the soul and make me feel closer to God." As far as he can tell from the archives, Father Paul is the 29th maestro to direct the St. Peter's Choir since its modern incarnation, in 1513, under Julius II, the soldier pope who was also one of Rome's great arts patrons. Julius laid the cornerstone of St. Peter's Basilica, employed Michelangelo to pretty up the Sistine Chapel and filled the Vatican with music (the Sistine Chapel Choir, the pope's private choristers, is a separate group, although some of the music is similar).
Father Paul has some hard acts to follow. His predecessors include Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, the celebrated composer and talented practitioner of Renaissance polyphony - music given a rich texture by using two or more melodic voices. He composed very little ecclesiastic music exclusively for male voices even though women couldn't perform it because cantors were considered a type of liturgical minister - and ministers had to be men.
Enter the "castrati" - males castrated before puberty to produce a powerful alto or soprano. They were the rage of the Vatican choirs and Italian opera in the 17th and 18th centuries, but then in 1878, Pope Leo XIII prohibited the hiring of any new ones. According to Angels Against Their Will, a book by German historian Hubert Ortkemper, the last castrato was Alessandro Moreschi, who performed until 1913. Other historians, however, suspect Domenico Mancini, a pontifical singer who performed until 1959, was one as well.
After the castrato era ended, children were used until the 1970s to preserve the soprano and alto voices. Then came choirs composed of fully intact men, with predictably damaging results to the quality of the performances. [:oP] With castration and child labour no longer viable options, Father Paul felt that he had no choice but to recruit women. Regular masses and special services at St. Peter's, such as Christmas and Easter, had used mixed choirs for decades. Vespers first crossed the great divide for Christmas, 2006.
Now, half of the St. Peter's Choir is female, apparently with the Pope's full approval. But the move may have rumpled robes elsewhere in the Vatican. Asked about internal reaction to his bold move, Father Paul bites his tongue. "This I won't answer," he says. "I'll just say that tradition is strong." 'REVIVE THE SPLENDOURS OF THE ROMAN MUSICAL STYLE'
Of course, he isn't the basilica's music man just because he had the fortitude to break the gender barrier in pursuit of quality music. Pope Benedict loves traditional sacred music and Father Paul can deliver it.
Last October, the pontiff reminded the clergy at the basilica that "it is necessary that, beside the tomb of St. Peter, there be a stable community of prayer to guarantee continuity with tradition." When he then mentioned Saint Gregory, his audience realized that continuity of tradition would extend to music too.
Afterward, journalist and author Sandro Magister, whose specialty is religious news, wrote that "Gregorian chant has been restored as the primary form of singing for mass and solemn vespers in St. Peter's Basilica. The rebirth of the Gregorian chant coincided with the appointment of a new choir director." At the time, Father Paul was teaching his new choir, as Mr. Magister put it, "to sing mass and vespers in pure Gregorian chant" in an effort "to revive the splendors of the Roman musical style."
Unofficial adaptations used by previous maestros had been banished because, the maestro says, the chants and other traditional church music, from Palestrina to Vivaldi, represent the highest forms of prayer.
"St. Augustine said, 'He who sings well prays twice,' " he explains.
Eric Reguly is a Rome-based member of The Globe and Mail's European bureau.
A Canadian bucks tradition to please the Pope
August 2, 2008 ROME -- The Baroque sacristy of St. Peter's Basilica, the Vatican's church, is alive with movement. Vespers, the traditional evening prayer service, is about to begin in the apse behind the papal altar and no one seems quite ready.
Musicians and singers with the venerable St. Peter's Choir hunt for their gowns and music while priests and several archbishops make sure that their own violet, red and white robes are in order. But where is Rev. Pierre Paul? The maestro, or director, of the Music Chapel of St. Peter's is running late, and when he arrives, looking distinctly unpriestly in black jeans and a blue shirt, the hefty cleric is sweating profusely in the church's dank, still air.
"The choir is in good shape," he says. "I'm not. I'm tired."
A moment later, he is a man transformed, clad in violet and purple and charging off to a job that can trace its lineage back 1,400 years to the pope who later became Saint Gregory the Great and founded the Schola Cantorum, the school of ecclesiastical chant.
Today, the first Canadian ever to hold the post has drawn a big audience. Officially appointed in April (though he had already been on the job for a year), he brings fresh appeal to a choir grown tired and undisciplined in recent years. With a chuckle, one priest refers to the old group as the "St. Peter's Screechers," because they were prone to shouting.
Father Paul is attached to traditional music and is a reformer. He is a devotee of the official and pure Gregorian chant - the archconservative [:oP] Pope Benedict XVI would have it no other way - and yet to get the right sound, he is using female singers at vespers on a regular basis for the first time in the choir's history.
The 45-minute performance is rousing. The 38 or so singers - priests, student priests and laymen along with the women, about two-thirds of them Italians, the rest from elsewhere in Europe and Latin America - have strong, full voices.
The small orchestra is flawless, testimony to Father Paul's insistence on regular practices. A minor miracle: Antonio Vivaldi's Magnificat goes off without a hitch, even though the orchestra had played it only once before. Not bad for a man trying to hold down two full-time jobs. "The sound of Father Paul's new choir is an order of magnitude better than the old one," says Donald Smith, who until last month was Canada's ambassador to the Holy See, where he employed the priest as his ecclesiastical counsellor and, on occasion, to entertain at residence parties.
ONE MAN, TWO OCCUPATIONS, 'I LIVE LIKE A CRAZY MAN'
At 50, the maestro is a man possessed with work and usually looks worn for good reason. He says he has the equivalent of two full-time jobs, labours through the evenings, goes to bed at midnight and is up at dawn. "I don't balance either job," he says. "I live like a crazy man."
His other occupation is general secretary of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, a small order that he describes as neither conservative nor liberal ("we're just normal priests"). Founded in 1826, it has members preaching in Africa and makes its home in a pretty villa with a fountain and gardens on the hill behind Trastevere, the medieval Roman neighbourhood south of the Vatican. No doubt his workaholic disposition, along with demands for perfection and discipline from the choir and orchestra, have added to the stress of running the St. Peter's Choir. The choir required an overhaul - new singers, different music, regular practice, revamped music booklets, some of which he designed and printed. "I had to build everything from scratch," he says. "I try to be firm. I request from them some commitment, that we be serious. We do this in the service of God."
But the workload makes him worry about his health. He is overweight, but he has put himself on a diet and rarely drinks alcohol. Once in a while, he has time to take a walk. He is able to truly relax, he says, only on trips home to Quebec, where he visits his parents and sneaks in a few days of trout fishing. He was born in Trois-Rivières in 1958, and he says that "I have had music since I was in the womb." His father, Maurice, 81, is a former provincial bureaucrat, but his mother, Marie-Thérèse, 80, was a travelling opera singer. His aunts and sisters also were musicians and, as a kid, he was something of a musical prodigy. He could listen to a record and then, more or less, replicate it on the piano.
After formal musical training through the Royal Conservatory of Music of Toronto, the young organist became interested in liturgical music and sacred chant.
About the same time, he "felt the call from God," he says, and decided to become a priest. He entered the Diocese of Trois-Rivières in 1976, finished his theology studies in Rome, joined the Oblates, was ordained by Pope John Paul II in 1984 and has yet to leave the Eternal City.
His musical talents were not lost on the Vatican. In the early 1980s, he began collaborating with the Office of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations as an organist and conducted the choir for some papal masses. In 2003, he was appointed music director of the Pontifical North American College in Rome.
In April, 2005, when Pope John Paul died, he was chosen as the musician for the cardinals' secret [:oP] conclave just before they elected Joseph Alois Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. The next morning, Father Paul was the organist and cantor, or liturgical singer, at the new Pope's first mass in the Sistine Chapel.
"That was a great honour for me," he says.
Three years later, the archpriest of St. Peter's, Cardinal Angelo Comastri, appointed him maestro of the St. Peter's Choir. While the Pope had no direct role in the selection process, it's impossible to imagine the Canadian priest would have landed the job unless he were devoted to the purest forms of ecclesiastical music.
"I think the Pope might have known about my music in the basilica," he says, adding that liturgical music is "so important" for the pontiff.
NOT JUST ANY MUSIC, THE CHANT'S THE THING
Indeed, there is no higher art form than ecclesiastical music, as far as the Vatican is concerned. In the early 1960s, the Second Vatican Council highlighted its importance: "The music tradition of the universal church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for pre-eminence is that, as sacred melody united to words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy." I
n 2003, Pope John Paul II wrote a chirograph (a letter to the clergy) on sacred music that singled out Gregorian chant, saying it "has a special place" and was considered by St. Pius X (who was pope from 1903 to 1914) the "supreme model of sacred music."
The church does not know who exactly wrote the original chants named after Saint Gregory, who was pope from 590 to 604, but they are considered special because the text is almost always from sacred scripture. "It's the word of God that has become music," Father Paul says. "It carries the strength of the word of God. Yes, they reach directly into the soul and make me feel closer to God." As far as he can tell from the archives, Father Paul is the 29th maestro to direct the St. Peter's Choir since its modern incarnation, in 1513, under Julius II, the soldier pope who was also one of Rome's great arts patrons. Julius laid the cornerstone of St. Peter's Basilica, employed Michelangelo to pretty up the Sistine Chapel and filled the Vatican with music (the Sistine Chapel Choir, the pope's private choristers, is a separate group, although some of the music is similar).
Father Paul has some hard acts to follow. His predecessors include Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, the celebrated composer and talented practitioner of Renaissance polyphony - music given a rich texture by using two or more melodic voices. He composed very little ecclesiastic music exclusively for male voices even though women couldn't perform it because cantors were considered a type of liturgical minister - and ministers had to be men.
Enter the "castrati" - males castrated before puberty to produce a powerful alto or soprano. They were the rage of the Vatican choirs and Italian opera in the 17th and 18th centuries, but then in 1878, Pope Leo XIII prohibited the hiring of any new ones. According to Angels Against Their Will, a book by German historian Hubert Ortkemper, the last castrato was Alessandro Moreschi, who performed until 1913. Other historians, however, suspect Domenico Mancini, a pontifical singer who performed until 1959, was one as well.
After the castrato era ended, children were used until the 1970s to preserve the soprano and alto voices. Then came choirs composed of fully intact men, with predictably damaging results to the quality of the performances. [:oP] With castration and child labour no longer viable options, Father Paul felt that he had no choice but to recruit women. Regular masses and special services at St. Peter's, such as Christmas and Easter, had used mixed choirs for decades. Vespers first crossed the great divide for Christmas, 2006.
Now, half of the St. Peter's Choir is female, apparently with the Pope's full approval. But the move may have rumpled robes elsewhere in the Vatican. Asked about internal reaction to his bold move, Father Paul bites his tongue. "This I won't answer," he says. "I'll just say that tradition is strong." 'REVIVE THE SPLENDOURS OF THE ROMAN MUSICAL STYLE'
Of course, he isn't the basilica's music man just because he had the fortitude to break the gender barrier in pursuit of quality music. Pope Benedict loves traditional sacred music and Father Paul can deliver it.
Last October, the pontiff reminded the clergy at the basilica that "it is necessary that, beside the tomb of St. Peter, there be a stable community of prayer to guarantee continuity with tradition." When he then mentioned Saint Gregory, his audience realized that continuity of tradition would extend to music too.
Afterward, journalist and author Sandro Magister, whose specialty is religious news, wrote that "Gregorian chant has been restored as the primary form of singing for mass and solemn vespers in St. Peter's Basilica. The rebirth of the Gregorian chant coincided with the appointment of a new choir director." At the time, Father Paul was teaching his new choir, as Mr. Magister put it, "to sing mass and vespers in pure Gregorian chant" in an effort "to revive the splendors of the Roman musical style."
Unofficial adaptations used by previous maestros had been banished because, the maestro says, the chants and other traditional church music, from Palestrina to Vivaldi, represent the highest forms of prayer.
"St. Augustine said, 'He who sings well prays twice,' " he explains.
Eric Reguly is a Rome-based member of The Globe and Mail's European bureau.
More at home...
We will be moving sometime, soonish or laterish..
Looking for something else, I keep coming back to this essay by the late great Dietrich Hildebrand.
Presenting the Case for the OF by way of ACTUALLY Making the Case for the EF, (neither of which terms existed at the time of the article's writing)
I feel I must reiterate, I'm not primarily interested in the EF -- but in some circumstances, that is really the only choice one has. As I've posted before, I apparently don't have rightful aspirations to a well conducted, reverent OF, that respects the sacredness of the activities and the space and the purpose, or at least none that need be answered by anyone in charge...
Most of TcurrentPTB, at least at the middle-management level that really drives the engine, has no interest in steering a middle course, that is, Reform of the Reform, leaving the reverent with no recourse but to join the Trad team.
(Why no "common ground?" Where is Cdl Bernardin when you need him?;o))
In the past the faithful attended mass in personal isolation, each worshipper making his private devotions, or at best following the proceedings in his missal. Today the faithful can grasp the social character of the celebration; they are learning to appreciate it as a community meal. Formerly, the priest mumbled in a dead language, which created a barrier between priest and people. Now everyone speaks in English, which tends to unite priest and people with one another. In the past the priest said mass with his back to the people, which created the mood of an esoteric rite. Today, because the priest faces the people, the mass is a more fraternal occasion. In the past the priest intoned strange medieval chants. Today the entire assembly sings songs with easy tunes and familiar lyrics, and is even experimenting with folk music. The case for the new mass, then, comes down to this: it is making the faithful more at home in the house of God. [emphasis mine]
Today, this seeking of domestic comfort was on display at a funeral... not my parish, I was just a hired gun.
Music choices less than ideal, but we managed to make the B'way anthem sound plausibly sacred.
No, that wasn't the problem.
The hearse driver and I had a very heart-felt conversation during one of the acts (after the magician, before the trained poodles?)
When Himself and I were on the road we became astonished at the variety of situation in which one could find oneself, at the sheer number of variables in apartment living whihc had never occurred to either of us before.
We were compiling quite a list of things to take into consideration when we settled in one place on a long-term basis (all of which became moot when we became homeowners instead.)
Anyway, the hearse driver agreed with my idea that before registering in a new parish one could ask simply what the parish practice and policy was on eulogies at funerals.
It would tell you most of what you need to know...
Today we sat through a long one, full of jokes and poetry and heartfelt testimonials, by someone who very pointedly "worked the crowd," finally ambling up into the sanctuary, with nary an indication that he realized it was sacred space, or even what an altar or tabernacle are; who hitched up his trousers and leaned one elbow on the ambo to deliver the rest of his monologue.
Yes, I think I'd want to know the answer to that before either registering or seeking employment at a Catholic Church.
Looking for something else, I keep coming back to this essay by the late great Dietrich Hildebrand.
Presenting the Case for the OF by way of ACTUALLY Making the Case for the EF, (neither of which terms existed at the time of the article's writing)
I feel I must reiterate, I'm not primarily interested in the EF -- but in some circumstances, that is really the only choice one has. As I've posted before, I apparently don't have rightful aspirations to a well conducted, reverent OF, that respects the sacredness of the activities and the space and the purpose, or at least none that need be answered by anyone in charge...
Most of TcurrentPTB, at least at the middle-management level that really drives the engine, has no interest in steering a middle course, that is, Reform of the Reform, leaving the reverent with no recourse but to join the Trad team.
(Why no "common ground?" Where is Cdl Bernardin when you need him?;o))
In the past the faithful attended mass in personal isolation, each worshipper making his private devotions, or at best following the proceedings in his missal. Today the faithful can grasp the social character of the celebration; they are learning to appreciate it as a community meal. Formerly, the priest mumbled in a dead language, which created a barrier between priest and people. Now everyone speaks in English, which tends to unite priest and people with one another. In the past the priest said mass with his back to the people, which created the mood of an esoteric rite. Today, because the priest faces the people, the mass is a more fraternal occasion. In the past the priest intoned strange medieval chants. Today the entire assembly sings songs with easy tunes and familiar lyrics, and is even experimenting with folk music. The case for the new mass, then, comes down to this: it is making the faithful more at home in the house of God. [emphasis mine]
Today, this seeking of domestic comfort was on display at a funeral... not my parish, I was just a hired gun.
Music choices less than ideal, but we managed to make the B'way anthem sound plausibly sacred.
No, that wasn't the problem.
The hearse driver and I had a very heart-felt conversation during one of the acts (after the magician, before the trained poodles?)
When Himself and I were on the road we became astonished at the variety of situation in which one could find oneself, at the sheer number of variables in apartment living whihc had never occurred to either of us before.
We were compiling quite a list of things to take into consideration when we settled in one place on a long-term basis (all of which became moot when we became homeowners instead.)
Anyway, the hearse driver agreed with my idea that before registering in a new parish one could ask simply what the parish practice and policy was on eulogies at funerals.
It would tell you most of what you need to know...
Today we sat through a long one, full of jokes and poetry and heartfelt testimonials, by someone who very pointedly "worked the crowd," finally ambling up into the sanctuary, with nary an indication that he realized it was sacred space, or even what an altar or tabernacle are; who hitched up his trousers and leaned one elbow on the ambo to deliver the rest of his monologue.
Yes, I think I'd want to know the answer to that before either registering or seeking employment at a Catholic Church.
Metanoia
Okay, you want to know one of the things I really hate? That I can NEVER remember how to spell any Greek words.
And spellcheck is of course useless, for metanoia it suggests Melania, Smetana, mania,
melanoma, Metamora, metazoan, metabolic.... well, let us just say a "turning."
Fr. Hunwicke believes Cdl. Kasper has experienced a conversion.
Kasper Converted
After all those years in which the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity refused to take any interest in us because they thought it was so important to snuggle up instead to the gloomy Protestant tyranny that constitutes official Anglicanism, at last the said tyrants have shot themselves in the foot and made it impossible even for the rose-tinted spectacles of PCCU to ignore their true nature. Whoopee. Now even Walter realises that he will have to talk to us. And there's another bonus: the last paragraph of his Lambeth paper acknowledges (fudging this one is now apparently over) that the Catholic Anglican Movement constitutes the one thing that is worth saving in the decaying morass which is Anglicanism. Double Whoopee. And, best of all, he says that 'the ordination of women to the episcopate effectively and definitively blocks a possible recognition of Anglican Orders'. This implies that for discrete fragments of the Anglican community which refuse such innovations, such a 'recognition' is now 'possible'.
In the grim aftermath of the General Synod vote it seemed that all was lost. Now it appears that by their overreaching misjudgement the idiots might actually have given us what we have always pined for: dialogue with Rome uncluttered by de facto vetoes from heterodox factions within Anglicanism.
Isn't the Grace of God wonderful? [emphasis mine] Let us pray that it keeps them befuddled: the last thing we would want now is some sort of drawing-back at the February Synod. And that we have the courage to grab this one and run with it.
And another of his posts, in all its sarcastic glory, in its entireity,:
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2008/08/double-thumping.html
A Double Thumping
For so long, we wondered why Rome was so blind to the truth about official Anglicanism; why they pretended that ARCIC was going to produce something really bankable. Now we have Cardinal Dias telling our Establishment that they're the spiritual and ecclesial equivalents of sufferers from Altzheimer's and Parkinson's; and Mr Nice himself, Cardinal Kasper, saying 'Apart from sending you cards at Christmas, we've given up on you'.
Mind you, some deaf never hear. I wonder how long it will be before Anglican heresiarchs resume their two ancestral mantras: (1) 'Rome doesn't really mean that dialogue is at an end'; and (2) ' Of course, the next pope but one ...'
And spellcheck is of course useless, for metanoia it suggests Melania, Smetana, mania,
melanoma, Metamora, metazoan, metabolic.... well, let us just say a "turning."
Fr. Hunwicke believes Cdl. Kasper has experienced a conversion.
Kasper Converted
After all those years in which the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity refused to take any interest in us because they thought it was so important to snuggle up instead to the gloomy Protestant tyranny that constitutes official Anglicanism, at last the said tyrants have shot themselves in the foot and made it impossible even for the rose-tinted spectacles of PCCU to ignore their true nature. Whoopee. Now even Walter realises that he will have to talk to us. And there's another bonus: the last paragraph of his Lambeth paper acknowledges (fudging this one is now apparently over) that the Catholic Anglican Movement constitutes the one thing that is worth saving in the decaying morass which is Anglicanism. Double Whoopee. And, best of all, he says that 'the ordination of women to the episcopate effectively and definitively blocks a possible recognition of Anglican Orders'. This implies that for discrete fragments of the Anglican community which refuse such innovations, such a 'recognition' is now 'possible'.
In the grim aftermath of the General Synod vote it seemed that all was lost. Now it appears that by their overreaching misjudgement the idiots might actually have given us what we have always pined for: dialogue with Rome uncluttered by de facto vetoes from heterodox factions within Anglicanism.
Isn't the Grace of God wonderful? [emphasis mine] Let us pray that it keeps them befuddled: the last thing we would want now is some sort of drawing-back at the February Synod. And that we have the courage to grab this one and run with it.
And another of his posts, in all its sarcastic glory, in its entireity,:
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2008/08/double-thumping.html
A Double Thumping
For so long, we wondered why Rome was so blind to the truth about official Anglicanism; why they pretended that ARCIC was going to produce something really bankable. Now we have Cardinal Dias telling our Establishment that they're the spiritual and ecclesial equivalents of sufferers from Altzheimer's and Parkinson's; and Mr Nice himself, Cardinal Kasper, saying 'Apart from sending you cards at Christmas, we've given up on you'.
Mind you, some deaf never hear. I wonder how long it will be before Anglican heresiarchs resume their two ancestral mantras: (1) 'Rome doesn't really mean that dialogue is at an end'; and (2) ' Of course, the next pope but one ...'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)