What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

I saw something tonight that was simply fabulous.

A stark contrast to the disturbing movie I say today.

An excerpt:

NB: buckles.

When I was in England last February, a friend who sometimes posts here did me the great favor of taking me to see, inter alia, Salisbury Cathedral. 

It was a wonderful experience.  The Cathedral is, after all, one of the great intact medieval buildings.  Right up my alley, or perhaps nave…. clerestory… well.. you get it.

But I was not prepared for the full surprise I was to have that day.

With a some intensity I could sense, he led me to the Cathedral’s splendid Chapter House.

There are various display cases in the chapter, containing wonderful objects.

But eventually I worked my way to the far end and, strolling around a somewhat sheltered case, I peered down at a medieval parchment. 

It was sheepskin, probably. It was written very close, in a small chancery hand, in Latin. 

Having had a bit of Latin, some training in paleography, and the requisite curiosity I began to scan the first lines.

"John, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anj…"

I can’t quite describe what occurred to me at that moment, the physical coldness of hair rising on the back of my neck and arms, my throat closing with the urgent need not to breathe.

Before me was an original copy of the original 1215 Magna carta.

Four copies exist of the 1215 exist.  Two are in the British Library, one in Lincoln and one in the splendid Chapter House of Salisbury Cathedral.

There were subsequent charters, with changes, which eventually became the text of what became the official Magna Charta, but this was the one hammered out with King John.

Magna Carta was the document which first limited the power of English kings and, among other things, established that a person was not to be deprived of liberty or property without process of law or a trial by his peers.  This is also the basis of what we call habeas corpus, that sufficient proof of a misdeed must be produced in order to imprision, hold or try someone.

So, was quite interested to read this story I found via The Cranky Professor.

HALF UK POPULATION DOESN’T KNOW WHAT MAGNA CARTA IS
By Caroline Lewis     12/03/2008

What is Magna Carta?

Is it:
(a) a menu of bottled Irish ciders
(b) an important medieval charter
(c) a Japanese cartoon strip
or (d) a member of a famous family of folk musicians?

If you answered anything other than (b), then you’re among nearly half of the UK population, going by the results of a new survey.

Commissioned by the British Library, the ‘You Gov’ poll found that 45 per cent of the UK population has no idea what Magna Carta is, or stands for.

Asked to describe what the Magna Carta is and what it did, fewer than one in three (32 per cent) were able to state that the 13th century charter set limits on the authority of the monarch.

The over-55 age group did best, with 63 per cent knowing it is a medieval charter and 37 per cent identifying that it restricted the power of the monarch. However, only 39 per cent of 18-24 year olds got the first question right, and 71 per cent did not know it related to the powers of the monarch.

The British Library initiated the survey prior to launching its new Magna Carta website on Thursday March 13, which explores the origins and significance of the charter, and allows visitors to see the medieval Latin document close up, alongside an English translation.

"Magna Carta is one of the most celebrated manuscripts in English history and the most famous document in the British Library,” said Claire Breay, Head of Medieval and Earlier Manuscripts. “Many misconceptions about its original purpose and content have been generated since it was granted in 1215. Our new website challenges these misconceptions by exploring Magna Carta’s meaning, content and legacy."

Magna Carta is often thought of as the cornerstone of liberty, but 23 per cent of those surveyed had no idea of the importance of the iconic document and another 23 per cent incorrectly thought that it stated that everyone was equal before the law.

The Magna Carta applied only to England, but 19 per cent thought the document meant the same laws applied throughout the UK.

The charter actually contains few statements of legal principle and very little of it deals directly with the villeins – the unfree peasantry – who formed the majority of the population. It failed to secure lasting peace in 1215 and only three clauses are still valid today, but the longevity and adaptability of a few key clauses have secured its iconic status. Above all, it established the critical principle that the king, like his people, was subject to the law.

A new exhibition will open at the British Library in October 2008 on British political citizenship and rights.

The survey and exhibition come at a pertinent time, when new measures are being proposed by the government to strengthen the significance of British citizenship, such as schoolchildren pledging their allegiance to the Queen.

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw MP, was pragmatic about the findings of the poll.

"If you asked an American if they had heard of their Bill of Rights, I expect they’d tell you it was a trick question,” he said. “Such is the enormous iconic value of one of their cornerstone constitutional documents. In contrast, many British people struggle to put their finger on one of our own defining documents, Magna Carta.”

“In Britain we have an innate sense of rights, but they have existed more in hearts and minds and habits than in explicit understanding. The challenge for today is to look for a new expression of our rights, and the responsibilities that go with them, which is relevant for the 21st century.”

“Magna Carta remains an epochal moment in British history, with a resonance that still lasts today,” he continued. “I hope that our proposed new British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities will in time become as deeply engrained in our culture as its equivalent on the other side of the Atlantic."

Taking Liberties: The Struggle for British Freedoms and Rights at the British Library will open on October 31 2008 and run until March 1 2009.

The total sample size of the YouGov survey, carried out online, was 2,073 adults. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all adults (aged 18-plus) in Great Britain.

Magna Carta is an Icon of England – see www.icons.org.uk.

I wonder… as I write… if there are parallels with Summorum Pontificum?

Just asking.

You might remember that I posted a video about the economic impact, or lack thereof, on Sydney during the World Youth Day events.

Over at Faith and Theology there is an interesting piece:

A miracle on World Youth Day

When Benedict XVI addressed an inner-Sydney congregation on Friday night, he spoke against the worship of the “false gods” of “material possessions, possessive love, or power.” And he asked: “How many voices in our materialist society tell us that happiness is to be found by acquiring as many possessions and luxuries as we can? But this is to make possessions into a false god. Instead of bringing life, they bring death.”

And according to a report in The Weekend Australian, the hundreds of thousands of Catholic pilgrims have been a major economic disappointment: “The deathly retail silence contrasts with optimistic predictions of a ‘bumper week’ of trade by the state Government and the local chambers of commerce. A jewellery shop reported one sale in the week: a cross. New South Wales Business Chamber chief executive Kevin MacDonald had predicted a $231 million boost for business, or $1155 per expected visitor. But traders reported pilgrims unwilling to spend, even haggling over the price of one banana. Clothing store John Serafino said the Pope’s visit was ‘a disaster’.”

Here in Australia, talk about the economy tends to be the only talk that is taken seriously; the sound of the cash register is the only sound we really respond to. Our public life revolves around the assumption that everything is finally reducible to economic considerations. So thanks be to God for the strange miracle of a “deathly retail silence” in Sydney this week.

I had this question from e-mail:

Thank you for all your hard work with WDTPRS. Your posts and podcasts have educated me. I have a question I’m sure you can answer. This past Wed. I was at St. John Cantius in Chicago for the feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. (What a fabulous place to assist at Mass!) One of the servers; there were two, was wearing a black cape over his surplice. This cape came down only to about the bottom of his shoulder blades. What is this garment and what is it’s significance?

I think the significance of the little shoulder cape on altar boys is that it makes them look cool.

Actually, that might be pretty important.  It is good to build some hierarchy and distinctive signs and badges into a corps of altar boys.  They respond well to this.  It also contributes to the solemnity of the ceremonies.

I suspect that if there were only two who wore that should cape, they probably had specific tasks.  They may have been the first and second Masters of Ceremony, etc.   Without a photo, it is hard to know.  But I am guessing that one of our well-informed readers from Cub Nation will let us know.

The shoulder or elbow length cape is a common feature of clerical dress, for various roles and reasons.

For example, since the little cape was once a symbol of jurisdiction, bishops and pastors used it.  It is still a common feature of cassocks of bishops. 

Bishops and canons also wear another kind of small cape, a mozzetta, over their choir dress, which includes a rochet or surplice over their cassock.  Rectors of minor basilicas and, I think, cathedrals could use one as well. 

In any event, there are all sorts of distinctive capes and drapes for clerical dress, and they have their meanings.

But sticking to your question, I suspect that the small cape simply makes the altar boys look and feel sharp in the execution of their duties.

The other day I posted about the illicit, invalid attempt at ordaining women which was to take place in Boston.  The Boston Globe reporter was, in my opinion, both sloppy and biased in his work.

Today there is another article, by the same writer.  Let’s see if there is a difference.

My emphases and comments.

Group claims [Right!  This is a change from the first article, which basically accepted the premise that the breakaway group was actually ordaining.] to ordain women priests in unsanctioned ceremony
By Michael Paulson
Globe Staff / July 20, 2008

A group advocating for the ordination of women this afternoon held a ceremony in a packed Protestant church in Boston at which it declared [That’s fair.  They do "declare" that, even though they are wrong.] three women to be Catholic priests and a fourth woman to be a deacon.

The ceremony, like several others that have taken place around the world over the last six years, was denounced by the Roman Catholic church, and critics said the event was a stunt with no religious significance. [Well… it does have religious significance.  It is invalid, but it is religiously significant because it reveals the confusion and error that dominates some breakaway groups.  This muddies the waters of what "Catholic" means, and what priesthood really is about.] The Catholic Church has consistently taught [In the last article the reporter used language of policy and statements, rather than teaching.] that only men can be ordained as priests, and the Archdiocese of Boston said that the women who participated in today’s ceremony had automatically excommunicated themselves by participating in what it said was an invalid ordination ceremony.

But the women who participated in the event, along with the several hundred people who spent nearly three hours in the sweltering, non-air-conditioned Church of the Covenant, said they rejected the excommunications, and believed that the women had been validly ordained. [Whatever.] The women were vested with white chasubles and red stoles and greeted with a standing ovation as they were declared to be priests; they then helped preside over a service at which they declared bread and wine to be consecrated and offered what they said was Communion to anyone who wished to receive it.

The ceremony was organized by Roman Catholic Womenpriests, an organization that is not recognized by the Roman Catholic church. Catholic church officials say the women are not Catholic, their ordinations are not real, and any sacraments they attempt to celebrate, including today’s Eucharist, are invalid.  [Very clear.  That is what the Church says.]

The Womenpriests organization says their ordinations are legitimate because Catholic bishops in good standing ordained their first members to become female priests and bishops. Therefore, they argue, the women being ordained can claim apostolic succession, or direct descent from Jesus’s apostles.  [Yes.  They claim that.  But even if some dopey or senile Catholic bishop is willing to do something so foolish as to pretend to ordain women, they would be no more ordained than a yak or a bowl of peach cobbler.  Women can’t be ordained priests.  They can go through ceremony after ceremony and at the end they are still not ordained.]

The organization has not released the name of the bishops it says consecrated the first women bishops, saying they would face sanction by the Vatican, but says it will release the names once the male bishops die.  [Could they be lying?  I’m just asking.]

Critics say today’s ordinations are not valid because women can not be ordained. [I would not so much say "critics" as "people with their heads screwed on in the right direction".]

C.J. Doyle, of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, called the ceremony “a sacrilegious parody of Holy Orders conducted at a Protestant church by a collection of apostates misappropriating the Catholic name.”  [Wow.  Nicely done.]

“One must not only be a male to be a Catholic priest, one must be a Catholic,’’ [Well… one has to be baptized for sure.] Doyle said. "The performers in this theater of propaganda [!] are neither. These women ought to have the intellectual honesty to admit that they left the Catholic Church some time ago. Whatever publicity value today’s exercise has, it must be measured against both the manifest fraudulence and the irredeemable hopelessness of their cause.” [Perhaps this fellow should be the spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston!]

But the women make the contested claim that there is historical evidence of female priests in the early church, [Wrong.  There is no "evidence" of this in the Catholic Church.  They can misinterpret all sorts of mosaics or frescos, it doesn’t change the fact that there have never been women priests in the Catholic Church.  Some heretical, schismait groups attempted this, admittedly.] so that the ordination of women is “nothing new.”  [WHAT?!?]

“Why is Rome so upset about us? Because they know the ordinations are valid,’’ [ROFL!] said Bridget Mary Meehan, spokeswoman for Roman Catholic Womenpriests. “We are not intimidated. We feel so strongly. Nothing can stop the Holy Spirit.’’  [This is blasphemy.]

Three women were declared to be priests at the ceremony today: Gloria Carpeneto of Baltimore, Judy Lee of Fort Myers, Florida, and Gabriella Velardi Ward of New York City. A fourth woman, Mary Ann McCarthy Schoettly of Newton, NJ, was declared a deacon.

The women did not pledge obedience or chastity [Big deal.] – the promises made by Roman Catholic priests. One was introduced to the congregation by her daughter; another by her husband.

The ceremony was presided over by Dana Reynolds of California and Ida Raming of Germany, both of whom have been declared bishops by Roman Catholic Womenpriests. But Catholic church officials say the women are neither bishops nor Catholic – that they too have been automatically excommunicated as a result of their actions.

“We know only too well in how many ways Vatican church leaders refuse to acknowledge the equality in Christ that God has established between men and women, [Here is a basic problem.  This is not an issue of "equality".  There is a difference between "equality" and "identity".] and how they constantly try to reimpose the precedence of men over women, which is unchristian,’’ [These kooks will always reduce the sacred to the worldly and read the Church through the lens of political categories.] Raming said. “We give witness to the whole world that it is not male gender which is the prerequisite for a valid ordination, but faith and baptism, the foundation of our dignity and equality.’’ [This is a variation of the marxist strain of feminism.  Their "witness" is really a code word for "struggle" and they replace classes with sexes. ("Gender" is a misused linguistic category).]

Reynolds called the ceremony an act of “prophetic obedience,” [That is a phrase worthy of Satan.] declared that “today we are turning another page of history in the Roman Catholic Church,” and urged the gathering “Let us begin a revolution of hope here and now in Jesus’ name.’’  [More blasphemy.  But note that she uses the word "revolution".]

The ceremony was held in a venerable Protestant church, the Church of the Covenant, which is affiliated with both the Presbyterian Church and the United Church of Christ.

The interim pastor of the church, the Rev. Jennifer Wegter-McNelly, declared the ordination of women “an important part of this church’s identity,’’ and said “we stand with you today.’’

The former president of the Massachusetts conference of the United Church of Christ, the state’s largest Protestant denomination, was among several Protestant clergy who attended the ceremony to express their support for the women seeking ordination as Catholic priests.

“If it looks like discrimination, if it acts like discrimination, and if it feels like discrimination, it is discrimination,’’ said the Rev. Nancy S. Taylor, [Unless you are so deeply confused that you don’t know what a duck… er um… discrimination really is.] the former conference president, who is now senior minister of Old South Church. “Prejudice in liturgical clothing is still prejudice.’’

Michael Paulson can be reached at mpaulson@globe.com.

This is a far better article.  It more accurately communicates the positions of both sides.

Meanwhile, also in the Boston Globe, there was a slightly weasely correction printed about the earlier article.

Clarification: The main headline on a report in yesterday’s City and Region section may have led to the erroneous impression that three women will be recognized as priests by the Roman Catholic Church after their ordination tomorrow. As the report and a subordinate headline made clear, the women’s status after the ordination is a matter of dispute. Although the organization hosting the ceremony will consider the women to be Catholic priests, the Vatican and the Archdiocese of Boston will re