Scoop -- according to George Palmer, composer of the new Mass ordinary
http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/australian_parishes_schools/wyd08_mass_setting to be used for WYD down under, the new translation HAS been authorized for use there already.
In answer to an inane questioner
I gather from comments you have used the pending translation?Is that because proximity to Cdl Pell of Vox Clara means that you all know something we don't about the new translation being approved and promulgated before WYD?
Mr Palmer replied:
The text used in the WYD Mass is the new English text now formally approved for use in Australia. This is the first Mass which has used the new text (I was given the text as a 'sneak preview'). The new text has now been released for general use. In fact the WYD Mass was given its 'premiere' at St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney on 29 January and is now being learnt in the parishes. I am not sure about the status of the new text outside Australia.
http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=171&page=1#Item_15
Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
An apology...
... to my three, (on a good day,) readers.
The Spellchecker does not seem to be working.
I know, I know, I shouldn't be using words I can't spell, but the plain fact is between my bad typos and abysmal spelling that would limit me to, oh, I dunno, just repating my own name over and over again, (and maybe the words in Goodnight, Moon. Or Go, Dog, Go.)
ANyway, sorry for the spelling,
As the great John Cooper, esq. would say, a poor excuse is better than none.
The Spellchecker does not seem to be working.
I know, I know, I shouldn't be using words I can't spell, but the plain fact is between my bad typos and abysmal spelling that would limit me to, oh, I dunno, just repating my own name over and over again, (and maybe the words in Goodnight, Moon. Or Go, Dog, Go.)
ANyway, sorry for the spelling,
As the great John Cooper, esq. would say, a poor excuse is better than none.
Monday, 4 February 2008
"The Realm: An Unfashionable Essay on the Conversion of England"
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/news_1.html
Father Aiden Nichols, O.P. thinks calls for conversion are a good thing. How very un-PC.
One of Britain’s leading theologians has broken ranks with the ecumenical establishment by calling for Catholics to convert non-Catholics.
Fr Aidan Nichols, the English theologian most closely associated with the thinking of Benedict XVI, has appealed for England to be “re-made” as a Catholic country.
He set out his radical and comprehensive programme for Catholic renewal in a new book entitled The Realm: An Unfashionable Essay on the Conversion of England, published by Family Publications.
In his preface he says that Catholic Christianity should be put forward “not as an occupation for individuals in their solitude but as a form for the public life of society in its overall integrity”.
He admits that the conversion of England is “an absolutely colossal agenda”, adding: “It can only be brought into being, so far as it depends on us to do so, by a coordinated strategy for recreating a full-blooded catholicity with the power to... transform a culture in all its principal dimensions.
“That is what ‘the mission to convert’ and ‘the conversion of England’ mean to me.”
His comments will be seen as an implicit criticism of the direction of the Church in England and Wales.
He points to “flagship” Catholic institutions which have “suffered shipwreck through secularisation”. The Second Vatican Council, he argued, did not replace mission with dialogue. Instead it drew attention to respectful dialogue and an understanding of other faiths as a necessary condition of missionary work.
Fr Nichols, a Dominican friar, argues that the disappearance of other Christian and non-Christian religions would not necessarily be “a Bad Thing”, since the Catholic faith contains all the elements of truth, goodness and beauty that are present in other forms of Christianity and faith traditions.
He argues that Catholicism was crucial in the formation of England and suggests that the Church is well suited to remaking a “not terribly impressive culture” dominated by “supermarkets and sport”.
English Catholicism is fit for the challenge, he explains, because it is a “pot-pourri” of recusant families, Anglican converts and Irish, Polish and Filipino immigrants.
He says the example of the original Anglo-Saxon conversion of England showed that only a mixture of “indigenous and exogenous elements” can successfully transform a whole society.
Fr Aidan Nichols's plan for renewal:
Firmer doctrine in our teaching and preaching
Re-enchant the liturgy
Recover the insights of metaphysics
Renew Christian political thought
Revive family life
Resacralise art and architecture
Put a new emphasis on monastic life
Strengthen pro-life rhetoric
Recover a Catholic reading of the Bible
Fr Nichols identifies a number of strategies he believes the Church ought to implement to draw England back to the faith.
He argues for the renewal of Christian political thought beyond merely a concern for the poor. Indeed, he suggests that religious apathy is partly a product of Christianity’s removal from the political sphere.
A “re-enchantment” of the liturgy is also needed, he says, since liturgy forms the imagination and is crucial in “getting others to grasp the inwardness of Catholic Christianity”.
Another book to put on the Must Read list.
Why is the call to evangelization, (for this is what this "call to call to conversion" entails,) so resisted?
Why do some of those who might be thought most bound to share the Way with others have so littel... faith in the Faith?
Fr Nichols has all but thrown down a guantlet in front of those diffident Churchmen who think their responsibilty is to help shore up various protestant sects, I'm most anxious to see some of the reaction.
I wonder if the continuing stirring of the pot regarding the supposedly offensive Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jewish people isn't a very good thing, if for no other reason than it provokes thought and discussion on the subject of conversion, continuing conversion to which we are all called -- do you or do you not believe, and if you do, how can you NOT want to share the Truth of what you believe with all of mankind?
Father Aiden Nichols, O.P. thinks calls for conversion are a good thing. How very un-PC.
One of Britain’s leading theologians has broken ranks with the ecumenical establishment by calling for Catholics to convert non-Catholics.
Fr Aidan Nichols, the English theologian most closely associated with the thinking of Benedict XVI, has appealed for England to be “re-made” as a Catholic country.
He set out his radical and comprehensive programme for Catholic renewal in a new book entitled The Realm: An Unfashionable Essay on the Conversion of England, published by Family Publications.
In his preface he says that Catholic Christianity should be put forward “not as an occupation for individuals in their solitude but as a form for the public life of society in its overall integrity”.
He admits that the conversion of England is “an absolutely colossal agenda”, adding: “It can only be brought into being, so far as it depends on us to do so, by a coordinated strategy for recreating a full-blooded catholicity with the power to... transform a culture in all its principal dimensions.
“That is what ‘the mission to convert’ and ‘the conversion of England’ mean to me.”
His comments will be seen as an implicit criticism of the direction of the Church in England and Wales.
He points to “flagship” Catholic institutions which have “suffered shipwreck through secularisation”. The Second Vatican Council, he argued, did not replace mission with dialogue. Instead it drew attention to respectful dialogue and an understanding of other faiths as a necessary condition of missionary work.
Fr Nichols, a Dominican friar, argues that the disappearance of other Christian and non-Christian religions would not necessarily be “a Bad Thing”, since the Catholic faith contains all the elements of truth, goodness and beauty that are present in other forms of Christianity and faith traditions.
He argues that Catholicism was crucial in the formation of England and suggests that the Church is well suited to remaking a “not terribly impressive culture” dominated by “supermarkets and sport”.
English Catholicism is fit for the challenge, he explains, because it is a “pot-pourri” of recusant families, Anglican converts and Irish, Polish and Filipino immigrants.
He says the example of the original Anglo-Saxon conversion of England showed that only a mixture of “indigenous and exogenous elements” can successfully transform a whole society.
Fr Aidan Nichols's plan for renewal:
Firmer doctrine in our teaching and preaching
Re-enchant the liturgy
Recover the insights of metaphysics
Renew Christian political thought
Revive family life
Resacralise art and architecture
Put a new emphasis on monastic life
Strengthen pro-life rhetoric
Recover a Catholic reading of the Bible
Fr Nichols identifies a number of strategies he believes the Church ought to implement to draw England back to the faith.
He argues for the renewal of Christian political thought beyond merely a concern for the poor. Indeed, he suggests that religious apathy is partly a product of Christianity’s removal from the political sphere.
A “re-enchantment” of the liturgy is also needed, he says, since liturgy forms the imagination and is crucial in “getting others to grasp the inwardness of Catholic Christianity”.
Another book to put on the Must Read list.
Why is the call to evangelization, (for this is what this "call to call to conversion" entails,) so resisted?
Why do some of those who might be thought most bound to share the Way with others have so littel... faith in the Faith?
Fr Nichols has all but thrown down a guantlet in front of those diffident Churchmen who think their responsibilty is to help shore up various protestant sects, I'm most anxious to see some of the reaction.
I wonder if the continuing stirring of the pot regarding the supposedly offensive Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jewish people isn't a very good thing, if for no other reason than it provokes thought and discussion on the subject of conversion, continuing conversion to which we are all called -- do you or do you not believe, and if you do, how can you NOT want to share the Truth of what you believe with all of mankind?
Truth, Fiction and Lies
This is a very long, but I think vitally important piece to read.
Everyone knows how abysmal is the state of catechesis in this country.
Yes, mostly through incompetence, more from ignrance than by design..But some of the error that is taught, that is allowed to be taught, or is allowed to take hold is deliberate.This story from the UK is more than a cautionary tale, it is a claxon alarm, a tocsin.
http://onthesideoftheangels.blogspot.com/2008/02/it-could-happen-againa-warning-from.html
It could happen again...a warning from the past
Remember Catholic Christianity?
Sure some of us were utterly outraged ; but I for one was unaware of the whole story ; and it bears repeating ; for truly if we forget this...not only could it happen again ; I know of more than a few of the characters from then [still around] who would jump on this money-making bandwagon !! Ok here goes
The Unstoppable Clare Richards!
DAPHNE McLEOD
On January 19th 1998 Bishop (now Archbishop) Smith issued this statement on the internet:
"At the request of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy I am withdrawing the Imprimatur accorded to the book Roman Catholic Christianity (RCC) on October 6th 1994.
In the judgement of the Congregation the expression of some elements in the book are not in full conformity with the Catholic Faith. Consequently in accordance with Canon 827:2 of the Code of Canon law this book may no longer be used in Catholic schools."
This book was in use in most Catholic Senior schools in England and Wales.
Bishop Smith followed this brief paragraph with three paragraphs extolling the author of RCC, Ms Clare Richards, ex-nun wife of ex-priest Bert Richards,
and praising her work for Catholic schools. In a short accompanying statement he asked his brother bishops to pray for her "as she has been very hurt by some of the comments which have appeared in the media..."
When Ms Richards eventually retired as Head of R.E. in Notre Dame Comprehensive School she received a Papal medal for her work in Catholic schools!
Furious Ratzinger
The story behind this remarkable statement deserves a hearing now that Clare Richards
has surfaced again with a book entitled introducing catholic theology (sic). This book which carries no Imprimatur, points out on page 7 that it is written for "interested adults and students who are studying for the Catholic Certificate in Religious Studies (CCRS) awarded by the Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales." This means it is written to help train future teachers of religion in Catholic schools and parishes.
As it contains the same heresies, distortions and omissions condemned by Rome in 1997 these will continue to misinform generations of Catholic children unless stern action is once more taken.
In 1995 and 1996 numerous parents, worried about the content of RCC, wrote to the bishops and to the Catholic Press expressing their concern about the errors their children were learning from it. Unfortunately, the bishops did nothing to protect these youngsters. Indeed, Bishop Smith wrote to the Press defending the book and its author Clare Richards.
So, desperate parents were forced to turn to Rome, many sending copies of the book to various Congregations for examination.
This resulted in Cardinal Ratzinger inviting Bishop Smith to visit Rome and discuss the book with him. Apparently Bishop Smith refused to go, telling the Cardinal that he was too busy and telling friends, "If he wants to have me sacked for that he can. He can have this job".
However, in 1997 Bishop Smith was in Rome for an Ad Limina visit with other English bishops and Cardinal Ratzinger took the opportunity to ask him to come and see him immediately after his audience with the Pope.
When Bishop Smith was ushered into Cardinal Ratzinger’s office the Cardinal was holding a copy of Roman Catholic Christianity in both hands. He raised it high above his head and brought it crashing down on to his desk saying: "This book will not do. It must be suppressed."
He emphasised his point by repeating the gesture and the words three times.
Dismissing Bishop Smith’s protests that he had approved the book publicly, the Cardinal demanded that for the sake of the faith of British youngsters’, the Imprimatur must be cancelled and the book withdrawn from Catholic schools in accordance with Canon Law.
Back in England Bishop Smith asked Cardinal Hume if he had to obey and was told, "You have no choice. You have to do it." Even so, Bishop Smith continued to drag his feet until the Papal Nuncio was instructed by Rome to remind him that this matter must receive his urgent attention. So the announcement appeared on the Internet three weeks after Christmas 1997. As such a discreet announcement was likely to be missed, Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice issued a Press Release and some Catholic papers gave it prominence.
Success
The news was received with relief and joy by the parents who had been campaigning to protect their youngsters from Clare Richards’ strange religion and by the teachers who had been forced reluctantly to use RCC. I remember that I received many cards and flowers from mothers grateful for the part Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice had played in the campaign and even a pretty gold bracelet from a group of parents who had banded together. I also received a rather cross letter from Clare Richards, who had suffered financially of course.
In case you are wondering how we know exactly what happened in Cardinal Ratzinger’s office and other details, perhaps I should explain that when Bishop Smith returned home he visited Mr and Ms Richards, who were friends and neighbours of his in Norwich, and told them the whole story. Some time later they had a visit from Robert Blair Kaiser, a liberal ‘Catholic’ journalist from America. The Richards’ told him exactly what had happened and Clare remarked that she could sue Cardinal Ratzinger because she had lost royalties on about a hundred thousand books. This seems a lot. But as every Catholic child in almost every English Catholic senior school for many years to come would have needed a copy, it is probably about right. Ms Richards has published several religious textbooks so she would be able to forecast earning potential pretty accurately.
When Mr Kaiser eventually returned to the States he in his turn put the whole story on the Internet for the amusement of other members of a ‘chat room’ he belonged to. One of them printed it off for me and I still have the print-out dated December 9th, 1999.
RCC Revisited
Why rake all this up now? Because, in spite of having had her version of the Faith so wholeheartedly condemned by Rome in 1997, Clare Richards has had the temerity to run a theology course in St Edmund’s parish in the diocese of East Anglia for Catholic teachers and future teachers of religion, and has even produced the aforementioned book on theology for them. A book which arrogantly repeats the errors, distortions and omissions found in RCC.
It was because Clare Richards’
previous book, RCC was so exceptionally bad that Rome took the almost unprecedented step of intervening over a local bishop’s head to insist on the withdrawal of its Imprimatur. The only other similar incident in this country occurred in the seventies when Rome insisted Cardinal Heenan withdraw the Imprimatur from an explicit sex-ed book put into Catholic schools by Bishop David Konstant- then Father Konstant and Head of R.E. for Westminster. Again, distressed parents, receiving no response to their appeals in this country, had to turn to Rome.
So what is wrong with Clare Richards’ latest effort, introducing catholic theology? There is not room here to list everything so I will keep to the major problems.We are warned in the Preface that when Ms Richards gave her theology course people "were excited by the new thinking and by having the chance to question old ideas." Instead of admitting that she has thought up these new ideas herself, Ms Richards credits them to the Second Vatican Council. This contradicts Pope John XXIII’s assurance in his opening address that:
"The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is that the Sacred deposit of Christian Doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously" and that "the Church must never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers."
According to Ms Richards, however, this purely pastoral Council made many changes.
Ms Richards
sees the Church going sadly astray early in its history in spite of Our Lord’s promise to be with it always. For example, on page 75 commenting on infant baptism she writes: "By the fifth century… the theology had shifted from a positive invitation to live a renewed life in Christ to a negative preoccupation with Original Sin."
And a little later she says: "The radical conversion call of the Gospel was lost". However, a mere fifteen centuries later the Second Vatican Council came along to "steer thinking back to the early Church and move the emphasis away from individual salvation from Original Sin into initiation into a community which tries to make the Kingdom of God a reality."
She even claims that the new baptismal rite only "speaks of Original Sin as the condition of a wounded, broken and rebellious human world".
Lessons in Apostasy
Perhaps most disquieting of all is Ms Richards’ assertion on page 94 that the Second Vatican Council re-defined Revelation from being "a set of propositions" (Truths) about God to the idea that "revelation is discovered less in the mind than in the whole human experience of life."
This, of course is not found in any Vatican II document nor is it the way Revelation is defined in The Catechism of the Catholic Church - though it is the basis of all the modern R.E. books approved for use in British Catholic schools.
Once you have decided Revelation is based on individual experience the door is open to all kinds of innovatory teaching in both faith and morals.
The Divinity of Christ
For example, because of her obvious scepticism about the Blessed Trinity, Clare Richards
repeats the ambiguities about the Divinity of Christ contained in her earlier book Roman Catholic Christianity:
Does our present Christianity stem from Jesus or Paul?" [p.26] That Jesus was a healer is incontrovertible, but all cultures have had healers. They prove nothing." [p.29]
He (Jesus) talked of his vision of God"; "The theme of all his preaching was freedom -liberation". [p.34] How did Jesus understand his own identity? Did he discover his mission as he grew older? Did he think he had a unique relationship with God the Father and Creator? Was he ‘born of a virgin’ in a biological or a symbolic sense? How does the Church see Jesus? Divine or human or both? [p.35]
These questions about Our Divine Lord go on for a while with the explanation that "there are no straightforward answers" except to the last question: "Who is Jesus for me?" This time we are told - "And there will of course be many different answers to that." [p.35]
The Resurrection
The Resurrection is also dismissed on page 34 with the statement: "He (Jesus) was executed as a criminal. But within days his Jewish followers claimed he was more alive than ever".
The Church
When dealing with the Church we are told the Council rejected "the model of the Church bequeathed to us by the Council of Trent of a Hierarchical Church" in favour of "community - a circle instead of a pyramid" [p.61]. Ms Richards also claims that, "Previously the Catholic Church... presumed that the fulness of the Christian Faith was only to be found in the Church of Rome", but now "in a spirit of ecumenism the aim is no longer for one party to convert the other but for both parties to understand each other in order to convert whatever needs converting in themselves." [p.66]
The Bible
The Bible is covered at length in the first two sections but always reconciled with "modern science"; modern, often Protestant, scholarship; and personal experience - which produces some odd results. On page 30 we read that "If readers of the Gospels do not themselves feel healed the accounts (of miracles) are pointless." The accuracy of many accounts is undermined and we are told "Never confuse story with history." [p.27]
The Sacraments
The Sacraments are explained without reference to Sanctifying or Sacramental Grace:
1. Without Original Sin, Baptism is merely "the sacrament of solemn initiation into membership of the Christian family" [p.74].
2. Confirmation is defined as "the celebration of the presence of Jesus in the world through his Spirit of love" [p.76], thus confounding belief in the Blessed Trinity yet again.
3. In the section on the Eucharist we are told "those who believed in him (Jesus) came together to celebrate his new presence in the sharing of bread and wine [p.77], repeated on page 78, and that "no-one was excluded from his (Jesus) table".
4. Penance is accused of "fostering a sense of guilt" which must be replaced by "less emphasis on personal failings and more on a search for social justice" [p.80].
5. The purpose of Extreme Unction is now "to comfort the sick" [p.81].
6. The Priesthood is described as "taking care of parishes and other communities" without reference to the priests’ unique role in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and administering the Sacraments. And of course we are reminded that "all the faithful share in the common priesthood of Christ" [pp.82-83]
7. With Marriage we get a dismal picture of the pre-conciliar Church’s "teaching on sexuality being legalistic, sin-centred and resting heavily on the thought of Augustine of Hippo" [p.84]. The crisis in the Church is blamed partly on "Disenchantment of married couples about
Church teaching on contraception" [p.85]. The teaching is obviously wrong, not the married couples.
Morality
Having given our future teachers her own version of the Faith to teach, Ms Richards goes on to re-write Catholic morality. She quite correctly begins by saying how important authority is in moral teaching and explains the extraordinary magisterium as "when the bishops solemnly gather together in Council as they did at Vatican II in 1963-1965" (but obviously not in Trent or any earlier Councils as she has discredited them) or "when the Pope speaks on behalf of his brother bishops" [p.89]
No, Ms Richards, in fact the Pope has the authority to speak independently as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful, including the bishops, and his definitions on faith and morals are irreformable (see Lumen Gentium 25).
Having explained how the Council of Trent’ defence of Catholic doctrine against the Reformation was bound "to result in a negative moral climate" [p.93], she claims that the
Second Vatican Council "reploughed the whole field of moral theology and its legalistic tradition" [p.94]. Now we are to look to "the whole human experience of life" including "sociology and psychology" to find moral guidance. Ms Richards admits that this is "a break away from the past" and it certainly is.
We no longer have a series of commands to obey but simply a record of the various ways the early Christians solved their ethical problems" [p.98]. This means "we make our own responsible decisions" about issues such as divorce ("Matthew adds an exception to the absolute ruling in Mark") and the sanctity of human life. The Church’s teaching on contraception has already been discredited, now the question of euthanasia is left open and the Church’s ruling against abortion called into question. On page 101 Ms Richards says: "Theologians like Charles Curran, Richard McCormick, Bernard Haring, and Karl Rahner" suggest scientists who say human life begins "two or three weeks after fertilisation" may be right. This means that "in extreme circumstances it would be permissible to remove the early embryo or take the morning after pill."
Remember some of the students reading this will soon be teaching Catholic teenagers. Is this what we want them to teach? John Smeaton of SPUC was appalled when I showed him this and one or two other pages.
What Can We Do?
A good young priest told me that this book, published by Kevin Mayhew, should be on the Index, if we still had it.
As it is, the bishops must condemn it publicly to ensure that it is not allowed to lead future Catholic teachers astray.
Sadly, some bishops neglected to protect the children entrusted into their care from sexual abuse, even protecting the priest predators. Now this has been taken up by the police and the media they are going to be very careful not to repeat it in future.
Unfortunately the police and the media will not care about the spiritual abuse of the children inherent in allowing introducing catholic theology to misinform student teachers of religion. So we will have to make it clear to our bishops and to Rome that unless steps are taken to protect our children from being led out of the Church by this bizarre counter-faith, we can no longer entrust our children to Catholic schools and to teachers who have been instructed in such a travesty of the teachings of Christ.
We could also remind the bishops that although they will not have to answer to the civil authorities for allowing false teaching disguised as Truth to pollute the minds and hearts of our children, they will, one day, have to answer to a higher Court.
Everyone knows how abysmal is the state of catechesis in this country.
Yes, mostly through incompetence, more from ignrance than by design..But some of the error that is taught, that is allowed to be taught, or is allowed to take hold is deliberate.This story from the UK is more than a cautionary tale, it is a claxon alarm, a tocsin.
http://onthesideoftheangels.blogspot.com/2008/02/it-could-happen-againa-warning-from.html
It could happen again...a warning from the past
Remember Catholic Christianity?
Sure some of us were utterly outraged ; but I for one was unaware of the whole story ; and it bears repeating ; for truly if we forget this...not only could it happen again ; I know of more than a few of the characters from then [still around] who would jump on this money-making bandwagon !! Ok here goes
The Unstoppable Clare Richards!
DAPHNE McLEOD
On January 19th 1998 Bishop (now Archbishop) Smith issued this statement on the internet:
"At the request of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy I am withdrawing the Imprimatur accorded to the book Roman Catholic Christianity (RCC) on October 6th 1994.
In the judgement of the Congregation the expression of some elements in the book are not in full conformity with the Catholic Faith. Consequently in accordance with Canon 827:2 of the Code of Canon law this book may no longer be used in Catholic schools."
This book was in use in most Catholic Senior schools in England and Wales.
Bishop Smith followed this brief paragraph with three paragraphs extolling the author of RCC, Ms Clare Richards, ex-nun wife of ex-priest Bert Richards,
and praising her work for Catholic schools. In a short accompanying statement he asked his brother bishops to pray for her "as she has been very hurt by some of the comments which have appeared in the media..."
When Ms Richards eventually retired as Head of R.E. in Notre Dame Comprehensive School she received a Papal medal for her work in Catholic schools!
Furious Ratzinger
The story behind this remarkable statement deserves a hearing now that Clare Richards
has surfaced again with a book entitled introducing catholic theology (sic). This book which carries no Imprimatur, points out on page 7 that it is written for "interested adults and students who are studying for the Catholic Certificate in Religious Studies (CCRS) awarded by the Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales." This means it is written to help train future teachers of religion in Catholic schools and parishes.
As it contains the same heresies, distortions and omissions condemned by Rome in 1997 these will continue to misinform generations of Catholic children unless stern action is once more taken.
In 1995 and 1996 numerous parents, worried about the content of RCC, wrote to the bishops and to the Catholic Press expressing their concern about the errors their children were learning from it. Unfortunately, the bishops did nothing to protect these youngsters. Indeed, Bishop Smith wrote to the Press defending the book and its author Clare Richards.
So, desperate parents were forced to turn to Rome, many sending copies of the book to various Congregations for examination.
This resulted in Cardinal Ratzinger inviting Bishop Smith to visit Rome and discuss the book with him. Apparently Bishop Smith refused to go, telling the Cardinal that he was too busy and telling friends, "If he wants to have me sacked for that he can. He can have this job".
However, in 1997 Bishop Smith was in Rome for an Ad Limina visit with other English bishops and Cardinal Ratzinger took the opportunity to ask him to come and see him immediately after his audience with the Pope.
When Bishop Smith was ushered into Cardinal Ratzinger’s office the Cardinal was holding a copy of Roman Catholic Christianity in both hands. He raised it high above his head and brought it crashing down on to his desk saying: "This book will not do. It must be suppressed."
He emphasised his point by repeating the gesture and the words three times.
Dismissing Bishop Smith’s protests that he had approved the book publicly, the Cardinal demanded that for the sake of the faith of British youngsters’, the Imprimatur must be cancelled and the book withdrawn from Catholic schools in accordance with Canon Law.
Back in England Bishop Smith asked Cardinal Hume if he had to obey and was told, "You have no choice. You have to do it." Even so, Bishop Smith continued to drag his feet until the Papal Nuncio was instructed by Rome to remind him that this matter must receive his urgent attention. So the announcement appeared on the Internet three weeks after Christmas 1997. As such a discreet announcement was likely to be missed, Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice issued a Press Release and some Catholic papers gave it prominence.
Success
The news was received with relief and joy by the parents who had been campaigning to protect their youngsters from Clare Richards’ strange religion and by the teachers who had been forced reluctantly to use RCC. I remember that I received many cards and flowers from mothers grateful for the part Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice had played in the campaign and even a pretty gold bracelet from a group of parents who had banded together. I also received a rather cross letter from Clare Richards, who had suffered financially of course.
In case you are wondering how we know exactly what happened in Cardinal Ratzinger’s office and other details, perhaps I should explain that when Bishop Smith returned home he visited Mr and Ms Richards, who were friends and neighbours of his in Norwich, and told them the whole story. Some time later they had a visit from Robert Blair Kaiser, a liberal ‘Catholic’ journalist from America. The Richards’ told him exactly what had happened and Clare remarked that she could sue Cardinal Ratzinger because she had lost royalties on about a hundred thousand books. This seems a lot. But as every Catholic child in almost every English Catholic senior school for many years to come would have needed a copy, it is probably about right. Ms Richards has published several religious textbooks so she would be able to forecast earning potential pretty accurately.
When Mr Kaiser eventually returned to the States he in his turn put the whole story on the Internet for the amusement of other members of a ‘chat room’ he belonged to. One of them printed it off for me and I still have the print-out dated December 9th, 1999.
RCC Revisited
Why rake all this up now? Because, in spite of having had her version of the Faith so wholeheartedly condemned by Rome in 1997, Clare Richards has had the temerity to run a theology course in St Edmund’s parish in the diocese of East Anglia for Catholic teachers and future teachers of religion, and has even produced the aforementioned book on theology for them. A book which arrogantly repeats the errors, distortions and omissions found in RCC.
It was because Clare Richards’
previous book, RCC was so exceptionally bad that Rome took the almost unprecedented step of intervening over a local bishop’s head to insist on the withdrawal of its Imprimatur. The only other similar incident in this country occurred in the seventies when Rome insisted Cardinal Heenan withdraw the Imprimatur from an explicit sex-ed book put into Catholic schools by Bishop David Konstant- then Father Konstant and Head of R.E. for Westminster. Again, distressed parents, receiving no response to their appeals in this country, had to turn to Rome.
So what is wrong with Clare Richards’ latest effort, introducing catholic theology? There is not room here to list everything so I will keep to the major problems.We are warned in the Preface that when Ms Richards gave her theology course people "were excited by the new thinking and by having the chance to question old ideas." Instead of admitting that she has thought up these new ideas herself, Ms Richards credits them to the Second Vatican Council. This contradicts Pope John XXIII’s assurance in his opening address that:
"The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is that the Sacred deposit of Christian Doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously" and that "the Church must never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers."
According to Ms Richards, however, this purely pastoral Council made many changes.
Ms Richards
sees the Church going sadly astray early in its history in spite of Our Lord’s promise to be with it always. For example, on page 75 commenting on infant baptism she writes: "By the fifth century… the theology had shifted from a positive invitation to live a renewed life in Christ to a negative preoccupation with Original Sin."
And a little later she says: "The radical conversion call of the Gospel was lost". However, a mere fifteen centuries later the Second Vatican Council came along to "steer thinking back to the early Church and move the emphasis away from individual salvation from Original Sin into initiation into a community which tries to make the Kingdom of God a reality."
She even claims that the new baptismal rite only "speaks of Original Sin as the condition of a wounded, broken and rebellious human world".
Lessons in Apostasy
Perhaps most disquieting of all is Ms Richards’ assertion on page 94 that the Second Vatican Council re-defined Revelation from being "a set of propositions" (Truths) about God to the idea that "revelation is discovered less in the mind than in the whole human experience of life."
This, of course is not found in any Vatican II document nor is it the way Revelation is defined in The Catechism of the Catholic Church - though it is the basis of all the modern R.E. books approved for use in British Catholic schools.
Once you have decided Revelation is based on individual experience the door is open to all kinds of innovatory teaching in both faith and morals.
The Divinity of Christ
For example, because of her obvious scepticism about the Blessed Trinity, Clare Richards
repeats the ambiguities about the Divinity of Christ contained in her earlier book Roman Catholic Christianity:
Does our present Christianity stem from Jesus or Paul?" [p.26] That Jesus was a healer is incontrovertible, but all cultures have had healers. They prove nothing." [p.29]
He (Jesus) talked of his vision of God"; "The theme of all his preaching was freedom -liberation". [p.34] How did Jesus understand his own identity? Did he discover his mission as he grew older? Did he think he had a unique relationship with God the Father and Creator? Was he ‘born of a virgin’ in a biological or a symbolic sense? How does the Church see Jesus? Divine or human or both? [p.35]
These questions about Our Divine Lord go on for a while with the explanation that "there are no straightforward answers" except to the last question: "Who is Jesus for me?" This time we are told - "And there will of course be many different answers to that." [p.35]
The Resurrection
The Resurrection is also dismissed on page 34 with the statement: "He (Jesus) was executed as a criminal. But within days his Jewish followers claimed he was more alive than ever".
The Church
When dealing with the Church we are told the Council rejected "the model of the Church bequeathed to us by the Council of Trent of a Hierarchical Church" in favour of "community - a circle instead of a pyramid" [p.61]. Ms Richards also claims that, "Previously the Catholic Church... presumed that the fulness of the Christian Faith was only to be found in the Church of Rome", but now "in a spirit of ecumenism the aim is no longer for one party to convert the other but for both parties to understand each other in order to convert whatever needs converting in themselves." [p.66]
The Bible
The Bible is covered at length in the first two sections but always reconciled with "modern science"; modern, often Protestant, scholarship; and personal experience - which produces some odd results. On page 30 we read that "If readers of the Gospels do not themselves feel healed the accounts (of miracles) are pointless." The accuracy of many accounts is undermined and we are told "Never confuse story with history." [p.27]
The Sacraments
The Sacraments are explained without reference to Sanctifying or Sacramental Grace:
1. Without Original Sin, Baptism is merely "the sacrament of solemn initiation into membership of the Christian family" [p.74].
2. Confirmation is defined as "the celebration of the presence of Jesus in the world through his Spirit of love" [p.76], thus confounding belief in the Blessed Trinity yet again.
3. In the section on the Eucharist we are told "those who believed in him (Jesus) came together to celebrate his new presence in the sharing of bread and wine [p.77], repeated on page 78, and that "no-one was excluded from his (Jesus) table".
4. Penance is accused of "fostering a sense of guilt" which must be replaced by "less emphasis on personal failings and more on a search for social justice" [p.80].
5. The purpose of Extreme Unction is now "to comfort the sick" [p.81].
6. The Priesthood is described as "taking care of parishes and other communities" without reference to the priests’ unique role in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and administering the Sacraments. And of course we are reminded that "all the faithful share in the common priesthood of Christ" [pp.82-83]
7. With Marriage we get a dismal picture of the pre-conciliar Church’s "teaching on sexuality being legalistic, sin-centred and resting heavily on the thought of Augustine of Hippo" [p.84]. The crisis in the Church is blamed partly on "Disenchantment of married couples about
Church teaching on contraception" [p.85]. The teaching is obviously wrong, not the married couples.
Morality
Having given our future teachers her own version of the Faith to teach, Ms Richards goes on to re-write Catholic morality. She quite correctly begins by saying how important authority is in moral teaching and explains the extraordinary magisterium as "when the bishops solemnly gather together in Council as they did at Vatican II in 1963-1965" (but obviously not in Trent or any earlier Councils as she has discredited them) or "when the Pope speaks on behalf of his brother bishops" [p.89]
No, Ms Richards, in fact the Pope has the authority to speak independently as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful, including the bishops, and his definitions on faith and morals are irreformable (see Lumen Gentium 25).
Having explained how the Council of Trent’ defence of Catholic doctrine against the Reformation was bound "to result in a negative moral climate" [p.93], she claims that the
Second Vatican Council "reploughed the whole field of moral theology and its legalistic tradition" [p.94]. Now we are to look to "the whole human experience of life" including "sociology and psychology" to find moral guidance. Ms Richards admits that this is "a break away from the past" and it certainly is.
We no longer have a series of commands to obey but simply a record of the various ways the early Christians solved their ethical problems" [p.98]. This means "we make our own responsible decisions" about issues such as divorce ("Matthew adds an exception to the absolute ruling in Mark") and the sanctity of human life. The Church’s teaching on contraception has already been discredited, now the question of euthanasia is left open and the Church’s ruling against abortion called into question. On page 101 Ms Richards says: "Theologians like Charles Curran, Richard McCormick, Bernard Haring, and Karl Rahner" suggest scientists who say human life begins "two or three weeks after fertilisation" may be right. This means that "in extreme circumstances it would be permissible to remove the early embryo or take the morning after pill."
Remember some of the students reading this will soon be teaching Catholic teenagers. Is this what we want them to teach? John Smeaton of SPUC was appalled when I showed him this and one or two other pages.
What Can We Do?
A good young priest told me that this book, published by Kevin Mayhew, should be on the Index, if we still had it.
As it is, the bishops must condemn it publicly to ensure that it is not allowed to lead future Catholic teachers astray.
Sadly, some bishops neglected to protect the children entrusted into their care from sexual abuse, even protecting the priest predators. Now this has been taken up by the police and the media they are going to be very careful not to repeat it in future.
Unfortunately the police and the media will not care about the spiritual abuse of the children inherent in allowing introducing catholic theology to misinform student teachers of religion. So we will have to make it clear to our bishops and to Rome that unless steps are taken to protect our children from being led out of the Church by this bizarre counter-faith, we can no longer entrust our children to Catholic schools and to teachers who have been instructed in such a travesty of the teachings of Christ.
We could also remind the bishops that although they will not have to answer to the civil authorities for allowing false teaching disguised as Truth to pollute the minds and hearts of our children, they will, one day, have to answer to a higher Court.
Saturday, 2 February 2008
St Sophronius
The aspect of the Office of Readings that I'm getting the most out of is, no surpise... the readings, (since they are utterly new to me.)
And I admit I'd never even heard of St Sophronius, (well, I'm not _O_rthodox...)
Let us receive the light whose brilliance is eternal
In honour of the divine mystery that we celebrate today, let us all hasten to meet Christ. Everyone should be eager to join the procession and to carry a light.
Our lighted candles are a sign of the divine splendour of the one who comes to expel the dark shadows of evil and to make the whole universe radiant with the brilliance of his eternal light. Our candles also show how bright our souls should be when we go to meet Christ.
The Mother of God, the most pure Virgin, carried the true light in her arms and brought him to those who lay in darkness. We too should carry a light for all to see and reflect the radiance of the true light as we hasten to meet him.
The light has come and has shone upon a world enveloped in shadows; the Dayspring from on high has visited us and given light to those who lived in darkness. This, then, is our feast, and we join in procession with lighted candles to reveal the light that has shone upon us and the glory that is yet to come to us through him. So let us hasten all together to meet our God.
The true light has come, the light that enlightens every man who is born into this world. Let all of us, my brethren, be enlightened and made radiant by this light.
Let all of us share in its splendour, and be so filled with it that no one remains in the darkness.
Let us be shining ourselves as we go together to meet and to receive with the aged Simeon the light whose brilliance is eternal.
Rejoicing with Simeon, let us sing a hymn of thanksgiving to God, the Father of the light, who sent the true light to dispel the darkness and to give us all a share in his splendour.
Through Simeon’s eyes we too have seen the salvation of God which he prepared for all the nations and revealed as the glory of the new Israel, which is ourselves.
As Simeon was released from the bonds of this life when he had seen Christ, so we too were at once freed from our old state of sinfulness.
By faith we too embraced Christ, the salvation of God the Father, as he came to us from Bethlehem. Gentiles before, we have now become the people of God.
Our eyes have seen God incarnate, and because we have seen him present among us and have mentally received him into our arms, we are called the new Israel.
Never shall we forget this presence; every year we keep a feast in his honour.
Beauty, eh?
And I admit I'd never even heard of St Sophronius, (well, I'm not _O_rthodox...)
Let us receive the light whose brilliance is eternal
In honour of the divine mystery that we celebrate today, let us all hasten to meet Christ. Everyone should be eager to join the procession and to carry a light.
Our lighted candles are a sign of the divine splendour of the one who comes to expel the dark shadows of evil and to make the whole universe radiant with the brilliance of his eternal light. Our candles also show how bright our souls should be when we go to meet Christ.
The Mother of God, the most pure Virgin, carried the true light in her arms and brought him to those who lay in darkness. We too should carry a light for all to see and reflect the radiance of the true light as we hasten to meet him.
The light has come and has shone upon a world enveloped in shadows; the Dayspring from on high has visited us and given light to those who lived in darkness. This, then, is our feast, and we join in procession with lighted candles to reveal the light that has shone upon us and the glory that is yet to come to us through him. So let us hasten all together to meet our God.
The true light has come, the light that enlightens every man who is born into this world. Let all of us, my brethren, be enlightened and made radiant by this light.
Let all of us share in its splendour, and be so filled with it that no one remains in the darkness.
Let us be shining ourselves as we go together to meet and to receive with the aged Simeon the light whose brilliance is eternal.
Rejoicing with Simeon, let us sing a hymn of thanksgiving to God, the Father of the light, who sent the true light to dispel the darkness and to give us all a share in his splendour.
Through Simeon’s eyes we too have seen the salvation of God which he prepared for all the nations and revealed as the glory of the new Israel, which is ourselves.
As Simeon was released from the bonds of this life when he had seen Christ, so we too were at once freed from our old state of sinfulness.
By faith we too embraced Christ, the salvation of God the Father, as he came to us from Bethlehem. Gentiles before, we have now become the people of God.
Our eyes have seen God incarnate, and because we have seen him present among us and have mentally received him into our arms, we are called the new Israel.
Never shall we forget this presence; every year we keep a feast in his honour.
Beauty, eh?
Happy Presentation/Purification/Candlemas!
Mary Jane at Sacred Miscellany has a lovely post on it.
http://sacredmiscellany.typepad.com/sacredmiscellany
Me? I got nothin', just personal reaction.
I love Christmas, I love everything about it, even the purely secular aspects.
While I understood, as a kid, that it is not only the Forces of Capitalism that want to jump the gun on its celebration, I also agreed with those (usually religious forces,) doing battle to give the deliciously pregnant season of Advent its due.
We always had an Advent wreath, we gathered as a family and did scripture readings before we lit the candles and ate dinner, we didn't put the tree up very early and left it up until Epiphany at least, we had various Advent calendars... but the Christmas season seemed horribly, unfairly short, and not just because vacation seemed over too soon.
I remember seeing some Catholic churches taking down their wreaths and garland before they'd even celebrated (the now ON THE WRONG DAY, except it wasn't this year,) Feast of the Three Kings.
It seemed terribly sad, and old people told me, oh the Christmas Season used to be longer. (You see, I don't remember the calender changes.)
One year, before i had ascended to my lofty position and was just a choir member another parish asked our choir to join in a Christmas concert and Carol fest.
Huh??!?$?^?? In February?
And it was explained how in the minds of some, mostly older folk, the season finished, (as all seasons ought,) at the 40 day mark.
As I learned more about the changes in the Liturgical year, I began to believe more and more that a HUGE mistake was made.
The human impulse is to try to stretch out good times, and make them last, and if you lop often the Christmas season at one end all that celebratory energy is going to pop out the other end.
It is the fault of those who insist on taking the poinsettias away from the Madonna's altar the first week of January that we hear that other Madonna nasally crooning Santa Baby in the malls the first week of November.
If TPTB really wanted to get the PIPs from improperly anticipating the Nativity, they'd give them more of what they want ON THE OTHER SIDE of the Holyday.
And then, more recently I learned that some places, such as St John Cantius in Chicago leave the Nativity decor, the manger and trees and lights up until the old ending date.
Okay, but they are a bit "trad', and use the old calender for some of their liturgy.
But it was an excuse, so we started leaving our tree and manger at home up until Feb. 2 as well.
But this year I learned the VATICAN leaves the manger up until February, the announcer for Vatican Radio said today during the broadcast of the Mass of the Presentation that THIS is the
"official" end of the Christmas season.
So what's going on here, and are we doing it wrong in this country?
Anyway, I'll put things away tomorrow.
And tonight, at Mass I'll play that improv on Divinum Mysterium.
http://sacredmiscellany.typepad.com/sacredmiscellany
Me? I got nothin', just personal reaction.
I love Christmas, I love everything about it, even the purely secular aspects.
While I understood, as a kid, that it is not only the Forces of Capitalism that want to jump the gun on its celebration, I also agreed with those (usually religious forces,) doing battle to give the deliciously pregnant season of Advent its due.
We always had an Advent wreath, we gathered as a family and did scripture readings before we lit the candles and ate dinner, we didn't put the tree up very early and left it up until Epiphany at least, we had various Advent calendars... but the Christmas season seemed horribly, unfairly short, and not just because vacation seemed over too soon.
I remember seeing some Catholic churches taking down their wreaths and garland before they'd even celebrated (the now ON THE WRONG DAY, except it wasn't this year,) Feast of the Three Kings.
It seemed terribly sad, and old people told me, oh the Christmas Season used to be longer. (You see, I don't remember the calender changes.)
One year, before i had ascended to my lofty position and was just a choir member another parish asked our choir to join in a Christmas concert and Carol fest.
Huh??!?$?^?? In February?
And it was explained how in the minds of some, mostly older folk, the season finished, (as all seasons ought,) at the 40 day mark.
As I learned more about the changes in the Liturgical year, I began to believe more and more that a HUGE mistake was made.
The human impulse is to try to stretch out good times, and make them last, and if you lop often the Christmas season at one end all that celebratory energy is going to pop out the other end.
It is the fault of those who insist on taking the poinsettias away from the Madonna's altar the first week of January that we hear that other Madonna nasally crooning Santa Baby in the malls the first week of November.
If TPTB really wanted to get the PIPs from improperly anticipating the Nativity, they'd give them more of what they want ON THE OTHER SIDE of the Holyday.
And then, more recently I learned that some places, such as St John Cantius in Chicago leave the Nativity decor, the manger and trees and lights up until the old ending date.
Okay, but they are a bit "trad', and use the old calender for some of their liturgy.
But it was an excuse, so we started leaving our tree and manger at home up until Feb. 2 as well.
But this year I learned the VATICAN leaves the manger up until February, the announcer for Vatican Radio said today during the broadcast of the Mass of the Presentation that THIS is the
"official" end of the Christmas season.
So what's going on here, and are we doing it wrong in this country?
Anyway, I'll put things away tomorrow.
And tonight, at Mass I'll play that improv on Divinum Mysterium.
The XX camel's nose under the tent
What is a female camel called, anyway? A mare?
John Allen has a generally interesting column this week, (his explication of the coming storm over Church autonomy in the face of growing insistence by civil authority and secular society that the Church has no right to follow Her own conscience when she engages in Active Love* is ominous and omenous,) but this caught my eye.
When I read of tiny, barely noticed events like this one, I think of Spock saying, Only Nixon could go to China.
Only the unimpeachably orthodox can challenge and change the long-standing and frankly misogynistic, exclusions in Church work that have nothing whatever to do with the sacerdotal priesthood.
Some of TPTB have finally realized that as unconvincing as arguments from authority are in any case, even less credible were protestations that reserving ordination to men was not something the Church chose but something She had no authority over and have nothing to do with a lack of esteem for women, when it was clear that in a thousand little matters over which She DID have authority, women were excluded.
And the more the Big Boys allow women to exercise God-given gifts and talents, to bring their particular genius to the table, the more persuasive the Church's affirmation of the male priesthood becomes, when it stops seeming like just one more thing Girls Aren't Allowed To Do.
If only men can become priests, and then we arbitrarily tack on, oh, and by the by, only priests can this that and the other.... well, we end up with scads of positions and endeavors where, even if a woman is the best man for the job, the Church is out of luck.
(A little initiative in this direction might have prevented me from -- confession time her ... mea culpa -- defacing vocations posters in the vestibule when I was a kid, with pithy graffiti about discrimination.)
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1576
[H]ere's a small item worth recording, under the heading of "women and the church."It has long been observed that the Vatican is very much a "boy's club," and no corner of Vatican real estate is more a bastion of male prerogative than the window of the pope's private apartment where he delivers his weekly Sunday Angelus address.Imagine the raised eyebrows in Rome on Sunday, Jan. 27, therefore, when a young Italian girl appeared from that window to deliver a brief talk related to Catholic Action's annual "Month for Peace."In the past, two members of Catholic Action, often a boy and a girl, have appeared alongside the pope on the occasion, usually to help him launch a dove into the sky as a symbol of peace. This was the first time ever, however, that a female actually stood behind the papal lectern and addressed the crowd in St. Peter's Square.One shouldn't over-interpret the significance of the gesture, but in a small way it does suggest that even in the papal apartment, doors (or, in this case, windows) are opening for Catholic women.
*Caritas, of course.
Another item in the case for a "dead language": the meaning of the word "charity" in English has evolved to a place that makes its use in spiritula or theological matters unfortunate at best. What we are talking about is ACTIVE Love, Love that shows itself in working for the good of the Beloved.
John Allen has a generally interesting column this week, (his explication of the coming storm over Church autonomy in the face of growing insistence by civil authority and secular society that the Church has no right to follow Her own conscience when she engages in Active Love* is ominous and omenous,) but this caught my eye.
When I read of tiny, barely noticed events like this one, I think of Spock saying, Only Nixon could go to China.
Only the unimpeachably orthodox can challenge and change the long-standing and frankly misogynistic, exclusions in Church work that have nothing whatever to do with the sacerdotal priesthood.
Some of TPTB have finally realized that as unconvincing as arguments from authority are in any case, even less credible were protestations that reserving ordination to men was not something the Church chose but something She had no authority over and have nothing to do with a lack of esteem for women, when it was clear that in a thousand little matters over which She DID have authority, women were excluded.
And the more the Big Boys allow women to exercise God-given gifts and talents, to bring their particular genius to the table, the more persuasive the Church's affirmation of the male priesthood becomes, when it stops seeming like just one more thing Girls Aren't Allowed To Do.
If only men can become priests, and then we arbitrarily tack on, oh, and by the by, only priests can this that and the other.... well, we end up with scads of positions and endeavors where, even if a woman is the best man for the job, the Church is out of luck.
(A little initiative in this direction might have prevented me from -- confession time her ... mea culpa -- defacing vocations posters in the vestibule when I was a kid, with pithy graffiti about discrimination.)
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1576
[H]ere's a small item worth recording, under the heading of "women and the church."It has long been observed that the Vatican is very much a "boy's club," and no corner of Vatican real estate is more a bastion of male prerogative than the window of the pope's private apartment where he delivers his weekly Sunday Angelus address.Imagine the raised eyebrows in Rome on Sunday, Jan. 27, therefore, when a young Italian girl appeared from that window to deliver a brief talk related to Catholic Action's annual "Month for Peace."In the past, two members of Catholic Action, often a boy and a girl, have appeared alongside the pope on the occasion, usually to help him launch a dove into the sky as a symbol of peace. This was the first time ever, however, that a female actually stood behind the papal lectern and addressed the crowd in St. Peter's Square.One shouldn't over-interpret the significance of the gesture, but in a small way it does suggest that even in the papal apartment, doors (or, in this case, windows) are opening for Catholic women.
*Caritas, of course.
Another item in the case for a "dead language": the meaning of the word "charity" in English has evolved to a place that makes its use in spiritula or theological matters unfortunate at best. What we are talking about is ACTIVE Love, Love that shows itself in working for the good of the Beloved.
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
The Perils of Double Dipping
I should preface all this with the fact that I am an inconsistent and illogical germophobe.
(Though of course not in the same league as K., who as a child would refuse to eat off his own plate if someone else reached past him at the table, thereby causing even a small portion of his arm to invade K.'s plate's "air space." And in a great cosmic joke, HE married a woman who, without a second thought, would walk into someone else's kitchen, stick her finger in something cooking on the stove, lick it off and go for seconds. If that wasn't evidence right there that he was making a mistake, I don't know what is. And we've all been proved right, haven't we? ... but I digress.)
As a Catholic I have always ardently consumed the Precious Blood from the communal communion cup, though I am often loathe to shake hands, and not only from the pain it often causes me.
Though while the thought of a stray bacterium or two on the lip of the chalice held no terrors for me, (and let's face it, an EMHC making a swipe with a purificator or whatever it's called is in the same hygienic league as your friend blowing on a piece of candy you've dropped on the movie theater floor -- "convectiventilation," I think the technique is called,) I admit to have inwardly shuddered at seeing, and worse, hearing serious slurpers in front of me in line, attacking the spoon at an Eastern Rite church.
And when my best friend was dying from AIDS, although I myself seldom caught colds and was never debilitated or even laid up very long with various flus and bronchitises making the rounds, I was paranoid about picking up and passing on even a minor cold that could have been devastating to him.
I seem to be sick all the time now, but I am in contact with no one delicate, and since my main task is not vocal, (although laryngitis or a bad cold during what I think of as "high Ave Maria season" could be devastating economically, I suppose,) I don't give as much attention to the way the rest of the world conspires to give me germs as I used.
Himself is a different matter, and to my shame I admit I try not to but carp at him a bit, about washing hands, about not spilling the entire contents of a pill bottle into his hand and pouring the ones he doesn't want back, about not swishing a knife used to cut raw meat under some water and wiping it off on a hand towel and calling it clean, .... again I digress.
I was never a big Seinfeld watcher (if I want to spend a half hour with unpleasant but invasively funny people, I've got an enormous family, right?) but everyone is probably aware of how one episode gave a name to the pervasive and pernicious practice that has been on display at probably every party one has attended during the now winding-down holiday season, and will be out there in spades this coming "Super Bowl" weekend, (I asked, as we planned a meeting for this coming Sunday and someone opined that turn-out may be sparse because of the Bowl, "And that is...? some sort of sporting event?" I do it every year, but I think it is good for my friends to have something they can rely on about me.)
The NYTimes reports on an actual study of the possibility for germ transfer via "double dipping."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/dining/30curious.html?ref=style
[Researchers] instructed volunteers to take a bite of a wheat cracker and dip the cracker for three seconds into about a tablespoon of a test dip. They then repeated the process with new crackers, for a total of either three or six double dips per dip sample. The team then analyzed the remaining dip and counted the number of aerobic bacteria in it. They didn’t determine whether any of the bacteria were harmful, and didn’t count anaerobic bacteria, which are harder to culture, or viruses.
There were six test dips: sterile water with three different degrees of acidity, a commercial salsa, a cheese dip and chocolate syrup.
On average, the students found that three to six double dips transferred about 10,000 bacteria from the eater’s mouth to the remaining dip.
Each cracker picked up between one and two grams of dip. That means that sporadic double dipping in a cup of dip would transfer at least 50 to 100 bacteria from one mouth to another with every bite.
The kind of dip made a difference in a couple of ways. The more acidic water samples had somewhat fewer bacteria, and the numbers of bacteria declined with time. But the acidic salsa picked up higher initial numbers of bacteria than the cheese or chocolate, because it was runny. The thicker the dip, the more stuck to the chip, and so the fewer bacteria were left behind in the bowl.
Professor Dawson said that Timmy was essentially correct. “The way I would put it is, before you have some dip at a party, look around and ask yourself, would I be willing to kiss everyone here? Because you don’t know who might be double dipping, and those who do are sharing their saliva with you.”
Guacamole, anyone?
(Though of course not in the same league as K., who as a child would refuse to eat off his own plate if someone else reached past him at the table, thereby causing even a small portion of his arm to invade K.'s plate's "air space." And in a great cosmic joke, HE married a woman who, without a second thought, would walk into someone else's kitchen, stick her finger in something cooking on the stove, lick it off and go for seconds. If that wasn't evidence right there that he was making a mistake, I don't know what is. And we've all been proved right, haven't we? ... but I digress.)
As a Catholic I have always ardently consumed the Precious Blood from the communal communion cup, though I am often loathe to shake hands, and not only from the pain it often causes me.
Though while the thought of a stray bacterium or two on the lip of the chalice held no terrors for me, (and let's face it, an EMHC making a swipe with a purificator or whatever it's called is in the same hygienic league as your friend blowing on a piece of candy you've dropped on the movie theater floor -- "convectiventilation," I think the technique is called,) I admit to have inwardly shuddered at seeing, and worse, hearing serious slurpers in front of me in line, attacking the spoon at an Eastern Rite church.
And when my best friend was dying from AIDS, although I myself seldom caught colds and was never debilitated or even laid up very long with various flus and bronchitises making the rounds, I was paranoid about picking up and passing on even a minor cold that could have been devastating to him.
I seem to be sick all the time now, but I am in contact with no one delicate, and since my main task is not vocal, (although laryngitis or a bad cold during what I think of as "high Ave Maria season" could be devastating economically, I suppose,) I don't give as much attention to the way the rest of the world conspires to give me germs as I used.
Himself is a different matter, and to my shame I admit I try not to but carp at him a bit, about washing hands, about not spilling the entire contents of a pill bottle into his hand and pouring the ones he doesn't want back, about not swishing a knife used to cut raw meat under some water and wiping it off on a hand towel and calling it clean, .... again I digress.
I was never a big Seinfeld watcher (if I want to spend a half hour with unpleasant but invasively funny people, I've got an enormous family, right?) but everyone is probably aware of how one episode gave a name to the pervasive and pernicious practice that has been on display at probably every party one has attended during the now winding-down holiday season, and will be out there in spades this coming "Super Bowl" weekend, (I asked, as we planned a meeting for this coming Sunday and someone opined that turn-out may be sparse because of the Bowl, "And that is...? some sort of sporting event?" I do it every year, but I think it is good for my friends to have something they can rely on about me.)
The NYTimes reports on an actual study of the possibility for germ transfer via "double dipping."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/dining/30curious.html?ref=style
[Researchers] instructed volunteers to take a bite of a wheat cracker and dip the cracker for three seconds into about a tablespoon of a test dip. They then repeated the process with new crackers, for a total of either three or six double dips per dip sample. The team then analyzed the remaining dip and counted the number of aerobic bacteria in it. They didn’t determine whether any of the bacteria were harmful, and didn’t count anaerobic bacteria, which are harder to culture, or viruses.
There were six test dips: sterile water with three different degrees of acidity, a commercial salsa, a cheese dip and chocolate syrup.
On average, the students found that three to six double dips transferred about 10,000 bacteria from the eater’s mouth to the remaining dip.
Each cracker picked up between one and two grams of dip. That means that sporadic double dipping in a cup of dip would transfer at least 50 to 100 bacteria from one mouth to another with every bite.
The kind of dip made a difference in a couple of ways. The more acidic water samples had somewhat fewer bacteria, and the numbers of bacteria declined with time. But the acidic salsa picked up higher initial numbers of bacteria than the cheese or chocolate, because it was runny. The thicker the dip, the more stuck to the chip, and so the fewer bacteria were left behind in the bowl.
Professor Dawson said that Timmy was essentially correct. “The way I would put it is, before you have some dip at a party, look around and ask yourself, would I be willing to kiss everyone here? Because you don’t know who might be double dipping, and those who do are sharing their saliva with you.”
Guacamole, anyone?
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
Brave New World
http://zenit.org/article-21630?l=english
A Return to Barbarity
Quest for Perfection Leads to Selective Killing of Unborn
By Father John Flynn, LCROME, JAN. 28, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The quest for a perfect child is leading to the increasing use of techniques to discover possible health problems in the unborn. Normally this is not done with a view to healing, and results in the deaths of embryos considered imperfect.I
t Italy court decisions are in effect undoing a legal prohibition against the use of such screening programs, known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). A 2004 national law vetoes screening embryos before they are implanted in the mothers' womb.
The trend to increasing use of PGD is very evident in England. A couple recently received approval to test their embryos for a genetic defect that leads to high cholesterol levels, reported the Times newspaper on Dec. 15.
The approval, by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, was given in relation to a genetic trait that is a relatively rare condition and which can lead to the death of children at an early age. The Times noted, however, that the couple have a milder form of this genetic problem and that it could well result that the embryos would have a good chance of becoming children with reasonably healthy lives.
Shortly after this authorization it was argued that deaf parents should be allowed to screen their embryos so as to be able to pick a deaf child, reported the Sunday Times on Dec. 23. According to Jackie Ballard, chief executive of the Royal Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People, a small minority of couples would prefer to have a deaf child so as "to fit in better with the family lifestyle."
[Preimplantation genetic diagnosis] is gravely opposed to the moral law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion depending upon the results," the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith warned.
A diagnosis that reveals some illness "must not be the equivalent of a death sentence," the instruction added.
Eliminating embryos who suffer from malformations or hereditary illness, is a violation of the unborn child's right to life and as an abuse of the rights and duties of the spouses, the document concluded.
Why?
Hearing parents can allow deaf babies to lie frozen in Limbo, deaf parents can give hearing babies a pass, gay parent can screen out little breeder babies, macho societies can just kill off all the girls, except the bare minimum needed, beautiful people can consign those babies without the probability of fair hair, strong jaws and bright eyes to the rubbish heap, no people with cleft palates can be allowed to be born...
How far we've come, how advanced we are.
O brave new world that has such monsters in it.
A Return to Barbarity
Quest for Perfection Leads to Selective Killing of Unborn
By Father John Flynn, LCROME, JAN. 28, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The quest for a perfect child is leading to the increasing use of techniques to discover possible health problems in the unborn. Normally this is not done with a view to healing, and results in the deaths of embryos considered imperfect.I
t Italy court decisions are in effect undoing a legal prohibition against the use of such screening programs, known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). A 2004 national law vetoes screening embryos before they are implanted in the mothers' womb.
The trend to increasing use of PGD is very evident in England. A couple recently received approval to test their embryos for a genetic defect that leads to high cholesterol levels, reported the Times newspaper on Dec. 15.
The approval, by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, was given in relation to a genetic trait that is a relatively rare condition and which can lead to the death of children at an early age. The Times noted, however, that the couple have a milder form of this genetic problem and that it could well result that the embryos would have a good chance of becoming children with reasonably healthy lives.
Shortly after this authorization it was argued that deaf parents should be allowed to screen their embryos so as to be able to pick a deaf child, reported the Sunday Times on Dec. 23. According to Jackie Ballard, chief executive of the Royal Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People, a small minority of couples would prefer to have a deaf child so as "to fit in better with the family lifestyle."
[Preimplantation genetic diagnosis] is gravely opposed to the moral law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion depending upon the results," the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith warned.
A diagnosis that reveals some illness "must not be the equivalent of a death sentence," the instruction added.
Eliminating embryos who suffer from malformations or hereditary illness, is a violation of the unborn child's right to life and as an abuse of the rights and duties of the spouses, the document concluded.
Why?
Hearing parents can allow deaf babies to lie frozen in Limbo, deaf parents can give hearing babies a pass, gay parent can screen out little breeder babies, macho societies can just kill off all the girls, except the bare minimum needed, beautiful people can consign those babies without the probability of fair hair, strong jaws and bright eyes to the rubbish heap, no people with cleft palates can be allowed to be born...
How far we've come, how advanced we are.
O brave new world that has such monsters in it.
Universal norms... for anullments?
I, of course, have a particular interest in the process of seeking a decree of nullity.
And I imagine I may have benefited from the... looser application of law here than in other part of the Church in the world.
What would I have done? I though he had absolutely rock solid grounds, but suppose the judgement had come done in favor of the first marriage's sacramentality? (is that a word?)
I thank You for Your great mercy, Lord, that I never had occasion to learn how strong a character I had... or lacked. (I have been tickled that over the course of Janez-a-poppin', the late winter bookened to Scrooge-a-palooza, he saw a parallel to our adventure.)
http://zenit.org/article-21631?l=english
The Roman Rota should be increasingly characterized by unity, since the application of law in diverse cultures can tend to become distant from Church teaching, Benedict XVI says.
The Pope affirmed this today when he received in audience officials from the Tribunal of the Roman Rota on the occasion of the inauguration of the judicial year.
At the beginning of his address, the Holy Father said this year's commemoration of the first centenary of the re-establishment of the apostolic tribunal of the Roman Rota, as endorsed by Pope St. Pius X in 1908, provided an appropriate occasion to reflect upon "the jurisprudence of the Rota within the context of the administration of justice within the Church."
"Any juridical system must seek to offer solutions," said the Pope. And in seeking such solutions, "apart from prudently assessing each individual case in its own uniqueness, the same general principles and norms of justice must be applied," he said. "Only in this way is it possible to create a climate of trust around the tribunal's activities and to avoid the arbitrariness of subjective criteria."
...Benedict XVI highlighted the Roman Rota's notable achievements in the area of marriage over the last 100 years, indicating how the tribunal is still "called to undertake an arduous task that has great influence on the work of all other tribunals: that of determining the existence or otherwise of the married state, which is intrinsically anthropological, theological and juridical."
"Law cannot be reduced to a mere collection of positive rules which tribunals are called to apply," said the Pope. "The only solid foundation for legal work consists in conceiving of it as a real exercise in 'prudentia iuris,' a prudence that is nowise arbitrary or relativist. [...] Only in this way do legal maxims acquire their true value and avoid becoming a compilation of abstract and repetitive laws, exposed to the risk of subjective and arbitrary interpretations."
Hence, the objective assessment of the facts in the light of the magisterium of the Church constitutes an important aspect of the activity of the Roman Rota, and has great influence on the work of ministers of justice in the tribunals of local Churches."
The Holy Father highlighted how, "through such work in the causes of nullity of marriage, concrete reality may be objectively judged in the light of criteria that constantly reaffirm the truth of indissoluble marriage, which is open to all men and women in accordance with the designs of God."
The Pontiff noted that due to the universal nature of the Church and the diversity of juridical cultures in which it operates, "there is always a risk of the formation of 'sensim sine sensu' [local forms of jurisprudence], ever more distant from the common interpretation of positive laws and even from Church doctrine on matrimony."
In this context, the Holy Father expressed the hope that attention be given to "the right ways to ensure that the jurisprudence of the Rota is ever more characterized by its unity, and is effectively accessible to all who work in justice, so as to find uniform application in all the tribunals of the Church."
And I imagine I may have benefited from the... looser application of law here than in other part of the Church in the world.
What would I have done? I though he had absolutely rock solid grounds, but suppose the judgement had come done in favor of the first marriage's sacramentality? (is that a word?)
I thank You for Your great mercy, Lord, that I never had occasion to learn how strong a character I had... or lacked. (I have been tickled that over the course of Janez-a-poppin', the late winter bookened to Scrooge-a-palooza, he saw a parallel to our adventure.)
http://zenit.org/article-21631?l=english
The Roman Rota should be increasingly characterized by unity, since the application of law in diverse cultures can tend to become distant from Church teaching, Benedict XVI says.
The Pope affirmed this today when he received in audience officials from the Tribunal of the Roman Rota on the occasion of the inauguration of the judicial year.
At the beginning of his address, the Holy Father said this year's commemoration of the first centenary of the re-establishment of the apostolic tribunal of the Roman Rota, as endorsed by Pope St. Pius X in 1908, provided an appropriate occasion to reflect upon "the jurisprudence of the Rota within the context of the administration of justice within the Church."
"Any juridical system must seek to offer solutions," said the Pope. And in seeking such solutions, "apart from prudently assessing each individual case in its own uniqueness, the same general principles and norms of justice must be applied," he said. "Only in this way is it possible to create a climate of trust around the tribunal's activities and to avoid the arbitrariness of subjective criteria."
...Benedict XVI highlighted the Roman Rota's notable achievements in the area of marriage over the last 100 years, indicating how the tribunal is still "called to undertake an arduous task that has great influence on the work of all other tribunals: that of determining the existence or otherwise of the married state, which is intrinsically anthropological, theological and juridical."
"Law cannot be reduced to a mere collection of positive rules which tribunals are called to apply," said the Pope. "The only solid foundation for legal work consists in conceiving of it as a real exercise in 'prudentia iuris,' a prudence that is nowise arbitrary or relativist. [...] Only in this way do legal maxims acquire their true value and avoid becoming a compilation of abstract and repetitive laws, exposed to the risk of subjective and arbitrary interpretations."
Hence, the objective assessment of the facts in the light of the magisterium of the Church constitutes an important aspect of the activity of the Roman Rota, and has great influence on the work of ministers of justice in the tribunals of local Churches."
The Holy Father highlighted how, "through such work in the causes of nullity of marriage, concrete reality may be objectively judged in the light of criteria that constantly reaffirm the truth of indissoluble marriage, which is open to all men and women in accordance with the designs of God."
The Pontiff noted that due to the universal nature of the Church and the diversity of juridical cultures in which it operates, "there is always a risk of the formation of 'sensim sine sensu' [local forms of jurisprudence], ever more distant from the common interpretation of positive laws and even from Church doctrine on matrimony."
In this context, the Holy Father expressed the hope that attention be given to "the right ways to ensure that the jurisprudence of the Rota is ever more characterized by its unity, and is effectively accessible to all who work in justice, so as to find uniform application in all the tribunals of the Church."
Well done, Jon Stewart
The sequence of Cheney "smiling" to the pounding accompaniment of O Fortuna was priceless.
Frankly, the commercials today for the Daily Show, touting their coverage of the State of the Union address as a break from reality shows, as the only scripted fiction currently on TV was also terrific.
I'm disappointed that Abp. Marini I's book tour seems to be canceled as I really did want to get to the event at CTU. While I certainly don't care for all the liturgical shenanigans that he might logically be thought to have had something to do with, I think he may have been unfairly blamed, very little is accomplished by fiat in any organization.
And I took an illogical dislike to him --
It is not his fault, after all, that he reminds me of Dick Cheney...
Frankly, the commercials today for the Daily Show, touting their coverage of the State of the Union address as a break from reality shows, as the only scripted fiction currently on TV was also terrific.
I'm disappointed that Abp. Marini I's book tour seems to be canceled as I really did want to get to the event at CTU. While I certainly don't care for all the liturgical shenanigans that he might logically be thought to have had something to do with, I think he may have been unfairly blamed, very little is accomplished by fiat in any organization.
And I took an illogical dislike to him --
It is not his fault, after all, that he reminds me of Dick Cheney...
Monday, 28 January 2008
R.I.P. Archbishop Christodoulos
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/world/europe/29greece.html?hp
Archbishop Christodoulos, the charismatic head of the Greek Orthodox Church who helped heal centuries-old grievances with the Roman Catholic Church but stirred controversy with his politically tinged statements and tireless interventions in state affairs, died on Monday. He was 69.
He led Greece's 10 million Orthodox Christians for a decade, boosting church attendance. He died at his residence in the Athens suburb of Psychiko, refusing hospital treatment in the final days of a seven-month battle with liver cancer....
he mended rifts with the Vatican, receiving the late Pope John Paul II in Athens in 2001 -- the first pontiff to visit Greece in nearly 1,300 years.
Despite widespread opposition from conservative adherents of the Orthodox faith, the influential clergyman, who was schooled by Catholic monks in Athens, followed up with a historic visit to the Vatican last year, meeting Pope Benedict XVI.
Archbishop Christodoulos, the charismatic head of the Greek Orthodox Church who helped heal centuries-old grievances with the Roman Catholic Church but stirred controversy with his politically tinged statements and tireless interventions in state affairs, died on Monday. He was 69.
He led Greece's 10 million Orthodox Christians for a decade, boosting church attendance. He died at his residence in the Athens suburb of Psychiko, refusing hospital treatment in the final days of a seven-month battle with liver cancer....
he mended rifts with the Vatican, receiving the late Pope John Paul II in Athens in 2001 -- the first pontiff to visit Greece in nearly 1,300 years.
Despite widespread opposition from conservative adherents of the Orthodox faith, the influential clergyman, who was schooled by Catholic monks in Athens, followed up with a historic visit to the Vatican last year, meeting Pope Benedict XVI.
Saturday, 26 January 2008
The USCCB's Mission
I had no idea that part of the USCCB's mission (http://usccb.org/) as they saw it, and have elucidated it on their home page, was to "foster communion with the Church in other nations, within the Church universal, under the leadership of its supreme pastor, the Roman Pontiff."
Two points:
Sometimes they have a dang goofy way of showing it, (i.e., any "Adaptations for for the United States"; or objections from BCL that translations were "English" rather than "American.")
And I'm not sure this isn't reflective of a Spiderweb rather than Hub ecclesiology. The way to foster unity with other countries' Catholics is surely through adherence to universal principles, conformity to curial requests and decisions, a joyful and whole-hearted acceptance of documents such as Summorum Pontificum, Redemptionis Sacramentum )
But perhaps I am looking at this wrong.
Or perhaps there has been a change of heart at the USCCB with their gradual change of leadership, or at least seeming shifts in their center of power.
Two points:
Sometimes they have a dang goofy way of showing it, (i.e., any "Adaptations for for the United States"; or objections from BCL that translations were "English" rather than "American.")
And I'm not sure this isn't reflective of a Spiderweb rather than Hub ecclesiology. The way to foster unity with other countries' Catholics is surely through adherence to universal principles, conformity to curial requests and decisions, a joyful and whole-hearted acceptance of documents such as Summorum Pontificum, Redemptionis Sacramentum )
But perhaps I am looking at this wrong.
Or perhaps there has been a change of heart at the USCCB with their gradual change of leadership, or at least seeming shifts in their center of power.
Funerals
Bad funeral....
In a first for me, I felt the necessity to call a funeral director afterwards and apologize.
I had vented a bit on the sidewalk in front of the church immediately after the funeral.The regret I felt was for bothering him, (certainly not for intruding on the grief of people, whose method of mourning was to blow noise makers, so they couldn't have heard me, anyway.)
The funeral had begun over 40 minutes late (the funeral home is two blocks from the church.)
And after my sitting on the bench playing and leading FIFTY MINUTES OF PRELUDE MUSIC (boy, is my improv in e flat gettin' good, into Nimrod, out of requiem eternam, a whisper of SLANE, ...,) the Mass nearly over, and my thinking I can't wait to get to the rest room out of this frigid loft and to some food, in that order, Father said, there is an announcement, and to Father's obvious surprise, said "announcement" turned out to be a eulogy, and before the first eulogist finished another moved to the ambo to add his 3 cents.
Some of it was unintelligible for the sobbing, but some of it was jokes... it is so edifying when the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is used as a warm-up to a roast.
And I was already steamed because in single digit weather some members of the choir don't see any good reason not to stand at an open the window in the loft counting cars....
Anyway, at the funeral director's request I have printed out what the Instruction General has to say about eulogies.
Chapter VIII
Masses and Prayers for Various Circumstances and Masses for the Dead
II. Masses for the Dead
para. 382. At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind.
In a first for me, I felt the necessity to call a funeral director afterwards and apologize.
I had vented a bit on the sidewalk in front of the church immediately after the funeral.The regret I felt was for bothering him, (certainly not for intruding on the grief of people, whose method of mourning was to blow noise makers, so they couldn't have heard me, anyway.)
The funeral had begun over 40 minutes late (the funeral home is two blocks from the church.)
And after my sitting on the bench playing and leading FIFTY MINUTES OF PRELUDE MUSIC (boy, is my improv in e flat gettin' good, into Nimrod, out of requiem eternam, a whisper of SLANE, ...,) the Mass nearly over, and my thinking I can't wait to get to the rest room out of this frigid loft and to some food, in that order, Father said, there is an announcement, and to Father's obvious surprise, said "announcement" turned out to be a eulogy, and before the first eulogist finished another moved to the ambo to add his 3 cents.
Some of it was unintelligible for the sobbing, but some of it was jokes... it is so edifying when the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is used as a warm-up to a roast.
And I was already steamed because in single digit weather some members of the choir don't see any good reason not to stand at an open the window in the loft counting cars....
Anyway, at the funeral director's request I have printed out what the Instruction General has to say about eulogies.
Chapter VIII
Masses and Prayers for Various Circumstances and Masses for the Dead
II. Masses for the Dead
para. 382. At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind.
Men who can't grow beards
Why do they try?
I realize that it is the suppression of facial hair that is active, do nothing and what ever wants to sprout will sprout. (The late great Claude Jean Chiasson told stories, perhaps apocryphal, of his aunt who would say things such as, "Ewww, a beard, dear? If God meant for you to have that He'd have put it there.")
So it's not exactly trying.
But, as someone who has never had to worry about razors, (I did not inherit other aspects of Mom's gorgeousness, but un-platinum and un- zaftig though I be, I still think I lucked out,) I have always assumed that unless a man goes for the ZZ Topp, OT patriarch look, facial hair by design takes MORE time than just shaving the entire face.
Trimming, shaping it, shaving some areas of the face but precisely not others, or keeping the growth to that exact level that evokes Zorro during a period of intense and perilous activity rather than the guy from water department on his day off?
It seems to me facial hair is usually more rather than less work.
Confirm?
I would ask Himself, except that any mention of beards or mustaches and he thinks I'm bringing up the fact that against my expressed preferences he sported a mustache for our wedding. That is a source of continuing confusion in our other blissful connubial state... we are both forgetful and negligent, and neither of us can locate with any precision that tipping point when reminders, or even ascertaining that one was indeed heard crosses the line into NAGGING. But I digress...
Anyway, that is why I won't ask him.
But I wonder, if after a reasonable number of days of effort, if it becomes apparent that you really can't .... why try?
The ladies at a website that I will not name are wondering about some TV actor, who apparently can grow a respectable beard, and have an idea whose time may have come, the XY crowd's counterpart to Locks of Love:
maybe this is one of those A Character's Downward Spiral Is Reflected In His Facial Hair beards, or perhaps he's growing it so as to donate it to Beards For Bros, a charity I just invented which benefits college dudes who try desperately to grow facial hair but totally fail and instead lope around campus scratching their ill-seeded, patchy cheeks, wondering if their tragical [beard] configuration means something bad about their testosterone levels.
I realize that it is the suppression of facial hair that is active, do nothing and what ever wants to sprout will sprout. (The late great Claude Jean Chiasson told stories, perhaps apocryphal, of his aunt who would say things such as, "Ewww, a beard, dear? If God meant for you to have that He'd have put it there.")
So it's not exactly trying.
But, as someone who has never had to worry about razors, (I did not inherit other aspects of Mom's gorgeousness, but un-platinum and un- zaftig though I be, I still think I lucked out,) I have always assumed that unless a man goes for the ZZ Topp, OT patriarch look, facial hair by design takes MORE time than just shaving the entire face.
Trimming, shaping it, shaving some areas of the face but precisely not others, or keeping the growth to that exact level that evokes Zorro during a period of intense and perilous activity rather than the guy from water department on his day off?
It seems to me facial hair is usually more rather than less work.
Confirm?
I would ask Himself, except that any mention of beards or mustaches and he thinks I'm bringing up the fact that against my expressed preferences he sported a mustache for our wedding. That is a source of continuing confusion in our other blissful connubial state... we are both forgetful and negligent, and neither of us can locate with any precision that tipping point when reminders, or even ascertaining that one was indeed heard crosses the line into NAGGING. But I digress...
Anyway, that is why I won't ask him.
But I wonder, if after a reasonable number of days of effort, if it becomes apparent that you really can't .... why try?
The ladies at a website that I will not name are wondering about some TV actor, who apparently can grow a respectable beard, and have an idea whose time may have come, the XY crowd's counterpart to Locks of Love:
maybe this is one of those A Character's Downward Spiral Is Reflected In His Facial Hair beards, or perhaps he's growing it so as to donate it to Beards For Bros, a charity I just invented which benefits college dudes who try desperately to grow facial hair but totally fail and instead lope around campus scratching their ill-seeded, patchy cheeks, wondering if their tragical [beard] configuration means something bad about their testosterone levels.
Friday, 25 January 2008
Suffering from Ecumania
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features_opinion/features_3.html
An interesting, ("I'll be the judge of that!" I always shout when Himself begins a story that way.... I'm a pain, aren't I? He probably gets a Get Out Of Purgatory Free card for having married me,) but anyway, an interesting piece by a Fr Michael Seed.
He obviously travels in far more exalted circles than I, but I think, I think he just may be talking about the same reaction I am having to what passes for Ecumenism, this kind of very earnest and spacey at the same time, What does it matter what you believe as long as you're a nice person? jamboree.
When Mrs. Himself Sr. learned we were to be married she asked him, or rather, more or less stated, "So you'll become a Catholic," and I too quickly said NO, and then of course explained, not unless he wants to we haven't even talked about that, it's certainly not necessary, not that it wouldn't really make me happy, but that's not a good reason... I never know when to stop talking anymore than I know when to stop typing.
But after we were married, and he began to ask more questions, and I began to ask them back, we decided, he couldn't really think about converting, (yes, I know being received into the Catholic Church from another Christian denom is not technically "conversion,") unless he knew from what he was converting.
And there's the rub.
And I cannot speak for Anglicans, or Methodists, (I'm thinking of some of the big entering into full communion stories of the past few months,) but it seems to me for Catholics, the emphasis on ecumenism in my lifetime coincided perfectly and horrifically with the catechetical collapse. All those Catholics "leaving" the Church had no idea WHAT they were "leaving."
And also perfectly synchronized with the let's cut out felt banners and sing I am a Giant Ball of Love phase of faith formation, (I'm not making this up -- our class had a big poster that said, "God is Orange,") was the de facto suppression of all the oblique catechesis , the devotions, sacred art, the ethnic Catholic customs, the cultural Catholicism.
So maybe I'm reading into Fr Seed's piece, but I think I'm seeing someone who looks on most manifestations of "ecumenism" with as jaundiced an eye as I.
The 100th Week of Prayer for Christian Unity ends today. The week was established in 1908 by the founder of my order, the Rev Paul Wattson (an Anglican who became a Catholic a year later). It worked pretty well for the first 60 years, but over the last 40 years it has become ever more complex and problematic. We often say: “Oh, it’s the turn of the Methodists this year” or “It’s the turn of the Anglicans.” It’s their turn to organise “the thing”, whatever the thing is. The week now is an exercise in “forced ecumenism”. It’s dominated by thousands of ecumaniacs. These are people in the grip of a terrible disease called ecumania. There is no cure at the moment. The disease leads to a living death, and it is a very painful one. The week needs to be totally rethought.
The emphasis of the next 100 years, I hope, will be on prayer and a deep spirituality.
The greatest joy I had in 2007 was when I was invited to address an ecumenical clergy meeting in a certain London borough. At the end of my address, they decided to abolish their pointless meetings. They wanted to wait upon the Holy Spirit to guide them to a new level of ecumenical life. I suspect that when they went back and told their congregations the meetings were over there were a few scarcely suppressed cheers from the pews.
An interesting, ("I'll be the judge of that!" I always shout when Himself begins a story that way.... I'm a pain, aren't I? He probably gets a Get Out Of Purgatory Free card for having married me,) but anyway, an interesting piece by a Fr Michael Seed.
He obviously travels in far more exalted circles than I, but I think, I think he just may be talking about the same reaction I am having to what passes for Ecumenism, this kind of very earnest and spacey at the same time, What does it matter what you believe as long as you're a nice person? jamboree.
When Mrs. Himself Sr. learned we were to be married she asked him, or rather, more or less stated, "So you'll become a Catholic," and I too quickly said NO, and then of course explained, not unless he wants to we haven't even talked about that, it's certainly not necessary, not that it wouldn't really make me happy, but that's not a good reason... I never know when to stop talking anymore than I know when to stop typing.
But after we were married, and he began to ask more questions, and I began to ask them back, we decided, he couldn't really think about converting, (yes, I know being received into the Catholic Church from another Christian denom is not technically "conversion,") unless he knew from what he was converting.
And there's the rub.
And I cannot speak for Anglicans, or Methodists, (I'm thinking of some of the big entering into full communion stories of the past few months,) but it seems to me for Catholics, the emphasis on ecumenism in my lifetime coincided perfectly and horrifically with the catechetical collapse. All those Catholics "leaving" the Church had no idea WHAT they were "leaving."
And also perfectly synchronized with the let's cut out felt banners and sing I am a Giant Ball of Love phase of faith formation, (I'm not making this up -- our class had a big poster that said, "God is Orange,") was the de facto suppression of all the oblique catechesis , the devotions, sacred art, the ethnic Catholic customs, the cultural Catholicism.
So maybe I'm reading into Fr Seed's piece, but I think I'm seeing someone who looks on most manifestations of "ecumenism" with as jaundiced an eye as I.
The 100th Week of Prayer for Christian Unity ends today. The week was established in 1908 by the founder of my order, the Rev Paul Wattson (an Anglican who became a Catholic a year later). It worked pretty well for the first 60 years, but over the last 40 years it has become ever more complex and problematic. We often say: “Oh, it’s the turn of the Methodists this year” or “It’s the turn of the Anglicans.” It’s their turn to organise “the thing”, whatever the thing is. The week now is an exercise in “forced ecumenism”. It’s dominated by thousands of ecumaniacs. These are people in the grip of a terrible disease called ecumania. There is no cure at the moment. The disease leads to a living death, and it is a very painful one. The week needs to be totally rethought.
The emphasis of the next 100 years, I hope, will be on prayer and a deep spirituality.
The greatest joy I had in 2007 was when I was invited to address an ecumenical clergy meeting in a certain London borough. At the end of my address, they decided to abolish their pointless meetings. They wanted to wait upon the Holy Spirit to guide them to a new level of ecumenical life. I suspect that when they went back and told their congregations the meetings were over there were a few scarcely suppressed cheers from the pews.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Papalatry
I received a "talking book" of Peggy Noonan's John Paul the Great for Christmas, and have been listening to it while cleani.... er, while avoiding cleaning the house.
Although I had myself in mind when I cautioned against a "papalatrous" devotion to man rather than God, (http://scelata.blogspot.com/2008/01/problem-of-unity-poses-this-question.html )Noonan's, well, there's no other word for it, gushing reminds me of a certain type I encountered when I first came to the the wide world of the WorldWide...
There were extreme conservative (NOT "traditionalist",) Catholics who hung on the then Pope's every word as if it were Holy Writ, and would declare, in so many words, things such as, "He is Christ on earth," or "John Paul speaks with the voice of God."
No, no, they could not be convinced, as I put it, that "sometimes under very specific conditions he speaks with the voice of God and sometimes he just speaks with the voice of a wise and good old Polish guy."
I'd even allow, with the voice of a VERY wise, and VERY good Old Polish, (and now, Bavarian,) guy, but not perfectly wise (for not every utterance is even intended to be, much less is, infallible,) and not perfectly good, (for he was neither immaculately conceived, nor divine.)
I'm not saying Noonan is in that category of hero worshipper, but there are times that her effusive praise is a bit.... well, almost embarrassing.
It's like hearing a 14 year old talk about her latest crush, and what a remarkable, unique, superlative paragon of masculine humanity her pimply-faced chemistry lab partner is.
Don't misunderstand, I admire many things about the late pope greatly, but her rhapsodizing about him teaching us how to die reminded me of some of her post 9-11 blathering.
Yes, Peggy, I guess if you never saw anyone else age and die with gallantry and pain and perseverance, but you know what? there's an entire world of people you will never write about doing that every day. Most of the world doesn't need a celebrated person to teach them that because they have grandfathers and neighbors and 1st grade teachers and sisters and ministers and grocers who have been teaching them that their whole lives.
She wrote a column once about applauding the blue collar heroes who were making their way to ground zero to do what needed to be done and how no one had ever applauded them before, noticed them before.
Really?
What made her think that?
Because she hadn't?
There a silly tendency among 20 year old NYU film students voting for the greatest movie Of All Time to forget that movies were actually made even, difficult though it may be to believe, before they were born.
It finds an echo in the mediocrats of either political leaning, of either coast, of any Hub of the Universe who think that the existence, (of anything, trend, activity, idea,) begins with their notice of it or engaging in it, whether it's admiration of the Common Folk, or pregnancy. (Yes, did you know that was a "trend"?)
Anyway, the sense of noblesse oblige was irritating.
This little rant was probably uncalled for, maybe I'm remembering her old column incorrectly, maybe my reaction is because her voice reminds me of someone I didn't like when I was a toddler.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon.
But did she really once say, "I first saw President Reagan as a foot, highly polished brown cordovan wagging merrily on a hassock. I spied it through the door. It was a beautiful foot, sleek. Such casual elegance and clean lines! But not a big foot, not formidable, maybe a little ...frail. I imagined cradling it in my arms, protecting it from unsmooth roads."
Although I had myself in mind when I cautioned against a "papalatrous" devotion to man rather than God, (http://scelata.blogspot.com/2008/01/problem-of-unity-poses-this-question.html )Noonan's, well, there's no other word for it, gushing reminds me of a certain type I encountered when I first came to the the wide world of the WorldWide...
There were extreme conservative (NOT "traditionalist",) Catholics who hung on the then Pope's every word as if it were Holy Writ, and would declare, in so many words, things such as, "He is Christ on earth," or "John Paul speaks with the voice of God."
No, no, they could not be convinced, as I put it, that "sometimes under very specific conditions he speaks with the voice of God and sometimes he just speaks with the voice of a wise and good old Polish guy."
I'd even allow, with the voice of a VERY wise, and VERY good Old Polish, (and now, Bavarian,) guy, but not perfectly wise (for not every utterance is even intended to be, much less is, infallible,) and not perfectly good, (for he was neither immaculately conceived, nor divine.)
I'm not saying Noonan is in that category of hero worshipper, but there are times that her effusive praise is a bit.... well, almost embarrassing.
It's like hearing a 14 year old talk about her latest crush, and what a remarkable, unique, superlative paragon of masculine humanity her pimply-faced chemistry lab partner is.
Don't misunderstand, I admire many things about the late pope greatly, but her rhapsodizing about him teaching us how to die reminded me of some of her post 9-11 blathering.
Yes, Peggy, I guess if you never saw anyone else age and die with gallantry and pain and perseverance, but you know what? there's an entire world of people you will never write about doing that every day. Most of the world doesn't need a celebrated person to teach them that because they have grandfathers and neighbors and 1st grade teachers and sisters and ministers and grocers who have been teaching them that their whole lives.
She wrote a column once about applauding the blue collar heroes who were making their way to ground zero to do what needed to be done and how no one had ever applauded them before, noticed them before.
Really?
What made her think that?
Because she hadn't?
There a silly tendency among 20 year old NYU film students voting for the greatest movie Of All Time to forget that movies were actually made even, difficult though it may be to believe, before they were born.
It finds an echo in the mediocrats of either political leaning, of either coast, of any Hub of the Universe who think that the existence, (of anything, trend, activity, idea,) begins with their notice of it or engaging in it, whether it's admiration of the Common Folk, or pregnancy. (Yes, did you know that was a "trend"?)
Anyway, the sense of noblesse oblige was irritating.
This little rant was probably uncalled for, maybe I'm remembering her old column incorrectly, maybe my reaction is because her voice reminds me of someone I didn't like when I was a toddler.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon.
But did she really once say, "I first saw President Reagan as a foot, highly polished brown cordovan wagging merrily on a hassock. I spied it through the door. It was a beautiful foot, sleek. Such casual elegance and clean lines! But not a big foot, not formidable, maybe a little ...frail. I imagined cradling it in my arms, protecting it from unsmooth roads."
Spiritual Snacking
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a self-starter, and that I do not understand that as an descriptor of approbation -- why are employers always looking for self-starters? They are a dime a dozen.
What are rare and essential are self-finishers.
Which I am not. Hence, my joy to have settled a spiritual practice that suits me, instead of true lectio divina, I am a browser, a grazer, a snacker...
If this is not a good practice, the good person who posts the Office of Readings and the best spiritual bloggers are .... well, enablers.
(Hmmmm... as I acknowledge myself a snacker, isn't it important to have healthy snacks in the house?)
Fr Hunwicke, about whose blog I cannot say enough has a superb reflection on some writing of Blessed John Newman's, in which he nails how, in my opinion, the trendy (if a practice that seems as passe as most of the other detritus of the '70s can rightly be called "trendy,") over-emphasis on the catechetical aspects of the liturgy to be found amongst those in the Liturgical-Industrial complex betrays a thoroughly protestant lack of faith in the efficacy of the Sacrament; may I say? a shocking and ultimately heretical disbelief in the power of the Sacrament of the Mass.
Here are Fr Hunwicke's (and Cardinal Newman's) words:
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2008/01/gabbling-mass.html
Gabbling the Mass
In Newman's (insufficiently read but brilliant) novel Loss and Gain, a young Ritualist clergyman called Bateman is trying to reclaim for the Church of England a fellow Oxonian, Willis, who has become a Roman Catholic. " Do tell me, just tell me, how you can justify the Mass as it is performed abroad; how can it be called a 'reasonable service', when all parties conspire to gabble it over, as if it mattered not a jot who attended to it, or even understood it?"
Willis explains that Catholicism and Protestantism are essentially two different religions. "The idea of worship is different ... for, in truth, the religions are different. Don't deceive yourself, my dear Bateman: it is not that ours is your religion carried a little further - a little too far, as you would say. No, they differ in kind, not in degree: ours is one religion and yours is another".
This is an important perception today, when much misunderstanding is caused both in ecumenical dialogue and in the subject called 'Comparative Religion' by those who fail too realise that religions can have radically different structures; their fundamental grammar may be wholly different, not just their superficial features.
As so often, Newman is a thinker and an analyst very much for our time.
But let us follow Willis's explanation:
"To me nothing is so consoling, so piercing, so thrilling, so overcoming, as the Mass, said as it is among us. I could attend Masses for ever, and not be tired. It is not a mere form of words - it is a great action, the greatest action that can be on earth. It is, not the invocation merely, but, if I dare use the word, the evocation of the Eternal. He becomes present upon the altar in flesh and blood, before whom angels bow and devils tremble. This is that awful event which is the end, and is the interpretarion, of every part of the solemnity. Words are necessary, but as means, not as ends; they are not mere addresses to the throne of grace, they are instruments of what is far higher, of consecration, of sacrifice. They hurry on as if impatient to fulfil their mission".
In other words, for classical Protestantism, the Eucharist is an acted word; it is a sermon dramatised; it is intended to instruct the witnesses and draw their heart to that saving faith which justifies. But for the Catholic, it is an opus operatum; an action which by the powerful and indefectible promise of Christ is objectively (not merely subjectively and in the heart of the believer) effective. So the celebrant is not in the business of moving or instucting or edifying or converting the viewer - if such may be the the by-products, even useful ones, of the action, they are not its intrinsic purpose. The priest's intrinsic purpose is to confect and offer the Body and Blood of the Redeemer in sacrifice for the sins of men.
Failure to realise this is at the heart of what is wrong with so much modern and 'relevant' liturgy.
"[The words of the Mass] hurry on as if impatient to fulfil their mission. Quickly they go, the whole is quick; for they are awful words of sacrifice, they are a work too great to delay upon; as when it was said at the beginning, 'What thou doest, do quickly'.
Quickly they pass, for the Lord Jesus goes with them, as he passed along the lake in the days of his flesh, quickly calling first one and then another; quickly they pass ... " but I invite the reader to get and read the book. [Ooooooooooh.... read a book. an actual book. an entire book. Can I do it?]
In terms of rhetoric and apologetic, it might seem that Newman has cleverly (no wonder Protestant England considered him dangerously sinister in his cleverness) justified 'gabbling' the Mass. But his purpose is deeply theological. I would put it like this.
If a Protestant went into a Catholic church and saw half a dozen side-altars, and at each of them a priest murmuring a 'private' Mass, his reaction would be likely to be 'Why are all those Ministers taking separate services, each of them with no more than one person to watch? What good does it do? Actors don't put on Hamlet to empty theatres just for the sake of it. It's pointless'.
But the priest knows that offering the One sacrice for the sins of all the world is the most worthwhile thing a man can do, whether his congregation is thousands ... or no-one.
Naturally, Doing This each day takes hold of a man and changes him.
To quote Newman again, "You, who day by day offer up the Immaculate Lamb of God, you who hold in your hands the Incarnate Word under the visible tokens which He has ordained, you who again and again drain the chalice of the Great Victim; who is to make you fear? what is to startle you? what to seduce you? who is to stop you, whether you are to suffer or to do, whether to lay the foundations of the Church in tears, or to put the crown upon the work in jubilation?"
May God bring close the day when this great Doctor of the Church is raised to her altars.(Substance of an address at Pusey House, Oxford, 16 January, 2008)
What are rare and essential are self-finishers.
Which I am not. Hence, my joy to have settled a spiritual practice that suits me, instead of true lectio divina, I am a browser, a grazer, a snacker...
If this is not a good practice, the good person who posts the Office of Readings and the best spiritual bloggers are .... well, enablers.
(Hmmmm... as I acknowledge myself a snacker, isn't it important to have healthy snacks in the house?)
Fr Hunwicke, about whose blog I cannot say enough has a superb reflection on some writing of Blessed John Newman's, in which he nails how, in my opinion, the trendy (if a practice that seems as passe as most of the other detritus of the '70s can rightly be called "trendy,") over-emphasis on the catechetical aspects of the liturgy to be found amongst those in the Liturgical-Industrial complex betrays a thoroughly protestant lack of faith in the efficacy of the Sacrament; may I say? a shocking and ultimately heretical disbelief in the power of the Sacrament of the Mass.
Here are Fr Hunwicke's (and Cardinal Newman's) words:
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2008/01/gabbling-mass.html
Gabbling the Mass
In Newman's (insufficiently read but brilliant) novel Loss and Gain, a young Ritualist clergyman called Bateman is trying to reclaim for the Church of England a fellow Oxonian, Willis, who has become a Roman Catholic. " Do tell me, just tell me, how you can justify the Mass as it is performed abroad; how can it be called a 'reasonable service', when all parties conspire to gabble it over, as if it mattered not a jot who attended to it, or even understood it?"
Willis explains that Catholicism and Protestantism are essentially two different religions. "The idea of worship is different ... for, in truth, the religions are different. Don't deceive yourself, my dear Bateman: it is not that ours is your religion carried a little further - a little too far, as you would say. No, they differ in kind, not in degree: ours is one religion and yours is another".
This is an important perception today, when much misunderstanding is caused both in ecumenical dialogue and in the subject called 'Comparative Religion' by those who fail too realise that religions can have radically different structures; their fundamental grammar may be wholly different, not just their superficial features.
As so often, Newman is a thinker and an analyst very much for our time.
But let us follow Willis's explanation:
"To me nothing is so consoling, so piercing, so thrilling, so overcoming, as the Mass, said as it is among us. I could attend Masses for ever, and not be tired. It is not a mere form of words - it is a great action, the greatest action that can be on earth. It is, not the invocation merely, but, if I dare use the word, the evocation of the Eternal. He becomes present upon the altar in flesh and blood, before whom angels bow and devils tremble. This is that awful event which is the end, and is the interpretarion, of every part of the solemnity. Words are necessary, but as means, not as ends; they are not mere addresses to the throne of grace, they are instruments of what is far higher, of consecration, of sacrifice. They hurry on as if impatient to fulfil their mission".
In other words, for classical Protestantism, the Eucharist is an acted word; it is a sermon dramatised; it is intended to instruct the witnesses and draw their heart to that saving faith which justifies. But for the Catholic, it is an opus operatum; an action which by the powerful and indefectible promise of Christ is objectively (not merely subjectively and in the heart of the believer) effective. So the celebrant is not in the business of moving or instucting or edifying or converting the viewer - if such may be the the by-products, even useful ones, of the action, they are not its intrinsic purpose. The priest's intrinsic purpose is to confect and offer the Body and Blood of the Redeemer in sacrifice for the sins of men.
Failure to realise this is at the heart of what is wrong with so much modern and 'relevant' liturgy.
"[The words of the Mass] hurry on as if impatient to fulfil their mission. Quickly they go, the whole is quick; for they are awful words of sacrifice, they are a work too great to delay upon; as when it was said at the beginning, 'What thou doest, do quickly'.
Quickly they pass, for the Lord Jesus goes with them, as he passed along the lake in the days of his flesh, quickly calling first one and then another; quickly they pass ... " but I invite the reader to get and read the book. [Ooooooooooh.... read a book. an actual book. an entire book. Can I do it?]
In terms of rhetoric and apologetic, it might seem that Newman has cleverly (no wonder Protestant England considered him dangerously sinister in his cleverness) justified 'gabbling' the Mass. But his purpose is deeply theological. I would put it like this.
If a Protestant went into a Catholic church and saw half a dozen side-altars, and at each of them a priest murmuring a 'private' Mass, his reaction would be likely to be 'Why are all those Ministers taking separate services, each of them with no more than one person to watch? What good does it do? Actors don't put on Hamlet to empty theatres just for the sake of it. It's pointless'.
But the priest knows that offering the One sacrice for the sins of all the world is the most worthwhile thing a man can do, whether his congregation is thousands ... or no-one.
Naturally, Doing This each day takes hold of a man and changes him.
To quote Newman again, "You, who day by day offer up the Immaculate Lamb of God, you who hold in your hands the Incarnate Word under the visible tokens which He has ordained, you who again and again drain the chalice of the Great Victim; who is to make you fear? what is to startle you? what to seduce you? who is to stop you, whether you are to suffer or to do, whether to lay the foundations of the Church in tears, or to put the crown upon the work in jubilation?"
May God bring close the day when this great Doctor of the Church is raised to her altars.(Substance of an address at Pusey House, Oxford, 16 January, 2008)
From The Introduction to the Devout Life by Saint Francis de Sales, bishop
The Office of Readings yields a gem.
I should like to know more about Philothea...
From The Introduction to the Devout Life by Saint Francis de Sales, bishop
When God the Creator made all things, he commanded the plants to bring forth fruit each according to its own kind; he has likewise commanded Christians, who are the living plants of his Church, to bring forth the fruits of devotion, each one in accord with his character, his station and his calling.
I say that devotion must be practised in different ways by the nobleman and by the working man, by the servant and by the prince, by the widow, by the unmarried girl and by the married woman.
...the practice of devotion must be adapted to the strength, to the occupation and to the duties of each one in particular.
[Is it] proper for a bishop to want to lead a solitary life like a Carthusian; or for married people to be no more concerned than a Capuchin about increasing their income; or for a working man to spend his whole day in church like a religious; or on the other hand for a religious to be constantly exposed like a bishop to all the events and circumstances that bear on the needs of our neighbour.
Is not this sort of devotion ridiculous, unorganised and intolerable?
Yet this absurd error occurs very frequently,...
[True devotion] perfects and fulfils all things. In fact if it ever works against... anyone’s legitimate station and calling, then it is ... false devotion.
The bee collects honey from flowers in such a way as to do the least damage or destruction to them, and he leaves them whole, undamaged and fresh,...
True devotion does still better. Not only does it not injure any sort of calling or occupation, it even embellishes and enhances it....
Through devotion your family cares become more peaceful, mutual love between husband and wife becomes more sincere, the service we owe to the prince becomes more faithful, and our work, no matter what it is, becomes more pleasant and agreeable.
It is therefore an error and even a heresy to wish to exclude the exercise of devotion from military divisions, from the artisans’ shops, from the courts of princes, from family households.
....the type of devotion which is purely contemplative, monastic and religious can certainly not be exercised in these sorts of stations and occupations, but besides this threefold type of devotion, there are many others fit for perfecting those who live in a secular state.
Therefore, in whatever situations we happen to be, we can and we must aspire to the life of perfection
Really, despite being of One Spirit we have differing gifts? differing tasks? differing, dare I say.... ministries? or, (I hope this isn't heretical,) some are called to ministries and others to apostolates?
The foot isn't supposed to lust after performing the job of the ear, say?
Gambling at Ricks
I should like to know more about Philothea...
From The Introduction to the Devout Life by Saint Francis de Sales, bishop
When God the Creator made all things, he commanded the plants to bring forth fruit each according to its own kind; he has likewise commanded Christians, who are the living plants of his Church, to bring forth the fruits of devotion, each one in accord with his character, his station and his calling.
I say that devotion must be practised in different ways by the nobleman and by the working man, by the servant and by the prince, by the widow, by the unmarried girl and by the married woman.
...the practice of devotion must be adapted to the strength, to the occupation and to the duties of each one in particular.
[Is it] proper for a bishop to want to lead a solitary life like a Carthusian; or for married people to be no more concerned than a Capuchin about increasing their income; or for a working man to spend his whole day in church like a religious; or on the other hand for a religious to be constantly exposed like a bishop to all the events and circumstances that bear on the needs of our neighbour.
Is not this sort of devotion ridiculous, unorganised and intolerable?
Yet this absurd error occurs very frequently,...
[True devotion] perfects and fulfils all things. In fact if it ever works against... anyone’s legitimate station and calling, then it is ... false devotion.
The bee collects honey from flowers in such a way as to do the least damage or destruction to them, and he leaves them whole, undamaged and fresh,...
True devotion does still better. Not only does it not injure any sort of calling or occupation, it even embellishes and enhances it....
Through devotion your family cares become more peaceful, mutual love between husband and wife becomes more sincere, the service we owe to the prince becomes more faithful, and our work, no matter what it is, becomes more pleasant and agreeable.
It is therefore an error and even a heresy to wish to exclude the exercise of devotion from military divisions, from the artisans’ shops, from the courts of princes, from family households.
....the type of devotion which is purely contemplative, monastic and religious can certainly not be exercised in these sorts of stations and occupations, but besides this threefold type of devotion, there are many others fit for perfecting those who live in a secular state.
Therefore, in whatever situations we happen to be, we can and we must aspire to the life of perfection
Really, despite being of One Spirit we have differing gifts? differing tasks? differing, dare I say.... ministries? or, (I hope this isn't heretical,) some are called to ministries and others to apostolates?
The foot isn't supposed to lust after performing the job of the ear, say?
Gambling at Ricks
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
obedience
A reading from the online guide to St. Benedict (http://www.e-benedictine.com/)
But this very obedience will be acceptable to God and pleasing to allonly if what is commanded is done without hesitation, delay, lukewarmness, grumbling, or objection.For the obedience given to Superiors is given to God,since He Himself has said,"He who hears you, hears Me" (Luke 10:16).
And the disciples should offer their obedience with a good will, for "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7).
For if the disciple obeys with an ill will and murmurs, not necessarily with his lips but simply in his heart,then even though he fulfill the command yet his work will not be acceptable to God,who sees that his heart is murmuring.
And, far from gaining a reward for such work as this,he will incur the punishment due to murmurers,unless he amend and make satisfaction.
Food for thought.
To whom do I owe obedience?
To whom do you?
Do I obey?
Do you?
My mother? my spouse? my pastor?
Do I owe him obedience?
My boss, who is my pastor, and I are often in disagreement , (don't misunderstand, I love him, we just have very differrent views on many, many things, and seldom have the same ideas on how best to proceed.)
Since he's my pastor I owe him obedience, to some extent, do I not?
Is my reluctant, or even sometimes sullen acquiescence really disobedinece? I behave as I would in a secualr situation where I was at odds with someone whose right, ultimately, any decision it was to make. And I continue to try to "get my way." (which, despite
On the other hand, I must try to ultimately bring our pracitice into line with what is right. Right? (Contrary to the opinion of her nibs, I am not trying to enforce my personal taste, my personal opinion, but rather what in my judgement is right, what is called fro, what is required by those to whom I owe obedinece. But that's a different matter.)
Anyway, thinking about obedience....
I alwasy wanted to be a priest.
Quite aside from having ovaries, I'm not exactly cut out for it, am I? vows and all?
But this very obedience will be acceptable to God and pleasing to allonly if what is commanded is done without hesitation, delay, lukewarmness, grumbling, or objection.For the obedience given to Superiors is given to God,since He Himself has said,"He who hears you, hears Me" (Luke 10:16).
And the disciples should offer their obedience with a good will, for "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7).
For if the disciple obeys with an ill will and murmurs, not necessarily with his lips but simply in his heart,then even though he fulfill the command yet his work will not be acceptable to God,who sees that his heart is murmuring.
And, far from gaining a reward for such work as this,he will incur the punishment due to murmurers,unless he amend and make satisfaction.
Food for thought.
To whom do I owe obedience?
To whom do you?
Do I obey?
Do you?
My mother? my spouse? my pastor?
Do I owe him obedience?
My boss, who is my pastor, and I are often in disagreement , (don't misunderstand, I love him, we just have very differrent views on many, many things, and seldom have the same ideas on how best to proceed.)
Since he's my pastor I owe him obedience, to some extent, do I not?
Is my reluctant, or even sometimes sullen acquiescence really disobedinece? I behave as I would in a secualr situation where I was at odds with someone whose right, ultimately, any decision it was to make. And I continue to try to "get my way." (which, despite
On the other hand, I must try to ultimately bring our pracitice into line with what is right. Right? (Contrary to the opinion of her nibs, I am not trying to enforce my personal taste, my personal opinion, but rather what in my judgement is right, what is called fro, what is required by those to whom I owe obedinece. But that's a different matter.)
Anyway, thinking about obedience....
I alwasy wanted to be a priest.
Quite aside from having ovaries, I'm not exactly cut out for it, am I? vows and all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
