Tempus Per Annum | Year B | Gospel of St. Mark | Cycle I | Saints this week: Timothy and Titus; Angela Merici; Thomas Aquinas; John Bosco.
Sister Gabriella Yi, O.P.
We are not just material beings, but spiritual persons with a need for meaning, purpose, and fulfillment that transcends the visible confines of this world. This longing for transcendence is a longing for truth, goodness, and beauty. Truth, goodness, and beauty are called the transcendentals of being, because they are aspects of being. Everything in existence has these transcendentals to some extent. God, of course, as the source of all truth, goodness, and beauty, has these transcendentals to an infinite degree. Oftentimes, he draws us to himself primarily through one of these transcendentals. St. Augustine, who was drawn to beauty in all its creaturely forms, found the ultimate beauty he was seeking in God, his creator, the beauty “ever ancient, ever new.” —Sister Gabriella Yi, O.P.
A.I.M. ANALYSIS. INKLINGS. METACOMMENTARY.
Insulis quae procul sunt. Welcome! The digital sacristy has many cabinets. e-Media can be found at the bottom of the blog.
Lent is fast approaching. In advance of spring, a cleaning of the blog has begun. Changes are being made to reduce visual clutter and page length.
“We become Catholics not actually knowing a great deal about the Faith and keep finding ourselves suddenly realizing, ‘Oh, that’s it. That’s why the Church teaches this.’ Acceptance comes first, then practice, then understanding.”—David Mills.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Confusing the language of the Liturgy with the language of personal devotion.
The Battle for the Soul of the Liturgy
26 June 2014
Tiernan MacNamara quotes F.M. Cornford's Preface to his translation of Plato's Republic (The Tablet, 21 June). The battle for the soul of liturgical language is far from new. Fifty years ago Archbishop Francis Grimshaw of Birmingham penned a trenchant Preface to the 1964 Small Ritual published as a result of the Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy.
The Archbishop praises the quality of modern translations from one European language to another and compares such skill with the apparent desire for literal translations in vogue among ecclesiatical translators. The tendency to copy Latin syntax is, he claims, justified by some on the grounds that this is the solemn language of prayer demanded by the majesty of God. Others, he points out, insist that prayer, whether private or public, should be expressed in the simple language of ordinary people.
He suggests that whatever has become the accepted form of address to one whom we respect yet love should be the form to adopt when we speak either to God or about him. Slavish, ad literam translation will not do any more, he says. We must avoid anything that makes the language of prayer unreal. (The argument that liturgical language that respects the literal meaning of the Latin original is "unreal" is founded on a faulty premise: liturgical language is not the same as individual devotional language. Liturgical language affirms exactly Who God is so we can direct our prayers to the Father in the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ our Lord. There is a theological necessity that liturgical language is precise and in perfect conformity to the received Tradition, which for us Latins means we have an obligation to insist that all translations conform precisely to the Latin original, even if our English sensitivities may suffer a little. Catholics, if they be faithful Catholics, depend on the orthodoxy of liturgical prayer to guide their private prayer. Personal prayer is firmly rooted in the liturgical.) Tiernan MacNamara thinks it's significant that no one is prepared to publicly admit ownership of the present so-called translation (That is an unfortunate misrepresentation of the facts. The translators were well known to the bishops and other committee members, and the process by which the translation achieved approval was completely transparent. The reason why some raise the issue of responsibility is because many of the complainants were not included in the process. Perhaps that was a good thing.).
Adopting the language of liturgy shapes our relationship with God in authentic ways, ways that help us, for example, to think and act with Holy Mother Church. Is it any wonder that a generation of liturgical tinkerers have led so many astray by projecting a vision of the Church on to the Church which resembles more the flawed human face of men more than the perfect human and divine face of Jesus Christ?
Liturgy is the “soul” of the Church. Each Particular Church has its own specific liturgy. For example, Maronites celebrate their own liturgical tradition, as do the Coptic, Chaldean, Armenian, Latin, and Byzantine Churches. Liturgy is what makes a Church fully “Herself,” and makes the Particular Church a gift to the Universal Church. For this reason, we must respect and protect the integrity of liturgy, safeguard its power to transform and pass this sacred work intact to the next generation, so that through the liturgy Christ may continue to do in others what He has done in us.—Liturgy and Prayer, Third Pastoral Letter of Most Reverend Gregory J. Mansour, STL, Eparchial Bishop of St. Maron of Brooklyn, 14 September 2008.
Worship in spirit and in truth.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Lawrie McFarlane: UVic ruling violates Charter of Rights intent
LAWRIE MCFARLANE / TIMES COLONIST
JANUARY 22, 2015
In a deeply subversive decision, the B.C. Supreme Court has ruled that our Charter of Rights governs only those interactions that take place between the state and its citizens. All our other dealings — with private corporations, charities, banks, restaurants — indeed, any non-governmental enterprise — are exempt.
According to this view of things, fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and religion, of assembly and association, are guaranteed merely when dealing with public officials. Otherwise, you’re on your own.
The case arose from a dispute between the University of Victoria’s Students’ Society and an anti-abortion group (that is, pro life group). The B.C. Civil Liberties Association took the Students’ Society to court, alleging it had infringed on free speech on campus.
While the judge appeared to agree that such an infringement had occurred, he dismissed the complaint. His reasoning?
The Supreme Court of Canada has previously ruled that the purpose of the Charter is merely to constrain how government agencies must act. Since the top court has also found that universities are not part of the public sector, they’re off the hook.
This is an astonishing dilution of our national bill of rights. The preamble to the Charter explicitly states that the freedoms it guarantees are subject only to such reasonable limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society.
Excluding 80 per cent of civil discourse from the Charter’s reach (that being the non-government share of the economy) would, I submit, constitute an unreasonable limit. Furthermore, the freedoms guaranteed in the Charter are worded in language of such breadth and finality as to render so narrow an interpretation risible.
Section 2 of the Charter reads as follows: “Everyone has the following freedoms …” It does not say, “Everyone interacting with a government agency has the following freedoms …” Where, then, is the basis for neutering our bill of rights?
The justification, such as it is, lies in Section 32 of the Charter, which names the federal government, the provinces and territories as the guarantors of our liberties.
I suspect it never occurred to anyone they were letting four-fifths of the country off the hook. That would have contradicted the fundamental purpose of having a Charter.
Those who support this gutting of our title deed argue that human-rights tribunals can fill the gap. No, they cannot. (Exactly! The dreaded HRTs have repeatedly been used to brow beat individuals into compliance with various politically correct but morally bankrupt agendas.)
Their lack of due process, their weak standards of evidence and their history of pandering make them a pale shadow of the real thing. Too often they have been more interested in limiting free speech than in protecting it.CLICK HERE for full article.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015