Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...

Showing posts with label Our elder brothers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Our elder brothers. Show all posts

Saturday, 19 December 2015

Plugging Away at This Churchy, Faithy Thing

I hope I do no wrong when I tell my Sunday School kids that Advent is kinda like the Church's time to be Old Testament people, to know what it was like for the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve, B.(efore) C.(hrist)- waiting, longing, hoping, thirsting, begging for Him who was foretold to get here already!

I do enough complaining about it that I also need to praise, sometimes the lectionary, the choices made by its fabricators are incredibly powerful and perfect.

How many times have I read this, how many times have I PROCLAIMED the readings for this Sunday, and how have I never noticed this before?
He shall take His place as shepherd
by the strength of the Lord,
by the majestic name of the Lord, His God;
And they shall dwell securely, for now His greatness
shall reach to the ends of the earth:
He shall be peace.
Not, He will bring peace, or there will be peace in His time -- He will BE peace.

Peace Incarnate.
As He is Love incarnate, Mercy incarnate, and yes, Justice incarnate... PEACE INCARNATE.

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus

Thursday, 10 December 2015

"Ut duo sint"?

A Catholic/Jewish panel in Rome has issued a statement.

Par for the course from the Vatican nowadays, clear as mud and flexible enough to support 'most any position already held by anyone.

The secular press, (and, true, the portions of the Catholic media less given to precision in reportage than I might like,) ,) is therefore to be forgiven for stating flatly that "the Vatican says".. Catholics "should not try to convert" the Jewish people.

The document is far more equivocal and far less authoritative that NPR et al would have it be, but hard as any German bishop or rabbi might wish, it does not really say quite that.

Rather than actually proscriptively banning such evangelization, the doc, (which clear states of itself that it is "not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching" of the Church, descriptively  says how things are at the present time, that the Church "neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews," and it "is not a matter of missionary efforts to convert Jews" which is "a very delicate and sensitive matter," and "must be presented correctly."
The Jewish people are unique, unlike any other non-Christians, occupying a special and privileged place.
BUT, the Church's members are "nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews," since She believes in the "universality of salvation in Jesus Christ," She "cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah," and yeah, sure, the "figure of Jesus thus is and remains for Jews the ‘stumbling block’", and the Old Testament is meaningless for Christians unless interpreted through the "key" of Jesus Christ, who is the "cornerstone" of the faith.
"Jesus Christ is the universal mediator of salvation,...there is no other."

Oh, and yeah, forced conversions and violence and antisemitism are bad and soup kitchens are good.
What was that commission Christ gave his disciples? and how did He pray to the Father?

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, except the Jews, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching everyone, oh, but like I said before, leave the Jewish people out of it, to observe all that I have commanded you." 
"I pray that they may all be one, but, You know, with the usual exceptions, as You, Father, are in me and I in you... but now that I think of it, You and I are one but We're also kind of two, so yeah, like that, I pray that they all may be two...."
Image result for jesus giving the great commission
.... said Jesus NEVER. 


Thursday, 22 October 2015

Rick Gladstone Unfairly Attacked Over NYTimes Article

Seriously, this is the paragraph in which Gladstone supposedly "veers off the mark" according to Thomas McDonald?
The question, which many books and scholarly treatises have never definitively answered, is whether the 37-acre site, home to Islam’s sacred Dome of the Rock shrine and Al Aqsa Mosque, was also the precise location of two ancient Jewish temples, one built on the remains of the other, and both long since gone.
It is unimpeachable!
Many books and scholarly treatises HAVE failed to answer it definitively.
For instance -
The Book of God, by Walter Wangerin
Gone With the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell
The Fortunes of Casanova, by Rafael Sabatini
The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, by... well you get the picture.

Those are just the ones I can see on my husband's shelf from where I'm sitting.

He has one of those kindling gadgets, so-called, I gather, because they allow you to burn your old books? (so the ones I mentioned may not be long for this world.)

He has dozens, if not hundreds of books on it, and I daresay none of them definitively answer the question of where the Temples were definitely.

So there.

The Times triumphs again!

As to the notion that the Muslim claim to the location pre-dates the Jewish one?

If Buraq could fly, I see no reason that he, (Buraq is a male horsey humany birdy creature, I believe,) couldn't time travel as well, so even though Muhammad was not born until around 570 A.D., that's not to say that on the Night Journey, even though said journey began and ended on an evening in 621 A.D., he couldn't have found his way to a point in time prior to 832 B.C., before Solomon's Temple was even a glint in its architect's eye.

(There, Mrs. Premise, I've run rings around you logically....)
Have I ever mentioned that I live with a man who is addicted to time travel stories?

Thursday, 23 July 2015

The Most Beautiful Idea in the History of Civilization

Himself is a Knight, and receives the KofC magazine, "Columbia" by snail mail.
I don't think he ever reads it, but when he gives it to me I scan through, usually find one or two things I want to read, and usually also a number of images to tear out for use in collages, etc. with CCD.

This,  an address given at the Vatican last year at a conference on “The Complementarity of Man and Woman,” by Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, is well worth your time.

Rabbi Sacks biog profile.jpg
I want to begin our conversation by telling the story of the most beautiful idea in the history of civilization: the idea of the love that brings new life into the world....
When we consider, even in the animal kingdom, how much effort and energy the coming together of male and female takes, in terms of displays, courtship rituals, rivalries and violence, it is astonishing that sexual reproduction ever happened at all. Biologists are still not quite sure why it did....
Since [homo sapiens] stood upright, which constricted the female pelvis, and we had bigger brains, which meant larger heads, human babies had to be born more prematurely, and so needed parental protection for much longer. This made parenting more demanding, the work of two people rather than one. Among most primates, fathers don’t even recognize their children, let alone care for them. Elsewhere in the animal kingdom motherhood is almost universal but fatherhood is rare.
So what emerged along with the human person was the union of the biological mother and father to care for their child...
The most obvious expression of power among alpha males, whether human or primate, is to dominate access to fertile women and thus maximize the passing on of your genes to the next generation. Hence polygamy, which exists in 95 percent of mammal species and 75 percent of cultures known to anthropology.[???!?!??? did not know that]
That is what makes the first chapter of Genesis so revolutionary with its statement that every human being, regardless of race, culture, creed or class is created in the image and likeness of God. We know that in the ancient world it was kings, emperors and pharaohs who were held to be in the image of God. So Genesis is saying that we are all royalty. We each have equal dignity in the kingdom of faith under the sovereignty of God....
there is a deep connection between monotheism and monogamy, just as there is, in the opposite direction, between idolatry and adultery. ...
it is normally the case that the values of a society are those imposed on it by the ruling class. And the ruling class in any hierarchical society stands to gain from promiscuity and polygamy, both of which multiply the chances of one’s genes being handed on to the next generation. So monogamy goes against the normal grain of social change and was a real triumph for the equal dignity of all....
What was new and remarkable in the Hebrew Bible was the idea that love, not just fairness, is the driving principle of the moral life. Three loves. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your might.” “Love your neighbor as yourself.” And, repeated no less than 36 times in the Mosaic books, “Love the stranger because you know what it feels like to be a stranger.” [emphasis supplied] Or to put it another way: just as God created the natural world in love and forgiveness, so we are charged with creating the social world in love and forgiveness. And that love is a flame lit in marriage and the family. Morality is the love between husband and wife, parent and child, extended outward to the world.
Powerful, powerful stuff.

"Does God Want Everyone to Be Catholic?"

Excellent piece by John Martignoni.
The title says it all.
I'm only a little surprised, and maybe disappointed, that he does not go into the matter of God's Chosen People, and whether God wants them to come to know the fullness of truth.
(I have know, and known of, many, many Catholic who hold that since VC II, the Church understands that the Jewish people are not called to conversion to the Faith, moreover, that it is wrong of Catholics to try to bring them to it.)
I have a question that I quite often ask Catholics, and judging by the responses I get when I ask, the vast majority of Catholics have never before thought about this question, or their answer to it.  That question is: Does God want everyone to be Catholic?  I am willing to bet, for many of you reading this, that question has never entered your mind. But it needs to, because it is such an important question. The answer to that question will determine a lot in regard to how you respond to the calls of the recent popes, including Pope Francis, for evangelization....
The truth matters, and we need to respond accordingly.... 
Whether your answer is, “Yes,” or “No,” it requires something of you.[emphasis added]

Friday, 27 March 2015

The Way of the Cross

My parish has a booklet used for Stations, published and granted an imprimatur well after Nostra aetate was promulgated, in the '80s, in fact.
The narrative it presents is that, okay, yeah,  Pilate was in there somewhere, but the Jews were responsible for... well, pretty much everything in the crucifixion, right down to hammering in the nails. It doesn't say that, but the illustrations, of the ugly flat missallette circa 1975 style are filled with members of the Sanhedrin, but nary a centurion in sight.

shudder

The Scriptural Stations booklet offered by the USCCB doesn't do anything for me either.
I will not criticize the artwork as it is par of a youth projected, (sponsored by the much beloved Catholic Campaign for Human Development,) but I find it distracting. Not as distracting as the duelling stabat mater tunes heard in our pews, but distracting, too distracting to pray with.

I can hear my Aunt saying, offer it up, but offer what? my distraction?

Better to carry out the devotion some other time, even some other place.

Thursday, 29 April 2010

Would non-Catholics, non-Christians, Atheists -- would they be better off without the Catholic Church?

Even some who express profound difficulties with Her would say not:

"For all the difficulties Jews have with the churches --- and they are profound and possibly insoluble ---- if Christianity were to disappear from Britain and Europe, the basis of western civilisation would crumble, and our precious liberties and toleration would vanish with it.

Indeed, they are already diminishing under the current onslaught upon Christianity from illiberal and intolerant secular fanatics."

Wednesday, 23 September 2009

"How to Pray"

A very long piece in the New York Times Magazine by Zev Chafets explores The Way We Pray Now.
(Because our relationship to God is different than in other places and than at other times in the past 200 years? No, I'm just snarking at the Times's "Way We Live Now, Way We Spend Now, Way We Think Now, Way We News Now"-speak)

As to validity, I can only comment on his comments on, and quotes from those involved in Catholic prayer.
I know that it is virtually impossible -- despite the gotcha style of many writers, bloggers (no, I'm not going to link to anyone, even the most egregious polemicist or snarker on either, or should I say "any?", of the Seamless Garment's fringes,) , etc. who speak and act as if it is -- to make sweeping generalizations about the "progressives", or the "traditionalists", or the "VCII generation", or the "Reform of the Reform crowd", or the"JP II priests"... the members of the Body, of the OHC & A form a continuum.
That said, despite the Here Comes Everybody character of the Church, I think I have discerned a flaw, or at least, a contradiction in the thinking of .... okay, not a wing, (does the Body of Christ have wings?) but a moderately cohesive chunk of the Church.
“People once learned to pray from priests and ministers and rabbis,” Liz Ellmann, executive director of Spiritual Directors International, told me.... “A lot of people today don’t have that training,” Ellman said, referring to traditional prayer. “They want to learn how to pray, but they feel awkward in a house of worship.”...

Once it was all simple. Catholics prayed in Latin for salvation in words and ceremonies dictated by the One True Church in Rome. Protestants prayed in fancy English for the expiation of sin and a place in a decorous heaven. Jews prayed in Hebrew to the One God who had inexplicably chosen us for a private destiny and saddled us with commandments.

And then, in the time it took to go from Frank Sinatra to the Beatles, these ancient taboos and walls began to crash. Prayer changed, too. For Catholics, the key event was the Second Vatican Council. “Vatican II was a course correction when it came to Catholic prayer,” says ...a professor of theology who is old enough to have personally experienced the change. “Emphasis shifted to the centrality of the Bible for Catholic prayer.”

Part of this populist shift involved better exposing laypeople to a centuries-old method of Biblical exegesis and meditation called
lectio divina...

“Priests and women religious have always been taught to do this, but Vatican II called for ‘full and active participation’ by all Catholics. Part of that was praying in the vernacular. Another part was introducing
lectio divina to laypeople.” After Vatican II the practice became widespread among the laity.

Catholic prayer has not only become more accessible to the laity, it seems; it has also become more private and personal. [One Sister of Mercy says] “Women religious have been very active in promoting deeper contemplative, mystical prayer. Until Vatican II, that was reserved for the very few. Now it is becoming the ordinary expectation for people with a regular prayer life.”

... the Eucharist remains the defining source of Catholic spirituality, but that you can have authentic spiritual experiences not mediated by ritual. “Most people don’t live in churches. And these days, most laypeople tend to do more contemplative prayer and less confession. The sacrament of penance has radically diminished since Vatican II.” .... There is a renewed popularity to the mystical component of prayer, and it is found especially in the retreat movement.

What I think I am reading in this and in much else recently, (please correct me or tell me what you think I am missing here,) as a brave front is put on in the face of incontrovertible bad news, a de facto embracing of the smaller, purer, (leaner, meaner?) Church that Benedict is, unjustly I believe, often accused of working toward, of wanting.
I say "unjustly" because while it is true that the Holy Father undoubtedly longs for a purer, more faithful Church, I think it certain that he views the loss of any members, any souls from the Body of Christ as deeply tragic collateral damage, not an aim in itself.
Just because he is not willing to scamper after those who reject Hard Sayings, (how does that go in John,"No, no guys, come back! I didn't mean it, it's just a METAPHOR!"?) doesn't mean he doesn't mourn every single lost sheep, and i think he has proved that with his efforts at reconciliation on all sides.

But it seems to me that some of the same people who decry the Pope's supposed eagerness to jettison the heterodox as if they were dead weight, (which I do not concede for a moment that he is,) try to make lemonade of the lemons of the hemorrhaging of the actively, (actuosa?) practicing that has beset the Church in the last few decades.

How else to explain obviously intelligent people claiming:
“Vatican II was a course correction when it came to Catholic prayer...Emphasis shifted to the centrality of the Bible for Catholic prayer.”

It is wishful thinking to pretend that the emphasis in prayer, in practice, as opposed to theory,) went anywhere other than to... well, to not praying.

And what evidence is there of this:
"Part of this populist shift involved better exposing laypeople to a centuries-old method of Biblical exegesis and meditation called lectio divina... After Vatican II the practice became widespread among the laity."

"Widespread"?????
No
practice of prayer or worship or study became "widespread" among the Catholic laity in the wake of Vatican II, and most good practices that had previously been widespread became more unusual.

And finally, “Women religious have been very active in promoting deeper contemplative, mystical prayer. Until Vatican II, that was reserved for the very few. Now it is becoming the ordinary expectation for people with a regular prayer life.”

I would posit that a mystical experience of prayer may actually less common now, less sought after by ordinary Catholics in the wake of vigorous attempts to de-mystify liturgical prayer, to denigrate the supernatural aspects of the Faith, and to discourage the private prayer and devotions that were most liable to lead to a transcendent experience of communicating with the Almighty and the blessed who already enjoy the Beatific Vision full-time.
...................

Oh, and a complete tangent, but can I just say all men have more in common than we sometimes think we have?
“Evangelical Christians, Pentecostals, they go to church to pray,” [Rabbi] Gellman went on to say. “Why else would they be there? But Jews are different. People come to temple to identify with other Jews, or socialize. The writer Harry Golden once asked his father, who was an atheist, why he went to services every Saturday. The old man told him, ‘My friend Garfinkle goes to talk to God, and I go to talk to Garfinkle.’ There’s a lot of that.”

“At least they come,” I said.

“Sure. But when you have a large percentage at a religious service who aren’t actually praying, it dilutes the quality of the entire experience.”

“Like subprime mortgages on a bank’s balance sheet,” I said. “Toxic Jews.”....
“I think it’s important to use Hebrew, saying the traditional words, even if you don’t exactly know their meaning,” he said.

“Praying in English is like kissing through a veil,” one of the young assistants said.

“In the old days,” [another Rabbi] said, “cantors made the women cry. Now they just want to do performance pieces. And congregational singalongs aren’t the Jewish way of praying. Our prayers are meant to be chanted rhythmically.”

..................
Oh, and one other thing -- prooftexting from a reader-commentor?
For the Christians of the world, I believe some fellow named Jesus of Nazereth left pretty explicit instructions on how to go about praying in Matthew 6:5-13:
1. Don't make a public show of it. Do it privately. It's between you and God.
2. Keep it short and pretty simple.
3. Focus on what God wants, not what you want.
Hmmm...
I'm pretty sure that same Fellow suggested that people gather in His Name, because where they did, you know, in groups of "two or more"...?

It is good to remember, the OHC & A Church? It is a Church of "both/and."

Thursday, 17 September 2009

The Pope will Visit the Synagogue in Rome

According to the Global News Service of the Jewish People, Benedict, in his Rosh Hashanah greetings to the Jews of Rome, said he would visit the main synagogue in Rome after the High Holy Days.

The comments at the linked site are pretty funny.

Collections only once a year?????

Thursday, 16 July 2009

New Flash: people think what they believe is correct!

And that even goes for Catholics, at least those who actually believe Catholicism, that what they hold to be the Truth is, well..... true.
And moreover, that it is, by virtue of being true, good for all people to know.
I missed this during my liturgical music marathon:

In the latest show of tensions between Catholic and Jewish leaders, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has issued a critical statement about a document released by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). ADL president Abraham Foxman said that the bishops' statement might be considered "unacceptable."

Unacceptable to whom?

In their statement, released without fanfare at the close of their meeting last week, the American bishops corrected several defects in an earlier statement, Reflections on Covenant and Mission, which had been produced as a joint product of Catholic and Jewish authors in 2002....

In a sense it goes without saying that some Catholic teachings will be "unacceptable" to Jews. After all, if a Jew accepts all of the teachings of the Church, he becomes a convert to Catholicism. And conversion is precisely the question on which the latest tensions arise.

The ADL criticism of the new USCCB document centers on the idea that in undertaking religious dialogue with Jewish counterparts, Catholics do not entirely renounce the hope that their Jewish partners in this dialogue might come to recognize the truth of the Catholic faith. The 2002 document had conveyed the impression that there is no reason for a Jew to be baptized into the Church. The new USCCB document notes that this earlier text "could lead some to conclude mistakenly that Jews have an obligation not to become Christian and that the Church has a corresponding obligation not to baptize Jews."

"This is an objectionable understanding of Jewish-Catholic relations," announces the ADL in its complaint. The ADL press release continues:

The League called on the Bishops Conference to reaffirm the sentence from the original document that states that interfaith dialogue with Jews is devoid of any intention whatsoever to invite the dialogue partner to baptism.

The US bishops cannot possibly provide the reassurance that the ADL wants; to do so would be to renounce the mission entrusted to the Church by Christ Himself: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."[emphasis supplied]

If Catholics believe that theirs is the one true faith, that the Church founded by Christ is the conduit of all grace and the instrument of salvation, it would be heartless to deny their Jewish interlocutors an opportunity to enter that Church and enjoy the full fruits of Christ's redemptive work. On the other hand if the Catholics engaged in inter-religious dialogue do not believe that the Church is the one true faith and the way to salvation, then they are not giving their Jewish partners an accurate understanding of Catholic teaching.

So we are left between a rock and a hard place. To render Church teachings accurately means running the risk that those teachings might give offense. To water down those teachings is to prevent genuine inter-religious understanding-- and to insult one's partners in dialogue.

Fortunately there is a way out of this quandary. Anyone who enters into inter-religious dialogue in a spirit of goodwill must come to the table prepared to accept the likelihood that his partners will make some statements that he finds theologically objectionable. The whole pupose of the inter-religious enterprise is to go beyond the hurling of mutual anathemas, to assume the goodwill of other parties in spite of serious differences, and to search for common ground beyond those disputes.

To put it differently, inter-religious dialogue presumes that neither party will attempt to cajole or browbeat the other into a change in religious beliefs. Jewish participants may want assurances that the dialogue is not merely a pretext for an attempt at conversion; Catholics are quite ready to give that assurance. In return, Jewish leaders should realize that Catholics cannot alter established Church doctrine simply to ease the tensions that are inevitable in this dialogue.

Umm... yes.

From the more recent of the two Catholic documents, a presumably authoitative one (as opposed to the last one put together by some consutlants and not issued authoritatively and yet passed off as such -- remind you of anything?)

Reflections on Covenant and Mission provides a clear acknowledgment of the relationship
established by God with Israel prior to Jesus Christ. This acknowledgment needs to be
accompanied, however, by a clear affirmation of the Church's belief that Jesus Christ in himself
fulfills God’s revelation begun with Abraham and that proclaiming this good news to all the
world is at the heart of her mission. Reflections on Covenant and Mission, however, lacks such
an affirmation and thus presents a diminished notion of evangelization....

Reflections on Covenant and Mission maintains that a definition of evangelization as the
"invitation to a commitment of faith in Jesus Christ and to entry through baptism into the
community of believers which is the Church" is a "very narrow construal" of her mission. In its
effort to present a broader and fuller conception of evangelization, however, the document
develops a vision of it in which the core elements of proclamation and invitation to life in Christ
seem virtually to disappear....

we also believe that the fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all God's promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ. [emphasis supplied]

Imagine that....

Monday, 6 April 2009

A Baptist Re-Discovers Liturgical Worship

I found this opinion piece, (in a secular paper? I'm assuming; the Sentinel, I'll check on it later,) very interesting.
First off, that the church leaders asked non-musician, non-artists to be part of an “'Inspiring Worship Services' team, a group meant to brainstorm ways of developing and ultimately bettering the worship services."

Good. (although I am sick unto death of organizational jargon -- at least they weren't the "Inspiring Worship Services Teams Motivational Core Member Leaders for Ongoing Spiritual Growth...")

Second off, that that surprised the non-musician, non-artists because, I guess, they thought that making musical artistic decisions would be a major part of their brief.

Bad.

But these people took their invitation to serve as an opportunity to inform themselves about what worship entails, what it means, what it should mean, and what it entails; and the 6 models of worship Elmer Town identifies:
1. Evangelistic (winning the lost)
2. Expositional (teaching the Bible),
3. Renewal (excitement and revival)
4. Body-life (fellowship, relationships and small groups)
5. Liturgical (serving and glorifying God through liturgy)
6. Congregational (worship expressed by the church members)
The author has this to say:
While congregational worship alone can fulfill the needs of some churches, other churches may fall into the trap of singing the same hymns and popular praise songs over and over, never integrating other styles of worship such as teaching the Bible, providing fellowship with one another and, most importantly, glorifying God. [emphasis supplied]
Isn't it odd that at a time when so many Catholics are losing their way, forgetting the actual purpose of what we do on Sunday mornings, others may rediscover it?

And there is another irony. The then-Cardinal Ratzinger in Spirit of the Liturgy provides beautiful exegesis on the derivation of the Mass from the worship of the people of the Old Covenant.

At a time when greater sensitivity to Christianity's Jewish roots is a stated goal, a greater openess to what the Old Testament has to teach us, how can some be so contemptuous of the Law, so tied to the notion that "God doesn't care about that!" whenever anyone suggests that some standards in liturgy , (of dress, reverence, music, behavior, conscientiousness regarding rubrics,) are not an altogether bad thing?

Monday, 9 February 2009

Cause and Effect

So, after all the denials, and leaks, and contradictions, even the Old Grey Lady says it is so, Richard Williamson is no longer rector of the SSPX seminary.
Does anyone truly believe the SSPX would have seen fit to distance itself from even the whiff of racism and hatred, (and I do NOT accept the nonsensical stance that to question the magnitude of the slaughter or the measures employed by the Nazi's in their attempted extermination of Jews, -- as well Gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs, of course, -- constitutes either "holocaust-denial" or "anti-semitism,) had the Holy Father not bravely and without care for the beating he would take in the regard of men, lifted the excommunications?

Whatever the confusion, hurt or finger-pointing expressed by various curial voices, I have no doubt whatsoever that this all played out as Benedict pretty much knew it would, and knew it must, and knew it would have regardless of any prior attempts at spin, PR or damage control.

Those who would use any stick to thrash the Body of Christ and its Vicar would have done so in any case, and by allowing the news of the lifting of the excommunications to be released with virtually no explanation it allowed them to "... scream and shout, wave the arms and run about," and, their tantrum having exhausted them, the grown-ups were able to continue the converstion.

Last week’s statement by the Secretariat of State seemed to repair relations with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which plans to continue its dialogue with the Vatican, said its director general, Oded Wiener. The body had asked to postpone a March meeting with the Vatican in protest.

Thursday, 18 September 2008

Music as a means of promoting identity

From the Jerusalem Post .

Wednesday, 17 September 2008, 15:00 CDT

By RUTHIE BLUM LEIBOWITZ

'While 'Hatikva' may not the greatest piece of music," says Zamir Chorale Foundation founder and director Matthew (Mati) Lazar, "the power one feels singing it is undeniable."

The long-time conductor and ardent Zionist goes on to ask rhetorically: "Who else but our people would have their national anthem in a minor key?"

Here last month to conduct members of his Zamir Chorale and Shirah Choir, as well as a large group of individual singers from across the United States in performances marking "Israel@60" (after selling out Carnegie Hall earlier this year in a similar birthday celebration), Lazar, also 60, explains the impetus for and philosophy behind this part of his life's work - connecting Jews to their heritage through choral music.

"Choral music - like our history - is all about the texts," he says. "And ultimately, our singing is all about education through entertainment."

To illustrate, he points to the Pessah song "Had Gadya" - the ancient Aramaic-Hebrew precursor to children's favorites, "There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly."

"Everyone's singing cheerfully about how God's creatures are killing each other off," he says, laughing. "It's a history lesson."

Speaking of which, Lazar's own history is the stuff of a Herman Wouk novel - self-described as the "hoch [ultimate] Jewish experience of the 1950s."

Raised in Brooklyn's Borough Park neighborhood by amateur musician parents - his father (born Lazerovitch) was a pianist and his mother a singer - "The highlight of our week was Shabbat, when we'd go to shul to hear Moshe or Dovid Koussevitzky, arguably the greatest cantors of the time. Then, on Saturday night, after havdala, my older sister and I would sit on opposite leaves of our baby grand piano, while my father would play and my mother would sing through all of Schubert's song cycles and then the operettas of Gilbert and Sullivan. When we finished that, we would watch Sid Caesar's Your Show of Shows."

This kind of eclectic musical seasoning may have something to do with the fact that Lazar - who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan with his wife, Vivian, an alto in the Zamir Chorale and director of the foundation's teen program, HaZamir: the International High School Choir - was also a product of the late '60s and early '70s generation. He's even got a rock group in his past to show for it - "the first Hebrew-singing one in America."

Called "Tayku," the band, Lazar reminisces, "was an outgrowth of my musical collaborations with friends, all of whom sang with me in the original Zamir Chorale. A fellow tenor, Mayer Davis, and I created a duo when we worked at Camp Yavneh in New Hampshire, where I was the music counselor, during the summer of 1968. I am a pianist. Our band still needed a guitarist, a bassist and a drummer. Joining us during the next year was the composer, guitarist David Burger, with whom I had recorded with a group called 'Matthew's Scooter' for CBS Records. Ira Epstein, another tenor, soon joined us as our drummer. We were all looking for creative, exciting and musically satisfying ways of combining our love for Hebrew-Israeli music with contemporary American sound and tight vocal harmonies. By 1971, we had cut our first single, and added our final band member, Ruby Davis."

Why did they call it "Tayku"?

"We aggressively looked for a name for our group," Lazar explains. "After countless hours of fruitless discussion - and having discarded such names as 'Second Salami Sandwich' and 'Ultimate Milchiks,' Mayer and I shrugged and simultaneously said to each other: 'Tayku!' [This is the classic talmudic response to a situation in which a decision cannot be reached.] Immediately, we smiled and knew that we'd found it."

Lazar comes by his Zionism as honestly as he does his music. Both sets of grandparents lived in Palestine in the 1890s, and read, wrote and spoke Hebrew - as does he. Indeed, at the concert he conducted at the Jerusalem Theater last month, Lazar addressed the audience bilingually with ease.

Given his upbringing, Lazar's combining of his musical pursuits and passion for the State of Israel may not sound so peculiar. Far more striking is his ideological path. An unapologetic "independent" in his American voting habits and political views relating to Israel, Lazar is anything but conventional in his social, professional and geographical circles.

In an hour-long interview with The Jerusalem Post during his tour, Lazar discusses the need for Jews to cross this political divide for the purpose of creating a connection to their collective past and future.

How is your goal distinct from that of those who seek to bridge the gaps among the different streams of Judaism through dialogue?

Transdenominational unity is a great thing, but it's an old story by now. Today, it's in the transpolitical sphere where the work needs to be done. And music is a great vehicle for bringing people together and creating harmony, particularly when they're singing or listening to the right text. I've been successful at finding music with text that's appropriate, that's mainstream, and upon which everyone can agree. Music with text is a very powerful catharsis mechanism. When hundreds of people have catharsis by singing, breathing and thinking the same thought at the same time, the unity that it creates is amazing and long- lasting.
(Q.)But does this really have any bearing on political unity? Between rehearsals or during intermissions, don't the singers go back to arguing about the merits of Obama vs McCain, for example, or Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians?
I think that when the singers sing, or the audience hears, for example, the piece "K'she Tavo," written by Boaz Sharabi for Ron Arad, it has a powerful effect on everybody. It may be just for the time that they're there. But if they have a common moment, and they hear this powerful expression of the actual human sacrifice that's required to have a state, and they make eye contact, or feel moved at the same time, it brings them together. And, if someone is brave enough to go over the divide and initiate a conversation with someone on the opposing side, at least they now have a common emotional point of departure for honest discourse. When we performed "Hatikva," with the choir and audience totaling 3,000 people singing it in Carnegie Hall this past March, it was such a transformative moment that I'm still receiving letters about it. It was impossible not to feel the unity, the old-style kind that "Hatikva" used to arouse - the kind that sends shivers down everybody's spine, and then back up to their brain.
(Q)You talk about old-style unity. You've worked with Jewish and Israeli musicians, composers and conductors on all sides of the political spectrum: David Bar-Illan, Daniel Barenboim, Zubin Mehta, Leonard Bernstein. Isn't Barenboim's dream - and definition - of political harmony very different from yours? He fantasizes joint concerts in Damascus, after all.
First of all, my work doesn't involve bringing Jews and Arabs together. It's hard enough just trying to brings Jews together [he laughs]. Second of all, I'm always wondering how successful these outreach programs really are. Did the 1936 Olympics help or hurt Hitler, for example? Does bringing Jews together with Palestinians who support their leadership's denial of our existence as a Jewish state promote coexistence or maintain the status quo?
(Q.Speaking of coexistence, though the evangelicals are unapologetically supportive of Israel, and were, in fact, among the few tourists who continued to come here, even during the intifadas and wars, your choirs don't sing Christian music. Why is that?)
Before I answer that, let me say that I'm very proud of the fact that I took five missions to Israel during the second intifada. Those trips were devoted to singing for victims of terror, soldiers in rehab centers and people in hospitals. We suspended formal concerts during those years, in order to reach the people who could not come to hear us.

As to why we don't sing Christian music, our idea is to promote Jewish identity, and one doesn't do that by singing what you call Christian and most Western music. Still, there is much about the origins of Western music that most people don't know. There's an adage that says that Jewish history is written on pages that were ripped out of history books. So, for example, most people don't know that we can trace Gregorian chant back to the music of the Temple in Jerusalem. The explanation of the origin of Gregorian chant as being a dove singing into the ear of Pope Gregory leaves a lot to be desired.[Surely he knows that that is a metaphor, and apparently and understandably he DOESN'T know why some are at pains to obfuscate any such lineage for the music that should have "pride of place" in Catholic liturgical worship.]
Indeed, there are a number of examples of music that some would think of as Christian, because they sound Gregorian, but which, in fact, are Jewish. One piece, a panegyric to Moses, "Mi Al Har Horev," was found in the Cairo Geniza, for example. Though it sounds like Gregorian chant, in fact it's Jewish. The only reason we know it exists is because the person who wrote it down was trained as a monk, and therefore learned how to write music notation, and subsequently converted to Judaism.

Can you give examples of composers or music that have Jewish roots or influence that most of us are unaware of?

Because Jews are very good at adopting other people's styles and concepts, Western music influenced Jewish composers when they were allowed to participate in Western society. So you have a composer like Salamone Rossi, the first important Jewish composer, writing music that today's Jews would think sounds un-Jewish. This is a double tragedy, so to speak, because not only do they no longer know their own music history, but that fact stops them from appreciating the greatness and Jewishness of this music.

I'm often asked who the greatest cantor of all time is. I love to answer: "J.S. Bach."

Obviously, Bach wasn't Jewish, but his title in church was "Kantor," which comes from the Latin "to sing."

It is thus that the first self-titled Jewish cantor, Solomon Sulzer, chose Bach's title as his own. He was trying to show everybody in Vienna in the first half of the 19th century that Jews could be great musicians, too. He even commissioned Schubert to write a setting of Psalm 92, the psalm for Shabbat, "Tov Lehodot."

Most people can't imagine Schubert setting a Hebrew text.

On another level, the sonata-allegro form, the A-B-A, is basically a pattern of tshuva, of returning to the right path: You have a musical idea; it develops, and then recapitulates with a necessary correction. This pattern of rejuvenation is a human idea, but the notion of tshuva is very Jewish.

What about harmony? Is that a Jewish notion?

Harmony is not uniquely a Jewish notion, though Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav put it into perspective best when he said that when two people speak at the same time, it's cacophony, but when two people sing at the same time, it's harmony.

What, then, is particularly Jewish about any of this - as opposed to being universal?

It's an interesting question. A non-Jewish friend who presents at our North American Jewish Choral Festival, the largest gathering of Jewish musicians and singers in North America, which I established 19 years ago, said the following: "As a Unitarian, I always thought that all paths would lead to the same God, and therefore all music would lead to the same path. But Jewish music is different. Jewish music has memory."

Then there is the Jewish understanding of the sometime conflict between the aesthetic and the moral - that is to say, between the beautiful and the good.

What about Jewish memories associated with certain music, like that of Wagner, for example? Can great music stand on its own, or is a composer's anti-Semitism relevant? Is the controversy in Israel surrounding this question justified?

Well, Wagner - the icon of the Nazis - certainly shouldn't be performed in Israel if it hasn't been identified as part of the program. It should be advertised and whoever comes comes. Of course, this doesn't mean that the state should necessarily support that performance. Nor is it necessary at the current time, while so many people in Israel are still alive who have numbers tattooed on their arms, to play music whose composer provided the ideology which inspired their torturers. There may come a time in the future when it is all right to play Wagner. This has nothing to do with his value as a composer, but with sensitivity. It is also an issue of the relative values of aesthetics and morality - and which trumps what....
(Q.Do you actually teach the teens about the texts while they rehearse?)
Absolutely, and not only the teens. That's the whole point of the choral experience in general. It's very important to educate our singers, especially the teens, who are exposed to all kinds of false information...
(Q.What happens when a teen who wants to join a choir for the Jewish social and educational experience doesn't have a good enough singing voice?)
Those who lack talent or musical skills self-select, and eventually drop out, when they feel they're over their heads. In most cases, we don't have auditions for the teens - though the Israeli chapter of HaZamir is auditioned - because even during a single rehearsal, a life can be changed.[That is wonderfully true, bravo!]
...
My sister...'s a wonderful musician and a great harpsichordist. When I was young, I thought that the difference between boys and girls was that girls understood the horizontal line in music and boys the vertical - because that was the difference between us. As it turns out, there may be some truth to that.[Interesting idea]
...I came to understand that what I had to offer was promoting Jewish identity through music - and to bring Jews to Israel, and to bring Israeli music to America. If I could, I would physically live in both places. Emotionally and intellectually, I already do.
Originally published by RUTHIE BLUM LEIBOWITZ. (c) 2008 The Jerusalem Post.

Sunday, 6 April 2008

Such a tzimmis

From the Jewish Chonicle, a UK pulbication

http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&SecId=11&AId=59135&ATypeId=1

The Pope’s British envoy is to visit West London Reform Synagogue on Shabbat amid what its rabbi calls the “most acute crisis” in Jewish-Catholic relations in the past 20 years.
...Rabbi Winer says that “expressions of Jewish anger” over the prayer “have reached a level I do not recall in my lifetime of dialogue, as a rabbi, with the Catholic Church. Rabbinical bodies in some countries have forbidden their rabbis from participating in dialogue with representatives of the Holy See. [That would be unfortunate.... who would be to blame for that decision?]
Antisemitic riots and incidents have occurred in more than a few places.”[More than a few places, no doubt, throughout history... but are you saying they have occurred as a result of this new Good Friday prayer? I would be interested to see an article about this. Otherwise, it's a complete non sequitur] ... the amended text asks God “to enlighten their hearts so that they recognise Jesus Christ”. [I wonder, does Rabbi Winer hold that whatever he believes, as a Jew is, how shall I say this... TRUE? For instance, that there is but one God? I assume so. Would he not wish pagans, or pantheists, or atheists, to come to know this truth as well? Would he not want to share it with them? And if so, why would he expect a Christian to be any less generous?]

Monday, 31 March 2008

Is the Pope Catholic? are Jews Jews?

Great good sense, from Saul Singer, in the Jerusalem Post, and a fascinating lookat the changing attitudes of Judaism to proselytizing, as well as a warning to the Church and the "oh, what does it matter as long as you're a nice person?" advocates among Her members .
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206621744170&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Go read the whole piece.

On Easter this week, controversy has swirled around Pope Benedict XVI, both for personally baptizing a prominent Muslim Italian journalist and for allowing the revived Latin mass to hope that Jews convert.
Aside from Osama bin Laden's ravings about a "new Crusade," Muslims have attacked the Pope for his "provocative" act. Similarly, regarding the Latin mass, German Jewish leader Charlotte Knobloch said "I would have assumed that this German pope, of all people, had got to know first-hand the ostracizing of Jewry. ... I could not have imagined that [he] could now impose such phrases upon his Church." ...
I still understand the Pope more than I do his critics. The Pope wants Muslims and Jews to become Christians. Should this be a surprise? If the Pope won't advocate Christianity, who will?To be Christian, Muslim or Jewish should mean believing that one's faith and creed is superior to others. Otherwise, being an adherent is not really a matter of belief, but of inertia - a statement that other faiths might be better but it is not worth the effort to explore or switch. ...
Of the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity is currently the closest to striking the right "outreach" balance. Muslims have been threatened with death for converting, and a prominent strain of Islam is attempting to spread itself by force, including terrorism.
Judaism has gone to the other extreme. ...

This was not always so, far from it. The book of Matthew records a Christian accusation that Jews will "travel over sea and land to make a single convert." Even during centuries of persecution and exile, when conversion could mean a death sentence, Jews continued to seek and welcome converts. When rabbinic opinion began to turn against seeking converts, it was mainly on the grounds of the dangers of doing so, not a rejection of the welcoming Jewish ideal. ...
The great sociologist Peter Berger, who though not Jewish wrote a 1979 article in Commentary endorsing Reform leader Alexander Schindler's call to reach out to the "unchurched," goes even further. ... "you will not be able to keep your own unless you are prepared to persuade others." ... The fact that Jews have lost the desire to welcome newcomers is the most telling evidence that we have lost our sense of purpose as a people. When we rediscover our purpose of affecting the world directly and by example - as individuals, families, and as a people - we will start attracting ourselves and others. (Emphasis mine)