Love means to love that which is unlovable, or it is no virtue at all; forgiving means to pardon that which is unpardonable, or it is no virtue at all.
-~G.K. Chesterton
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Pearls...
Love means to love that which is unlovable, or it is no virtue at all; forgiving means to pardon that which is unpardonable, or it is no virtue at all.
Advent Reflections
For someone who was not graced with the virtue of patience, waiting has never been easy for me. And this time of year, with everybody rushing around, hurried and harried, trying to get everything on the “To Do” list done, the long dark nights, the cold and usually the snow (a huge “Thanks be to God” for the lack of that so far this season!), it is easy to lose sight of what a special and wonderful time of year it is.
The Church gave us a wonderful gift with the lectionary cycle. In this week’s second reading, I have found my Advent prayer. A wonderful reminder for us all of what this season of waiting in joyful hope is really all about.
Brothers and sisters:
May the Lord make you increase and abound in love
May the Lord make you increase and abound in love
for one another and for all,
just as we have for you,
so as to strengthen your hearts,
to be blameless in holiness before our God and Father
at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones. Amen.
Let the wait begin!
Happy Advent!
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Mea Culpa
First and foremost I want to offer an apology.
My attempt at sarcasm was not taken in the spirit in which I meant it. I have often seen many comments and posts on the blogs regarding our Bishop, many priests, pastoral administrators and the like, that use “cheeky humor” and sarcasm, and decided to try a little of it myself. What I was trying to do was bring to light what I felt was “hypocrisy” in the different camps, - “orthodox and progressive.”
I IN NO WAY WHAT-SO-EVER MEANT TO IMPLY THAT FR. ANTINARELLI IS A HYPOCRITE!
I do not know the man, and have only heard good things about him.
I did not know that the “sign of peace” was optional. It has been part of the liturgy my whole life. I am still not sure if I understand “how” it is optional, and who makes the decision if it is done or not done, so it looks like I have a lot of reading to do, and maybe some more questions to ask.
My attempt at sarcasm was not taken in the spirit in which I meant it. I have often seen many comments and posts on the blogs regarding our Bishop, many priests, pastoral administrators and the like, that use “cheeky humor” and sarcasm, and decided to try a little of it myself. What I was trying to do was bring to light what I felt was “hypocrisy” in the different camps, - “orthodox and progressive.”
I IN NO WAY WHAT-SO-EVER MEANT TO IMPLY THAT FR. ANTINARELLI IS A HYPOCRITE!
I do not know the man, and have only heard good things about him.
I did not know that the “sign of peace” was optional. It has been part of the liturgy my whole life. I am still not sure if I understand “how” it is optional, and who makes the decision if it is done or not done, so it looks like I have a lot of reading to do, and maybe some more questions to ask.
"Peace be with you"
My friends over at Cleansing Fire have posted about Fr. A at OLV “suspending” the sign of peace because of “flu concerns.” While I understand that many are concerned about the flu, this is not, I believe, what this is about. It is no secret that many Traditionally-minded Catholics have a problem with the sign of peace.
As quoted from Cleansing Fire
“Something tells me that the flu will not ever go away, in the eyes of the administration of Our Lady of Victory in Rochester.
And thanks be to God for that.”
I am a little confused.
I hear a lot about “rubrics” and “that is not what they meant with “Vatican II”, “No one has the right to deviate from the prayers of the Church due to personal beliefs.”(a comment from one of my posts).
Please enlighten me.
How is it OK that Fr. A is doing this, even though it is in blatant disregard of the following?
From the GIRM (that we are using now, not the new one that was just approved)
The Rite of Peace
82. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.
As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.
From Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)
A) General norms
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Yet…have a guest lay preacher as part of a parish retreat, female altar servers, music by Marty Haugen, or dare to receive Communion in the hand, all of which fall into a “gray area” of interpretation and you have your faith and level of Catholicity called into question.
Would any one like a cookie with their cup of hypocrisy?
I mean no disrespect to Fr. Antinarelli, or the good people over at Our Lady of Victory. This is a perfect example of my "problem" with this whole "orthodox vs. progressive mentality", the rules seem to only apply if one is agreeable to them. Rules are rules, and should be followed to the letter and the spirit of the law. Maybe we should be using this "flu pandemic"(she says sarcastically), as a way to re-evaluate our practice of this custom and bring it back to a sober and sanctifiying moment in which we can forgive each other and then approach the altar with clean hearts.
As quoted from Cleansing Fire
“Something tells me that the flu will not ever go away, in the eyes of the administration of Our Lady of Victory in Rochester.
And thanks be to God for that.”
I am a little confused.
I hear a lot about “rubrics” and “that is not what they meant with “Vatican II”, “No one has the right to deviate from the prayers of the Church due to personal beliefs.”(a comment from one of my posts).
Please enlighten me.
How is it OK that Fr. A is doing this, even though it is in blatant disregard of the following?
From the GIRM (that we are using now, not the new one that was just approved)
The Rite of Peace
82. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.
As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.
From Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)
A) General norms
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Yet…have a guest lay preacher as part of a parish retreat, female altar servers, music by Marty Haugen, or dare to receive Communion in the hand, all of which fall into a “gray area” of interpretation and you have your faith and level of Catholicity called into question.
Would any one like a cookie with their cup of hypocrisy?
I mean no disrespect to Fr. Antinarelli, or the good people over at Our Lady of Victory. This is a perfect example of my "problem" with this whole "orthodox vs. progressive mentality", the rules seem to only apply if one is agreeable to them. Rules are rules, and should be followed to the letter and the spirit of the law. Maybe we should be using this "flu pandemic"(she says sarcastically), as a way to re-evaluate our practice of this custom and bring it back to a sober and sanctifiying moment in which we can forgive each other and then approach the altar with clean hearts.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Pearls...
~ Elisabeth Kübler-Ross
Monday, November 16, 2009
The lovers, the dreamers and me
I have been going through some notes from class (I am studying sacramental theology this semester) and some of my journal entries from the past 9 weeks of my 19th Annotation experience (the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius) and there seems to be a recurring theme of “sign” vs. “symbolism”.
I ask that you indulge me for the next 3+ minutes, find your “inner child” and listen to and enjoy this clip.
The rainbow, in the Judeo-Christian culture, is a sign the God will never again destroy the earth. The “symbolism” that this “sign” has taken on in secular culture, to some, may seem the antithesis of the “sign”, but that is the beauty part of “symbolism”- it all depends on one’s perspective, so, in essence, no one has the ‘wrong’ idea!
Kermit is right about one thing… "someday we’ll find it, the rainbow connection, the lovers, the dreamers and me.”
And for me, this “rainbow connection” is peaceful co-existence of "orthodox & progressive" so that we may be the “one, holy catholic and apostolic Church” and work together to spead the Good News!
Peace to All!
I ask that you indulge me for the next 3+ minutes, find your “inner child” and listen to and enjoy this clip.
The rainbow, in the Judeo-Christian culture, is a sign the God will never again destroy the earth. The “symbolism” that this “sign” has taken on in secular culture, to some, may seem the antithesis of the “sign”, but that is the beauty part of “symbolism”- it all depends on one’s perspective, so, in essence, no one has the ‘wrong’ idea!
And for me, this “rainbow connection” is peaceful co-existence of "orthodox & progressive" so that we may be the “one, holy catholic and apostolic Church” and work together to spead the Good News!
Peace to All!
The Inclusive Language Debate
Ahhh, language, what a beautiful thing!
The issue of “gender neutral” language in the liturgical setting seems to me, to be one of the proverbial “lines in the sand” between orthodox and progressive Catholics. My friends over at Cleansing Fire have posed some interesting questions, so as to not hijack the “com box’ there, I give you my humble opinions on the matter here.
In some respects, I believe this whole debate is a bunch of malarkey!
Jesus was a man, there is no way around that, and whenever we refer to him, it should be as a man!
God, however, is neither male nor female, as we were both created in God’s image. God is more than that. In the relational aspect, God was Jesus’ father therefore that is how Jesus referred to God.
For me, that is also my image of God, as a loving, patient, father, waiting for me to “come home”. For others, though, that may not be the image of “father” that they have. Their image of father may be one of fear and intimidation and I don’t expect that is how God would want someone to feel about Him.
I pray the Liturgy of the Hours, in the format that most priest and deacons do, which was written by men and for men. When I read the word “men” as it relates to the community or the world, I do not see just the male of the species, but all of human kind, because I know that up until about 30 years ago, this was an accepted practice! We did not get so wrapped up in the “what you said vs. what you meant” mentality. (Which is a whole other post!)
And then there is the Holy Spirit. I have heard the Spirit referred to as the “wisdom of God”. Well, in Greek, a language that many of our Latin translations come from, wisdom was personified as a woman, Sophia. Again, is there any reason to “box” in the Holy Spirit to one gender? If the Holy Spirit is the “essence” of God’s unfathomable wisdom, love and mercy, is it right to say that it must be either/or?
For me, this is all a very personal issue and depends on my relationship with God. That said, I do believe that we need to have some “structure” as to our liturgical practices. My idea of how to “bridge the gap” between the two sides is this…
When referring to a specific person, Jesus, Mary, one of the apostles, saints, etc., use the specific pronoun.
When referring to God, unless it is in direct relation to Jesus’ relationship, leave off the qualifier. (God, the father, we ask that you hear our prayer…) We acknowledge the relationship when we end our prayer, “We ask this through Jesus Christ, your son…, without using “gender specific language”
The Holy Spirit is a tough one. In the Creed, when I pray it privately, I use the feminine pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit (“with the Father and Son she is worshiped and glorified, she has spoken through the prophets…”). I guess it depends on my mood at Mass, and where I am, if I say it there, and if I do use the feminine pronoun, it is barely audible, as I do not want to offend anyone around me. I am not sure what I would do in this case, and am glad that I do not have to make the decision.
Which brings us to the most important thing, ultimately, it is up to the Church to decide on translations. This, from my understanding, is a very daunting and intimidating task, as many words have more than one meaning, and we cannot always be sure of context, syntax, grammar, etc.
I (we) can only pray that the people whose job it is to do these things act out of the knowledge that we all, male and female, were created in the image of a loving, benevolent, merciful God and that to use language to diminish that all encompassing love is, in my humble opinion, wrong.
Peace to All!
The issue of “gender neutral” language in the liturgical setting seems to me, to be one of the proverbial “lines in the sand” between orthodox and progressive Catholics. My friends over at Cleansing Fire have posed some interesting questions, so as to not hijack the “com box’ there, I give you my humble opinions on the matter here.
In some respects, I believe this whole debate is a bunch of malarkey!
Jesus was a man, there is no way around that, and whenever we refer to him, it should be as a man!
God, however, is neither male nor female, as we were both created in God’s image. God is more than that. In the relational aspect, God was Jesus’ father therefore that is how Jesus referred to God.
For me, that is also my image of God, as a loving, patient, father, waiting for me to “come home”. For others, though, that may not be the image of “father” that they have. Their image of father may be one of fear and intimidation and I don’t expect that is how God would want someone to feel about Him.
I pray the Liturgy of the Hours, in the format that most priest and deacons do, which was written by men and for men. When I read the word “men” as it relates to the community or the world, I do not see just the male of the species, but all of human kind, because I know that up until about 30 years ago, this was an accepted practice! We did not get so wrapped up in the “what you said vs. what you meant” mentality. (Which is a whole other post!)
And then there is the Holy Spirit. I have heard the Spirit referred to as the “wisdom of God”. Well, in Greek, a language that many of our Latin translations come from, wisdom was personified as a woman, Sophia. Again, is there any reason to “box” in the Holy Spirit to one gender? If the Holy Spirit is the “essence” of God’s unfathomable wisdom, love and mercy, is it right to say that it must be either/or?
For me, this is all a very personal issue and depends on my relationship with God. That said, I do believe that we need to have some “structure” as to our liturgical practices. My idea of how to “bridge the gap” between the two sides is this…
When referring to a specific person, Jesus, Mary, one of the apostles, saints, etc., use the specific pronoun.
When referring to God, unless it is in direct relation to Jesus’ relationship, leave off the qualifier. (God, the father, we ask that you hear our prayer…) We acknowledge the relationship when we end our prayer, “We ask this through Jesus Christ, your son…, without using “gender specific language”
The Holy Spirit is a tough one. In the Creed, when I pray it privately, I use the feminine pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit (“with the Father and Son she is worshiped and glorified, she has spoken through the prophets…”). I guess it depends on my mood at Mass, and where I am, if I say it there, and if I do use the feminine pronoun, it is barely audible, as I do not want to offend anyone around me. I am not sure what I would do in this case, and am glad that I do not have to make the decision.
Which brings us to the most important thing, ultimately, it is up to the Church to decide on translations. This, from my understanding, is a very daunting and intimidating task, as many words have more than one meaning, and we cannot always be sure of context, syntax, grammar, etc.
I (we) can only pray that the people whose job it is to do these things act out of the knowledge that we all, male and female, were created in the image of a loving, benevolent, merciful God and that to use language to diminish that all encompassing love is, in my humble opinion, wrong.
Peace to All!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
This is a joke, right?!
This was the question posed by a collegue when I reported the following from Harvard University.
Today, November 12, 2009 at 4:30pm, our infamous and disgraceful former Governor (and Attorney General)
Elliot Spitzer
The Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics!
And the word for today boys & girls-
hypocrisy!
God help us all!
Today, November 12, 2009 at 4:30pm, our infamous and disgraceful former Governor (and Attorney General)
Elliot Spitzerwill be giving a lecture at Harvard University, entitled,
"From Ayn Rand to Ken Feinberg- How Quickly the Pardigm Shifts. What Should Be the Rational for Government Participation in the Market?
(Anyone from NY should remember his participation in the market...)
sponsored by......
wait for it....
And the word for today boys & girls-
hypocrisy!
God help us all!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Honoring All Who Serve
For all who have served,
THANK YOU
Your courage and sacrifice has not gone unnoticed,
we pray with you and for you,
this day and everyday!
MAY THE LORD BLESS YOU AND KEEP YOU!
MAY THE LORD LET HIS FACE SHINE UPON YOU ,
AND BE GRACIOUS TO YOU!
MAY THE LORD LOOK KINDLY UPON YOU
AND GIVE YOU PEACE!
Thank you for making America great!!
Monday, November 2, 2009
Lay Preaching & Canon Law, pt. 2
I will admit that there was a little fear when I finished writing my post on lay preaching, and I did hesitate before pushing "publish now", I must say I am very glad I did not hit "delete" instead!
A very special "Thank You!" to Dr. K. for his information and comments and thanks to all who commented, helping to make this post a "true dialogue".
I have had a chance to read Dr. K's documentation, and to talk to a priest who is a Canon Lawyer, and have come to recognize that canon law does indeed prohibit "lay preaching" when it comes to the homily. I have been told that the DOR has it's own set of guidelines regarding "lay preaching" and I have talked to a couple of my contacts in the DOR about getting my hands on a copy, as of this posting I do not have it yet.
I am still not completely convinced that "lay preaching" at the time of the homily is an entirely bad thing, but I am willing to conceed that, at this time, it is strickly prohibited. Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est
That said, I would like to continue this dialogue, in regard to when, exactly, is "lay preaching" allowed.
I propse the following scenarios:
The comment, "lay preaching blurs the lines between the the "sacramental priesthood" and that of the "lay preisthood".
In a word, HOGWASH!!
I know the difference between a priest and/or deacon and a lay person, and I have yet to meet someone who cannot make that distinction. As I said, in this particular diocese, the lines get blurred, I believe, when you have "alb-wearing lay preachers" homilizing and then standing behind the altar during consecration! This situation, to me is much larger than the "lay preaching" issue, goes to help illustrate my point of "for who's glory" even more, and is something that I hope to explore in another post sometime soon.
I am looking forward to hearing more thoughts and insights on this issue.
And again, my deepest appreciation to all who have helped to make this a "true dialogue".
Peace to All!
A very special "Thank You!" to Dr. K. for his information and comments and thanks to all who commented, helping to make this post a "true dialogue".
I have had a chance to read Dr. K's documentation, and to talk to a priest who is a Canon Lawyer, and have come to recognize that canon law does indeed prohibit "lay preaching" when it comes to the homily. I have been told that the DOR has it's own set of guidelines regarding "lay preaching" and I have talked to a couple of my contacts in the DOR about getting my hands on a copy, as of this posting I do not have it yet.
I am still not completely convinced that "lay preaching" at the time of the homily is an entirely bad thing, but I am willing to conceed that, at this time, it is strickly prohibited. Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est
That said, I would like to continue this dialogue, in regard to when, exactly, is "lay preaching" allowed.
I propse the following scenarios:
- Assuming that the homily is "allotted" 15 minutes of Mass time, would it be acceptable for the priest/deacon to give a 10 minute homily, and let a "lay preacher" reflect for the next 5 minutes?
- The same scenario as above, with the "lay preacher" speaking after the "prayer after the Eucharist", but before the final dismissal?
- What about during "Communion Services" during the week that are in place of a "Daily Mass"?
- What about prayer services that do not include Eucharist?
The comment, "lay preaching blurs the lines between the the "sacramental priesthood" and that of the "lay preisthood".
In a word, HOGWASH!!
I know the difference between a priest and/or deacon and a lay person, and I have yet to meet someone who cannot make that distinction. As I said, in this particular diocese, the lines get blurred, I believe, when you have "alb-wearing lay preachers" homilizing and then standing behind the altar during consecration! This situation, to me is much larger than the "lay preaching" issue, goes to help illustrate my point of "for who's glory" even more, and is something that I hope to explore in another post sometime soon.
I am looking forward to hearing more thoughts and insights on this issue.
And again, my deepest appreciation to all who have helped to make this a "true dialogue".
Peace to All!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)