God's Reflection In Humanity

In studying the Theology of the Body this year, I was asked to enlarge upon the "spousal meaning of the body." So, here I am...doing Theology.

Turning to Webster:

–adjective

2.

nuptial; matrimonial.

So, I can say I am also enlarging upon the "matrimonial meaning of the body," etc.

The Body was made in God's image (Gen. 1: 26) and likeness, etc. However specific language is used by God when he says "Let us make men in our image..." This is immediate reference to God's status as three Persons in one God.

The Hypostatic Union is the name of the unique relationship shared between God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Father's love is manifest in His Son, and the result of Their love is the Holy Spirit. I'd like to note, "love" is a very worldly and imperfect word that cannot come close to resembling the actual relationship shared between the three persons in the Trinity.

Bearing in mind we are made in God's image, examine the human marital figure. A man's love directed at a woman manifests a child at the peak of mutual love. If you were expecting me to say the same thing about mankind as I did about God, your preconceptions are far too hopeful.

Not only is mankind fallen, but its expression of love is naturally less perfect because of its physical medium. Love's perfection manifests in a mystery, and we are incapable of reproducing this feat. Regardless, the similarities are still significant. Each figure, the Trinity and the human, involves three participants; two which "perform" the "act" of love (for lack of a better way to put it) and the resulting being (sadly, men are incapable of producing a divine result...).

When Christopher West exclaims so forcefully that the intent of our marriage is "engraved on our bodies," he refers to our physical *coughcough* gonads. However, I feel his attempt to impose an epiphany is lacking in that it does not imply divine rule. Our duty as humans to strive for perfection leads us to reflect the Trinity's model of perfect love; accepting the obvious ought to be accepted as being obviously insufficient.

In retrospect, a lot of what I wanted to say was based entirely in the worldly application of the spousal meaning rather than the spousal meaning itself, which I may have explained better then than I had planned. Either I'm getting better at blogging, getting better at getting sidetracked, or am blissfully unaware of the nonsensical nature of the above text.

~Samuel

Because Barney Told Me So!

I swear, that song will never be entirely out of my head. "You are special! special! Everyone is special!" but how, it's nice to know now and again that brilliant, poetic individuals are looking out for us.

In reading Dante's Divine Comedy, I come across a line very early on in Canto III of the Inferno a line that struck me as quite contrary to what this brainwashing public school I'm in right now informs me. I quote:

"They're mingled with that caitiff crew
Who against God rebelled not, nor to Him
Were faithful, but to self alone were true;"

Currently, Virgil is leading Dante' through a sort of limbo. A place neither heaven nor hell (nor purgatory, for that matter). Quite obviously from description and incredibly undesirable position to be in (naked and chased by swarms of hornets? Not my idea of a dream vacation!). The Gate of Hell, I believe it's called. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

The part I'd really like to focus on is at the very end of that quote: "but to self alone were true;" This strikes me as ridiculously relevant in this day and age. Ridiculously relevant because...well, because it's ridiculous! I personally love debating man's position as a social animal and forming societies, blah, blah blah. Interesting post Ambrose made down there, however for the sake of this argument the basic unit lies more relevantly with the individual. I won't argue with Barney. Everyone is special. But it's the way the idea is applied that irks me.

For some odd reason, the system would have me believe that I am free to express myself in whatever special way possible I could ever conjure from the most deeply misconstrued portions of my evilly-inclined, twisted heart. They call it self-expression, or whatever. The ambiguity could cause intenstinal convulsions. Regardless, if everyone is special and everyone expresses themselves "specially," then there is no such thing as "group expression," or in short, "cooperation." No, I am totally not committing the fallacy of bifurcation here.

Ultimately, though, this goes back to my fun little pet peeve of conforming. Above case in point: if we are all special, we are not collectively special. Society relies on a certain amount of conformity. With authorities, with each other, and with God. Obviously it would take quite a few tomes and college dissertations to explain all those, so I'll allow them to be taken for granted. If society is non-conformative and insubordinate, it will both overthrow authority and errode equal relations. This, friends, relatives and distant relations, is why I'm always crazy about being a societal conformist. Not with trends, but in the best interest of society.

So let's all be some wacko conformists, okay? :D

~Samuel

Of "Ghetto" and Monasteries

The modern faithful Catholic has a very good and healthy concern for being able to live in the world even while being not of the world. It's been emphasized extensively in recent Papal documents and backed up just as extensively with references to the Church's mission in the world. The reason is simple: we're supposed to make disciples of all nations, and it's awfully hard to do that while refusing to stray out of our own little "bubble".

I don't want to protest that there's anything wrong with this in itself, but I feel the need to defend from it something that it was never meant to be against.

Because of the corruption in the world (which I will be among the first to say hasn't destroyed everything good out there if you happen to bring up the right topic -- say, videogames) and the sheer magnitude of great traditions of the west and Catholicism, there's also a strong tendency for faithful Catholics trying to preserve these traditions to find it difficult to live in the world in any more than a minimal way. However, when we talk about this or if our fellow Catholics start to notice it they often remind us that we have to live in the world and engage with it or whatever the phrase is.

As for the Church on the whole, they're right. In fact, they're right to remind us of that as a general principle. What concerns me is I never hear about the case or reason where/why there could be an exception -- and a fairly major exception unless I'm mistaken.

Before I get to this exception, let me dissuade a probable objection: contrary to popular belief, our modern situation is not terribly different from that of ancient Rome, anyone who actually reads the ancients (I don't care which ancients, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, anyone) can tell humanity hasn't changed, and we're more different from the Romans technologically than societally/morally, so don't waste your breath/fingerstrength telling me that it's not the same because times have changed.

You've probably figured out from that that I'm about to pull some example out of history. If so, you're right.

Back in the days when Rome was burning down it was the monasteries that preserved learning while the Christian evangelists worked with the cultural mess of the remnants of fallen Rome and the barbarians (whether the barbarians were any better at the time is not a debate I'll get into here). The Church on the whole was on a massive mission to convert the pagans, and her teachings about good led them to salvage both much of Rome that would have been obliterated as well and many an aspect of barbarian culture (come on, you have to admit the Germans are not like the romance-ized French, although that's a poor example as it's two modern cultures). If you think the Catholics who are working to make use of film and internet today are engaging the world, you haven't seen anything compared to the post-Rome age. Nonetheless, a lot of the saving of culture and thought and holiness could not have been done if many communities of Christians hadn't built themselves refuges to fall back on.

I'm inclined to think, therefor, that it's not necessarily a failure for some of us to focus less on being out there as a sign in the world and more on perfecting the sign. There have always been Christians who focused on that, and they've always been a great source of aid and strength to the Christians who go out into the world. The trick is merely keeping the two in contact so that they can provide that aid.

With that said, is there some real concern that these "ghetto-ized" Christians may not provide as much good advice for evangelizing because they aren't as aware of what the real objections in the world are? There can be. I don't think that invalidates it though, for the simple reason that it didn't stop the monasteries of the post-Roman age from preserving so much good. I also am not too concerned about it because in our modern world there are degrees between monastery and being totally immersed in the world. I think having both is an ideal to strive for, so long as we also strive to keep the two from being seperated.

So, I don't think it's necessarily wrong of parents to shelter their families to some extent or another, or for me to wonder whether, with the global economy arguably about to go down in flames, the price of islands might get low enough for us to buy one, for the sake of future generations.

Orthodox Rabbi Supports Papa Ben

Fr. Z has the scoop. I tried to repost it but I couldn't find an easy way to copy his formatting (emphases and [comments], ya know) and was too lazy to reproduce it "by hand" (so to speak) and didn't want you to miss seeing this with his highlights. So just go over there and read it, now. It's worth it, trust me.

Get over it.

From Strunk and White, which is considered by most professors to be the Bible of grammar.

"The use of he as a pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language."

So get over it already. All men ought to be able to tell that using he to mean a male or female is perfectly rational, not exclusive, and simply part of our heritage of Western culture.

On Editing Hymns

A sure-fire way to make a conservative Catholic with a deep love of classical music happy is to bring back some of the old hymns among the more contemporary songs heard today. There is a problem, though- many of them were written at earliest in the century before last, and there is some language that may cause confusion to your congregation.

Like Thee, Thou, Thy, and Thine.

Take, for example, the following hymn, written in the mid-1800s.

Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inaccessible hid from our eyes,
Most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,
Almighty, victorious, thy great Name we praise.

Unresting, unhasting, and silent as light,
Nor wanting, nor wasting, thou rulest in might;
Thy justice like mountains high soaring above
Thy clouds, which are fountains of goodness and love.

To all life thou givest, to both great and small;
In all life thou livest, the true life of all;
We blossom and flourish, like leaves on the tree,
Then wither and perish; but naught changeth thee.

Great Father of glory, pure Father of light,
Thine angels adore thee, all veiling their sight;
All laud we would render: O help us to see
'Tis only the splendor of light hideth thee.

The first three verses are easily enough edited to substitute you, your, and yours, but that last verse is tricky. So it gets changed to:

Great Father of glory, pure Father of light,
Your angels adoring, all veiling their sight;
We too, God invisible, offer our praise;
O light inaccessible, Ancient of Days!

See what we did here? We couldn't think up anything to rhyme with see instead of thee, so we cut off the last half of the verse, rehashed and regurgitated the first verse, and tacked it on the end! Nevermind the climax of the poem, nevermind the expression of the immanence of God and that glorious revelation that nothing is between us and him.

Nevermind people whose favorite hymn phrases just might include 'Tis only the splendor of light hideth thee.

And now it's published in hymnals all over the nation, to be used in churches that say "Hallowed be THY name" out of sheer habit and then switch over to "For YOURS is the kingdom..."

Why not
All laud would we render: O teach us it's true
There's only a splendor of light hiding you.
?
Rather a vulgar combination of rhyme and contraction to fit the meter, but it's truer to the original than the "gracefully edited" one, and perhaps its clumsiness would make people question why it had to be changed in the first place...

One of these days I'm going to denounce and renounce the English language.

Yes! YES!

Finally, a retranslation of the Roman Missal! I've been waiting for this since I first found it in Latin, and wondered why the English we used was nothing like it. It's so much more accurate!

Just to give those among you too lazy to read the whole thing a sample of how much better it is:

Latin: "Et cum spiritu tuo"
Earlier English Translation: "And also with you."
New English Translation: "And with your spirit", which is as literal as you can get.

Latin: "Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis"
Earlier English Translation: "Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on Earth".
New English Translation: "Glory to God in the Highest, and on earth peace to people of good will." Again, can't get any more literal than that.

This translation conveys much more than the old the true beauty and the glory of the Latin Missal. Although nothing can really match Latin for splendor and awesomeness, this new translation comes as close as possible, I think. Three cheers for the Church!

~Ambrose

The Empty Argument for Emptiness

So we've heard that Nietzsche said that everything is meaningless. But what does that mean? *g* I have always thought it ludicrous for a person to hold that nothing has purpose. Here are my thoughts on the matter.

If everything is meaningless, why say so at all? Let people "console themselves with religion" or whatever they want to. If everything is meaningless, there is no reason for any one to do anything, or not to do anything. Government has no power. Sure, they can say that the common good demands that xyz murderer be punished, but the common good is a meaning and a purpose. If everything is meaningless, no action can have meaning, and as a result, charity, affluence, despair - none of these are possible, or if they are, none of them have any meaning, and thus are not what they would be. If an affluent person doesn't really have any power, he's not affluent. If a charitable person can't really change anything, he's not charitable. And thus, language at all is meaningless - we can't even say "the" without implying a certain thing is worth pointing out - or has meaning.

So, since everything cannot have no meaning, it certainly shoud have meaning. And if life means something, then I certainly want to find out what it means. Thus far, the only meaning I've come across that satisfies my desire for meaning is the theology of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Let your life mean something! Think about that before you spend all your time doing nothing.

~Ambrose

Today

Today is perhaps one of the quietest days of the year- a day for realizing, waiting, contemplating. Good Friday was yesterday but Easter is not until tomorrow- there's that feeling of both suspense and suspension, breathing in a dark but sanctified stillness. Today is a day to just be.

Every year for a long while I've had an experience, brief and unextraordinary in itself, but carrying enough symbolism in its very simplicity for me to notice and remember it. Every year, after the Veneration of the Cross on Good Friday, I take my stack of music back to the choir room, hoarse, transported, and emotionally spent. The sunny choir room (it never will rain properly on Good Friday, around here) opens through a small door off a short hall, dim if not dark. Everything needed to decorate the church for Easter is sealed in boxes piled inconspicuously to one side.

What I always notice is the lilies. Hundreds and hundreds of lilies, enough to ornament the inside and outside of the church. You can probably imagine what hundreds of immaculate flowers waiting in a dim hallway smell like- the gently strong, reverent fragrance is almost overpowering.

Moving from the passion and pathos of my renewed witness of the crucifixion through the quiet, fragrant darkness to emerge blinking in sudden, glorious sunlight. A seconds-long journey, but year after year it strikes me anew in its resemblance of my spiritual journey from Yesterday to Tomorrow.

May the Lord be with you as you prepare to emerge in the Son-light of Easter morning.

~Mari

Watch This Group

The Dom Gueranger Society looks like it will be instrumental, if not a principle force altogether, in the revival of Liturgical Tradition here at Steubie; and Steubie itself is known to be a powerful force among rising authentic Catholicism this side of the world.

Why worry about the election...

When you could be praying for the opportunity to turn around that the Jesuits have at the moment?

At least, assuming they didn't finish in a week. Hurry up and get prayin', with these people you never know. 8^)

After all, prior to getting messed up they were some of the greatest missionaries we had, and you know we need more and better missionaries in the neo-pagan world today.

Advent

"Coming".

The world likes to get hyped about Christmas coming. Hyped liked a dog at the sight and smell (smell especially, for most dogs) of an endless supply of fresh meat. Hyped like that little guy in Over the Hedge who dashes around at blinding speed and can hardly settle himself enough to say anything important. In fact, that's just the problem with getting hyped.

A few gifted souls out there look, see and think best when they're worked up. The rest of us, not so much so. True, we get things done better while worked up. Meaning, though, usually has to be taken for granted in such states.

So when Red Cardigan at And Sometimes Tea posted on the whole "Holiday" thing, I knew I would be linking it about today.

Red Cardigan points out that not only is the world refusing to acknowledge the meaning of Christmas, but we as Christians and especially Catholics are losing our traditional period of preparation to look at that meaning.

Advent.

If something meaningful is coming, say a wedding, you want to prepare for it. However, you want to prepare for it in far more important ways than just having the decorations up. If someone gets too stressed with those surface preparations to be prepared internally, say when a wedding is coming up, we alway remind them to step back, stop worrying the cake will be perfect and let themselves just think about that which the cake is for.

Let's not just try to retake Christmas. Let's retake Advent. If we retake Christmas from those who don't want to mention its name, that's great. If we don't have our fair chance to actually sit back and think about Christmas' meaning, it doesn't matter. Let's retake that time, those three to four weeks, for doing just that.

Now for an artistic defense.

NOTE: Please read this before continuing.

Beauty is that which according to its nature is directed towards pleasing. Is it better to have pleasure or to be pleased? Well, if one has pleasure but is displeased, one isn't happy. If one is pleased even without pleasure, one is fairly happy. So then, it shouldn't matter whether we find it enjoyable to do something as much as it matters whether that something is beautiful.

Now, which is more beautiful: the "Holiday" rush for superficial things or the serenity of sitting back and thinking about the meaning?

Duh.

Advent.

No Wonder I Love Papa Ben

His new encyclical, Spe Salvi, sounds like the coolest thing ever, and not just because I had no idea nouns of a single syllable exist in Latin. Here's a bit of the Catholic News Agency's report on it.

Vatican City, Nov 30, 2007 / 09:14 am (CNA).- “Spe Salvi—by hope we were saved,” with these words Pope Benedict XVI begins his second encyclical, which was released today. He asserts in the second half of his teaching that what is needed today, in a world often considered hopeless, is a self-critique of modern society along with the rediscovery and living of Christian hope.

Beginning in number 22 of “Spe Salvi”, Pope Benedict challenges both modernity and Christianity to a self-critique. Modernity must enter into a “dialogue with Christianity and its concept of hope. In this dialogue Christians too, in the context of their knowledge and experience, must learn anew in what their hope truly consists, what they have to offer to the world and what they cannot offer. Flowing into this self-critique of the modern age there also has to be a self-critique of modern Christianity, which must constantly renew its self-understanding setting out from its roots,” the Pope writes.

The first step that he takes in this analysis is to say that “we must ask ourselves: what does “progress” really mean; what does it promise and what does it not promise?”

Once this is done, the Holy Father explains, “the ambiguity of progress becomes evident.” “Without doubt, it offers new possibilities for good, but it also opens up appalling possibilities for evil—possibilities that formerly did not exist.”

“Yes indeed, reason is God's great gift to man,” the Pope stresses, “and the victory of reason over unreason is also a goal of the Christian life.”

Benedict XVI’s conclusion is that “very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope.”

In this part of the encyclical, the Holy Father analyzes the ways that the condition of mankind affects society and what saves man from this state.

It only gets more interesting as the details open up, folks.

If you have a lot more free time than I do, you can read the encyclical itself here.

Dumb Question...

Certain Traditionalists often point out that the old form of the Roman Rite is superior to the new form (the "Novus Ordo") in Theological aspects of how we worship God.

The reply many give is that this is the result of nasty people hijacking the NO and that if it were to be done as it ought to have been it would indeed be a proper move Liturgically.

A counter-argument sometimes given by some of the more adamant critics of the NO is that that simply hasn't happened and isn't going to. Some Traditionalists do plan on the restoration of the Liturgy in the NO as the long-term goal, but quite a few sound perfectly ready to abandon it.

Yet they also argue that people are going to eventually be drawn to the old form because of its being better. They must either argue this or else be arguing that the Liturgy is a lost cause.

Well, which is it? Are people incapable of appreciating these Theological aspect of Liturgy or are they not? You can't have it both ways. If people are going to appreciate the old form and be drawn back to it, won't they then be capable of appreciating a fixed-up-to-be-right new form?

The only trouble is, well, fixing the new form up in the first place and who has not just the appreciation but also the extensive knowledge to get it fixed up. These Traditionalists claim to have enough of this knowledge to know for certain that the old form currently is better; why don't they just do it? Is the hierarchy around here (in the US, say) screening out Traditionalists from the major Liturgical jobs? If so, the Traditionalists need to spend less time complaining about us and more time complaining about the disdain of our portion of the hierarchy, or better yet asking higher up in the hierarchy to help out. Mind you, I mean those that spend more time complaining about the NO than trying to help fix it in the first place.

Still, I wish I could get some answers on this.

Aha!

When theory runs up against practice, trust practice to be the one that's corresponding to reality.

When one man's experience seems to indicate something, be open to alternative explanations.

Yet when theory is backed up by the practice of a few individuals, which in turn are well explained by the theory, usually 'tis the general practice that is faulty somehow and needs alternative explanations of why it only seems to contradict the theory.

So, with that in mind, although 'tis not a definitive proof, I want to add something to my little thing about Charism. Two things, actually.

The first is Pete Vere's "Trentecostal experience". (Catchy name, eh?)

The second is Fr. Al Lauer, founder of Presentation Ministries. PM looks like a fairly charismatic movement. I certainly can say that 'twas from them I learned a lot about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and first saw the whole arm-raisin', hand wavin', in-tongues prayin' thing. Yet Fr. Al also was pastor for years of Old St. Mary's, a church in Cincinnati where everyone kneels at the old Communion rail, where there is no such thing as an altar girl, where the old High Altar in the far back is occasionally faced old-style for big, important Masses, where the music we sport is alternatively pipe organ, chant and even sometimes lute, where you always hear good, orthodox reflection from the pulpit, etc., etc., etc. Now try and tell me that this great man was Traditionalist to the detriment of the Charismatic movement or vice versa. No, I've seen him and his work in action in many ways, and I say he showed how the two can really go together.

That's not saying that PM and OSM people hit it off well together; for some reason or other they sometimes just don't seem to get along now that he's gone. Still, just because not all of us manage to follow the way doesn't mean there is no way to follow.

Viva la Familia!

The Blue Boar reports that studies find family dinners to be quite beneficial, and Captain Hat reports that studies find homeschooling to be quite beneficial, with the end result in my mind being that political correctness is stupid to ignore the Catholic Philosophers' traditional assertion that the family is the natural and therefore best place for a growing person to grow.

Charism and Tradition

"Spiritual work involves learning to cooperate with God. Of course this does not mean abandoning the inner life; no, rather you must learn to work at spiritual growth, so that the unity built up there bursts out into action in the world and that such outward action draws you back into the inner unity. By following such a program you learn to be free, not addicted to or fleeing from anything. Place your attention on the inner life and from there proceed outwards. If, however, your life in the world conflicts with your interior work, devote yourself to the interior. But ideally the two should proceed together, for then you are working together with God."
~Meister Eckhart

It seems strange to me that Charismatics and Traditionalists should ever be divided. Charism, when it is authentic and not merely human (or worse), is a very good way of being more fully alive in God's Love. Tradition is remembrance (indeed, a remembrance that is more than mere memory, at the very least a re-member-ing) of the Way and Truth that that Life should follow. The two almost need each other in some sense.

Because Charisms are given for outward work to bring others to God, whereas Tradition is that which really roots us deeply and surely with Salvation, I think the same thing can be said of the two as Meister Eckhart said of interior prayer and outward work for God. Tradition, because it is what roots us in the Way, the Truth and the Life, is just like that inward movement to God; Charism just like God sending one on that outward movement. You can't honestly by filled with one and not be led to the other. That's why many at fairly Charismatic communities such as Franciscan University of Steubenville love Tradition as well (there's been quite some hype here about the forma extraodrinaria, believe me), and why a priest full of Tradition such as Fr. Al Lauer will gather Charismatic people.

Certainly Charism needs Tradition to be sure it is authentic, for one thing. On the other hand even if Tradition does not need Charism strictly speaking, it would be so helpful to Tradition if authentic Charism would join it. Perhaps some analogies to illustrate will be helpful, and further logical explanation will work best after them.

Think of a kid coming up to his grandfather shouting "Grandpa, look what I got for Christmas!" That gift, and the way the child holds it up for all to see, are Charism. Grandpa, his attention having been gotten, takes a good look at it, smiles, takes his grandson over to his old model train setup and sets the new toy going on it. That's Tradition. Grandpa and grandson both enjoy the two together.

Charism, like a child thrusting something almost in his friends' faces, gets the many shortsighted people in this world to see Christ. It is enthusiastic, outgoing, visibly on fire. Tradition is the house where that something came from, where it goes in arrangement with the child's many other things. It is strong, stable, steadfast.

Charism is a lot like the way Evangelical Protestants are always crazy for Jesus; Tradition is that thing Protestants lack that protects us from error, and also from falling for counterfeit charisms.

Charism is a fire, and for a good fire you need a fireplace. Tradition is the fireplace. Where one is bringing the fire out into the wilderness, Tradition is the boy scout's lore of how to make a bonfire safe and yet strong.

Tradition often seems to many like a bunch of old stones. Yet for the river of Charism to reach the right destination, you need an aqueduct. Guess what – aqueducts are made of old stones!

Tradition is the bloodline, Charism is the energy of youth. Not all youth will be as energetic as most, but all must come from the bloodline. The more youthful resiliency and energy the youth of the bloodline have, the better. That's why Charism, as long as it flows in Tradition, is such a wonderful thing.

Tradition is the nature of a Pheonix, that which makes it always grow up to be a Pheonix and not an elephant; Charism is the fire that makes the Pheonix young again.

This is the lesson that the hippy "modern" Catholics missed. The reason the Church in America is in shambles right now is because a generation said "we need the people to have more energy and enthusiasm for the Church" and forgot that the Church was something that God set on His foundation, not we on whatever sounds neat to us. The need for that energy and enthusiasm, though, the need to reach out to the world, is absolutely real. We shouldn't discourage those who reach out to the world while filled with authentic fire for God. We should make friends of them so they will be willing to receive the strong Tradition to draw the world back in to (and we should not be overly bothered that those just coming into it need to learn most of it, as is only natural). On the other hand, those full of fire but not so knowledgeable of all the Tradition should seek to learn it more and more, because it's the wellspring of the Way, Truth and Life that they are on fire for.

Thus the more Charismatics and Traditionalists will mix, the better. Once there is no difference between us will we be strongest in our mission to "Go forth and make Disciples of all nations."

UPDATE: I've posted the Catechism's paragraphs on Charisms here.

Hmmm, I'm not the only one who thinks so...

[A]n understanding of the importance of Latin in our Church's theological history will help us accomplish something very worthwhile: namely, to separate the opinions of the Traditionalists from the important role of Tradition itself. Here's what I mean.

A major force in the thinking of the Council fathers of Vatican II was the ressourcement movement, an effort by scholars in the 1930s and 1940s to ground Catholic theology and liturgy in the somewhat forgotten writings of the early Church fathers — who wrote, of course, in Greek and Latin. Studying the development of the liturgy over time enabled these scholars to free themselves from an ahistorical tendency to view the Tridentine mass as a kind of perfection frozen in time — a view which would keep fides and ratio too far apart, you might say.

So classical (specifically, patristic) scholarship was one major key to the renewal envisioned in Vatican II. It's even behind more recent evangelization efforts. Take that excellent guide to a solidly Catholic interpretation of the Bible, Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did. As I think author Mark Shea would cheerfully agree, his book could not have been written had he not been able to build upon scholarly research on fourfold interpretation of the Vulgate — by scholars (none of whom could be considered "Traditionalists") who were steeped in a knowledge of Latin.

All of which leads me to conclude: While some liturgically progressive friends of mine seem to associate a study of Latin with a longing for Generalissimo Franco and the advent of theological firing squads, I personally associate the subject with the rise of evangelical Catholicism — a liberating force if there ever was such a thing.

~Elias Crim at Catholic Exchange
A New Generation Discovers Latin

Lux Aeterna

Last night I went to an All Soul’s Day Mass.

I hadn’t been in years. Being of Hispanic descent I always remember that it’s el Día de los Muertos, but in the general excitement of the Feast of All Saints on the preceding day, the quiet, late-night Mass somehow always slipped into the background.

Of course it was beautiful.

We celebrated life in one wing of the huge, dark church, a small gathering beside the massive granite baptismal font. After the Liturgy of the Word, the bereaved members of the congregation came quietly forward to inscribe eternally beloved names in the parish Book of Remembrance. From my stance in the choir, I could see each person coming forward- sometimes alone, sometimes in little groups. As each came out of the shadowy aisles, I could see their faces.

A lonely-faced man in a long black coat holding a curly-headed little boy tightly by the hand.

Three Hispanic women, old, middle-aged, and young, with sad, sad black eyes.

My sweet neighbor up the street, recently widowed last spring.

A white-haired woman with the most beatific smile on her worn face.

There was something of loss in each face- fresh griefs and long-remembered partings expressed in eyes which all appeared old, no matter the age of the face. Processing quietly forward, each grayed form bent over the little table to write and then turned in silence to receive a candle from Father Mark.

That one instant was so wonderful. Coming forward out of the darkness, each extended their hands for the little candle, the little trembling piece of light. Then it was in their hands, and the light would suddenly show the colors and curves of each face, banishing shadows, reflecting in and illuminating each pair of eyes. There was an indescribable sense of silent power in the way each face was utterly transformed by the nearness of the warm flame.

There was not a single face that remained unchanged.

I experienced a profound peace, last night, and a quiet wonder.

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine; et lux perpetua luceat eis...

Conservatism Defined

Although it is a political term, I have often applied conservative to myself because the conservative rules of government at this time, generally, are in line with my political ideas. However, a different kind of conservative describes me more accurately - i.e. traditionalist. A conservative can be defined as someone opposed to change, or rather someone who thinks that change might not be for the better.

But how is this? Certainly, the government is in a state of disarray at the moment. Therefore change must be in order. While this is true, there are two kinds of change that must be distinguished. There is the radical change from one system to the other, and then there is reform. The liberals prefer the former - they wish to defeat the capitalism and instill socialism on the American people. This is not a point I feel like arguing about, it is evidenced enough in lib policies and media bias that is very obvious. A conservative, however, would repair that damage that socialism has done to the American society.

That's why I'm a conservative. The traditions of both the Church and America are founded in reason and are, in fact, quite glorious to me. Nothing shows more clearly the glory and majesty of the Church than a mass in Latin chanted in the wondrous confines of a cathedral, just as nothing shows the American free spirit like (a moderated) capitalism.

In summary, there is a quote I found that sums it up much better than I can. "Conservatism, however, is not the blinkered and mulish preference for the past over the present, but a philosophical concern for whether there will be a future." ~Bruce F. Murphy