Anight of fighting in Iowa. People beaten by gangs on the fair grounds. Police reports of a gang of thirty to fourty individuals going around saying it was "beat whitey night". A police officer, acting as spokesman for the department saying it was "very possible" that the violence was racially motivated.
And...
A police officer moved from his job as spokesman. The "final investigation" saying the violence had not racial overtones. The initial reports suddenly not talked about.
I wonder what really happened, and why if it was a racially motivated outburst of "wilding" it has been papered over?
Isn't it nice to know that the Police are always upfront and honest, and their reports are always reliable?
(Don't even ask me about tasering the harmless or the already confined! They'd never do that! That's why there are never videos of them doing that!)
When the police can no longer be relied upon, and when they hold themselves above the law, and are answerable to politics and politicians rather than to the law, that's when you get a police state.
Oh well, I guess I'll have company in Gaol.
TRIUMPHALIST--YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Recommended Reading: On being green, actually.
www.faithandfamilylive.com/magazine/big_families_are_the_new_green/ , Really, it's an interesting and well though out article that avoids a lot of the hyper rhetoric that pervades both the issues of being "green" and family size. I liked it!
Note Shame
Notre Dame University has suddenly dismissed the one Administrator who opposed the awarding of President Obama an honorary degree on the grounds that a Catholic University shouldn't award honors to people who actively work to promote or fund abortions. A stance that is completely in line with both Catholic teaching, and the principles set out in the document Ex Cord Ecclessia, which state the norms that a school or institution must adhere to be be considered Catholic.
The dismissal is so blatant that some faculty members are crying foul--but not too many, because even the nominally "catholic" faculty support the so called "Great Lakes Declaration" in which Catholic colleges and universities decided to throw their Catholicism away in favor of federal funding in the 1960s.
I think that it is way passed time for the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend to use his episcopal authority and power to declare Notre Dame to be a non-catholic institution, and to ban the Order that runs it from his diocese. If one bishop, in one diocese, will stand up to a giant of "catholic" education for turning it's back on Catholicism, then a great many other institutions will reform themselves, rather than lose their legal status and the contributions of faithful catholics.
You know, the Voltaire thing--"for the encouragment of the others".
The dismissal is so blatant that some faculty members are crying foul--but not too many, because even the nominally "catholic" faculty support the so called "Great Lakes Declaration" in which Catholic colleges and universities decided to throw their Catholicism away in favor of federal funding in the 1960s.
I think that it is way passed time for the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend to use his episcopal authority and power to declare Notre Dame to be a non-catholic institution, and to ban the Order that runs it from his diocese. If one bishop, in one diocese, will stand up to a giant of "catholic" education for turning it's back on Catholicism, then a great many other institutions will reform themselves, rather than lose their legal status and the contributions of faithful catholics.
You know, the Voltaire thing--"for the encouragment of the others".
I Don't Think You Make Sense
The WaPo has a "guest voices" columnist by the name of Martha Woodroof writing for their on faith column right now.
The gist of her piece is that organized religion has run it's course, that we needn't pay attention to it or follow it despite it being large, powerful, influential, rich, etc. If you say that something has run it's course, then mention how entrenched, powerful, rich etc it is, I don't think you are making sense so much as engaging in wishful thinking. Sorry, the things say to describe organized religion do not indicate that it has "run it's course" so much as indicate that it's still here, functioning and influencing society.
And there is one other thing that makes me simply dismiss this column as poorly thought out clap trap: "As a person of faith who is not religious, I do honor religions for offering us ways to come together in the recognition that God is, ...." . This isn't going to stand up for more than thirty seconds in Dr. Warner's (one of my favorite secularized professors of religious studies--a brilliant man who demanded, and got, precision of thought and scholarship from his large classes of stoned freshmen and ISU!) Introduction to Religious Studies class. For one thing, saying that she is "not religious" but still a "person of faith" is a contradiction in terms. She would be more accurate to say that she is a deistic freethinker in her religious opinions. Basically, she has fallen into the post modernist trap of mistaking societal structures for religion.
I will recommend that she read, the re-read, Paul Tillich's Theology of Culture, so that she can at least have some idea of a tenable philosophic definition of religion.
The gist of her piece is that organized religion has run it's course, that we needn't pay attention to it or follow it despite it being large, powerful, influential, rich, etc. If you say that something has run it's course, then mention how entrenched, powerful, rich etc it is, I don't think you are making sense so much as engaging in wishful thinking. Sorry, the things say to describe organized religion do not indicate that it has "run it's course" so much as indicate that it's still here, functioning and influencing society.
And there is one other thing that makes me simply dismiss this column as poorly thought out clap trap: "As a person of faith who is not religious, I do honor religions for offering us ways to come together in the recognition that God is, ...." . This isn't going to stand up for more than thirty seconds in Dr. Warner's (one of my favorite secularized professors of religious studies--a brilliant man who demanded, and got, precision of thought and scholarship from his large classes of stoned freshmen and ISU!) Introduction to Religious Studies class. For one thing, saying that she is "not religious" but still a "person of faith" is a contradiction in terms. She would be more accurate to say that she is a deistic freethinker in her religious opinions. Basically, she has fallen into the post modernist trap of mistaking societal structures for religion.
I will recommend that she read, the re-read, Paul Tillich's Theology of Culture, so that she can at least have some idea of a tenable philosophic definition of religion.
Abortion violence.
If you do a quick search on "abortion violence" on Google, or Bing, you get lots of polemic about how those evil, violent pro-lifers are doing horrible things to "Womens Health Care Providers". but you don't actually get much documentation.
On the other hand, if you watch the MSM, you find that there isn't actually a lot of reporting on abortion violence.
However, if you look into it, you will find multiple occurrences of intimidation, legal intimidation (think about those Chicago folks who were arrested when the Abortion Mill worker told the cops "what the law said" and then the silence on the part of the MSM when the Judge dismissed all the charges and explained to the cops what the law actually said and upbraided them for enforcing a legal restriction that does not exist in statute or precedent--that's this summer, BTW), violence and attempts at extortion.
Here is an example--about a week ago a man was with his wife, escorting his teenage daughter in to an abortuary to have his grandchild murdered. An operation rescue worker approached to tell the girl she had the legal right to refuse to have her child murdered by a doctor. What occurred? The man told the worker that if she talked to his daughter, he would "shoot her between the eyes" when they came out. A SWAT team had to come and disarm him--but no word on whether or not he would be charged with intimidation or communicating a threat. And no coverage on the MSM.
To give you an idea of what's going on, Human Life International has documented 8, 519 separate acts of "pro choice" violence. To include between 2000 and 2006 269 homicides. (Compare that with the two homicides of abortion providers since 1972!)
Also documented are 250 rapes and 1658 other sexual offenses.
And of course, there are all the cases of forced abortions (remember the young woman who was kidnapped and bound by her parents, taken to have a forced abortion, and when she asked a cop for help, and the case went to court, the court ruled that despite her being of the age or majority it was OK for her parents to do this, with no ruling of incompetence to justify their actions?) and women who were intimidated or pressured into having their baby murdered in a clinic. (Over 60% of women receiving an abortion report they felt pressured by other people to do so.)
So there we are--Abortion, being a species of murder, breeds violence in it's advocates and practitioners.
You can learn more at http://www.abortionviolence.com/ and at http://www.hli.org/ . Go read it. If you are a pro life person, you will have your stance reinforced, but if you are a "pro choice" person, you just may see that it's not a choice, it's a murder, and many who advocate this process also murder, assault, rape, intimidate and otherwise abuse people who are already born--so that they may not be inconvenienced by a human being.
If you are "pro-choice" I dare you to read these two sites with an open mind. Although, frankly, I don't think you will--since you have already rejected the evidence of genetics, embryology and common sense.
On the other hand, if you watch the MSM, you find that there isn't actually a lot of reporting on abortion violence.
However, if you look into it, you will find multiple occurrences of intimidation, legal intimidation (think about those Chicago folks who were arrested when the Abortion Mill worker told the cops "what the law said" and then the silence on the part of the MSM when the Judge dismissed all the charges and explained to the cops what the law actually said and upbraided them for enforcing a legal restriction that does not exist in statute or precedent--that's this summer, BTW), violence and attempts at extortion.
Here is an example--about a week ago a man was with his wife, escorting his teenage daughter in to an abortuary to have his grandchild murdered. An operation rescue worker approached to tell the girl she had the legal right to refuse to have her child murdered by a doctor. What occurred? The man told the worker that if she talked to his daughter, he would "shoot her between the eyes" when they came out. A SWAT team had to come and disarm him--but no word on whether or not he would be charged with intimidation or communicating a threat. And no coverage on the MSM.
To give you an idea of what's going on, Human Life International has documented 8, 519 separate acts of "pro choice" violence. To include between 2000 and 2006 269 homicides. (Compare that with the two homicides of abortion providers since 1972!)
Also documented are 250 rapes and 1658 other sexual offenses.
And of course, there are all the cases of forced abortions (remember the young woman who was kidnapped and bound by her parents, taken to have a forced abortion, and when she asked a cop for help, and the case went to court, the court ruled that despite her being of the age or majority it was OK for her parents to do this, with no ruling of incompetence to justify their actions?) and women who were intimidated or pressured into having their baby murdered in a clinic. (Over 60% of women receiving an abortion report they felt pressured by other people to do so.)
So there we are--Abortion, being a species of murder, breeds violence in it's advocates and practitioners.
You can learn more at http://www.abortionviolence.com/ and at http://www.hli.org/ . Go read it. If you are a pro life person, you will have your stance reinforced, but if you are a "pro choice" person, you just may see that it's not a choice, it's a murder, and many who advocate this process also murder, assault, rape, intimidate and otherwise abuse people who are already born--so that they may not be inconvenienced by a human being.
If you are "pro-choice" I dare you to read these two sites with an open mind. Although, frankly, I don't think you will--since you have already rejected the evidence of genetics, embryology and common sense.
Friday, September 3, 2010
*SNARKY POST*
Just wondering--considring all the celebrity supporters and advertising photos, put together:
Does PETA actually stand for "People Exposing T*ts and A**"?
Just wondring....
Does PETA actually stand for "People Exposing T*ts and A**"?
Just wondring....
Thursday, September 2, 2010
My Dream Boat
My dream small boat would have a length on the water line of not less than 12 feet, with a draft of about 12 inches. the cockpit would have a usable width of 60 inches, and a length of 7 feet. the Length Over All would be not more than 14 feet. The maximum beam would be 6 feet.
It would be rigged as a Gunter Yawl, and have lifting floor boards to make a dry place to sleep in camping comfort, a small cuddy that could hold a porta pottie, a good place to secure a deep cycle battery and a safe and usable bracket to hold a gimbled single burner stove that would otherwise be stored in a locker.
A purpose built tent would cover the cockpit at night for shelter from bugs and elements while sleeping.
It would use a masthead tricolour nav light, LCD type, and a Good anchor light, also LCD. It would have a "car lighter" type electrical plug.
And, it would have good place to secure a cooler for beef and beer.
It would be rigged as a Gunter Yawl, and have lifting floor boards to make a dry place to sleep in camping comfort, a small cuddy that could hold a porta pottie, a good place to secure a deep cycle battery and a safe and usable bracket to hold a gimbled single burner stove that would otherwise be stored in a locker.
A purpose built tent would cover the cockpit at night for shelter from bugs and elements while sleeping.
It would use a masthead tricolour nav light, LCD type, and a Good anchor light, also LCD. It would have a "car lighter" type electrical plug.
And, it would have good place to secure a cooler for beef and beer.
The Post Below...
Isn't about Liturgy, and contains not one, but two, items from yesterdays list: Pretty Girls and Politics.
Sarah Palins Boobs, Derf, and the Comic--"The City"
Warning: a reference to Crude Behavior using frank language
I have been bemused for a couple of years now with certain elements on the left--usually those whom we may with to describe as "moon bats"--fixation on the fact that Mrs. Palin is an attractive woman, and their rather ...disordered fascination with this.
Right now there is much 'net space taken up with speculation on whether Mrs. Palin got a boob job or not. I am at a loss to see why this would be important, but it's getting lots of attention. And Mrs. Palins boobs have long figured into the lefts public discourse--from allegations that John McCain couldn't stop looking at them, through Larry Flint's porno movie starring a look alike. (And how, exactly, did a pornographer become a darling of the left for his "heroic" stand on free speech?)
Which brings be to a cartoonist named "Derf". Because this isn't a post in defense of Sarah Palin, it's a post slamming this guy, and his cartoons. He is positivly fixated on Sarah Palin as a sex object, this theme is recurring, over and over again. He cannot stand thefact that a middle class woman--whose family achieved thier economic standing through long and hard work--who has five kids and goes to church can be attractive. He constantly cartoons her as a over developed sex object, and usually when depicting her, at some point in the strip will depict an overweight ( in his universe, republicans and Christians are overweight) republican male masturbating over her image.
Yo! Derf--I just gotta say, if you keep cartooning this, I have to wonder, are you wankin it to Sarah? Why are you so sexually fixated on this woman?
I have been bemused for a couple of years now with certain elements on the left--usually those whom we may with to describe as "moon bats"--fixation on the fact that Mrs. Palin is an attractive woman, and their rather ...disordered fascination with this.
Right now there is much 'net space taken up with speculation on whether Mrs. Palin got a boob job or not. I am at a loss to see why this would be important, but it's getting lots of attention. And Mrs. Palins boobs have long figured into the lefts public discourse--from allegations that John McCain couldn't stop looking at them, through Larry Flint's porno movie starring a look alike. (And how, exactly, did a pornographer become a darling of the left for his "heroic" stand on free speech?)
Which brings be to a cartoonist named "Derf". Because this isn't a post in defense of Sarah Palin, it's a post slamming this guy, and his cartoons. He is positivly fixated on Sarah Palin as a sex object, this theme is recurring, over and over again. He cannot stand thefact that a middle class woman--whose family achieved thier economic standing through long and hard work--who has five kids and goes to church can be attractive. He constantly cartoons her as a over developed sex object, and usually when depicting her, at some point in the strip will depict an overweight ( in his universe, republicans and Christians are overweight) republican male masturbating over her image.
Yo! Derf--I just gotta say, if you keep cartooning this, I have to wonder, are you wankin it to Sarah? Why are you so sexually fixated on this woman?
There Can Be Only ONE!
Since I've been studying the Liturgy, I've ran across a good many things and words. Words and phrases like "discontinuity", "true mass", "Novus Ordo sect", "The Mass of All Ages", "regression", "reform" and "renewal". It's clear that a good many people are on the verge of splitting, or have split into a"true church" with a "true Mass" or "True Eucharistic Liturgy" and a schismatic body with a "False Mass". There is an assumption that somehow there has been a change in Eucharistic Theology and the Theology of Worship. I don't think so.
In the Roman Catechism there is a discussion of what the Eucharist signifies. (There are measures taken to keep this discussion distinct from the discussion of Transubstantiation in order to prevent any inference of the heresy of "transsignification" or "memorialism".)
The RC says that this discussion is engaged in so that "...the faithful, beholding the Sacred Mysteries with their eyes, may also at the same time feed their souls with ...divine things."
The three things the RC says are signified are the Passion of Christ Our Lord, (referencing Ly 22.19 and 1Cor 11.26,), the Divine and Heavenly Grace imparted by the Sacrament, and a foreshadowing of eternal joy and glory which we shall receive in heaven.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church these themes are continued, and expanded in detail. In the CCC the Passion is discussed in the context of the Eucharist, calling it among other thing, "sacrifice" "passover" and "pasch" in the sections 1356, 1357, 1363-1365. The "Divine and Heavenly Grace" are discussed in depth in sections 1391-1398. The Eucharist as a foreshadowing of future glory is discussed (in much greater detail than in the RC) in CCC 1402-1405.
It's worth mentioning here that CCC 1399 discusses the Eucharist in the Eastern Churches not in union with Rome in a positive light, due to their possessing valid Holy Orders and the "great love" with which they celebrate this Sacrament.
Another thing to look at is CCC 1345, containing a lengthy excerpt from the writings of St Justin Martyr, ca 155 AD. In this excerpt St Justin describes the Liturgical pratice of the 2d Century Church, an in this description, both the OF and the EF of the Roman Rite, as well as the Liturgies of the various Rites, are discernible.. This excerpt actually leads of the Section IV of Article 3 "The Sacrament of the Eucharist" of Part Two, "The Celebration of the Christian Mystery" (which deals with the Sacraments) of the CCC. This section is entitled "The Liturgical Celebration of the Eucharist" with the boldfaced sub heading--and the sub heading is the point of this reference--"The Mass of All Ages".
I have said before, and I will say again, that there is only one Mass. This is a logical necessity, because the Passion and Death of Our Lord, the Sacrifice on Calvary's hill, was a singular event. In as much as the Mass is the re-presentation of Our Lords sacrifice (CCC 1366) there cannot be "two Masses" or a plethora of Masses--there is only one Eucharist.
There can be, and are, a plethora of Liturgies and Liturgical Traditions. The Roman Rite, in both forms, The Coptic Rite, the Ge'ez Rite, the East Syriac Rites and so forth are examples of this--no two liturgical traditions are the same, but all are licit, and valid. Each Rite has it's own emphasis on various aspects of Eucharistic Theology (I am so impressed by the Maronite Rites emphasis on the Parousia--the Future Glory--that I wish I could worship in that Rite always!) But despite the multiplicity of Rites, and not withstanding the innumerable times the Eucharist has been celebrated through the Ages, there has been only one Mass. This is true in every rite, and even in those celebrations of the Eucharist that may be illicit, but are still valid.
I have sourced the starting point for this in both the RC and the CCC to show something. There is no break in continuity. Whether asserted by gleeful modernists who wish to "re-image" the Church, or dolorous sede vacantists who mourn the fact that they are the "last true catholics", The Eucharist, the Heart of the Mass, remains the same for all time. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our prayer, our unity and our life, and has been with us since the Last Supper.
It has been with us through the Greek Liturgies celebrated for the first two centuries of the Church in Rome. It was with us through the early Latin Liturgies of Rome, through the Latinate Liturgies of North Africa, in the Gallican Liturgy. It has been with us through the origin of the Gregorian Liturgy, as well as all the eastern Liturgies. The Liturgy has been re-worked, in greater of lessor extent, some 22 times in our history, and we still celebrate the same Eucharist as the Apostles.
At every valid Eucharistic Liturgy, whether well celebrated or a tie-dyed hippie phreak fest, in any Rite, we are one with every other Liturgy. Every time we attend Mass, we are the imponderable mystery of the Mystical Body of Christ, in the presence of the ineffable mystery of the Real Presence, with every body who as ever assisted at Mass, with all the Apostles and Saints, in the presence of God's Holy angels. When I was blessed with the experience of the Solemn High Mass, and the sure sense of participating in the Heavenly Liturgy, I was also at one with all the Charismatic Masses, the Dancing Ladies at the Altar Masses, at every calid celebration of the Eucharist. With the Monophysites of Ethiopia, with the Nestorians of Asia, with our Separated Brethren of Byzantium, I was in the midst of the very basis of our Unity--the Eucharist, which is Christ our Lord, body and blood, Soul and Divinity.
So I will say it one more time, in bold face, with italics:
There is only one Mass, and there has been no break in Eucharistic Continuity, nor in the continuity of the Theology of Worship!
There has been a change in emphasis, to bring out things that are important that had become obscured, but unless one will fully abandons the authoritative teaching of the Church and the deposit of Faith, there has been no break, those who stipulate otherwise are mistaken.
In the Roman Catechism there is a discussion of what the Eucharist signifies. (There are measures taken to keep this discussion distinct from the discussion of Transubstantiation in order to prevent any inference of the heresy of "transsignification" or "memorialism".)
The RC says that this discussion is engaged in so that "...the faithful, beholding the Sacred Mysteries with their eyes, may also at the same time feed their souls with ...divine things."
The three things the RC says are signified are the Passion of Christ Our Lord, (referencing Ly 22.19 and 1Cor 11.26,), the Divine and Heavenly Grace imparted by the Sacrament, and a foreshadowing of eternal joy and glory which we shall receive in heaven.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church these themes are continued, and expanded in detail. In the CCC the Passion is discussed in the context of the Eucharist, calling it among other thing, "sacrifice" "passover" and "pasch" in the sections 1356, 1357, 1363-1365. The "Divine and Heavenly Grace" are discussed in depth in sections 1391-1398. The Eucharist as a foreshadowing of future glory is discussed (in much greater detail than in the RC) in CCC 1402-1405.
It's worth mentioning here that CCC 1399 discusses the Eucharist in the Eastern Churches not in union with Rome in a positive light, due to their possessing valid Holy Orders and the "great love" with which they celebrate this Sacrament.
Another thing to look at is CCC 1345, containing a lengthy excerpt from the writings of St Justin Martyr, ca 155 AD. In this excerpt St Justin describes the Liturgical pratice of the 2d Century Church, an in this description, both the OF and the EF of the Roman Rite, as well as the Liturgies of the various Rites, are discernible.. This excerpt actually leads of the Section IV of Article 3 "The Sacrament of the Eucharist" of Part Two, "The Celebration of the Christian Mystery" (which deals with the Sacraments) of the CCC. This section is entitled "The Liturgical Celebration of the Eucharist" with the boldfaced sub heading--and the sub heading is the point of this reference--"The Mass of All Ages".
I have said before, and I will say again, that there is only one Mass. This is a logical necessity, because the Passion and Death of Our Lord, the Sacrifice on Calvary's hill, was a singular event. In as much as the Mass is the re-presentation of Our Lords sacrifice (CCC 1366) there cannot be "two Masses" or a plethora of Masses--there is only one Eucharist.
There can be, and are, a plethora of Liturgies and Liturgical Traditions. The Roman Rite, in both forms, The Coptic Rite, the Ge'ez Rite, the East Syriac Rites and so forth are examples of this--no two liturgical traditions are the same, but all are licit, and valid. Each Rite has it's own emphasis on various aspects of Eucharistic Theology (I am so impressed by the Maronite Rites emphasis on the Parousia--the Future Glory--that I wish I could worship in that Rite always!) But despite the multiplicity of Rites, and not withstanding the innumerable times the Eucharist has been celebrated through the Ages, there has been only one Mass. This is true in every rite, and even in those celebrations of the Eucharist that may be illicit, but are still valid.
I have sourced the starting point for this in both the RC and the CCC to show something. There is no break in continuity. Whether asserted by gleeful modernists who wish to "re-image" the Church, or dolorous sede vacantists who mourn the fact that they are the "last true catholics", The Eucharist, the Heart of the Mass, remains the same for all time. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our prayer, our unity and our life, and has been with us since the Last Supper.
It has been with us through the Greek Liturgies celebrated for the first two centuries of the Church in Rome. It was with us through the early Latin Liturgies of Rome, through the Latinate Liturgies of North Africa, in the Gallican Liturgy. It has been with us through the origin of the Gregorian Liturgy, as well as all the eastern Liturgies. The Liturgy has been re-worked, in greater of lessor extent, some 22 times in our history, and we still celebrate the same Eucharist as the Apostles.
At every valid Eucharistic Liturgy, whether well celebrated or a tie-dyed hippie phreak fest, in any Rite, we are one with every other Liturgy. Every time we attend Mass, we are the imponderable mystery of the Mystical Body of Christ, in the presence of the ineffable mystery of the Real Presence, with every body who as ever assisted at Mass, with all the Apostles and Saints, in the presence of God's Holy angels. When I was blessed with the experience of the Solemn High Mass, and the sure sense of participating in the Heavenly Liturgy, I was also at one with all the Charismatic Masses, the Dancing Ladies at the Altar Masses, at every calid celebration of the Eucharist. With the Monophysites of Ethiopia, with the Nestorians of Asia, with our Separated Brethren of Byzantium, I was in the midst of the very basis of our Unity--the Eucharist, which is Christ our Lord, body and blood, Soul and Divinity.
So I will say it one more time, in bold face, with italics:
There is only one Mass, and there has been no break in Eucharistic Continuity, nor in the continuity of the Theology of Worship!
There has been a change in emphasis, to bring out things that are important that had become obscured, but unless one will fully abandons the authoritative teaching of the Church and the deposit of Faith, there has been no break, those who stipulate otherwise are mistaken.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Political Joke
It means you're a Republican when you start on third and think you've hit a triple.
It means you're a Democrat when you get a base hit, but think you should score a run because the other team did.
It means you're a Democrat when you get a base hit, but think you should score a run because the other team did.
I Know, I Know...
I know I've been posting about Liturgy a lot lately, and I have another about ready for tomorrow, but I've been thinking and reading about it a lot lately, so it gets posted about a lot lately.
It's not the only thing I think about though! Honest! I think about other things too. Here's some of the things I"ve been thinking about:
boats
timber frame construction
bulbs and corms
root cellaring
soil rehabilitation and tilth improvement
firearms
politics
pretty girls
So if you'd rather I post about those things, just let me know and I'll see what I can do--but tomorrow, you're getting another Liturgy post.
It's not the only thing I think about though! Honest! I think about other things too. Here's some of the things I"ve been thinking about:
boats
timber frame construction
bulbs and corms
root cellaring
soil rehabilitation and tilth improvement
firearms
politics
pretty girls
So if you'd rather I post about those things, just let me know and I'll see what I can do--but tomorrow, you're getting another Liturgy post.
Islam
Every time I get around to thinking I can change my opinion of Islam (for the 2d time--I used to admire Muslims, and even after 9-11 I thought Islamic terrorism an aberration!) something else comes up.
For instance--Pakistan is suffering greatly from flooding, a disaster of epic proportions with millions made homeless and threatened with disease, hunger and exposure. Yet the vast majority of aid is arriving, not from the oil rich Islamic nations, or from the Islamosphere at large, but from the west.
So much for Islam being the "House of Peace" and taking care of themselves.
But you can add a little more to that: In Punjab, the Christian village of Khokarabad has been inundated by flood waters. Not flood waters that occurred as a natural part of the disaster, but because Muslims deliberately diverted the flood with dams and dikes to flood their village. More over they did so with out warning. Not only did the villagers not have time to evacuate or save any of their possessions, 15 are dead, the rest are homeless and the village has been destroyed.
And then we have the current image of a Head of State quoting the Koran, a passage which specifies that when faced with kuffars or polytheists, the faithful are to offer them three choices: conversion to Islam, payment of the kizya--a special tax on kuffars, or warfare. Then this man goes on to demand that Europe convert to Islam, or pay the jizya, or face being "turned black", presumably through terrorism. Given that the Libyan leader has been a steady supporter of terrorists except when bombed into good behavior, it amounts to faith based extortion through threats.
So I have a hard time correcting my distaste and antipathy for Islam.
For instance--Pakistan is suffering greatly from flooding, a disaster of epic proportions with millions made homeless and threatened with disease, hunger and exposure. Yet the vast majority of aid is arriving, not from the oil rich Islamic nations, or from the Islamosphere at large, but from the west.
So much for Islam being the "House of Peace" and taking care of themselves.
But you can add a little more to that: In Punjab, the Christian village of Khokarabad has been inundated by flood waters. Not flood waters that occurred as a natural part of the disaster, but because Muslims deliberately diverted the flood with dams and dikes to flood their village. More over they did so with out warning. Not only did the villagers not have time to evacuate or save any of their possessions, 15 are dead, the rest are homeless and the village has been destroyed.
And then we have the current image of a Head of State quoting the Koran, a passage which specifies that when faced with kuffars or polytheists, the faithful are to offer them three choices: conversion to Islam, payment of the kizya--a special tax on kuffars, or warfare. Then this man goes on to demand that Europe convert to Islam, or pay the jizya, or face being "turned black", presumably through terrorism. Given that the Libyan leader has been a steady supporter of terrorists except when bombed into good behavior, it amounts to faith based extortion through threats.
So I have a hard time correcting my distaste and antipathy for Islam.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Liturgy and Catechesis--Explaining part of my take on the Two Forms of the Roman Rite
I have re-read my two posts on the Roman Rite in the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form. I think I might be running a risk of being misunderstood, that people might think that I'm dissing the OF Mass. That's not my intention.
So, if you'll bear with me, I want you to consider the Roman Catechism. (Which is also known by the names of The Catechism of St. Pius V, and The Catechism of the Council of Trent.) It was decided at the Council of Trent that a new Catechism was needed, to supplant the regional catechisms that had been turned in to the several Protestant catechisms then circulating. That was on 5 April, 1546. A commission was appointed to draw the Catechism up on 26 Feb 1562, and the book was published in December of 1566. This Catechism remain in effect as the authoritative version of the catechism until it was superseded in 1992 by The Catechism of the Catholic Church, as promulgated as authoritative by the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in no way contradicts the Roman Catechism. It does expand and treat in greater depth the topics covered. It's worth noting that those who decreed the composition of the Roman Catechism envisioned it as being a guide to the instruction of "children and the uninstructed, who are ready for milk, and not solid food". The new catechism is much more in depth and assumes a greater ability to understand the materials than the old.
I realize that there are a lot of us who have been so mislead, and subsequently sustained so much damage, from unfaithful catechesis that the reflex is to distrust anything written since 1965, but we need to get over it. Not only did the Holy Spirit not decree a "new church" or a break in continuity with the 2d Vatican council, he did not abandon the Church afterwards!
I'm bringing this up, because the Roman Catechism ( I'm gong to refer to it as RC from now on.) has some interesting things to say about the Eucharist.
In the section on the Eucharist the RC explains the meaning of the word "Eucharist" by saying that it may be rendered as "good grace" or by "thanksgiving", It contains the sentence "And rightly indeed is to be called good grace as well, because it first signifies eternal life..."the grace of god is eternal life (Rom 6.23)".
No less aptly do we interpret it "thanksgiving"; in as much as when we immolate this purest victim, we give daily unbounded thanks to our God... ."
The RC gives other names of this sacrament, which I shall simply list: Sacrifice, Communion (from 1Cor11.16 the reference is in the RC), that Sacrament of Peace and Love, Viaticum and Supper. It gives short explanations of each of these, and takes pains to explain the "peace and love" and emphasises that "communion" comes from the fact that this sacrament is the source of our unity, of our coming together.
I list these and refer people to the Catechism of the Catholic Church number 1322 ff., and number 2665.
The point of all this is that I don't want anyone fo mistake my meaning when i compare the Two Forms of the Roman Rite. Just as the OF doesn't have the emphasis on the Sacrificial Aspects that the EF does, the EF has a lessor emphasis on some of the other aspects than the EF.
Perhaps that's why, for the last century and a half, and more, there has been a feeling that we needed to renew the Liturgy, and why now, there is a feeling that we need to reform the renewal.
So, if you'll bear with me, I want you to consider the Roman Catechism. (Which is also known by the names of The Catechism of St. Pius V, and The Catechism of the Council of Trent.) It was decided at the Council of Trent that a new Catechism was needed, to supplant the regional catechisms that had been turned in to the several Protestant catechisms then circulating. That was on 5 April, 1546. A commission was appointed to draw the Catechism up on 26 Feb 1562, and the book was published in December of 1566. This Catechism remain in effect as the authoritative version of the catechism until it was superseded in 1992 by The Catechism of the Catholic Church, as promulgated as authoritative by the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in no way contradicts the Roman Catechism. It does expand and treat in greater depth the topics covered. It's worth noting that those who decreed the composition of the Roman Catechism envisioned it as being a guide to the instruction of "children and the uninstructed, who are ready for milk, and not solid food". The new catechism is much more in depth and assumes a greater ability to understand the materials than the old.
I realize that there are a lot of us who have been so mislead, and subsequently sustained so much damage, from unfaithful catechesis that the reflex is to distrust anything written since 1965, but we need to get over it. Not only did the Holy Spirit not decree a "new church" or a break in continuity with the 2d Vatican council, he did not abandon the Church afterwards!
I'm bringing this up, because the Roman Catechism ( I'm gong to refer to it as RC from now on.) has some interesting things to say about the Eucharist.
In the section on the Eucharist the RC explains the meaning of the word "Eucharist" by saying that it may be rendered as "good grace" or by "thanksgiving", It contains the sentence "And rightly indeed is to be called good grace as well, because it first signifies eternal life..."the grace of god is eternal life (Rom 6.23)".
No less aptly do we interpret it "thanksgiving"; in as much as when we immolate this purest victim, we give daily unbounded thanks to our God... ."
The RC gives other names of this sacrament, which I shall simply list: Sacrifice, Communion (from 1Cor11.16 the reference is in the RC), that Sacrament of Peace and Love, Viaticum and Supper. It gives short explanations of each of these, and takes pains to explain the "peace and love" and emphasises that "communion" comes from the fact that this sacrament is the source of our unity, of our coming together.
I list these and refer people to the Catechism of the Catholic Church number 1322 ff., and number 2665.
The point of all this is that I don't want anyone fo mistake my meaning when i compare the Two Forms of the Roman Rite. Just as the OF doesn't have the emphasis on the Sacrificial Aspects that the EF does, the EF has a lessor emphasis on some of the other aspects than the EF.
Perhaps that's why, for the last century and a half, and more, there has been a feeling that we needed to renew the Liturgy, and why now, there is a feeling that we need to reform the renewal.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Paying Attention to Europeans
I pay attention to what goes on amongst the progressive circles in Europe, because a great man American progressives look to Europe and the UK as a sort of beacon or compass for the direction they feel we should be going in.
I, on the other hand, agree with the Founding Fathers--we need to steer clear of the moral corruption and double dealing of old Europe. Every time we have gotten deeply involved, it's lead to death, devastation, expense and needless complexity of viewpoint.
So it's with a certain amount of resignation that I read that a Labour MP is calling for the removal of free speech protections. Ed Millibrand wants to excise language in the current UK "Hate Speech" legislation that says criticizing same sex conduct is not enough to count as hate speech. This language was added after the UK police began going after ministers who preached against, or counseled against same sex activity.
Mr. Millibrand wants that language removed because he says it "makes it harder to convict murderers". He also said he is "angry" that the protection of freedom of speech has been extended to those who criticise same sex activity.
That's really disturbing, because the implication is that he feels Christians and others have no right to speak their minds--that religious ideas and moral opinion should be silenced. It's also disturbing because that can make scientific and medical research a hate crime.
If you don't believe me, consider two things: men who practice same sex activities live, on average, 10 to 15 years less than those who don't. This matches up pretty well with smokers vs. non-smokers. I have heard this mentioned, and denounced as hate speech. Or consider this--syphilis was at an all time low in the US, a rate low enough that public health professionals were beginning to speak of the possibility of eradication, until a new epidemic started. This epidemic had well over 80% of new cases occurring in Gay males. when the public health people mentioned that, and criticised the practices that lead to that, they were denounced for "scapegoating".
So if there is no laws protecting freedom of speech, then speech ceases, with both moral and practical implications.
What is bothersome for me is that most of the progressives I know at some point will point to Europe or European programs as ideals and examples of what should happen here. And those progressives are not only the ones who are controlling our government now, but a subset of them that feels American law and constitutional protections should be interpreted in light of European and Latin American law.
does this mean I'm screaming "Oh No! We are about to lose our rights and culture!" ? NO--it means that we always need to watch what goes on. Vigilance is a condition of freedom.
I, on the other hand, agree with the Founding Fathers--we need to steer clear of the moral corruption and double dealing of old Europe. Every time we have gotten deeply involved, it's lead to death, devastation, expense and needless complexity of viewpoint.
So it's with a certain amount of resignation that I read that a Labour MP is calling for the removal of free speech protections. Ed Millibrand wants to excise language in the current UK "Hate Speech" legislation that says criticizing same sex conduct is not enough to count as hate speech. This language was added after the UK police began going after ministers who preached against, or counseled against same sex activity.
Mr. Millibrand wants that language removed because he says it "makes it harder to convict murderers". He also said he is "angry" that the protection of freedom of speech has been extended to those who criticise same sex activity.
That's really disturbing, because the implication is that he feels Christians and others have no right to speak their minds--that religious ideas and moral opinion should be silenced. It's also disturbing because that can make scientific and medical research a hate crime.
If you don't believe me, consider two things: men who practice same sex activities live, on average, 10 to 15 years less than those who don't. This matches up pretty well with smokers vs. non-smokers. I have heard this mentioned, and denounced as hate speech. Or consider this--syphilis was at an all time low in the US, a rate low enough that public health professionals were beginning to speak of the possibility of eradication, until a new epidemic started. This epidemic had well over 80% of new cases occurring in Gay males. when the public health people mentioned that, and criticised the practices that lead to that, they were denounced for "scapegoating".
So if there is no laws protecting freedom of speech, then speech ceases, with both moral and practical implications.
What is bothersome for me is that most of the progressives I know at some point will point to Europe or European programs as ideals and examples of what should happen here. And those progressives are not only the ones who are controlling our government now, but a subset of them that feels American law and constitutional protections should be interpreted in light of European and Latin American law.
does this mean I'm screaming "Oh No! We are about to lose our rights and culture!" ? NO--it means that we always need to watch what goes on. Vigilance is a condition of freedom.
Tinnitis Can Be Fun!
A fact of life for old artillerymen is hearing loss. Often we gripe and complain, or are the subject of humorous comments, or sometimes an object of pity.
But it's not all bad, because often enough, tinnitis can be fun. Take last night. I was sitting at the kitchen table with The Queen of the House, when I heard Son-in-Law telling the five year old to settle down and get ready for bed. What made it fun was that fact that if you have high frequency hearing loss and tinnitis, human voices can come across as garbled, and the mind attempts to fit the sounds it percieves into patterns of speech--you hear the funniest things. In this case, I heard SiL tell the 5 year old: "No you've been misbehaving all day and your getting ready for bed--you're not getting anymore worms!"
Not what he said at all, but it sure sounded funny to me.
But it's not all bad, because often enough, tinnitis can be fun. Take last night. I was sitting at the kitchen table with The Queen of the House, when I heard Son-in-Law telling the five year old to settle down and get ready for bed. What made it fun was that fact that if you have high frequency hearing loss and tinnitis, human voices can come across as garbled, and the mind attempts to fit the sounds it percieves into patterns of speech--you hear the funniest things. In this case, I heard SiL tell the 5 year old: "No you've been misbehaving all day and your getting ready for bed--you're not getting anymore worms!"
Not what he said at all, but it sure sounded funny to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)