One Sad But Holy Day

One Sad But Holy Day

A Meditation on the Death of Jesus
by Sue Stone

Lacordaire, Conferences

The following is continued from Lacordaire's
"God: Conferences delivered at Notre Dame in Paris"

(series begins here)

CONFERENCES

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(continued)

But if God has on his side nature, intelligence, conscience, and society, what remains there to pantheism? Where is it to find its basis? It seeks its basis in the obscurities of abstruse metaphysics; withdrawing from all realities, from every feeling and every want, in order to form a labyrinth from whence thought can find no exit. It loses itself the clue, and shut up in the subtle prison which it has made, takes refuge in the sneer of self-deceived pride, and calling to its help, from the corrupted depths of ages, the prying spirits of subtle doctrines, it hurls against God and mankind the anathema of scorn. God passes by without hearing, and mankind without answering. Let us do likewise, let us pass by also.

We have a threefold intuition of God: a negative intuition in nature; a direct intuition in the ideas of truth and justice; a practical intuition in human society. Nature, in manifesting characteristics to us incompatible with a being existing of itself, causes us to mount to its source, the ideas of truth and justice name God to us, without whom they would be nothing; human society, which cannot do without him, proves to us his existence by its need of him. But besides these continuous and inadmissible revelations, there are others which divine providence scatters from time to time on the road of nations. He strikes with his thunders and rends the veils, he gives so full and deep a consciousness of his presence, than none can be deceived, and causes a whole nation to utter from its inmost heart that unanimous and involuntary cry: It is the hand of God! We are witnessing one of those times when God unveils himself; but yesterday he passed through our gates and the whole world beheld him. Shall I then remain silent before him? Shall I hold upon my trembling lips the prayer of a man who, once in his life, has seen his God before him?

O God, who has just dealt these terrible blows, O God, the judge of kings and arbiter of the world, look down in mercy upon this old Frank nation, the elder son of thy right hand and of thy Church. Remember its past services, thy first blessings; renew with it that ancient alliance which made it thy people; touch its heart which was so full of thee, and which now again, in the flush of a victory wherein it spared nothing royal, yielded to thee the empire which it yields to none other. O God, just and holy, by the cross of thy Son which their hands bore from the profaned palace of kings to the spotless palace of thy spouse, watch over us, protect us, enlighten us, prove once more to the world that a people that respects thee is a people saved!


Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
God: Conferences - Notre-Dame in Paris (1871)

next reading here

Sophia

Yesterday, the Chancel Choir offered their Wednesday Vespers for the intention of Sophia's healing. Now I'll admit that I don't see as well as I could; I need new glasses. But part way through the service, it began to sink in that I was looking at Sophia and her parents in the pews! Her mother was holding her, and she was tired, but she was there!



I was so overwhelmed that I fear I had great difficulty and muffed a take-up in the magnificat.

Never has a thank you, as uttered by Sophia after the service, ever reduced me to a quivering mess before.

Veronica, her mother, repeated Daniela's promise to get the Caringbridge link out soon. She repeated her gratitude for all the prayers offered on Sophia's behalf.

James 5:19-20, Morning prayer of 4th Friday of Lent

My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

My thanks to Anita (V-For Victory) for helping me unravel this passage. I'd always felt uncomfortable about just who all was referred to by all the pronouns! Was the one bringing back, or the one brought back, saved from death, and whose multitude of sins was covered? The Haydock commentary confirmed Anita's analysis, that merit accrues to the one whom has allowed God to use him to rescue the lost; and said same person, by cooperating with grace, has many of his own unknown sins remitted.

The connection Anita made which I really appreciated was, was linking it to the opposite warning: to those who cause scandal to Christ's little ones, the millstone is threatened; thus it stands to reason that as additional punishment accrues to those who cause scandal, additional merit accrues to those who assist in the salvation of otheres. This can be opened a bit further, by applying St. Augustine's definition of Scandal; "that action which causes a member of the faithful to depart from Christ's Church." Now, this does not include the false scandal, as in Jn 6:66, where the unbelieving left because the Truth was a stumbling block they refused to accept. Neither does it include what we have come to know as the definition of scandal today; the moral outrage over acts which are contrary to justice and right reason. So one who causes a member of the faith, one of God's little ones, to renounce said little one's salvation, forfeits his own as well. and one who assists one who has fallen to return to a state of grace, accrues grace for his own salvation as well.

It does not cease to amaze me to see how evil is a perverse mirror of goodness, and perhaps that is why so many, left to their own devices because they reject Goodness Himself, confuse injustice for justice, and evil for good.

Criticism of Bishops and Priests

A recent article in HPR:

The Danger of Criticizing
Bishops and Priests

discusses the dangers to us of gossiping about men in holy orders. It is a good article, but I also think it is incomplete. To illustrate my point, consider the following example:

I like to catch bull snakes. They are mean, hiss, sometimes bite, but are harmless.



Now, suppose if I went to India, and decided to catch this dude,



and you did not warn me, would not you have been deficient in you duty both to truth and charity?

Certainly there is a difference between gossip and detraction, and the necessity of truth and charity. Not an easy minefield to walk in. St. Francis de Sales wrote about this and here is what he had to say...

"Introduction to the Devout life"
St. Francis de Sales,
CHAPTER XXIX.
On Slander

Public, notorious sinners may be spoken of freely, provided always even then that a spirit of charity and compassion prevail, and that you do not speak of them with arrogance or presumption, or as though you took pleasure in the fall of others. To do this is the sure sign of a mean ungenerous mind. And, of course, you must speak freely in condemnation of the professed enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, it is true charity to point out the wolf wheresoever he creeps in among the flock. Most people permit themselves absolute latitude in criticising and censuring rulers, and in calumniating nationalities, according to their own opinions and likings. But do you avoid this fault; it is displeasing to God, and is liable to lead you into disputes and quarrels. When you hear evil of any one, cast any doubt you fairly can upon the accusation; or if that is impossible, make any available excuse for the culprit; and where even that may not be, be yet pitiful and compassionate, and remind those with whom you are speaking that such as stand upright do so solely through God's Grace. Do your best kindly to check the scandal-bearer, and if you know anything favourable to the person criticised, take pains to mention it.

Anita (V-For Victory) pointed out to me two things: First, the author of the article in HPR give as example, the witness of Jesus' criticism of those in authority in His time! Pretty mixed message in that! Second, this is the basis of public registration of sex offenders; the goal and aim of which is not the detraction of the offender, but the protection of the innocent.

THE GIFT OF LOVE

Today is Holy Thursday, and we commemorate the institution of two Holy Sacraments; the Eucharist and Holy Orders. From Divine Intimacy by Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D., comes the following meditation:

THE GIFT OF LOVE
HOLY THURSDAY

“Having loved His own…He loved them to the end” (Jn. 13:1-15), and in those last intimate hours spent in their midst, He wished to give them the greatest proof of His love. Those were hours of sweet intimacy, but also of the most painful anguish. Judas had already set the price of the infamous sale; Peter was about to deny his Master; all of them within a short time would abandon Him. The institution of the Eucharist appeared then as the answer of Jesus to the treachery of men, as the greatest gift of His infinite love in return for the blackest ingratitude. The merciful God would pursue His rebellious creatures, not with threats, but with the most delicate devices of His immense charity. Jesus had already done and suffered so much for sinful man, but now, at the moment when human malice is about to sound the lowest depths of the abyss, He exhausts the resources of His love, and offers Himself to man, not only as the Redeemer, who will die for him on the Cross, but also as the food which will nourish him. He will feed man with His own Flesh and Blood; moreover, death might claim Him in a few hours, but the Eucharist will perpetuate His real, living presence until the end of time. “O You who are mad about your creature!” exclaimed St. Catherine of Siena, “true God and true Man, You have left Yourself wholly to us, as food, so that we will not fall through weariness during our pilgrimage in this life, but will be fortified by You, celestial Nourishment!”

---

There are those who take the name “Christian,” but who refuse to walk with the Christ truly and really present and living among us; insisting that He did not mean literally what He stated to his followers, as recorded by St. John in chapter 6 of his gospel. Jesus tells his followers that His flesh and blood is the food they must eat, and although they think with justified horror of this in a carnal manner, he repeatedly insists that this is what they must do, not once saying that it is a symbol of Him that they must eat; confirming over and over again, you must eat my flesh and drink my blood. Those who reject the Catholic understanding point to 6:64 as the “refutation” of the Catholic and apostolic understanding; of “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing” they understand him to have said “my flesh profiteth nothing.” But, as we must gently insist that he specifically did not say: “My flesh profiteth nothing.” For by such an understanding, we protest that you prove too much, for if the flesh of Jesus “profiteth nothing,” then the incarnation and redemption on the cross are of no profit to us, and we are still lost in our sins. So those who fail to understand what he said, which was all present, responded in two ways: one group, saying, “this is a hard saying, who can hear it?” (Jn 6:61) abandoned Him (Jn 6:66). The second group, led by Peter, did not understand either. Peter spoke for most of them, in giving his reasons for staying, “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;” and one stayed because he was a devil.

St. Thomas speaks to this mystery in the second stanza of the Adoro te Devote:

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore,
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at Thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived:
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth Himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.

On the cross Thy godhead made no sign to men,
Here Thy very manhood steals from human ken:
Both are my confession, both are my belief,
And I pray the prayer of the dying thief.

I am not like Thomas, wounds I cannot see,
But can plainly call thee Lord and God as he;
Let me to a deeper faith daily nearer move,
Daily make me harder hope and dearer love.

O thou our reminder of Christ crucified,
Living Bread, the life of us for whom he died,
Lend this life to me then: feed and feast my mind,
There be thou the sweetness man was meant to find.

Bring the tender tale true of the Pelican;
Bathe me, Jesu Lord, in what Thy bosom ran
Blood whereof a single drop has power to win
All the world forgiveness of its world of sin.

Jesu, whom I look at shrouded here below,
I beseech thee send me what I thirst for so,
Some day to gaze on thee face to face in light
And be blest for ever with Thy glory's sight. Amen.

Catholic Church Music/English heritage

As one who sings "English church music," this is a fascinating find, and I'm glad it was pointed out over at The New Liturgical Movement The following is the end of the chapter, and it provides a fascinating insight, for which I am grateful.

From CATHOLIC CHURCH MUSIC (that link takes you to full text), by Richard R. Terry, 1907.

CHAPTER XXIII
THE FATE OF ENGLISH CHURCH MUSIC AT THE
REFORMATION


THE FATE OF ENGLISH CHURCH MUSIC

In brief, the case against the English origin of these early anthems, of which we have no Latin versions, is simply this—they are in the contrapuntal style of the old Catholic composers, which is as distinct from the "full chord" style of the reformers as anything can possibly be. Is it likely, then, that their authors should have written them for the services of the Established Church, seeing that they are composed in a style which, at that period, was strongly denounced, and the use of which was specifically forbidden? No; the fact really is that they never made their appearance in English until the times had changed, and (mark this) every one of their composers was dead.

I now come to my last point with regard to these adaptations. Up to the present I feel sure that I have said nothing with which well-informed Anglican musicians will not agree. Such of them as are High Churchmen will naturally say: "What if we did continue to use the old motets by translating the words into English? We are the same old Church which existed before the Reformation, and what you say is only one more proof that we had no intention of breaking with the past." It is here that we must (in all charity) part company with them. As Catholics, we welcome these appeals to the "Continuity Theory”; it always breaks down when used against us, and nowhere more completely than in the case of these musical adaptations. If there is one fact which points more clearly than another to a complete break with the past—to a definite repudiation of the Mass and all it implies, it is this: That when the music of sacramental motets was adapted to English words, the custom of translating the Latin was abandoned, and different words were substituted. The best known anthem of Tallis ("I call and cry") was originally O sacrum conviviuin. His O salutaris Hostia is altered to "O Praise the Lord," and Byrd's Ave verum corpus appears as "O Lord God of Israel." There is not a single instance forthcoming of a sacramental motet having been Englished to its original words. Further than this, in not a single instance has the music of what we commonly call a Mass (i.e., Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus, and Agnus) been adapted, either to a Communion Service or anything else. Although the Proper of the Mass (i.e., Introit, Gradual, etc.) was frequently drawn upon for anthems, it must be remembered that, divorced from their special service or feast, these items became mere motets, with no special “popish” significance. When wholesale adaptation was the order of the day, it is difficult to understand why the beautiful Mass music of the old composers was left untouched except on the assumption that anything distinctively suggestive of the Mass was anathema. All this points to the fact that the breaking with old traditions at the Reformation had a like effect on ecclesiastical music. True, in the transition period we find music written for the old and the new form of service by the same men, but the two styles are so distinct that there is no difficulty in recognising which is which. There is no doubt as to which is the superior style of the two. There is no doubt that our Tallises and Byrds considered themselves to be writing, not different styles of music for the same ecclesiastical body, but different styles of music for two different and distinct bodies. If the Anglican Church has since adapted and assimilated the old contrapuntal music, it still remains as much an "outside" product as the music she has adapted of late years from continental Lutheran and Catholic sources, with the sole difference that it was written by Englishmen.

To sum up: Why have I dealt at such length with this old English music? Has it been merely from a desire to break a lance with our Anglican friends? Let me most emphatically repudiate any such intention. It is impossible to dissociate the church music of the sixteenth century from the theological changes which were then taking place, and, in discussing the question, it is impossible to avoid touching on disputed points. A controversial attitude is only to be deprecated when undertaken in a spirit of hostility rather than charity. I would further urge in my defence that I am not in this case stirring up the dying embers of a burnt-out controversy. The question is a new one. This early English music is at present an unexplored field to all save a very, very few students. It is only right, therefore, that Catholics should be put in possession of facts which have been too long withheld from them. How often have we not heard Tallis and Byrd claimed as Anglicans, and called the " Fathers of Anglican Church Music " ? How often have we not had Anglican Cathedral music pointed out to us with pride, as a national product, and that in common use amongst us derided as a foreign importation ? We have been too long ignorant of the fact that all (I say advisedly, all) the best of this early music—whether it has been sung and admired in Anglican cathedrals, as it has been for three hundred years, or buried in libraries and museums— is Catholic in spirit, and Catholic in origin ; written by Catholics for the services of the Catholic Church. It is our heritage—our birthright; and the fact that our claims to it have lain so long in abeyance does not make it any the less ours, or its revival any the less a duty which we owe to the memory of our Catholic forefathers. Its possession is one more link with our national past— that glorious past when this England of ours was undivided in her loyalty to the See of Peter, and our land was justly called an island of saints. Let us lay claim once more to our ancient patrimony. Let us prize it as a possession at once thoroughly English and thoroughly Catholic. Let the revival of its glories be one more mark of that second spring which is bursting around us on every side. Let us show to the world that into whatever alien dwellings this music of our Catholic sires has strayed during our long years of exile, its rightful home is in the Church we love so well—the Church of Cuthbert, of Bede, of Alban, of Thomas of Canterbury, and of Peter.

one cannot help but observe that the adaptation to English of traditional Latin hymns that we are subjected to in such things as the OCP Music Issue, has largely followed the path outlined above.

Shop till you drop?

awaiting the MP at King Richard's

Music: From "The New Liturgical Movement"

I have copied this complete from the blog, The New Liturgical Movement

Richard Terry on pop music circa. 1907

Lots of discussion of music today, so it is a good time to draw your attention to one of the greatest books ever written on Catholic music (that link takes you to full text), by Richard R. Terry. It was published in 1907.

I THINK we may say that modern individualistic music, with its realism and emotionalism, may stir human feeling, but it can never create that atmosphere of serene spiritual ecstasy that the old music generates. It is a case of mysticism versus hysteria. Mysticism is a note of the Church: it is healthy and sane. Hysteria is of the world: it is morbid and feverish, and has no place in the Church. Individual emotions and feelings are dangerous guides, and the Church in her wisdom recognises this. Hence in the music which she gives us, the individual has to sink his personality, and become only one of the many who offer their corporate praise.

Certainly something to think about here, folks!

Lacordaire, Conferences

The following is continued from Lacordaire's
"God: Conferences delivered at Notre Dame in Paris"

(series begins here)

CONFERENCES

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(continued)

Perhaps you will still better understand the force of this conclusion by applying it to the order of conscience. Even as truth is the object and life of the mind, justice is the object and life of conscience. Conscience sees and approves a rule of the rights and duties between beings endowed with liberty. That rule is justice. But where is justice? Is it a simple result of human will? It that case justice would e but a convention, a fragile law called into life today and which may fall tomorrow. Is it an order founded on the very nature of man? But that nature is variable, corruptible, subject to passions that lead it astray. What is order for one would be disorder for another. If then justice be a reality, it must be an eternal and absolute law regulating the relations of material beings, and metaphysics an eternal and absolute law regulating the relations of intelligent beings with all beings, either existing or possible. Beyond this notion, justice is but a name which arms the strong against the weak, the prosperous against the needy. Now, this notion necessarily calls forth the notion of God, since an eternal and absolute law could only be a reality in the person of a being subsisting of himself, possessing a will active and just, able to promulgate an order, to maintain it, to reward obedience and punish rebellion.

Truth is the first name of God; justice is the second.

Now it is easy to conceive that there may be men for whom truth and justice are nothing but philosophical speculations, men who shut themselves up in the proud solitude of their own thoughts, and build up in them their own glory upon systems that bear their names. But it is not so with poor and suffering mankind: it needs truth for its nourishment, justice for its defense, and it knows that the real name of both is the name of God, and t hat the real strength of both is the power of God. The poor and the afflicted have never been deceived herein. When they are oppressed, they lift up their hands towards God, they write his name upon their banners, they pronounce to the oppressor that last and solemn expression of the soul that believes and hopes: I cite you before the tribunal of God!

The time of that tribunal comes sooner of later, its temporal and visible, as well as its eternal time. Kings even here below are cited before it, and nations also. It is the permanent tribunal set up in the midst of error and wickedness, and which saves the world. In vain would pride destroy it; the people saved by it save it in their turn. If there were none but sages among us, the idea of God might perish here, for a man alone is always powerful against God; but happily nations are feeble against him, because they cannot do without justice and truth. They protect him against the learned chimeras of false wisdom; they preserve his memory with a faithfulness which does not always preserve the perfect idea of him, but which at least has never yet permitted the sun and history to see a nation of atheists. Notwithstanding all that men have done, God remains as the corner-stone of human society; no legislator has dared to banish him, no age has ignored him, no language has effaced his name. Upon earth as in heaven, his is because he is.


Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
God: Conferences - Notre-Dame in Paris (1871)

next reading here

Sophia update

From Daniela,

Hello Prayer Angels! Veronica asked me for all the email addresses because she wants to write to you, so I’m going to let her update you on Sophia’s life at home during the last couple of weeks. It’s been strange for me not to be writing to you daily! I can’t wait until Sophia is well enough to be able to have a big party with all of you, hopefully this summer ! Some of you told us about the “caringbridge” website as an easy way to continue posting updates and photos. Veronica and I are working on it, we added all my emails to the journal, and we’ll be adding new photos and updates. You all can go into a “guestbook” and write messages if you’d like. Veronica will give you the exact web page and information on her email. I’m praying for each and every one of you. GOD BLESS YOU !! Daniela



Y para los que no entendieron nada J, decia que Veronica me pidio que le mandara todas las direcciones asi ella les escribe, asi que dejo que ella los ponga al dia con las ultimas noticias de como va Sophia. Empezamos a poner informacion y fotos en el internet, Veronica les dara mas informacion, pero sera una forma facil de mantener a todos informados de los progresos y de poner fotos. Un beso grandote a todos. Daniela

When I get the link to Caringbridge, I'll post it.

Palm Sunday thoughts

Palm Sunday brought yet another homily on the fickle people of Jerusalem who welcomed Jesus as king one week and demanded his crucifixion the following week.

While certainly this is a good reminder to examine our conscience, are we living or denying our citizenship in the heavenly kingdom?

Yet, is it possible that this is an injustice to the memory of the good citizens who may not have understood the nature of the Messiah (the Apostles didn't, how could they?), but welcomed him none the less?

If you read the scriptural accounts, there is no explicit statement that those who called for His crucifixion from Pilate, were the same people who had welcomed him to Jerusalem as king, those few short days before.

By way of analogy, and irrespective of your politics, was not George Bush welcomed to the presidency in 2000 and again in '04, in an almost victorious messianic fervor, the friend of the unborn, the future appointer of the SC judges who would overturn RvW? Yet today, do we not hear hue and cry from all quarters, perhaps not for crucifixion, but of impeachment, a bitter and vitriolic hatred which looks forward to the day he is turned out of office?

Yet, were not the majority of this second group of that opinion prior to his election, and is this second group populated by former members of the first group? Maybe a small number, but I think not; are not most of the first group hanging their heads, much like the disciples on the road to Emmaus, thinking something like "we though this would be the one..."

No, I submit to you, according to the interpretation of St. Augustine, that in the large city of Jerusalem 2000 years ago, there was a vocal population that hated Jesus when he rode into town, and before that vitriolic crowd those who had welcomed him as king melted away, as did all but one of the apostles. Jerusalem was big enough to have two such parties, just as we see in US politics.

I think it good that we examine our own conscience, and ask, as Elijah did, are we double minded? Do we say the creed, in which we affirm that we believe the Holy Catholic Church but not accept what that same Holy Catholic Church has to say with divine authority? This is a good and salutary examination, but I fear we go to far to cast such horrid aspersions on those who welcomed Jesus as king on that first "Palm Sunday."

Lacordaire, Conferences

The following is continued from Lacordaire's
"God: Conferences delivered at Notre Dame in Paris"

(series begins here)

CONFERENCES

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(continued)

In contemplating nature, man sees realities; in contemplating his intelligence, he sees truths. Realities are finite like the nature that contains them; truths are infinite, eternal, absolute, that is to say, greater than the intelligence in which we find them. Nature shows us geometrical figures; the intelligence reveals to us the mathematical law itself, the general and the abstract law of all bodies. It does more, it reveals to us the metaphysical law, that is to say, the law of all beings of what kind soever, the law which is as applicable to spirits as to bodies. At this height, and in this horizon, the universe disappears from our mental vision, or, at least, we no longer perceive it save as the reflection of a higher world, as the shadows of a boundless light; the real becomes absorbed in the true, which is its root, reality becomes measured by truth.

But where is truth? Where is its dwelling place, its seat, its living essence? Is it a pure abstraction of our mind? Is it nothing by the universe magnified by a dream? If it were so, our intelligence itself would be but a dream; truth, which appears to us as the principle of all things, would be only the exaggeration, and, as it were, the extravagance of sensible reality.

Shall we say that truth has its seat in our mind? But our mind is limited, truth has no limits; our mind had a beginning, truth is eternal; our mind is susceptible of more or less, truth is absolute. To say that our mind is the seat of truth, is to say in obscure terms that our mind is truth itself, living truth: who is so mad as to believe this? Besides the contradiction existing between the nature of our mind and the nature of truth, do we not see the minds which form mankind engaged in a perpetual war of affirmations and negations? Truth would then be battling with itself. It would affirm and deny at the same time, although remaining absolute. It is the very height of folly!

If truth be not a vain name, it is in the universe only in the state of expression, and in our mind only in the state of apparition; it is in the universe as the artist is in his work, it is in our mind as the sun is in our eyes. But beyond the universe and our mind, it subsists of itself, it is a real, an infinite, an eternal, an absolute essence, existing of itself; for how could it be that truth should not understand itself, since it is the source of all understanding! Now, so to speak of truth is to define God; God is the proper name of truth, as truth is the abstract name of God.

There is then a God, if truth exists. Would you say that there is no truth? It is for you to choose. I do not deny your liberty.




Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
God: Conferences - Notre-Dame in Paris (1871)

next reading here

ECCE MATER TUA

From DIVINE INTIMACY, by Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D.

THE SEVEN SORROWS OF MARY

MEDITATION

1. We find in Simeon’s prophecy the first explicit announcement of the part the Blessed Virgin was to have in the Passion of Jesus: “Thy own soul a sword shall pierce” (Lk 2:35). This prophecy was fulfilled on Calvary. “Yes, O Blessed Mother,” says St. Bernard, “a sword has truly pierced your soul. It could penetrate Your son’s flesh only by passing through your soul. And after Jesus had died, the cruel lance which opened His side did not reach His soul, but it did pierce yours. His soul was no longer in His body, but yours could not be detached from it.” This beautiful interpretation shows us how Mary, as a Mother, was intimately associated with her Son’s Passion.

The gospel does not tell us that Mary was present during the glorious moments of the life of Jesus, but it does say that she was present on Calvary. “Now there stood by the Cross of Jesus, His Mother, and His Mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen” (Jn 19:25). No one had been able to keep her from hastening to the place where her Son was to be crucified, and her love gave her courage to stand there, erect, near the Cross, to be present at the sorrowful agony and death of the One whom she loved above all, because He was both her Son and her God. Just as she had once consented to become His Mother, so she would now agree to see Him tortured from head to foot, and to be torn away from her by a cruel death.

She not only accepted, she offered. Jesus had willingly gone to His Passion, and Mary would willingly offer her well-beloved Son for the glory of the Most Holy Trinity and the salvation of men. That is why the sacrifice of Jesus became Mary’s sacrifice, not only because Mary offered it together with Jesus, and in Him, offered her own Son; but because, by this offering, she completed the most profound holocaust of herself, since Jesus was the center of her affections and of her whole life. God, who had given her this divine Son, asked, on Calvary, for a return of His gift, and Mary offered Jesus to the Father with all the love of her heart, in complete adherence to the divine will.

2. The liturgy puts on the lips of Our Lady of Sorrows these touching words: “O you who pass by the way, attend and see if there be any sorrow like to my sorrow” (RM). Yes, her grief was immeasurable, and was surpassed only by her love, a love so great that it could encompass that vast sea of sorrow. It can be said of Mary, as of no other creature, that her love was stronger than death; in face, it made her able to support the cruel death of Jesus.

“Who could be unfeeling in contemplating the Mother of Christ suffering with her Son?” chants the Stabat Mater; and immediately it adds, “O Mother … make me feel the depth of your sorrow, so that I may weep with you. May I bear in my heart the wounds of Christ; make me share in His Passion and become inebriated by the Cross and Blood of your Son.” In response to the Church’s invitation, let us contemplate Mary’s sorrows, sympathize with her, and ask her for the invaluable grace of sharing with her in the Passion of Jesus. Let us remember that this participation is not to be merely sentimental- even though this sentiment is good and holy- but it must lead us to real compassion, that is, to suffering with Jesus and Mary. The sufferings God sends us have no other purpose.

The sight of Mary at the foot of the Cross makes the lesson of the Cross less hard and less bitter; her maternal example encourages us to suffer and makes the road to Calvary easier. Let us go, then, with Mary, to join Jesus on Golgotha; let us go with her to meet our cross; and sustained by her, let us embrace it willingly, uniting it with her Son’s.

This meditation strikes to the heart; for it so eloquently articulates the sorrow in the offering Gwen made; to accept St. Paul's admonition that "in my flesh I fill up what is lacking in the suffering of Christ;" and to make it also my offering, as Mary did, to suffering with. We could not have done it without the example of our Lord and Mary, the Blessed and dear Mother He gave us when we became part of His family. O Lord, O Mary, a world gone mad shakes their fist at you and decries that you would allow suffering! O mad world, what could be more mad than to suffer without embracing our Lord and His Mother???

Passiontide with Lacordaire

Another fine post of Lacordare at RORATE CÆLI

Passiontide with Lacordaire:
Jesus Christ, pursued by undying hatred,
sovereign Lord of hearts and minds

Help with music: "Faithful Cross"

The schola at Sacred Heart parish is trying to learn the "Faithful Cross" portion of the Pange Lingua in English set to a score from a Polish song book! It works ok, but there are a couple spots we're not in agreement on how to handle. I found a Czech version on Choral Wiki, which is this (click for larger version):

I scanned the pdf and tried to jam the English into it, but am having a bit of a problem. you will note that in the Czech version, each line ends with a single syllable on two notes, which seems the natural thing to do with the English translation... except when I try and fit it in, verse 4 just doesn't seem right in two places:

"to the immortal deity"
"to Trinity in Unity"

(click for larger version)

Anita (V-For Victory), our most experienced chorister, suggested singing "immor" as a single note, squishing it together, which allows two notes in the final syllable, but then to some, it sounds like "to the mortal deity" and the choir split over it.

We had hoped to do this for 40hrs devotion starting tomorrow morning, but at this point I think it's been scaled it back to doing v1 in English and repeating in Latin and leaving it at that. Anyone familiar with this music, If there is an English version of this floating around cyberspace I missed, or if you just want to take a shot at this, your assistance is welcome!

BTW, I find this setting really beautiful, it has an appealing simplicity and repitition to it, much like singing the plain chant version of Adoro Te Devote.

God bless,
Mark

Lacordaire, Conferences

The following is continued from Lacordaire's
"God: Conferences delivered at Notre Dame in Paris"

(series begins here)

CONFERENCES

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(continued)

If nature existed of itself, it would moreover possess the character of absolute liberty, or sovereignty; for, what can a being be said to depend upon which has no cause? But do we find this in the operations that manifest the life of nature to us? The universe is a serf; it revolves in a circle wherein nothing spontaneous appears; the stone remains where our hand places it, and the planet describes an orbit where we always find it. Those worlds, so prodigious by their mass and motion, have never revealed to the observer anything but a silent and blind mechanism, a slavish force, a helpless powerlessness to deviate from their law. And man himself – man in whom alone upon earth appears that liberty whose traces we vainly seek for in all the rest – is he a sovereign? Is he born at his own time? Does he die when it pleases him? Can he free himself from that which limits and embitters his existence? Like nature, of which he forms a part, he has his greatness, but it is a greatness which so much the more betrays his infirmity. He is like those kings who followed their victor to the Capitol, and whose abasement was but increased by the remnants of their majesty. The spectacle of the universe then awakens two sentiments, namely, wonder and pity. And these, strengthened by one another, together lead us to see the emptiness of nature, and to seek its author. Such is the language of worlds, their eternal eloquence, the cry of their conscience, if we may give such a name to the force that constrains them to speak for a greater than they, and to repeat to all the echoes of time and space the hymn of the creature to the Creator: NON NOBIS, DOMINE, NON NOBIS, SED NOMINI TUO GLORIAM – Not unto us, Lord, not unto us, but to thy name be the glory! Yes, sacred worlds that roll above us, brilliant and joyous stars that pursue your course under the hand of the Most High, happy islands whose shores are traced out in the ocean of heaven, yes, you have never lied to man!

It matters little whether pantheism does or does not endeavor to pervert the meaning of the spectacle of nature. It is of importance for us to know, however, that man, taken in general, the man of mankind, sees at a glance that the universe does not exist of itself. Metaphysics will never destroy that deep impression made upon mankind by the spectacle of things which forms the scene upon which we live. A child perceives the incapacity of the heavens and the earth; he sees, he feels, he touches it; he will always return to it as to an invincible sentiment forming a part of his being. In vain will you tell him that he is God, it is enough for him to have had but a fever to know that you are laughing at him.



Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
God: Conferences - Notre-Dame in Paris (1871)

next reading here

Lacordaire, Conferences

The following is continued from Lacordaire's
"God: Conferences delivered at Notre Dame in Paris"

(series begins here)

CONFERENCES

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(continued)

Need I avow it? – Since I have been charged with the work of preaching the divine word, this is the fist time that I have approached this question of the existence of God – if indeed it can be called a question! Hitherto I have disdained it as unnecessary. I have thought it needless to prove to a son the existence of his father, and that he who did not know him was unworthy of such knowledge. But the course of ideas constrains me to touch upon this subject. Nevertheless, in making this concession to logical order, I could not allow you to think that I purposed to satisfy a want of your hearts, or of the people and the age in which we life. God be thanked, we believe in him, and were I to doubt of your faith in him, you would rise and cast me out from amongst you; the doors of this cathedral would open before me of themselves, and the people would need but a look in order to confound me. That same people who in the intoxication of victory, after having overthrown many generations of kings, bore off in their submissive hands, and as the associate of their triumph, the image of the Son of God made man. (Applause.)

Gentlemen, let us not applaud the word of God; let us love it, believe in it, practice it; this is the only applause that mounts to heaven and is worthy of it.

I might here close this discourse since you happily show me that it is needless. Allow me, however, before doing so, to seek why the idea of God is popular, and whether that popularity is but a vain illusion of mankind.

We have said that we possess four means of verifying doctrines; namely: nature, intelligence, conscience, and society. If the idea of God be legitimate, it should derive strength from these four sources of light, whilst pantheism should necessarily find its condemnation in them.

Nature is a grand spectacle which easily exhausts our vision and our imagination; but does it bear the stamp of a being without cause, of a being existing of itself? Can nature say like God, through Moses: EGO SUM QUI SUM – I am who am? Infinity is the first mark of the being without cause; does nature bear this sign? Let us examine it. All that we see there is limited, all is form and movement, form determined, movement calculated; all falls under the straightened empire of measure, even the distances which remain unknown to our instruments, but are by no means unknown to our conceptions. We feel the limit even where our eye does not perceive it; it is enough for us to seize it at one point, to determine it everywhere. The infinite is indivisible, and were but one single atom of the universe submitted to our feeble hands, we should know that nature is finite, and that its immensity is but the splendid veil of its poverty.


Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
God: Conferences - Notre-Dame in Paris (1871)

next reading here

Reverence at Mass

This appeal was written by Phil Ferguson, O.P.L., in 2003
After a quiet weekend, and a noisy day at work today, it seemed like a good one to post today!

Reverence at Mass

Scene: Patton enters field hospital somewhere in Europe during WW II. He is observed going from one injured GI to another. He turns and sees one man. His body is so wrapped – but not in swaddling clothes. Silence envelopes the scene.

While Patton approaches the battered man, he reverently removes his shinny helmet. Patton, a five star general, salutes a non-com. Jesus, the Son of God, salutes each of us – as each of us should bow to He Who Is. Each - an act of profound humility. Patton kneels at the side of this young man. He is struck with awe by the selfless sacrifice. Patton prays. No motion – Heaven and earth are suspended. In a few moments, Patton leans over to the young shattered GI and whispers something to him. We know not what. It matters little. The scene speaks volumes!

Reverence – Patton shows to the man. Reverence – what each one of us at Mass ought to demonstrate to Christ; profound and deeply sensed courtesy, a bow, that one person extends to another. Like gently embracing an infant – wrapped in swaddling clothes. Or two lovers - husband and wife - kissing in front of their children.

I’ve attended Mass at most Catholic churches in Boise. As I entered the House of God, I am oft-overwhelmed by a din almost too awful to bear. Instead of being able to quietly reverence, adore, and praise He Who Is, I hear – so loudly that it grates the ears of my soul and heart – chatter, the kind of banal verbal intercourse that one expects at a party. Nothing wrong with discussing events of the day with one another. But at the Event of Events? The centrality of Catholicism?

“This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” (Isaiah, 29:13)

There is a time and place for all things under the sun. For the celebration of the Mass, there is only that distinctive time to come and adore Him. I pine to enter His Home, untroubled by the outside world of abominable clatter. I desire to visit Him during the majesty of the Mass with a quietude and serenity that bespeaks that sacrament’s august nature. He is – ought to be – the central focus at Mass - not our friends. No! Him! “This is My Body…this is My Blood of the new covenant…”[Italics added], (MT,26:26-28). Folks, Jesus is truly present, body and blood, soul and divinity at the consecration – the transubstantiation.

After we adoringly receive the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, do we have much time to reflect in our hearts the “…wonder at the God Thou art…”? (St. Thomas Aquinas, Adoro Te Devote). No! Seemingly, everyone, including the celebrant, is already in second gear and about to put it into third. We Westerners are so rushing busy in activities that we seldom take time to live. Not even with Jesus! Not even with Him!

Oh Thou our reminder of Christ crucified, Living Bread, the life of us for whom He died
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Adoro Te Devote, Tr: Fr. Gerard Manley Hopkins)

To be with Jesus, Cor ad Cor - heart to heart - ought to be my goal - at Mass and in my life. I and Thou, as Martin Buber would say. He, that most illustrious Jewish theologian, knelt before Yahweh as he wrote a book of that title. He hit the proverbial nail in emphasizing the personal relationship each person ought to have with Yahweh. “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am.” (JN,8:58-59)

One hour of quiet serenity – is that too much to ask? He invites us to be with Him. How can we hear Him in our hearts when there is a cacophony before – during – after Mass?

Please – be quiet!

---

This was originally published in The Idaho Catholic Register

Lacordaire, Conferences

The following is continued from Lacordaire's
"God: Conferences delivered at Notre Dame in Paris"

(series begins here)

CONFERENCES

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(continued)

Before entering upon this comparison, or rather on entering upon it, I will make one observation. It is that God is here below the most popular of all beings, whilst pantheism is a purely scientific system. In the open fields, resting upon his implement of toil, the laborer lifts up his eyes towards heaven, and he names God to his children by an impulse as simple as his own soul. The poor call upon him, the dying invoke his name, the wicked fear him, the good bless him, kings give him their crowns to wear, armies place him at the head of their battalions, victory renders thanksgiving to him, defeat seeks help from him, nations arm themselves with him against their tyrants; there is neither place, nor time, nor circumstance, nor sentiment, in which God does not appear and is not named. Even love itself, so sure of its own charm, so confident in its own immortality, dares not to ignore him, and comes before his altars to beg from him the confirmation of the promises to which it has so often sworn. Anger feels that it has not reached its last expression until it has cursed that admirable name; and blasphemy is the homage of faith that reveals itself in its own forgetfulness. What shall I say of perjury? A man possesses a secret, upon which his fortune or his honor depends: he alone upon earth knows it, he alone is his own judge. But truth as an eternal accomplice in God; it calls God to its help, it places the heart of man to struggle against an oath, and even he who may be capable of violating its majesty would not do so without an inward shudder, as before the most cowardly and basest of actions. And yet what is there contained in those words of an oath? It is the name which all nations have adored, to which they have built temples, consecrated priests, offered prayers; it is the highest name, the most holy, the most efficient, the most popular name which the lips of men have received the grace to utter.

Is it so with pantheism? Where shall we look for it? Come with me, let us knock on yonder door; it is illustrious, and more than one celebrity has already been there. We are in the presence of a sage. Let us beg of him to explain to us the mystery of our destinies, for he has sounded it. What says he to us? That there is in the world only one single substance. Why? Because substance is that which is in itself, and that which is in itself is necessarily unique, infinite, eternal, God. Behold then the whole explanation of our life based upon a metaphysical definition. I do not now examine whether it be true of false, whether the conclusions drawn from it are legitimate, whether it is easy otherwise to define substance, and so overthrow the whole structure of this doctrine. I simply defy mankind to understand it; even you, who from your childhood have been initiated to speculations of words and ideas, you would not seize its tissue without great difficulty were I to expose it to you. Many of you, perhaps, would not succeed so far; for nothing is more rare than metaphysical sagacity, than that vision which dispels before it all realities, and penetrates with a fixed regard the world of abstractions. You would soon feel the swelling veins of your brow, a kind of dimness would seize even upon the most hidden recesses of your thoughts, and all would disappear before you, the real and the ideal, in painful obscurity. And we are to believe that truth lies hidden in such subtle and impossible depths! That there it awaits the human race to declare to it its destiny! Can you believe it? For my part, I do not believe it. I believe in the God of the poor and the simpleminded; I believe in the God who is known in the lowly cottage, whom infancy hears, whose name is dear to misfortune, who has found ways to reach to all, how humble soever they may be, and who has no enemies but the pride of knowledge and the corruption of the heart. I believe in this God. I believe in him because I am a man, and in repeating with all nations and all ages the first article of the Church’s Creed, I do but proclaim myself a man and take my rank in the natural community of souls.


Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
God: Conferences - Notre-Dame in Paris (1871)

next reading here

Gospel judgmentalism (Part II)

This should have been part of the original post on judgmentalism and the Gospel, but got left out. Just a minor oversight.

The thought to consider is based on something St. Augustine said:

A man calls himself by what he loves.

The sinner identifies himself by his sin, even the worldly man by his occupation, but we, because we love Christ, call ourselves by the name of the one whom we love, we call ourselves Christians.

Now as Christians, we have learned to love the sinner, all the while hating and detesting sin. The sinner hears us condemning what he loves and what he has named himself by, and, unable to separate himself from the sin he love, believes that we hate him, responds with anger, and hates us in return; a clue to how goodness incarnate could be so hated. This is the unavoidable consequence, and it is only with great difficulty that the one consumed by his passions can see this distinction. the worldling neither sees it, and both accuse us of dishonesty, for it is a good and godly thing to hate sin, and the one who loves it and names himself by his love, responds accordingly. Yet the truth is that he responds in error, even if oblivious to it. And thus extreme patience is necessary to instruct the ignorant, a spiritual work of mercy.

To abandon the truth in order to not offend where no actual offence is offered, even if it is taken, is to deny what the sinner actually has a right to in justice; the Truth; This is the sin of "human respect."

The sinner may believe that we hate him, but the reality is, he actually hates himself; for because we are made in the image of God,

Ps 10:6b he that loveth iniquity, hateth his own soul.

Lacordaire, Conferences

The following is continued from Lacordaire's
"God: Conferences delivered at Notre Dame in Paris"

(series begins here)

CONFERENCES

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(continued)

What do you now expect from me? You think perhaps that I am about to demonstrate to you the existence of God? I assure you that I have no such intention, not because the thing is impossible, but because this is not the question before us. The existence of God is not a dogma overthrown, which it is needful to raise up again from the dust; it is a dogma standing erect, which holds its place between the Church, whose divine authority I have shown you, and Jesus Christ, whose personal divinity I have proved to you. God has been the basis of all that we have yet seen. He has revealed himself to us as all beings reveal themselves, namely, by his action. If God had not acted upon earth, and if he did not still act her days by day, no one would believe in him, whatever demonstration metaphysics and eloquence might make of him. Mankind believes in God because it sees him act. We have not then to demonstrate God, but to examine the idea of God, and to place it before our minds in all the splendor that we can draw from it.

Let us even put aside those positive proofs of God; let us forget his works in the world, and suppose that we have before us the bare question of his existence. The necessity of a direct demonstration of him would not even then follow. For our mind carries in itself the certainty that a principle of things exists, and, in addition, that this principle is either God or nature. Nothing remains then but to choose between them, and a matter of choice is quite another thing than a position in which reasoning has all to create. I have to oppose theism to pantheism, this is my task; I have to seek which of these is in harmony with nature, intelligence, conscience, and society; such is the strength of my position.

Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
God: Conferences - Notre-Dame in Paris (1871)

---

The bolded italic is not in the original, but I thought it such a profound statement that it is worth highlighting and meditating on.

next reading here

More on Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

Here is more information about Dr. Kwasniewski's speaking engagement (other than his visit to the Chapter):

ANNOUNCEMENT

Attending Wyoming Catholic College will be a challenge for students’ minds, an adventure for their souls, and an opportunity of a lifetime. WCC, which opens this fall, has a four-year integrated liberal arts curriculum in which students will study Great Books and enjoy immersion in the Great Outdoors. Freshmen participate in NOLS summer and winter expeditions, and take equestrian instruction. The school is faithfully Catholic and offers abundant opportunities for the enrichment of the life of faith.
WCC’s Assistant Academic Dean Dr. Peter Kwasniewski will be visiting Boise to speak about the wonderful educational opportunities available at the new college. You are warmly invited to come and hear his presentation, which will take place on Friday, April 13, at St. Mark’s School, 7503 Northview Street, at 7:00 pm in the auditorium (located at the corner of Cole & Northview). After his formal presentation, Dr. Kwasniewski will be glad to answer questions, and will distribute viewbooks, catalogs, and other materials.

WCC is currently accepting applications from prospective students. For more information please visit the website (www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com) or call 877-332-2930. We ask you to keep the success of WCC in your prayers.


Provided by Peter A. Kwasniewski
Lander, Wyoming
877-332-2930

There is a more detailed announcement HERE
and a add from Naional Catholic Register HERE

Lacordaire, Conferences

The following is continued from Lacordaire's
"God: Conferences delivered at Notre Dame in Paris"

(series begins here)

CONFERENCES

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(continued)


Such are the two doctrines.

And observe that the human mind could not conceive a third doctrine upon the principle of things. For either nature exists of itself and suffices to itself, or we must seek its cause and support above itself, not in an analogous nature subject to the same infirmity, but in a superior being answering in its essence to the idea and function of a principle. It is the one or the other. If we choose nature, as nature wants personality, we must say that the principle of things is an infinite force in the state of impersonality. If we reject nature, we must say that the principle of things is a supernatural being, the logical conception of which necessarily leads to the conclusion that the principle of thins is an infinite spirit in the state of personality. Therefore human reason, in regard to the first question concerning the mystery of destinies, the question of principle, is inevitably condemned to one or the other of these professions of faith: I believe in God; - I believe in nature.

This is the reason why there are but two fundamental doctrines in the world; theism and pantheism. The first of these builds upon the idea of God, the second upon the fact of nature; one starts from the invisible and the infinite, the other from the visible and indefinite. Whoever is not a theist is logically a pantheist, and whoever is not a pantheist is necessarily a theist. Every man chooses between these two doctrines, and the life of mankind cleaves to one of the other, as to the tree of life and the tree of death. Pantheism has perhaps been brought before you as a rare discovery of modern times, as a treasure slowly drawn forth from the fields of contemplation by the labor of sages: the fact is, it is as old as corrupted mankind, and the mind of a child is able to conceive that there is a God, or if there is not, that nature is itself its principle and its god.

It is a gift of truth, that upon a question so capital as that of the principle of things, you should have but to choose between two doctrines, and that on the rejection of one of these, the other becomes invested with the infallible character of logical necessity.


Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
God: Conferences - Notre-Dame in Paris (1871)

next reading here

Retreat!

You have heard it said...



But I say unto you...

---

The retreat begins with Liturgy of the Hours; 8:10AM at Our Lady of the Valley, Caldwell, followed by Mass at 8:30.

Because of the Chapter Retreat, I probably will not be posting much until Monday.

Special guest at next chapter meeting!

We will have a very special guest at our next regular chapter meeting, which will be Mercy Sunday, April 15. From Wyoming Catholic College, we are delighted to welcome

Peter A. Kwasniewski, Associate Professor of Theology, Assistant Academic Dean
B.A. (Liberal Arts), Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, California; M.A. and Ph.D. (Philosophy), The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski taught courses in the philosophy of nature, philosophical anthropology, metaphysics, moral theology, social ethics and Catholic social doctrine, fundamental theology, Christology, ecclesiology, sacramental theology, eschatology, and biblical theology at the International Theological Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family in Gaming, Austria, from 1998 to 2006. He also lectured on music history for the Austrian Program of the Franciscan University of Steubenville, on medieval philosophy for the Austrian Program of Ave Maria University, and on human rights for the Phoenix Institute Europe Foundation. His articles have appeared in many scholarly and popular journals, including Mediaeval Studies, Communio, Angelicum, The Thomist, The Modern Schoolman, Nova & Vetera, Faith & Reason, Logos, and Homiletic & Pastoral Review. A translation by Dr. Kwasniewski of portions of St. Thomas Aquinas's Commentary on the Sentences, accompanied by introduction and notes, is forthcoming from The Catholic University of America Press.

Lacordaire, Conferences

The following is continued from Lacordaire's
"God: Conferences delivered at Notre Dame in Paris"

(series begins here)

CONFERENCES

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(continued)


I ask then this supreme question, I ask it with you and with all time: what is the principle of things? Catholic doctrine answers us in these three first words of its creed: CREDO IN DEUM PATREM OMNIPOTENTEM – I believe in God, the Father Almighty.

Hear its own explanation of this answer.

There is a primordial being: by that alone that it is primordial, it has no beginning, it is eternal, that is to say, infinite in duration; being infinite in duration, it is so also in its perfection; for, if anything were wanting to its perfection, it would not be total being, it would be limited in its existence; it would not exist in itself, it would not be primordial. There is then a being, infinite in duration and perfection. Now the state of perfection involves the personal state, that is to say, the stated of a being possessing consciousness and intelligence of itself, rendering an account to itself of what it is, distinguishing from itself that which is not itself, removing from itself that which is against itself; in a word, of a being who thinks, who wills, who acts, who is free, who is sovereign. The primordial being is then an infinite spirit in a state of personality. Such is Catholic doctrine on the principle of things, the doctrine contained in that short phrase: CREDO IN DEUM – I believe in God.

Let us now hear the contrary doctrine, for there is always a contrary doctrine; and you will never find Christianity announcing a dogma without at once meeting with a negation, a negation intended to combat it, but which must serve to prove it. For error is the counterproof of truth, as shadows are the counterproofs of light. Do not wonder than at so prompt an opposition to so manifest a dogma; invite it rather, and listen to the first expression of Rationalism against the first expression of Christianity: CREDO IN NATURAM, MATREM OMNIPOTENTEM – I believe in nature, the mother almighty.

You hear then that Rationalism, like Christianity, admits the existence of a principle of things; but for Rationalism, nature is the primordial, necessary, eternal, sovereign being. Now, nature is not unknown to us, and it is evident to us tat nature is in the state of impersonality; that is to say, nature has no consciousness of what it is, it does not possess that intellectual unity by which each of its members should live of the universal life, and the universe of the life of the least blade of grass comprised in its immensity. We are, so to say, immersed in nature, we draw from nature the aliment of our existence; but so far from forming there one single life by common knowledge, we know nothing even of the beings nearest to us. We pass each other by as strangers, and the universe answers to our laborious investigations only by the mute spectacle of its inanimate splendor. Nature is deprived of personality, and this is why Rationalism, which declares that nature is self-existent, defines the principle of things as an infinite force in the state of impersonality.

Such are the two doctrines.

Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
God: Conferences - Notre-Dame in Paris (1871)

next reading here

Gospel Judgmentalism

Last Sunday we had the gospel of the prodigal son, and this coming Sunday we have the woman caught in adultery. These scriptures, for many, seem to bring forth homilies which, rather than speak to the gospel accounts, are exhortations not to be “judgmental,” and condemnations of “judgmentalism.”

It is interesting to note, that the words “judgmental” and “judgmentalism” are not in my 1964 two volume Webster’s New Dictionary of the English Language. It seems odd that if this is a sin, this word would not exist in Holy Scripture; so I’d like to look at the word (and a class of similar words) and what the word conveys, and see how it ties back to the Gospels of last and next Sunday.

At the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist, there is a men’s prayer group that meets on Tuesday mornings from 6-7AM. Usually half of this time is devoted to reading and discussing the upcoming Sunday’s gospel. An interesting collection of terms was identified as being of the same type as “judgmentalism.” Tolerance, diversity, choice are the culture’s “virtues” opposed to the culture’s sin of judgmentalism.

These four words have something in common; their cultural meaning is not their explicit meaning, but an entire weight of accumulated ideology. For example, tolerance actually has two primary meanings; the first is illustrated thusly: a machinist is instructed to turn a piece of steel to 1” plus or minus .005” The measure is 1” and the tolerance is plus or minus .005” If outside the tolerance, it fails quality control, and is discarded. In other words, tolerance in this context is the acceptable amount of error.

The second meaning of tolerance is social; as in tolerance of evil. There are some evils that, due to man’s fallen nature, are impossible to eradicate, and hence we tolerate a certain amount of them because to eradicate them would cause more evil than what is tolerated. You will notice, however, that there is no acceptance of evil as good, or denial, that what is evil is evil. It is the degree of error that is permitted.

These four words, thus, carry a meaning in the culture that goes far beyond their mere and normal definition (and judgmentalism fails to even have this). These are words of the type that is discussed by Jaques Ellul in his book “The Humiliation of the Word.” Essentially, these words are ideological constructs which carry an emotional reaction. They are not actually words, but hieroglyphics; they are images, and images of the type explicitly banned by God in the Commandments. An interesting observation, and I believe he has an excellent point.

But let’s get judgmental for a moment.

In last Sunday’s gospel, the prodigal son returns repentant seeking his father’s mercy. This coming Sunday the woman caught in adultery will receive, not forgiveness, but deferred judgment. She will receive mercy when she soon thereafter appears to Jesus and washes His feet with her tears, drying them with her hair.

These are both extremely compelling examples of a broken, contrite heart, seeking to be healed in the fount of mercy. Dearest Lord, who could refuse one who came to us in this manner, who could have such a hardened heart, to turn on and reject a son returned, or to turn on one who abases themselves so completely at your feet? O my Lord, could my heart ever be so hard?

Beloved friends and family, mercy goes so far beyond justice, but without justice, there can be no mercy; and the time for mercy is now, the time for judgment is to come. The father awaits the son, with patience, while the son hungers for the pods given to the swine. He is ready, his heart yearns, bursting with mercy, where is the son? He sees him coming, and goes to meet him. The Lord desires to exercise His mercy upon us, he gives us time; the judgment on the woman is deferred, that she may respond to grace and by repentance experience mercy. What wonder is this; repentance melts the very heart of God. Who would not yearn with all their heart, that one who offends against them, would turn and seek their forgiveness, so mercy could be lavished as does our Lord? What sort of hard heart would rather carry and nurse the wound? Lord, never allow it!

You, O Lord, upon the cross, innocence defiled, surrounded by two thieves, justly executed for their crimes, objecting not to the injustice heaped upon you, offered grace to both, one of whom responded and reaped mercy in immeasurable quantity! You offer so much, you ask no more than the sacrifice of our pride, the free submission of our will; why is this so hard for us, dearest Lord, especially when you offer all we need to effect this!

Lets go back to the culture for a moment. The culture worships at the altar of TOLERANCE™, and one of the soldiers in the army of TOLERANCE™ is JUDGMENTALISM™. The idol of TOLERANCE™ is the opposite from true tolerance, as the goal is to impose by force on all that evil is not to be tolerated, but that evil is good, and that, in some cases, good is evil. Thus, those who oppose the empire of TOLERANCE™, by exercising the spiritual works of mercy and trying to help those enthralled by the empire of TOLERANCE™ to understand that evil is evil, and good is good, are labeled as intolerant, their crime being that they are JUDGMENTAL™, the exercise of the good, being placed under the head of JUDGMENTALISM™, the unacceptable ‘vice’ in the empire of TOLERANCE™.

For more on this, I highly recommend the article True and False Tolerance, by Philippe Beneton, from Crisis Magazine, 1996.

If we return to our two scriptures, you will note that both the Father and Jesus are equally guilty of being judgmental; the Father has absolutely nothing to do with the son’s abandonment; he can die in the pig pen, that is his choice; the Father would rather he return, but he is free to remain apart. Is this the Father’s will? Heavens no, and thankfully so. Does Jesus approve of the adultery of the woman? Heavens no, he tells her to go and sin no more.

Is it not odd that we go from these scriptures, to the culture, which has missed them entirely? If the Father had said, son, go back to your whores and pigs, would we be impressed? If Jesus had said to the woman, go back to your adultery, would we be impressed? Yet, why are we admonished to do just this?

He wrote with His finger, in the dust of the earth!

Dust you are, and to dust you shall return.

I will take away your stony hearts, and give you hears of flesh.

Call to mind when God wrote with His finger in stone. He gave the law to an unrepentant people of stubborn, hardened heart. He wrote this law in their stony hearts, hearts that did not love, and therefore, closed to grace, would not grant freely the submission of their will; crushed under the burden of law, desiring license, constrained by fear.

Yet God so loved His people, that He came in person, to write a new law into our hearts, to take away our stony hearts, and give us hearts of flesh, that animated by grace, we would discover the perfect freedom in perfect obedience; law does not crush under a burden the heart in love with God, because law is for the lawless, and there is no law against love.

---

But there is judgment, and JUDGMENT. One is prescribe, one is proscribed. Since all we hear is proscription, let us look at prescription:

Simon answering, said: I suppose that he to whom he forgave most. And he said to him: Thou hast judged rightly(Lk 7:43).

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor 1:10)

But the spiritual man judgeth all things (1 Cor 2:15)

Know you not that the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know you not that we shall judge angels? How much more things of this world? (1 Cor 6:2-3)

I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is not among you any one wise man that is able to judge between his brethren? (1 Cor 6:5)

And some indeed reprove, being judged: But others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear, hating also the spotted garment which is carnal (Jude 1:22-23)

And some indeed repove being judged... He gives them
another instruction to practice charity in endeavouring to
convert their neighbour, where they will meet with three
sorts of persons: 1st, With persons obstinate in their
errors and sins; these may be said to be already judged and
condemned; they are to be sharply reprehended, reproved,
and if possible convinced of their error. 2d, As to others
you must endeavour to save them, by pulling them, as it
were, out of the fire, from the ruin they stand in great
danger of. 3d, You must have mercy on others in fear, when
you see them through ignorance of frailty, in danger of
being drawn into the snares of these heretics; with these
you must deal more gently and mildly, with a charitable
compassion, hating always, and teaching others to hate the
carnal garment which is spotted, their sensual and corrupt
manners, that defile both the soul and body. (footnote, DR bible)

---

Forbidden judgment is that which is eternal. My favorite example is "you will go to hell unless you leave the Catholic Church" - this pre-judgment of the final disposition of a man's soul, is similar to "You will go to hell if you (fill in the blank). The only way to go to hell is to die not in the state of sanctifying grace, and between commission of sin which destroys sanctifying grace, and death, there is the opportunity for mercy. Because of this, when Jesus said to love your neighbor, we need to remember that our neighbor is the one whom we will spend eternity in heaven with (provided we persevere to the end and get there!). Thus our neighbor may be our enemy today, as Saul was the enemy of St. Stephen as he was stoned, but together they intercede for us from heaven! Such an amazing transformation! Jesus prays "forgive them Father, they know not what they do" for the executioners who shed his blood, and they are among the first to be converted, to drink his blood! St. Augustine reminds us that Psalm 104 ends with "Destroy thou mine ememies from the earth" and we can pray this, because the only enemies we have are the enemies of God, and God destroys His enemies by making them His friends. God desires not the death of the sinner, but his conversion. May the desire of God's heart, animate ours.

(and that's my judgmental thoughts for the day...)

Conversion story

I have presented my conversion story several times since becoming a Catholic, but for some reason, I've never posted it publicly; till now. Since I have presented it at retreats under two different subject heads, I’ve posted both. They overlap some, but are written to different ends. May God grant you some benefit should you suffer to read one or both; and please, pray for me.

This link will take you to them.

Mark

Lacordaire: Conferences

The following is continued from Lacordaire's
"God: Conferences delivered at Notre Dame in Paris"

(series begins here)

CONFERENCES

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(continued)


MY LORD:

The Church and the country thank you together for the example you have given to us in these days of great and memorable emotion (The Revolution of 1848). You have called us into this cathedral on the morrow of a revolution in which all seemed to have been lost; we have responded to your call; we are here peaceably assembled under these antique vaults; we learn from them to fear nothing either for religion or for country; both render thanks to you for having believed in this indissoluble alliance, and for having discerned in passing things those which remain firm and become strengthened even by the changeableness of events.

Doctrine is the science of destinies. We live, but why do we live? We live, but how do we live? We, and all that is passing around us, move by a motion that never ceases. The heavens move onwards, the earth is born along, the waves follow each other on the old shores of the sea; the plant springs up, the tree waxes great, the dust drifts along, and the mind of man, yet more restless than all else in nature, knows no repose. Whence and why is this? All motion supposes a starting-point, a term to which it tends, and a road by which it passes. What is then our starting-point? What our end? What our road? Doctrines must answer us: doctrine must show us our beginning, our end, our means; and, with them, the secret of our destinies. All science does not reach so far. The lower sciences teach us the law of particular movements; they tell us how bodies attract and repel each other; what orbit they describe in the undefined spaces of the universe; how they become decomposed and reconstituted, and numberless secrets of that restless and unremitting life which they lead in the fertile bosom of nature: but they do not make known to us the general law of motion, the first principle of things, their final end, their common means. This is the privilege of doctrine, a privilege as far above all the sciences as the universal is above the individual.

Now of these three terms which comprise the system of destinies, the one which doctrine should first reveal to us is doubtless the principle of things; for it is easy to conceive that upon the principle depends the end, that from the end and the principle proceeds the means. The principle of beings evidently includes the reason of the end assigned to them, as their principle and their end determine the means by which they are to attain and fulfill their vocation.

I ask then this supreme question, I ask it with you and with all time: what is the principle of things? Catholic doctrine answers us in these three first words of its creed: CREDO IN DEUM PATREM OMNIPOTENTEM – I believe in God, the Father Almighty.

Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
God: Conferences - Notre-Dame in Paris (1871)

next reading here