Today is the feast of St. Paulinus of Nola (+431).  Could you go through this day without knowing what this great poet and letter writer (the ancient verison of a patristiblogger) said about "dew".  Of course not!!

In ep. 23,33 (CSEL 29:190), Paulinus explains what dew is.  He is talking about the Song of Songs and how the Christ figure’s hair is covered with dew.  Let’s lead up to the good stuff:

33. But the Church had done well to take the image of a sinner, so that even in her symbolism she might be consistent with her head, for Christ, too, took the form of a sinner.  But the Jew, who was to set neither his head nor his base in Christ, anointed neither the head nor the feet of Christ, whereas the woman of the Gospel steeped both in precious ointments.  So Christ confers neither the oil of grace nor the water of renewal on the synagogue, an image of which is represented by the Pharisee standing at the very fount of the oil and water of salvation; but for him the water and the oil of charity have run dry.

Christ was possibly foretelling this when His prophet said: The oil of the sinner shall not fatten my head, just as he was able to say to His Church: Thou hast anointed My head with oil.  She had brought ointment not only of costly manufacture but also in a precious container. 

WHAT??? A precious container??  Didn’t Paulinus know that people don’t know that that is?  After all, I doubt if it was encrusted with jewels.

The ointment was fragrant with the grace and properties of many herbs or blossoms combined.  Only the Church could perfect such a product.  Scented with the varied blossoms and juices of heavenly graces, she breathes out to God her manifold sweetness from different races.  Her breath is the prayers of holy men, like spices burnt on libation-bowls which are fragrant with the spirit of truth.  [SIMPLY GORGEOUS!!] Permeated with the fragrances of such flowers of their dewy juices, she is acclaimed by the Bridegroom Himself with the flattering verses He uses also in the Song of Songs: My dove, My undefiled, for My head is full of dew (the head of Christ is God, and His hairs are His chosen saints, in whole the father takes joy in Christ) and My locks are full of the drops of the night.

Someone once wanted to know what "dew" meant.  Well, Paulinus explains it this way: 

The dew, as we know, is not a wetness of rain but is of the chill, by which the grass, parched from the heat of the day is refreshed.  Only during a calm night is the earth sprinkled by the bright drops of this dew.  So we are given to understand that those drops of the night, by which Wisdom rejoiced to moisten His head and locks are the saints’ representation (forma) which the Apostle (Paul) describes as shining amongst the stars which, on clear nights, shine as beautifully the dew falls.  And so what is the night thought to be, in a spiritual interpretation, except the Passion of the Lord, which also made bright the day?  I think Scripture deals with this: “Night shall be a light in my pleasures.” 

Keep in mind that the Song of Songs was taken by the Fathers to concern Christ and His Church, the Bridgroom and the Bride in the wedding chamber.  Now Paulinus shifts gears and givs us a new idea.

But you can interpret it that way or else also as the night of this world, because it was cleared of cloud by the conversion of the Gentiles, whose earlier (false) faith caused shuddering in the darkness;  it was cleared up from its clouds, and now in the light of the Church – as if a full reflection of a perfect moon and by holy men as pure stars in a cloudless sky – are the (good) works of the faithful, like the dews in that night, as we have called it, of the world.  By which every living man refreshes his soul from the thirst of bygone dryness, as the dews, as we said, distilling in the night of the world.  This dew gives life to the soul of each believer, and refreshment after the previous arid drought.

Okay… Paulinus says that dew only shows up on calm, clear cool nights.  So, now that the Church has created new conditions for grace with the conversion of the gentiles, there is more chance for dew.  The dew drops are like the saints.  Dew collected in the hair of the Bridegroom in the Song of Songs.  Saints are around the Head of the Church who is Christ.  Christ’s hair is like the celestial hair of the Milky Way and the saints are like the stars in the sky.  In the ancient world the stars shone with divine light through the spheres.  Keep in mind ancient astronomy.

Know we find how Paulinus sees Christ has rejoicing in dew!  "Darkness" here is not the blackness of sins, I think, so much as it is the necessary condition for dew to form

34. So Christ rejoices that His head is steeped in such dew; though He brings light to our dark nights, He is nonetheless glad that His hair is sprinkled with the drops of our darkness (tamen guttis noctis nostrae crines suos gaudet esse perfusos).  For the good works of the faithful, which aid our brothers or cherish the needy, refresh and renew Him.  This is why He finally rejected the comment of Judas, who, when the spirit of the devil had entered his soul, begrudged Christ’s feet the ointment of the woman; for Christ is anointed, lent resources, and fed by works of love and mercy.

 

Thanks to Amy Welborn for the following... at least I think, thanks.  Not sure, really.  I was more than a little irritated when I first read this, but I am over it now. 

In the The Floridian there is a gushy piece by a pious member of the faithful, AMY HOLLYFIELD, victimized by the decision of the meanie bishops who have submitted their new English translation to Rome.  You can almost imagine Thomas Reese, SJ, and His Excellency Donald W. Trautman as ghost writers. 

Let’s get to the piece.  This is entitled "Lost In Translation", thought I suspect the authoress would be lost in pretty much any translation if you come right down to it.  Here goes…  I will annotate.

I haven’t been saying the words all my life.

Just 16 of my 35 years.

Sound familiar?   This is the Chair’s argument!  "We’ve been doing this for SIXTEEN WHOLE YEARS! We CAN’T change now!"

But I am as confused, disappointed and, well, angry, as any devout Roman Catholic I know.

Hmmm… "Charity, Joy, Peace, Patience…."  etc.  Just savor that word "devout" here.  That provides justification for all the emotion that follows.

Mass is the starting point for my week. A renewal that I participate in. The words, the music, the people – they ground me.

Aaaaaaaaand…. the Blessed Sacrament? Jesus? And is there also a Sacrifice to participate in?

So I was crushed when the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops voted last week to change some wording in Mass to more closely match the original Latin. It wasn’t so much the idea of changing some words. The problem was the specific words they approved changing.

There is one point in every Mass that is pivotal to me. It is when my heart opens and I feel myself at the feet of God, praying for his mercy.

Alright… it’s about you.  I get it. 

It is during the Communion rite, as the priest is holding up the host, the body of Christ. We parishioners, in preparation for receiving this sacred rite, say, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed."

Tears form in my eyes every time I say these words. Every time.

Then you will probably get tears in your eyes from reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church which reminds us that this phrase is from Scripture:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(PART TWO: THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY
SECTION TWO: THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH
CHAPTER ONE: THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION
Article 3: THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST VI. The Paschal Banquet):
Quote:

1386 Before so great a sacrament, the faithful can only echo humbly and with ardent faith the words of the Centurion: "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea" ("Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul will be healed.").217 Roman Missal, response to the invitation to communion; cf. ⇒ Mt 8:8.

My world could be upside down, as awful as anything, but when I say those words in anticipation of Communion, I feel the hand of God in my life. I feel his forgiveness. I feel his love.

And now? Now, the church wants to change these words to, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof."

My roof? Where is the emotion in that? Where is the feeling? What does it even mean?

And there you have it folks!  No one has ever explained to her what this means in the context of Mass at the time of Holy Communion.  And thus it came to pass in recent times that His Excellency The Chair spake unto us and said:

 “It’s a literal translation, and it doesn’t mean anything to Americans,” Bishop Trautman said.
“The ‘dew’ of your Spirit — what does that mean?”

And its all about my emotion… my emotion… how it makes me feel.  Never mind that the present translation is WRONG and does not convey what the Church has given us at that moment of Holy Mass, words which are from the Gospel itself, words which a good former Lutheran will remember are "God breathed" (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Amy of The Floridiam continues with her experience as a Luthean convert.  Maybe that’s why… no… hey wait…. I’m a former Lutheran too, so that can’t be it:

But the truth was, I was embracing my spiritual history. Just in a different form. A form that meant something to me because of the rules, the pageantry, the structure. I was swept up by the emotion of Mass. By the interaction and the inclusion. I knew in my heart that my grandfather would approve.

Golly… sounds like me.  However, before we were half way into that first Mass I ever attended I was asking the question: "What do these people believe that makes them do this???"  You see, faith seeks understanding.  The so-called "hermeneutical circle" is part of the process of true conversion to Christ.  Faith goes before understanding, and, understanding goes before faith.  Emotions lead to thought, and thought leads to emotions.  You cannot remain in the affective, emotive part of your experience and think that you are really getting somewhere.

There was a priest at my college campus, Father John, who empathized with my struggle. He counseled me through a rough period with my parents.

Eventually, they accepted my decision. There was no issue six years later when I married my husband in the Catholic church. They have no problem with my daughters being raised Catholic. They accept and understand who I am.

This is a perfect example of the favored approach of young people today.  It is all part of their emotional/cultural landscape.  This what I call "psycho-geography".  Do you hear it?  Think of phrases like "I know where you are coming from", or "I am in a good place today".  These don’t really mean very much on a deep level, of course, but people say them all the time when they don’t know what else to say.  And so, the ultimate, the paradigmatic qualifier of the modern relationship is… "I’m there for you!"  So long as "You are there for me", wherever that is, I am in a good place. But back to our heroine.

But now I am in turmoil again. How could the church take these words from me? What will I get from "under my roof?"

I know it’s wrong to think that my entire faith will crumble over three words, and I’m sure in the end it won’t. But I wish someone had asked me. I wish they had asked any of the common parishioners before they approved such a change.

This is excellent.  Whom should they have consulted?  People who probably don’t know that that whole "under my roof" thing is from HOLY SCRIPTURE? 

They say it will be two years before the Mass is affected, because of all the process and paperwork.

I hope they’ll realize before then what a mistake they are making.

At least, for me.

Right.  And this is about you.

I am proud of my church. Proud to have converted. Proud to serve as a Eucharistic minister.

Ehem… well… I am going to take that as an affirmation of love of Holy Mother Church and not just her own faith community.  Also, while Amy’s dedication and willingness to serve and help is admirable, she is most decidedly NOT a "Eucharistic Minister".  Only the ordained are truly Eucharistic Ministers.  She can be an "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion", however.

Lord, help me understand.

Well… we don’t have to wait for the Lord to do this.  I can help you right away.  I suggest that you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and a good Catholic Edition of the Bible.  For the notes and the inclusion of the Latin text I like the wondeful editions of the Navarre series.  Read this blog, too.  Now that I am well into explaining "dew", I might just start on "under my roof".

In Luke 7:1ff we have the episode:

1: After he had ended all his sayings in the hearing of the people he entered Caper’na-um.
2: Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death.
3: When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave.
4: And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him,
5: for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue."
6: And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof;
7: therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed.
8: For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, `Go,’ and he goes; and to another, `Come,’ and he comes; and to my slave, `Do this,’ and he does it."
9: When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."
10: And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.

The abovementioned Navarre commentary has this:

"This episode is a very good example of the faith and humility needed in one’s approach to Jesus. The account contrasts the praise given the centurion by the elders ("He is worthy to have you do this for him" v 4) with the man’s own sense of unworthiness- vv 6-7; also the faith of this Roman official, which he has already show – v 5 – is now seen as nothing less than remarkable vv 8-9. The Church’s liturgy uses the Centurians very words to express our own feelings just before receiving Communion to help us have similar disposition." 

And here we leave our heroine, tied to the railroad tracks in the face of the train chugging its way around the bend, the mean men in black twirling their moustaches archly.

I will now brace myself and get back to real work.

Ohhh won’t you stayyy… just a little bit looonggerrrrrr
Please please stayyyyyyy…..

CARDINAL BERTONE WILL BE NEW SECRETARY OF STATE

 

VATICAN CITY, JUN 22, 2006 (VIS) – The Holy Father, in accordance with Canon 354 of the Code of Canon Law, has accepted the resignation of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, secretary of State, requesting him, nonetheless, to remain in office until September 15, 2006, with all the faculties inherent to that role.

 

  On the same date – September 15 – the Holy Father will appoint Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B., archbishop of Genova, Italy, as the new secretary of State.

 

  On that occasion, His Holiness will receive in audience the superiors and officials of the Secretariat of State in order to render public thanks to Cardinal Angelo Sodano for his long and generous service to the Holy See, and to present them to the new secretary of State.

 

  The Pope, in accordance with Canon 354 of the Code of Canon Law, has accepted the resignation of Cardinal Edmund Casimir Szoka, president of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State and of the Governorate of Vatican City State, requesting him, nonetheless, to remain in office until September 15, 2006, with all the faculties inherent to that role.

 

  On the same date – September 15 – the Holy Father will appoint Archbishop Giovanni Ljolo, secretary of the Section for Relations with States of the Secretariat of State, as the new president of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State and of the Governorate of Vatican City State.

 

 

Why did the WaPo bury this on page A 10???

Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq

Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A10

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said.

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

—Dafna Linzer

Friends who come to Rome and request tours from me know that I am interested in obelisks and, what’s more, I expect them to be also. These pointed monuments are fascinating. Yesterday I posted about catching the shadow cast by the obelisk at St. Peter’s Basilica on the pavement precisely at solar noon, the moment of the summer solstice. A blogger contributed a comment about Pliny on obelisks and… well… now you have me started. I promise I will be brief, but I expect you all to be riveted by these pointed by brief comments.

There are 13 ancient obelisks, 9 Egyptian and 4 Roman fakes. There was one from Ethiopia, which has been returned. There are several modern copies. The grand total of large obelisks in Rome is 19. It is fun to spend a day finding them all!

Staying with the solar and sundial theme, did you know that one of the obelisks brought to Rome by the ancient Roman Emperors functioned as the point of a sundial, or gnomon, for a large time piece made by Augustus Caesar in the Campus Martius? No? Well here is some more about it.

This red granite obelisk was set up by Psammetichus II (say that 5 times fast! ) in Heliopolis in the 7th c. and was brought to Rome by Augustus in 10 B.C. He set it up just a little way from where I live in the Campus Martius (the level ground between the slopes of the Capitoline, the Quirinal, and the Pincian hills, and the Tiber River). It is 21.79 metres in height and is or at least was covered with hieroglyphics. It was still standing during the 8th century but at some point fell over and sank into the gook and was simply built over. This often happened with the obelisks. In any event, this particular gem was rediscovered in 1512 and then extracted from its subterranean hole in 1748. I have a photo of the memorial inscription of the witty and erudite scholar Pope Benedict XIV down below. Eventually it was set up in the Piazza di Montecitorio in 1789 where it stands now not too far away from its original location. It shows many repairs with chunks taken from the Columna Antonini. When you go to the Vatican Museum you will see the perfectly preserved base of the Antonine Column which even shows an image of this very obelisk!

Back in the day, Augustus had dedicated this obelisk to the sun and made it the gnomon of his sundial. Long curvy lines and bronze markers (some of which have been found, see photo below) marked the square around it.

Here is the inscription on the base commemorating how Augustus brought it to Rome and "gave it as a gift to the sun". Centuries later a better sort of Pontifex Maximus, Benedict XIV, would echo this language.

EMPEROR AUGUSTUS CAESAR, SON OF DIVINE [Julius], (the) HIGH PRIEST, [in the year he had] IMPERIUM (for the) 12th (time), was CONSUL (for the) 11th (time), (and had) TRIBUNITIAN POWER (for the) 14th (time), GAVE (this obelisk), BROUGHT FROM EGYPT (for a sign of the) MIGHT OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE, AS A GIFT TO THE SUN.

The bronze markings were first found in 1484 with mosaic figures for the zodiacal symbols and the winds. Some of this has been elegantly reconstructed in its present (new) position. Bronze markers that were discovered are in a glass case (see below) next to a bar in the Via di Campo Marzio between the Piazza del Parlamento and the Piazza S. Lorenzo in Lucina.

The sundial was probably only useful for solar noon, since the area around it, if you do the math (and people have), would have vast indeed. The plaza without "horizon pollution" from buildings would have been the a semi-ellipse with an east-west major axis 436 meters long of which the obelisk would be the midpoint; and a semi-minor axis (northwards only from the obelisk) 50 meters long. The Piazza S. Pietro is an ellipse whose major axis measures "only" 240 meters!

The natural historian Pliny some seven decades after the thing was erected, notes that the shadow was "off", perhaps because of an earthquake (cf. Nat. Hist. 34,73).

In the last couple years a line for solar noon on the pavement was added to the Piazza Montecitorio. I have a shot of the summer solstice marker of the modern version. Note at the bottom, the precise time of the solar noon, the solstice is 12:11! The sun (historically) passed into Cancer at this moment. Yesterday I noted that the Vatican calendar gave the time as 13:26, which must have been calculated somwhere else. However, I suspect that at the Vatican obelisk, the real noon must be something like 12:12 0r 12:13. Remember, due to the precession of equinoxes when the solstice occurs in June the sun is now in Taurus not Cancer (it used to be in Cancer when the Tropic of Cancer was named).

If you were standing on the Tropic of Cancer at solar noon on the solstice, the longest day of the year, your shadow would be exactly below you, and not stretch out at all. Everywhere else to the north of the Tropic of Cancer, this is the moment when your shadow is the shortest.. To the south, in the southern hemisphere, your shadow is the longest on this day, analogously with the length of our northern winter shadow at the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year.

Here is the inscription of Pope Benedict XIV in front of the Parliament building about where the solar obelisk of Augustus was originally found.

Here is the glassed in case in the V. di Campo Marzio showing the rediscovered bronze markers of the ancient sundial.