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

A reader sent a note about the upcoming Collect for the Feast of the Holy Guardian Angels, 2 Oct.

COLLECT:
Deus, qui ineffabili providentia
sanctos angelos tuos
ad nostram custodiam mittere dignaris:
largire supplicibus tuis:
et eorum semper protectione defendi,
et aeterna societate gaudere.

Even oblique or indirect exposure to such a dangerous word might cause irreparable harm to the people of God, as Bp. Trautman has explained.   Even if the people will be hearing the lame-duck ICEL version… get ready.  There could be casualties.

First, I think pastors of souls should prepare their people for the use of the word ineffabilis.

I am reminded of the Monty Python segment about the cryptographers who saw just two words of the joke so funny that it kills you…

On a more serious note, the sender also asked about the form of the word dignaris.

The word dignaris – dignor, dignare – can only be here, it seems to me, present indicative passive 2nd person singular (deponent). The only other reading is as a perfect subjunctive active second person singular, and I don’t see how that can fit the context, yet four of the six translations render the verb tense as perfect (all indicative):
 
1) Two of the St. Andrew translations left out dignaris entirely, but translated "hast sent" or "sent" (perfect).
 
2) Two use this as "who … hast deigned to send" (perfect).
 
3) Only two render this in the present indicative: "who … dost vouchsafe" or "who … art pleased" (present).
 
Am I missing something about dignaris which would make "hast deigned"/"deigned" the correct or acceptable rendering? (Unless Google missed it, you haven’t analyzed a prayer with dignaris yet.) The phrase aeterna societate presents another translation issue.

Let’s take care of the easy one first.

That societate aeterna is there with gaudeo.  Gaudeo, "rejoice", is often with the ablative of the thing in which one rejoices.  I think ablative was chosen here to keep the nice parallel with the previous clause where we have another infinive, defendi, and the ablative.

In the case of dignaris, this is a present tense.  If you are going to go with the perfect subjunctive, shortened form (dignaveris) then I think you would need a good explanation for the use of the subjunctive… and there really isn’t one.  It is present.

LITERAL VERSION:
O God, who by unspeakable/unutterable/indescribable/ineffable providence
find it worthy/deign/condescend to send Your Holy Angels for our defense:
bestow upon your supplicants:
both to be defended always by their protection,
and to rejoice in their eternal company.

My friend Patrick Madrid posted a story about a fellow in St. Louis, MO, a Catholic, who has a crucifix on display in his grocery store.

Freedom hating and generally obtuse "atheists" are complaining.

You know… the more I hear arguments of so-called "atheists", the less I think they are really "atheists".

Anyway…

My friend Richard Lane brought this irksome story to my attention, and so I now bring it to yours:

 

“It startled me. It seemed so out of place” was the comment of a patron of the new downtown Schnucks Grocery Store in St. Louis, Missouri. While driving to work this morning, my wife and I were listening to commentary KMOX Radio on this issue and then I went online to get the story from St. Louis Today Website.

Basically the person who felt the Crucifix was ‘out of place’, (also was Jewish – I am in no means insinuating that all Jewish brothers and sisters feel this way) went out of their way to write a letter to their local Jewish Newspaper on this issue complaining about what many say is the ‘obvious symbol of not just Christianity, but Roman Catholicism, since the dying Corpus of Christ was placed on a Cross. Obviously people are disapproving of this display of someone’s faith, Culinaria (Store) Manager Tom Collora, Jr., who is a parishioner at the Old Cathedral, located in downtown St. Louis, Missouri.

"It’s bad taste and bad business. Who wants to (shop) where someone else’s faith is being pushed down your throat?" were the comments from an Atheist who lives next to the store. Personally, if this Atheist was so loyal to his cause, then he should not be using United States Currency, which displays this Country’s Faith… but this is not the point in my opinion.  [Has this nimrod noticed that he lies in a city names "SAINT Louis"?]

What Mr. Collora has done, is answer the call of the New Evangelization, specifically the Mandate of Christ to ‘Go an make disciples’ by sharing our Faith; by sharing the Salvific Message of the Corpus of the Messiah on the Cross, which is not a sign of exclusion, but the opposite; this is the Glorious Sign of Inclusion into the Body (all pun intended) of Christ, who was ‘lifted up’, suffered, died and rose three days later in Triumph over death.

According to Pope Paul VI; the Roman Catholic Church exists so that She may Evangelize, taking the Eternal Message of Salvation to every end of the earth, every Home, Hamlet and Hovel; every Town, City, State, Country and Territory; Our (Roman Catholics) mission is to share the GOOD NEWS of Salvation through Jesus Christ to all mankind… and as Christ told us; “Do not be afraid!”

As one who has given up a secular life to continue to proclaim the Gospel, I applaud Mr. Collora and wish the other 1 Billion Catholics around the World would imitate his example. . . . (continue reading)

In the Minneapolis daily Star-Tribune there is an article on some plans underway in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis which may result in parish closings.

You should see the comments appended to the article.

There are some deeply anti-Catholic bigots out there.

I posted this last year, but a) there are new readers now and b) I put so much work into it that it deserves recycling on this feast of St. Jerome.

Some time ago, there was a discussion on one of our splendid Catholic blogs making mention of the burial place of St. Jerome perhaps in the Major Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome. This is an interesting story and I dug into it a little. This is what I found.

We read in J.N.D. Kelly’s work Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Duckworth, 1975, p. 333 – emphasis mine) :

Apocryphal lives extolling [Jerome’s] sanctity, even his miracles, were quick to appear, and in the eighth century he was to be acclaimed, along with Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory the Great, as one of the four Doctors of the Church.[2] In the middle ages his works were eagerly copied, read, and pillaged; while towards the end of the thirteenth century the clergy of Santa Maria Maggiore, at Rome, were to persuade the public, perhaps themselves too, that his remains had been transported from Bethlehem to Italy, and could be venerated close to certain presumed fragments of the Saviour’s crib.[3]

Note 2: This was formally ratified by Pope Boniface VIII on 20 Sept. 1295: see Corpus iuris canonici II, 1059 (ed. E. Freidburg, Leipzig, 1879-81). The original number four (the list was later to be greatly expanded) was chosen so that the Doctors could match the Evangelists.

Note 3: The story of their alleged translation, in response to a visionary appearance of Jerome himself, is set out by J. Stilting in Acta Sanctorum XLVI, Sept. VIII, 636 (Antwerp, 1762); it is reprinted in PL 22, 237-40. Stilting also provides a discussion of its date, veracity, etc. on pp. 635-49.

In the Acta Sanctorum for 30 September, under the entry for St. Jerome, we find the following section with its articles:

LXV. Corpus Sancti ex Palestina Romam translatum, depositumque in basilica s. Mariae Majoris. The body of the saint was brought to Rome from Palestine, and put in the Basilica of St. Mary Major.
LXVI. Inquiritur tempus quo Sancti corpus Romam delatum. An investigation is made into the time when the body of the saint was brought back to Rome.
LXVII. Corpus Sancti depositum prope aediculam Praesepis, conditum deinde ibidem altare, sub quo positum, ubi mansit usque ad pontificatum Sixti V, quando dicitur clanculum ablatum & absconditum. The body of the saint was placed near to the small chamber of the Crib, established then right at the same altar, under which it was placed, where it remained until the pontificate of Sixtus V, when it is said to have been secretly taken away and hidden.
LXVIII. Corpus Sancti clanculum ablatum & absconditum dicitur, ne transferretur alio a Sixto V: deinde frequenter frustra quaesitum. The body of the saint is said to have been secretly taken away and hidden lest it were to be transferred to another place by Sixtus V: aftward it is frequently sought in vain.
LXIX. An reliquae, sub altari principe S. Mariae Majoris inventae, videantur illae ipsae, quae ut corpus S. Hieronymi ad illam basilicam fuerunt translatae. When the relics found under the main altar of St. Mary Major which had been transferred to that Basilica seem to be the very same as the body of St. Jerome.
LXX. Admodum verisimile & probabile inventas esse S. Hieronymi. Clearly the [relics] found are most like and probably of Saint Jerome.
LXXI. Respondetur ad objectionem ex reliquiis Nepesinis: reliquiae, quae verisimiliter sunt S. Hieronymi sub mensa principis altaris depositae. An objection is answered about the relics at Nepi: relics placed under the main altar which more than likely are those of St. Jerome.
LXXII. Reliquiae Sancti in pluribus civitatibus Italiae, Galliae, Germaniae, Belgii, & aliis provinciis. The relics of the saint in more cities in Italy, France, Germany, Belgium and other provinces.
LXXIII. Cultus S. Hieronymi: festivitates eius & Officia. The veneration of St. Jerome: his feasts and offices.

Here is the page where these articles begin. If you want to have a fuller experience of the joys (the chore) of reading the Acta Sanctorum for any length of time click here for a larger image.

From ZENIT:

Pope Urges Priests to Use Communications Media

VATICAN CITY, SEPT. 29, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI has chosen to dedicate World Communications Day 2010 to the theme "The priest and pastoral ministry in a digital world: new media at the service of the Word."

The message for the 44th world day is addressed especially to priests, as the Church continues to celebrate the Year for Priests. The message also comes in the wake of last October’s synod of bishops on the Word of God.

A communiqué from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications announced the theme today, feast of the archangels.
The Holy Father urges priests to "consider the new media as a powerful resource for their ministry in the service of the Word and wishes to express a word of encouragement in order to address the challenges stemming from the new digital culture," the communiqué explained. "If the new media is adequately known and appreciated, it can offer priests and all pastoral agents a wealth of data and content that previously was difficult to access, and it facilitates ways of collaboration and growth of communion that were unthinkable in the past."  [Do tell!]

Reaching out

The communiqué highlights the fact that "thanks to the new media, those who preach and make known the Word of life can reach, with words, sounds and images [...] individuals and whole communities on every continent."

This enables the creation of "new areas of knowledge and dialogue, enabling one to propose and carry out programs for communion," the council affirmed. "If used wisely, with the help of experts in technology and the culture of communion, the new media can thus become for priests and all pastoral agents a valid and effective instrument of true and profound evangelization and communion."

The Pontiff’s statement suggests the hope that the communications media will be a new way to bring Christ to the streets.

"The priest’s principal responsibility is to proclaim the Word of God made flesh, man, history, thus becoming a sign of that communion that God effects with man," the communiqué noted.

The World Day of Communications is the only worldwide celebration established by the Second Vatican Council. It is observed in most countries the Sunday before Pentecost.

I understand that Sen. Orrin Hatch’s (R-UT) amendment to Sen. Backus’ bill was voted down in the Senate Finance Committee.

The amendment would have prohibited federal funding of abortion in a way that is more lasting than the "Hyde Amendment" (which has to be renewed each year).  Hatch’s amendment would have permitted individual’s to purchase "riders" for abortion but would have forbidden public funds.

This amendment also provided conscience clause protection.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) helped shoot down the amendment (10-13) saying, “As a woman, I find it offensive. This is an unprecedented restriction on people who pay for their own health insurance.”

The seemingly desperate Sen. Max Backus (D-MT), chairman of the committee was against the amendment (to his bill) saying that his bill already prohibits federal funding of abortion.

I wonder how the vote broke down.

BTW.. Sen. Debbie Stabenow enjoys a 100% rating from NARAL and is in favor of partial birth abortion.  She is okay with transporting minors across state lines for abortions, and against defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.

Three Catholic pro-abortion Democrats were the swing votes.

From a reader:

A classmate of mine is about to be ordained to the priesthood.  I’m trying to find an antique chalice for him.  Do you know any merchants who sell antique chalices?

Anyone?

BENEDICT XVI’S PRAYER INTENTIONS FOR OCTOBER

VATICAN CITY, 30 SEP 2009 (VIS) – Pope Benedict’s general prayer intention for October is: "That Sunday may be lived as the day on which Christians gather to celebrate the risen Lord, participating in the Eucharist".

His mission intention is: "That the entire People of God, to whom Christ entrusted the mandate to go and preach the Gospel to every creature, may eagerly assume their own missionary responsibility and consider it the highest service they can offer humanity".

From a reader:

First let me say I am a long time reader of your blog. Thank you for all that you do.

A few years ago I found a brass censer on eBay which I bought. The exterior is quite tarnished, and the interior is a bit corroded with the copper plating missing in some places. There’s a small ding at the base.

Nonetheless, I floated the idea of attempting to restore it and let my children present it to out priest as a gift to celebrate the Year of the Priest. I started polishing it up, and dang it if it doesn’t look pretty sharp. He does not currently use a censer; but if he has an inkling in his heart to do so, perhaps this would be a little encouragement.

Do you know of any reason why this would not be an appropriate gift? Would it be acceptable even if it is clear that the item is not new (I won’t even attempt to remove the small ding, fearing I’d only damage it further)?

Do you have any thoughts on this sort of gift? Are you aware of any considerations I should keep in mind when continuing?

First, it is good that some of this old stuff is being rescued and cleaned up and … hopefully… used.

A lot of that ecclesiastical hardware is is pretty expensive new.

Also, I can’t see why it would not be a good gift to some parish where the priest is trying to get things going again.

Something like this might be a source of encouragement.

I would also present it along with some incense and some charcoal, so that it is easy to start using it right away.

 

I suspect most people would like to have more solemn liturgy on occasion, and the use of incense can go a long way in making it so.

 

A note from a reader in the Czech Republic:

I come from the Czech republic and I am quite frustrated that the pope`s visit gets such a negative response in the English blogs – or no response at all… In reality, it was fantastic!
There was a lot of symbolism which foreigners do not understand. For example: The first place he went (at his own request), the church of Our Lady of Victory, it is THE church – the symbol of recatholisation of the country. In the year 1620 catholics defeated protestants and this particular church in Praha got "victorious" this name. A general of carmelites, P. Dominic a Jesu Maria, found a picture of Our Lady in South Bohemia, where protestants erased Her and little Jesus`eyes – he took picture with him and before the battle of White Mountain he showed it to the catholic army generals and asked them to atack and promised God`s help. They did it, they won and the carmelites got that church afterwards. (The picture P. Dominic found, was to be seen in Sta Maria della Vittoria in Roma until the 19th century.) The catholic king of Bohemia, emperor Ferdinand II, punished the protestant rebels (who began the 30 -years war) and threw them out of the country.
In 1918, when the Habsburg empire collapsed, the Czech republican politicians wanted to distance them from the past and created Czech hussite church. The majority of the people stayed catholics, but the "political correct" historiography at schools became: "We are a hussite country, catholics were the bad ones in history". One gets brainwashed with this still now at school, even the the most people believing in God are catholics – protestants are very very few.
It was extremely courageous of Benedikt XVI to choose just this church, the symbol itself…
 
The interior Church situation in the Czech republic is like this: We were spared after the 2. Vatican Council of its "Spirit", because of communism. When one fights communism, one has no time for "Spirit" of Council. It came after revolution in 1989. Some bishops we got then were bad, some weak. All of them afraid of cardinal Vlk (Wolf) – one says: episcopus episcopo Lupus. I have seen the most beautiful churches destroyed because of the "Spirit" in 1990s, they are being destroyed still. My professor of art history comforted us students once: "Do not cry, the priests responsible for this come to hell." So, imagine the 1970s in Western Europe and you get the picture of the situation in the Czech republic lately. Celebrity priests (all liberal, of course) laugh at the traditional catholic way of praying, of attitudes, of belief…
So the pope comes now and goes to this church of Our Lady of Victory, THE catholic church, and gives a crown to Infant of Prague. Can he make a better gesture to support the traditional catholics? An intellectual, giving a crown to an old miraculous doll. Then he meets priests and nuns in the cathedral. Does he talk to them, discuss something? No, he just prays together with them. Vesper, in Latin, nice music. (And all the Czech nuns are dressed like nuns, of course.) He demonstrates without words: This is the stuff you ought to do, this is your job – to pray.
Then he arrives to Brno in Moravia. 120 000 people come to mass, which is in Latin, too. No big concelebration, the 40 bishops are placed somewhere invisible, only the local one concelebrates (no Vlk to be seen). Pope says to people after the mass: "Take care of your inherited catholic tradition…" Then he speaks of Our Lady of Hostyn (who saved Moravians from tartars in 1241). He venerates Her as we always did.
All this is just the opposite we have always heard from Vlk and TV -priests. We got pope`s absolute support for all we have always believed in and what some of the bishops tried to take away from us.
Only a half year ago Vlk threatened Vatican with people rebellion like in Austria, because he did not get permission to appoint his successor in Praha. (He writes about it on his blog www.cardinal.cz, but only in Czech). But now, during the visit, while we watched the live transmission, it looked like the Czech bishops got the message – they looked like they finally understood the times have changed and the "Spirit" is not popular anymore. I really hope it lasts and I hope the good nuncius gets through with a good archbishop to Praha this year, in spite of the opposition.
The good nuncius said before the papal visit: "This country has the most beautiful baroque in Europa, and it is because the churches were built while the Church was triumphant. The churches "smile". The landskape looks christian. Not only because of all the churches, but there is something more in it, some christian expression from the past still living which one should preserve."
He got it, nuncius, and the pope knows it, too. He is from Bayern and he understands…
 
As for the politics, the visit was a success, too. The usually very arrogant Czech president looked changed. Nobody protested even when pope reminded us about how St. Wenceslaus behaved to his neighbour countries – again, foreigners do not understand, but: St. Wenceslaus did not want war with Germans, so he prefered to be a subject of the German emperor and pay tribute. Now there are quarrels with Sudet Germans about the property confiscated after the last war.. It was so brave of Benedikt XVI to mention this –
 
He touched dynamite at every step, he was very brave, and proudly (for once) I must say, that he was well received, both from the politicians and from the bishops. (Normal catholics love him, of course.)
 
Sorry about a mail so long, but as I appreciate your articles, I just wanted you to know that there was more to this visit than eyes of foreigners can see. It was a victory!

I don’t what you think, but on this video it looks like people are praying to President Obama.

What they are doing is super silly, and the prayer part is about 1:30" into the clip.

It seems to be some kind of New Orleans thing…

You almost expect the big puppets to come in.

There are famous photos of Pope Pius XII and his canary.

Now for the pontifical spider.

On ZENIT there was a question put to their resident liturgical expert, Fr. Edward McNamara, of the Legionaries of Christ.

Frequency of the Extraordinary Form

And More on Habit-Wearers

ROME, SEPT. 29, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I am confused about the permission given by our Holy Father regarding the celebration of Mass using the Tridentine rite (the extraordinary form). Can a parish substitute for all daily Masses throughout the week the "Tridentine form" instead of the "ordinary form"? I understand Sunday Masses must be of the ordinary form, with perhaps the exception of one Tridentine Mass.—D.F., St. Clair Shores, Michigan

A: The most relevant document regarding this point is probably Article 5 of "Summorum Pontificum":

"In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favoring the unity of the whole Church.

"§2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Blessed John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held."

Canon 392 refers to the bishop’s overall right and duty to oversee and enforce the observation of ecclesiastical laws within his jurisdiction.

While the papal document certainly allows some leeway, the fact that it asks pastors to ensure that the celebration of the extraordinary form harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care would suggest that a parish should not habitually substitute all daily Masses for the extraordinary form. [Okay… there are some rather vague things going on here, "leeway… harmonizes… suggest… habitually".]

A parish with more than one priest could have daily Mass in both forms.  [Well… probably a parish with a single priest could also.]

Likewise, in areas where churches are in close proximity, the bishop could allow one parish to celebrate a daily Mass in the extraordinary form for the faithful from several parishes. [It rather sounds as if Fr. M is applying Ecclesia Dei adflicta.] Other possibilities include rotating the celebration of the extraordinary form during the week among two or three nearby parishes.

If the need arises, the papal letter issued "motu propio" (on his own initiative) also foresees the possibility of the bishop establishing a special parish, thus Article 10:

"The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with Canon 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law."

As is obvious all celebrations in such a parish or chaplaincy would be according to the extraordinary form.

The above document says that it is important to seek positive and charitable solutions to the needs of all the faithful so as to avoid discord and to favor the Church’s unity.

It is obviously not a bad think to have all daily Masses (or the only daily Mass) in a parish be in the Extraordinary Form, or there would not be the possibility of parishes where only the older books are used.

So, in all other parishes, it is a matter of working out the "pastoral" exigencies for how to use the TLM in a parish.

I cannot imagine a priest, facing things as they are today in most parishes where the older form hasn’t been used in years, would be able to change all the daily Masses to the TLM in anything like an irenic manner.

I guess this could come up in a parish where there is one priest with one daily Mass scheduled. 

You would think that if everyone who went to daily Mass at a parish, and the priest himself, really wanted the TLM rather than the Novus Ordo, and there were requests along those lines and consultation with the regulars, there is little reason why the priest shouldn’t use the TLM for the daily Mass.

My friend John Allen, the fair-minded nearly ubiquitous columnist of the otherwise ultra-lefty weekly fishwrap National Catholic Reporter, has an interesting piece today about the Holy Father’s trip to Prague. 

Allen looks at the Holy Father’s work there from the point of view of what Mr. Allen has been calling "affirmative orthodoxy".  Meaning:

No compromise on essential points of doctrine and discipline, but the most positive, upbeat presentation possible. Christianity is framed not as a dry book of rules, but as the answer to, as Benedict put it Monday morning, “the profound thirst for meaning and happiness in the heart of every person.”

Take a look.

Here is another interesting observation:

 The pope’s commitment to affirmative orthodoxy over these three days seemed to embody a deliberate effort to get back “on message.”

In many ways, Benedict’s surprisingly positive tone was the early storyline of his papacy. It seemed to go into eclipse in early ’09, however, with a furor over lifting the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops, including one who’s a Holocaust denier, and controversial comments on AIDS and condoms during a trip to Africa. Pundits hinted that the “real Ratzinger,” the hard-line figure familiar from his years as the Vatican’s top doctrinal enforcer, was finally coming to the fore.

 

And again:

For secular society, Benedict’s aim is to present Christianity as the best guarantee of the values which even the most ardently secular agnostic also prizes: peace, tolerance, dialogue, and freedom. To make that case, the pope seems to believe he can’t start the conversation with flash-points of controversy, but rather with a positive vision of what Christianity has to offer.

For the local church, meanwhile, Benedict’s prescription boils down to embracing life as a “creative minority.” Gone are the days of Christianity as the culturally dominant force; today it’s fated to be a subculture, with fewer priests and nuns, lower levels of Mass attendance, and a generally shrunken sociological footprint. The key question, from the pope’s point of view, is what kind of subculture it will turn out to be.

Borrowing a phrase from the British historian Arnold Toynbee, Benedict is pressing the church to be a “creative minority.” Toynbee’s contention was that in any civilization, renewal happens when a small subgroup works out fresh responses to new challenges, which are eventually copied by the majority.

On the papal plane en route to Prague, the pontiff was asked what his message would be for a thoroughly secularized country where Christians have been reduced to a minority. His answer was vintage Benedict: “It’s normally the creative minorities that determine the future,” he said.

You might tool over to Mr. Allen’s column and read the whole thing.

There was a more than a hint of this same idea in the opening sermon of Archbp. Dolan in NY’s St. Patrick Cathedral.

I resonate with his suggestion that Pope Benedict could be trying to get back on message.  

But in doing so, I am also thinking that if he has not entirely been on message lately, then His Holiness must deal with the possibility that he is not being well-staffed by some of those around him.

Also, I am not convinced that Pope Benedict doesn’t also see "flash points of controversy" as opportunities for a little creative destruction, to haul in a term from another field.

I went with several friends tonight to see a movie.

Bright Star

This is about the early 19th c. English romantic poet John Keats, who died so young in Rome.

The movie focuses on the last year or so Keats spent in England before being shipped off to Rome on account of his Tuberculosis.  During this time he meets and has a passionate relationship with a neighbor, where he and a friends were renting digs in Hampstead.

The movie’s main character is actually the neighbor, Fanny Brawne, played by Abbie Cornish.  I suppose the Academy Award will be given to someone in an unworthy flick, but Cornish will have deserved it.

The film is gorgeous, perfect in period sets and dress.  It was very quiet and patient, which I believe might allow the modern person to get something of the sense of the very different rhythm of life lived in that time.

There was not a weak link in the cast.

The director was Jane Campion, who did a marvelous job.  As a matter of fact, this film was a good her previous The Piano was dreadful.

The experience comes to revolve around letters Keats wrote to Fanny, which have survived.   They are the basis of the depiction of the relationship.

In any event, I recommend that you see Bright Star.  It will help to know the works of Keats, but it is not necessary.

    

Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art—
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like nature’s patient, sleepless Eremite,
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution round earth’s human shores,
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors—
No—yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,
Pillow’d upon my fair love’s ripening breast,
To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,
Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
And so live ever—or else swoon to death.

The new translation of the Missale Romanum is coming and, my oh my, do we need  it and soon.

Yesterday when I was saying Mass in English at the parish of a priest friend, I nearly gaped at the inept translation of the Super oblata, the "Prayer over the gifts" (26th Sunday of Ordinary Time).

LAME DUCK ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
God of mercy,
accept our offering
and make it a source of blessing for us.

SUPER OBLATA (2002MR):
Concede nobis, misericors Deus,
ut haec nostra oblatio tibi sit accepta,
et per eam nobis fons omnis benedictionis aperiatur.

This prayer did not have an antecedent in any earlier edition of the Missale Romanum, nor have I discovered it in an ancient source. It might be of new composition for the Novus Ordo.

The venerable Lewis & Short Dictionary informs us that fons is a “spring, fountain, well-source”. By extension this means as well “a fountain-head, source, origin, cause.” Make connections in English: for example, “fountains” from which water flows. In church we find a “font”, as in a baptismal font or holy water font. As you are reading this, you see the style of letters make up a “font”. The individual pieces of movable type used printing were once cast by pouring molten metal in a “foundry”. One of the meanings of the Latin fundo, related to fons, is “to make by melting, to melt, cast, found”.

Acceptus, a, um, is from the verb accipio and means “welcome, agreeable, acceptable (synonym. gratus)”. Acceptus is related to gratus, as the effect to the cause; he who is gratus, i. e. “dear”, is on that account acceptus, welcome, acceptable. I think we must say “acceptable” rather than the apparently closer “accepted”.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Grant to us, O merciful God,
that this our sacrificial offering might be acceptable to You,
and that through it the fount of every blessing be may opened to us.

The central image in the prayer is that of a grace flowing out from God as from a font, a source, almost like living water, that is, water which flows. Look at the movement concepts here. God is identified as merciful. We ask that what we bring to the altar will be acceptable by God’s power, for He is the origin of all blessings. A blessing from God, a sharing of something of Himself with us, is to be given by means of the offering. This sharing and God’s gift is likened to a fountain opened up.

Our prayer brings to mind different moments in Scripture of flowing and of water. Think, for one example, of how Moses brought water forth from the rock:

“So Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he had commanded him. Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, “Listen, you rebels, shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff; water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their livestock drank.” (Numbers 20:9-11 RSV)

This is an Old Testament prefiguring of the sacrament of baptism. In our baptism we became temples of the Holy Spirit, who is at times described in terms of water, even (pace Bishop Trautman!) as rain or dew. Take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church 694 for a description of the Holy Spirit:

Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit’s action in Baptism, since after the invocation of the Holy Spirit it becomes the efficacious sacramental sign of new birth: just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water, so the water of Baptism truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit. As “by one Spirit we were all baptized,” so we are also “made to drink of one Spirit.” (I Cor 12:13) Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified (Jn 19:34; I Jn 5:8) as its source and welling up in us to eternal life….

“But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.” (John 19:33-34 RSV)

The flowing water of the baptismal font opens the way to the other sacraments, in particular the reception and celebration of the Eucharist, the “source and summit” (fons et culmen) of our Christian lives (LG 11; CCC 1324). We are enabled by baptism to participate in Holy Mass with “full, conscious and active participation” (SC 14). The word “full” (plena) refers to the integral way the baptized take part in the liturgy, i.e., internally and externally. “Conscious” (conscia) demands knowledge of what one is doing, excluding any superstition or false piety. “Active” (actuosa) means primarily interior receptivity, made possible by baptism, resulting from an act of will to unite oneself with the sacred action being wrought in the liturgy by the real “Actor”, Jesus Christ the High Priest. This interior participation (actuosa participatio) comes to be expressed also in outward, physical participation. Through this participation, when we unite our gifts, sacrifices and aspirations to the sacrifice of the priest at the altar, the abundant blessings of God flow forth to us in a manner that we cannot hope to comprehend in this life. Non-Christians and non-Communicants can indeed “get a lot out of Mass”. But “full, conscious and active participation” has its moment of perfection: when the actively receptive and properly disposed baptized person receives Holy Communion (cf. De musica sacra 22, c). The act of reception of Communion in the state of grace perfectly unites both the interior activity of the heart, mind and soul with the exterior actions of processing forward and physically accepting the Eucharist with gestures of reverence. Communion is perfect active participation which must be prepared for interiorly.

Today’s prayer points to the goal of our participation at Mass. We desire that our participation and subsequent reception open up blessings for us. Subsequently, keep firmly in mind the words of St. Paul about improper participation and poor reception of the Eucharist:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (1 Cor 11:27-30 RSV)

Paul makes the connection between the spiritual and the physical, the interior and the “exterior”. The effects of reception of the Eucharist are, for St. Paul, also physical. If the effects of Communion are also physical, should there not be proper physical preparation for reception of Communion as well as interior spiritual preparation? Should we not prepare ourselves with, for example, fasts and deeply expressive physical gestures of reverence? In fact, the Church requires a Eucharistic fast, perhaps too much reduced to one single hour, before Communion (not before the beginning of Mass) and also prescribes physical movements and signs of reverence during Mass.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
God of mercy,
accept our offering
and make it a source of blessing for us.

Ho hum…. Zzzzzzz…..

While we can look forward to something better in the future, that is what most of you still have to hear in church now. We need rich beautiful and, above all, accurate translations to help our participation attain that height which Jesus Christ, through the Holy Catholic Church, desires for us!

From CNA: 

Watchdog group ‘pleased’ with defunding of grantees who violate Catholic teaching

Washington D.C., Sep 27, 2009 / 05:04 pm (CNA).- A watchdog group which discovered that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development has given grants to groups which support abortion and same-sex “marriage” has said it is pleased that the campaign has taken steps to defund at least two of the organizations.

Bellarmine Veritas Ministry (BVM), which describes itself as “a Catholic grass-roots organizing ministry dedicated to truth and action,” in August announced its effort to address some “troubling groups” funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD).

According to its website, the CCHD was founded by the U.S. Catholic bishops in 1970 to fund projects such as voter registration, community organizations, community-run schools, minority-owned cooperatives and credit unions, capital for industrial development and job training programs, and rural cooperatives.

The CCHD makes grants to organizations that work to eliminate the “root causes” of poverty and to enact “institutional change.”

Though the campaign’s criteria require that funded activity must conform to the moral and social teachings of the Catholic Church, BVM found that some grantees’ advocacy undermines those teachings.

One group, the Chinese Progressive Association, was to receive $30,000 in CCHD money in 2009.

The association’s 2008 voting guide characterized California’s Proposition 8 as “discrimination against same-sex couples” and opposed Proposition 4, a parental notification restriction on abortion. It also filed a legal brief in support of same-sex “marriage.”

According to the research tool Implu.com, the association’s revenues were $562,960 in 2007, the last year for which information is available. That year, it received a $30,000 CCHD grant. It received $25,000 grants in both 2006 and 2008.

Another grantee is the Los Angeles Community Action Network (LACAN), which promotes same-sex “marriage” and actively supports contraception and the morning-after pill through its Downtown Women’s Center clinic. It has received CCHD grants for the past five years and was to receive $40,000 for 2009-2010.

CCHD Director Ralph McCloud was informed of BVM’s findings by LifeSiteNews.com on September 10. On September 18 he said that both the Chinese Progressive Association and LACAN had been defunded.

LifeSiteNews.com reported that he was still waiting to hear from the Young Workers United.

The organization, a new 2009 CCHD grantee, supports legalized abortion, legalized prostitution, and same-sex “marriage.” The organization also sponsored a counter-protest to the Walk for Life – West Coast march in San Francisco in January 2008.

It was awarded a $25,000 grant for 2009-2010. The National Center for Charitable Statistics reports that the group’s 2007 revenue amounted to $350,091.

The BVM report has also criticized a $30,000 CCHD grant to the Women’s Community Revitalization Project, a coalition member of a group which favors abortion, the morning-after pill, contraception and same-sex “marriage.”

McCloud said that he was “shocked” by the BVM report. He said the groups’ profiled work in low-income communities did not include activities like voter’s guides.

“When we had first begun a relationship with them, they weren’t doing any advocacy at all, and we focus just on that particular portion of the work," he reported.

CNA contacted McCloud for further comment but did not receive a response by press time.

“We are pleased with this first step and regard it as a sign of good faith by the CCHD,” Bellarmine Veritas Ministry said in a statement. “However, we remain concerned with how these organizations were cleared to receive funding in the first place.”

The group said Catholics should feel assured that they will not fund groups which promote abortion or any other practice contrary to “the moral and natural law.” However, in its view, there is no such assurance.

“Hundreds of thousands of dollars have made their way to such groups and if the current standards remain in place, the risk remains for the future.”

Bellarmine Veritas Ministry said it will continue to advise Catholics to withhold donations from the CCHD until “more robust” guidelines are implemented.

Some news about Medjugorje, which I picked up from the great Fr. Blake, PP of Brighton:

The Bishop of Mostar has issued a series of restrictions on Medjugorje, I am afraid it has been translated by machine, the original can be found here, on the diocesan website, it is dated September 2009.

The Bishop needs our prayers, I am sure he is going to have a difficult time, it can’t be easy taking on the Medjatourist industry.

FORBIDDEN :
- NO more retreats, spiritual exercises, conferences, foreign priests… without permission of the bishop
- NO own or foreign priests may propagate NON-recognized ‘messages’ or ‘apparitions’
- EVERY priest must show his ‘celebret’ before H.Mass
- NO more H.Sacrament or adoration in ‘Oasis of Peace’; even NO permission to reside in whole diocese [not sure what that last part means]
- NO services in the private church in Bijakovice; it is now closed.
- NO mentioning of ‘seers’, apparitions, messages’ in parish bulletin;
- NO mentioning of the word ‘sanctuary’ in Medjugorje
- NO mentioning or comment of ‘messages’ or ‘apparitions’ on the 25th of the month via Marija Pavlovic
- NO private ‘apparitions’ of Mirjana Dragicevic in ‘Cenacolo’ of Sr. Elvira
- NO permission for ‘Kraljica Mira’(founder : Tomislav Vlasic) in Medjugorje or in whole diocese
- NO ‘seers’ or others in the church to pray prayers from the ‘apparitions’
- NO intentions during the rosary concerning ‘apparitions’ or ‘messages’
- NO ‘seers’ in or around the church on anniversaries of ‘apparitions’ or ‘messages

Here are other recent statements in Italian
Il contesto del "fenomeno di Medjugorje", I.
deals with the role and manipulations of ex-Fr. Tomislav Vlasic and deceased Fr. Slavko Barbaric
Il contesto del "fenomeno di Medjugorje", II.
deals with the phantasies of T.Vlasic and the manipulations of S.Barbaric around the ‘Youthfestival’
Il contesto del "fenomeno di Medjugorje", III.
first deals with the homily of bishop Peric on June 6 2009 in Medjugorje, in which he thanks the Vatican for the support to his negative standpoint on the ‘apparitions’ in Medjugorje. Then he publishes his letter dated June 12 2009, to the present Medjugorje-parish, Fr. Petar Vlasic.