Cardinal Sarah in Germany

Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, delivered an excellent talk at a Colloquium entitled "The Source of the Future,” in Herzogenrath Germany.  His focus is on the Liturgy and its' renewal.

He begins with a little history about what was called in the early 20th century “the liturgical movement."  Beginning with Pope Saint Pious X and his motu propio and its intention:

to restore the liturgy so as to make its treasures more accessible, so that it might also become again the source of authentically Christian life. 

He ties this to Sacrosanctum Concilium, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and addresses the motu propio "Summorum Pontificum," which was promulgated ten years ago, and whose anniversary is the reason for the Colloquium.

One of his comments:

The liturgy must therefore always be reformed so as to be more faithful to its mystical essence. But most of the time, this “reform” that replaced the genuine “restoration” intended by the Second Vatican Council was carried out in a superficial spirit and on the basis of only one criterion: to suppress at all costs a heritage that must be perceived as totally negative and outmoded so as to excavate a gulf between the time before and the time after the Council.

I think this well describes what Benedict XVI referred to as a hermeneutics of disruption.

He continues:

Now it is enough to pick up the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy again and to read it honestly, without betraying its meaning, to see that the true purpose of the Second Vatican Council was not to start a reform that could become the occasion for a break with Tradition, but quite the contrary, to rediscover and to confirm Tradition in its deepest meaning. 

The Cardinal addresses a number of points citing Pope Benedict, Sacrosanctum Concilium, a number of liturgists, and reflects on some statements from some bishops in the aftermath of Vatican II.

He makes so many excellent points, it is difficult to summarize them, and I encourage you to read the text of his talk slowly and thoroughly, in its' entirety.

Kathryn Jean Lopez and snow in New York City during lent

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes at National Review an article concerning a tender message found in the midst of the recent snow in NY city.

She describes two encounters she has (one with Cardinal Dolan's homily, the other with a beggar on the streets of Manhattan) and ties the two together.  She concludes:

How would it all be different if we took a step away from the noise and spent more time with those who might otherwise be forgotten and cast aside? What if we didn’t get sucked into frustrating political news stories and celebrity and saw our own power more? What if we made a choice for hearts as pure as the freshly fallen snow?

She writes a self reflective piece addressing her encounters and how they, in this season of Lent affected her.  You ought to read her article.

Bishop Robert Barron and "Total Recall"

The catch phrase from the movie Total Recall is Arnold Schwarzenegger saying "Who the hell am I?"

And many see this as the fundamental question involved in most literature.   A variation of this question is posed by Christ to his disciples at Caesarea-Philippi.  "Who do you say that I am?"

Bishop Robert Barron discusses a shift in questioning away from this one and its' implications for preaching, teaching, and evangelizing Christianity in an article posted at Word on Fire.

He begins by referencing a recent book  by Thomas Joseph White, and references Church Councils, and ancient theologians.  Then he discusses a dramatic shift in emphasis a couple of centuries ago which was still being taught when he was in seminary which he refers to as “consciousness Christology."

He discusses the implication of the change in emphasis and how it fundamentally alters our perspective.  He writes:

It is easy enough to see that the transition from an ontological Christology to a consciousness Christology has conduced toward all manner of relativism, subjectivism, indifferentism, and the attenuation of evangelical zeal.

It is an excellent article and you should read it in its' entirety.

Kathryn Lopez on "America's biggest serial killer"

Kathryn Lopez writes at National Review about a new book concerning the Kernit Gosnell trial, and a movie about it, that hasn't reached distribution yet.  She writes about the journey of the authors of the book, Ann McElhinney and her husband:

McElhinney’s interest in the trial was not ideological. She wasn’t pro-life, and she’s quick to tell you that she “never trusted or liked pro-life activists.” 

and

But Gosnell changed things for McElhinney. “I got an education on abortion because of researching and investigating this story,” she tells me. 

She quotes McElhinney:

Hundreds of African-American babies were born alive and then murdered. Where is the outrage for those black lives that matter? Progressive Pennsylvania with all of its government agencies couldn’t have cared less. Where’s the outrage for that?

It is important for you read her entire article.

Katherine Timpf and Jay Nordlinger on Words, Gender and God

At National Review On-Line there are a couple of interesting articles concerning words involving gender and their application to God.

Firstly, there is an article by Jay Nordlinger about the use of words and masculine, feminine and neuter genders for those words.

He begins by writing about an article written in 1972 proposing the "desexing" of the language.  He then writes:

“To each their own” is ungrammatical. “To each his or her own” is uneuphonious. Pick your poison. Or stick to your guns.

Like “tey” and the rest, “genkind” has not caught on, thank goodness. “Humankind” is bad enough. Why did people ever begin to think that “mankind” referred, not to people in general, but to men only? Why did they begin to think that about “man” — as in “the rights of man”?

The supposition that the word "man" has a single meaning is patently absurd, and to ascribe to the word only that meaning guts the language of its' power.

To my mind the word "humankind" is an abomination, and should be excised from the practice of the language.

A second article, this one by Katherine Timpf, deals with extending this language based absurdity to the realm of discussing God.

She addresses this by pointing to actions at divinity schools at Duke and Vanderbilt.  She notes how this is contrary to Christian Theology writing:

According to Heat Street, Duke’s particular divinity school is “geared toward people already working in the Methodist church, taking supplemental weekend or summer classes.” Yes, “Methodist,” as in the Christian religion that has already completely, officially, 100 percent decided that their God is a man. And yet, Duke’s guidelines suggest avoiding gender specific pronouns when discussing Him and suggest using “God” and “Godself” instead.

(Yes — “Godself.”)

This may be news to Miss Timpf, but such shenanigans have been common among some women in the Catholic Church for nearly two decades.

I clearly recall women, who were Readers at Mass, changing the pronouns in the Lectionary on the fly because they were convinced that the ones written in the Lectionary were "exclusive."  They not only changed the words from the ones approved by the Bishops, but they also insisted that other Readers follow their example, claiming that the local ordinary had given them that direction. 

It is asinine!  As Christians we follow Jesus, the living bread come come down from Heaven, the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Light of the world, the fullness of God's revelation of himself, who clearly teaches us to call God Father, Abba, Vater.

Paul writes to us that God has sent the Spirit of His son into our hearts crying out Abba, Father.  If you are not crying out Abba, do you have the Spirit of the Son of God residing in your heart?

Jesus does not pray Mater Nostra, nor Unser Muhti.  He doesn't say oma, nor opa, nor Our Mother, nor Our Parent.  In the words Our Savior taught us we pray Our Father, Unser Vater, Pater Noster.


May this stupidity of so called gender inclusion, come to an end.

Kathryn Lopez on George W. Bush and David Gregory

Kathryn Lopez writes at National Review about David Gregory's memoir published last September.  She notes that George Bush asked Gregory "How's your Faith."

She then writes about Bush's book "Decision Points" and how his Faith shaped his approach to his responsibilities and decisions.  She notes:

You don’t have to agree with all his decisions to see that his faith was more than a “sense of comfort” and “safe harbor,” as Gregory had once described it in a question to a Republican presidential-primary candidate several cycles ago. It was, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas once described to me his own faith, “his North Star.” It guided and inspired and humbled Bush, giving him more strength and power than any elected office or esteemed position in the world.

She then discusses this current season, Advent, and how that question posed by Bush to Gregory is very apropos.

Her closing paragraph is very good:

I have to laugh as I look around and see Dunkin’ Donuts ads urging us to “share the joy.” I won’t deny that if you bring a dozen donuts to work on a Monday or Wednesday or any other day, you’ll bring some cheer, or at least a possibly needed sugar rush. But true joy — knowing there’s more than the current burdens and even love — transforms. So while Christmas shopping or holiday partying, take a moment to ask, “How’s your faith?” Does it mean something more than a calendar date or an obligation or a consoling ritual? Would anyone ever know it from the way we live?

Be sure to read her entire article.

Robert Barron and "Arrival"

The movie, Arrival, is a very good science fiction movie.  It has received a number of favorable reviews ( National Review, Catholic News, The Federalist), but the one I found most interesting was not so much a review, as it was an analysis, by bishop Robert Barron.

He uses the plot of the movie to discuss the interpretation of Christian Scriptures.  He writes:

But I would like to elaborate upon what this film says, at least implicitly, in regard to what we call divine revelation. One of the core convictions of the Christian faith is that God has spoken to his people, that a real communication has come from his transcendent realm and entered into our consciousness. Furthermore, believers hold, this communication is codified in the Bible, which, accordingly, is not one book among many, not one more human attempt to express our convictions about God, but rather, in a real sense, God’s word to us, God’s language, God’s speech. 

When I wrote to my sister about this movie, I used the subject of the email to refer to the movie Aloha which starred Bradley Cooper and Emma Stone.  Rachel McAdam's character's son (Mitchell) asks Cooper's character (Brian) "Are you the Arrival?"  Mitchell is taken with Hawaii mythology and movie making.

I also thought it very interesting that all hell breaks lose in Arrival when the earthly interpreters think that the aliens are talking about a weapon.  I was reminded of a line from the movie The Book of Eli.  Gary Oldman's character (Carnegie) who is desperately searching for any copy of the Bible that may still exist says to his right hand man "It's not just a book, it's a weapon pointed at the heart of every man."

I highly recommend this movie, and reading bishop Barron's article.  

You might also want to watch The Book of Eli, and Aloha.