
I hope you realize that this is a subtle message never to attempt to delete my blog from your daily reading list.

I hope you realize that this is a subtle message never to attempt to delete my blog from your daily reading list.
UPDATE:
I just saw reports that the lib Left had a meltdown over 1st Lady Melania Trump’s shoes when she was on her way to Houston. I can’t help but wonder about a connection between the Left’s obsessions and their amazing ability to hate.
___
There are several things I want to address, but separate posts would be too much. So here is an omnium gatherum, just for fun.
1) The best Catholic weekly in the UK, the Catholic Herald has, astonishingly, a piece about our ol’pal and perennial crusader (crusadrix?) for the ordination of women, Phyllis Zagano. She was appointed last y
ear to a panel that meets in Rome a couple times a year to look into the historical and theological questions about deaconesses (aka female deacons, deaconettes). The panel doesn’t have the task or competence to make recommendations to the Pope on the topic, but rather to drill into some of the thorny issues. And they are both thorny and fraught with obscurity. In any event, Zagano, who generally says that her main interest to promote only the ordination of deaconettes, let her deeper agenda show through in a talk at Yale as reported by the Catholic Herald: the ordination of women as priests. Here is what she said, with my emphases:
During the question-and-answer session after her talk, Zagano was asked [warning: that’s links a video]: “Why do you not promote the ordination of women as both deacons and priests?”
She replied that these were “two separate ministries”, before adding: “That’s part of it. The other part of it is, I don’t know. I just don’t see it at this point. I think that the priest, when we look at the priest, it’s not the ‘icon of Christ’ problem, it’s the icon of what we’ve made of the priest. So I just don’t think that if I walked down the centre aisle of St Patrick’s Cathedral, waving my – this is my Yale ID card, but waving my “I’m a priest” card … I think I’d be stoned. I just don’t think our Church is ready for that.”
In the talk, which took place in 2013 at Yale’s Thomas E. Golden Jr. Center, Zagano said: “I cannot find evidence that women have been ordained as priests. And the historical argument seems to carry the day right now.”
“At this point… ready… right now….”
Phyllis has a deft pen and uses words well. She has answered these questions, no doubt, quite a few times. She said what she thinks.
One of the problems with the ordination of women as deacons is that the Church says that the ordination to the diaconate is the conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Only men can receive that sacrament.
Another problem, going way back into ancient times, is that – while we do know that there were women called deacons – we don’t know who ordained them or why or what they were supposed to do. It wasn’t a universal practice. Also, the fact that they disappeared early on suggests that they weren’t main-stream at all. So, which heretical sects might have had them? Moreover, over the centuries it has always been possible to find some bishop who would try just about anything. Saying that a bishop “ordained” women isn’t much of a case. And there are problems with terminology, too. What did “ordain” mean to them? So, anyway, I don’t see anything coming out of this deaconette panel, except, perhaps, some scholarly papers when it is finally disbanded. That’s not nothing.
2) Over at Fishwrap (aka National Sodomitic Reporter), the Wile E. Coyote of the liberal catholic Left took a laughably cheap shot at me and at the Extraordinary Ordinary, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison. Wile E., (aka Michael Sean Winters) often posts a daily round up of links to internet stuff that he wants people to see, and he often posts comments about the link. That is the format in which Wile E. attacked converts and kindly said that (when he doesn’t agree with them) they should not be allowed an opinion.
In any event, this time Wile E. linked to the fundraising campaign I posted for the 501(c)(3) organization of which I am the prez, the Tridentine Mass Society of the Diocese of Madison (TMSM), and made reference to the fact that, in photos I posted, the Bishop, as celebrant of the Mass, is wearing white shoes.
White shoes! Well, that’s newsworthy! Clearly he wanted to stir his readers up to their usual spittle-fleck nutty of uncharitable comments in the fever-swamp that is their combox. And the commentators, true to form, posted their customary fare of inuendos and falsehoods.
However, if you do go to look – which is sort of like examining roadkill rotting in the sun – bring with you the irony that Winters pays soooo much attention to the bishop’s shoes.
His readers might not sense the humor in that right away.
BTW… take note of what the Fishwrap posts above its combox: “National Catholic Reporter uses Civil Comments. Please keep your comments on-topic, focus on the issue and avoid personal insults, harassment and abuse.” But personal insults is about all they have.
In any event, this gives me the opportunity to explain something about those shoes.
When a bishop vests for a Solemn Mass in the older, traditional form of the Roman Rite, to be celebrated at the throne/cathedra or at the faldstool, he wears some additional vestments. All the vestments, the pontificalia, have symbolic meanings.
The first thing the bishop puts on, or rather endures to have put on him as he patiently sits, are the buskins. These are sort of half boots of cloth which are laced or tied on. They have their origin in ancient Greek and Roman footwear. The churchy buskin usually consists of a kind of sandal encased inside a stocking-like affair that gets laced or tied up the lower leg. They can entirely enclose the shoe portion of the gizmo. However, I have to admit that these are a bit of a pain. Bishops I have put these things on will bear that out. So, Bp. Morlino has buskins which are open on the bottom so that he can wear regular shoes. Since buskins are supposed to be the color of the vestments (except black… no black buskins). If the Mass is in white vestments, the buskins should be white. Hence, when the bishop vested for Mass, he had white buskins over white shoes. This really isn’t that hard. The TMSM had made white, green, red and violet buskins for the pontificalia.
We haven’t had yet a Pontifical Mass in Red when we also had the red buskins. However, the next one is on 14 September for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross.
Perhaps we should get some red shoes for the bishop. Red shoes will without question bring MSW swiftly to his fainting couch and get his readers all a-titter.
So, here is the prayer which the bishop says at the buskins are put on him.
Calcea, Domine, pedes meos in praeparationem evangelii pacis, et protege me in velamento alarum tuarum.
Shod my feet, Lord, unto the preparation of the gospel of peace, and protect me under the cover of thy wings.
This prayer echoes Ephesians 6:15 and Psalm 60:5.
Compare the sentiment of that prayer with the nastiness of Bp. Morlino’s detractors. It makes me think of the prayer that all priests say when putting on the amice: “Impose, O Lord, the helmet of salvation upon my head, to overthrow all diabolic deceits, overcoming the savagery of all my enemies.”
These vesting prayers are of great service for a priest and his identity. They remind him of who he is and what he is up against. They put his life and role into perspective. They keep him mindful of his complete dependence on the true Priest. They ground him in the knowledge that he is both priest and, simultaneously, the victim offered up.
So, here I’ll make a pitch for the fundraiser which the seriously nasty libs at Fishwrap are mocking and insulting. You can make a TAX DEDUCTIBLE donation to help us with our many projects…
>>HERE<<
Also you can send generous checks to:
Tridentine Mass Society of the Diocese of Madison
733 Struck St.
PO BOX 44603
Madison, WI 53744-4603
This is another one of those instances when they insult us over at Fishwrap, I gain a chance to raise more money! Please! Insult us some more!
UPDATE:
Thanks to SV and JL for their new donations! Sticking it to the libs one donation at a time.
3) Next, a friend of mine in KC has sent, back to back, a couple of fascinating links.
First, there was an ordination for a tiny splinter group called the The North American Old Roman Catholic Church. Yep.
An ordination in Downtown St. Joseph Friday has helped launch a local mission of the North American Old Roman Catholic Church, a valid, [?] autonomous and canonically independent Roman Catholic denomination.
“It’s been a real historical factor for over 1,000 years. [Such a factor that I’ll bet many of you haven’t heard of it.] Informed Catholics are aware of a number of independent Catholic groups — the Society of St. Pius X and other churches that fall under the Roman Catholic purview,” said the Rev. David L. Jones. “But it’s probably not well known here in Northwest Missouri, and that’s sort of why I’m trying to help people understand who we are and why we exist.”
Jones was ordained as a priest in the North American Old Roman Catholic Church on Friday evening at Christ Episcopal Church in Downtown St. Joseph. He plans to establish the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Mission, a mission of the North American Old Roman Catholic Church, in St. Joseph. A similar mission is located in Atchison, Kansas.
“Many folks that I’ve talked to are very interested,” Jones said. “I think it’s fresh air now that’s coming into St. Joseph. Once they see it as an alternative, I think they will be attracted to it.”
NAORCC
The North American Old Roman Catholic Church is a valid, autonomous and canonical American expression of the worldwide Old Roman Catholic Church, which grew out of the Church of Utrecht, established around 1100 AD. [Ummmm…. ?!?] It follows the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.
“We were granted our freedom, our independence from the Holy Father, from the Pope himself,” Jones said. “We don’t fall directly under the Pope, but we pray for the Holy Father at Mass. Our sacraments, our apostolic succession, our lineage, our ministries, actually come from Roman Catholic history.”
They are “very conservative theologically and liberal sacramental-ly,” said the Rev. Joseph Vellone, [contradicting himself within the same utterance] presiding archbishop of the Archdiocese of California. Priests can be married, and there are fewer requirements for the sacraments, he said.
“We don’t have a vow of celibacy,” he said. “We are not quite so strict as sometimes the Catholic church is. We follow the Pope and reverence him, and acknowledge his position, but we really feel called by the Lord to do stuff that they can’t do or won’t do.”
[…]
Stuff, indeed.
But wait! There’s more.
My friend at the same time sent another link, to the Progressive Catholic Church, which had a consecration! The PCC seems to be an offshoot of the Old Catholics (above). They made one guy into a bishop and another into a deacon and then (scroll down) they went to a favorite spot The Hungry Drover:
Sounds pretty good, though I’m puzzled at the placement of the “tea”. Any thoughts?
I like some of the titles of their clergy. For example, they have a “Metropolitan of the Deep South”. Their clergy page is really interesting.
Either one of these groups would be thrilled to welcome Wile E. and Phyllis into their burgeoning ranks.
The more I read about them the more it seems that their goals and ambitions coincide.
4)
Lastly, be sure to go back to the UK’s best catholic weekly and read this delightful piece about an amazing woman. HERE It’s about Anna Margaret Haycraft and it’s entitled:
The Catholic bohemian who mocked feminists
It includes the great line:
“I believe that if forced to choose with whom I would prefer to spend a few hours, I would opt for football hooligans rather than face the malignant ferocity of a roomful of would-be lady priests and discontented nuns”.
And also…
For Anna, the new Mass and the “renewal” (a word she loathed) of the Church demeaned all Catholics, but especially the priest who, as he fussed around the altar preparing the Eucharist in both kinds for the congregation, looked “more like a napkin-flapping maître d’ than someone communicating with God”.
The first translation of the Mass into English, with its obsequious gestures to Protestantism, rendered the Latin description of transubstantiated wine, potus spiritális, to “spiritual drink”. For Anna, the “housewife”, the word “drink” was deeply suspicious, a “word that manufacturers use when they want to put one over on you … it is not the real thing”. But the purveyors of this new spiritual cuisine weren’t listening. For decades Anna took her fight to the closed doors of the liberal hierarchy, demanding: “Is it the Blood of Christ or not?”
You won’t stop once you start.
I think that some day many more people will know about the life and work of the late French Archbp. Marcel Lefebvre. He, a Holy Ghost Father, was a great missionary in Africa whose influence is still strongly felt there. He was also a bishop at the Second Vatican Council, about which he writes in his memoirs.
Oh yes, he also founded the SSPX.
At One Peter Five there is a post about Lefebvre’s view of a powerful influence on Popes John XXIII and Paul VI.
Here is a bit of the post about the liturgical reform with my emphases and comments:
[…]
I had the occasion to see for myself what influence Fr. Bugnini had. [Annibale at the gate] One wonders how such a thing as this could have happened at Rome. At that time immediately after the Council, I was Superior General of the Congregation of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and we had a meeting of the Superiors General at Rome. We had asked Fr. Bugnini [to] explain to us what his New Mass was, for this was not at all a small event. [litotes] Immediately after the Council was heard of the Normative Mass, the New Mass, the Novus Ordo. What did all this mean?
It had not been spoken of at the Council. [The Council Fathers had mandated a few points, but the Consilium (a committee entrusted with the reform) went waaaaay beyond the mandates.] What had happened? And so we asked Fr. Bugnini to come and explain himself to the 84 Superiors General who were united together, amongst whom I consequently was.
Fr. Bugnini, with much confidence, explained what the Normative Mass would be; this will be changed, that will be changed and we will put in place another Offertory. We will be able to reduce the communion prayers. We will be able to have several different formats for the beginning of Mass. We will be able to say the Mass in the vernacular tongue. We looked at one another saying to ourselves: “But it’s not possible!”
He spoke absolutely, as if there had never been a Mass in the Church before him. He spoke of his Normative Mass as of a new invention. [Keep in mind that Bugnini had been given the heave-ho by the Sacred Congregation for Rites from his position at the Lateran University. From that point onward, he had it out for just about everyone and everything. And the 1955 changes to Holy Week was just the warm-up. Who he was and what he was about was clear.]
Personally I was myself so stunned that I remained mute, although I generally speak freely when it is a question of opposing those with whom I am not in agreement. I could not utter a word. How could it be possible for this man before me to be entrusted with the entire reform of the Catholic Liturgy, the entire reform of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the sacraments, of the Breviary, and of all our prayers? Where are we going? Where is the Church going?
Two Superiors General had the courage to speak out. One of them asked Fr. Bugnini: “Is this an active participation, that is a bodily participation, that is to say with vocal prayers, or is it a spiritual participation? In any case you have so much spoken of the participation of the faithful that it seems you can no longer justify Mass celebrated without the faithful. Your entire Mass has been fabricated around the participation of the faithful. We Benedictines celebrate our Masses without the assistance of the faithful. Does this mean that we must discontinue our private Masses, since we do not have faithful to participate in them?”
I repeat to you exactly that which Fr. Bugnini said. I have it still in my ears, so much did it strike me: “To speak truthfully we didn’t think of that,” he said! [I wonder.]
Afterwards another arose and said: “Reverend Father, you have said that we will suppress this and we will suppress that, that we will replace this thing by that and always by shorter prayers. I have the impression that your new Mass could be said in ten or twelve minutes or at the most a quarter of an hour. This is not reasonable. This is not respectful towards such an act of the Church.” Well, this is what he replied: “We can always add something.” Is this for real? I heard it myself. If somebody had told me the story I would perhaps have doubted it, now I heard it myself. [Remember what Joseph Ratzinger said: an artificial creation. No wonder such a shock slammed the Church and wounded her for these many decades.]
Afterwards, at the time at which this Normative Mass began to be put into practice, I was so disgusted that we met with some priests and theologians in a small meeting. From it came the “Brief Critical Study,” which was taken to Cardinal Ottaviani. I presided [at] that small meeting. We said to ourselves: “We must go and find the Cardinals. We cannot allow this to happen without reacting.”
So I myself went to find the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, and I said to him: “Your Eminence, you are not going to allow this to get through, are you? It’s not possible. What is this New Mass? It is a revolution in the Church, a revolution in the Liturgy.”
Cardinal Cicognani, who was the Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI, placed his head between his hands and said to me: “Oh Monseigneur, I know well. I am in full agreement with you; but what can I do? Fr. Bugnini goes in to the office of the Holy Father and makes him sign what he wants.” It was the Cardinal Secretary of State who told me this! Therefore the Secretary of State, the number two person in the Church after the Pope himself, was placed in a position of inferiority with respect to Fr. Bugnini. He could enter into the Pope’s office when he wanted and make him sign what he wanted.
Does not such a professed sense of powerlessness (and paralysis) – as described here with reference to Cardinal Cicognani – remind us of our own current situation, where we are told my high-ranking prelates and even prefects of congregations that they cannot do anything about the revolutionary things that are happening in the Vatican? Here it might be worthwhile to add another example given by Archbishop Lefebvre:
A third fact, of which I was myself the witness, with respect to Fr. Bugnini is also astonishing. When permission was about to be given for Communion in the hand (what a horrible thing!), I said to myself that I could not sit by without saying anything. I must go and see Cardinal [Benno Walter] Gut – a Swiss – who was Prefect of the Congregation for Worship. I therefore went to Rome, where Cardinal Gut received me in a very friendly way and immediately said to me: “I’m going to make my second-in- charge, Archbishop Antonini, come that he also might hear what you have to say.”
As we spoke I said: “Listen, you who are responsible for the Congregation for Worship, are you going to approve this decree which authorizes Communion in the hand? Just think of all the sacrileges, which it is going to cause. Just think of the lack of respect for the Holy Eucharist, which is going to spread throughout the entire Church. You cannot possibly allow such a thing to happen. Already priests are beginning to give Communion in this manner. It must be stopped immediately. And with this New Mass they always take the shortest canon, that is the second one, which is very brief”
At this, Cardinal Gut said to Archbishop Antonini, “See, I told you this would happen and that priests would take the shortest canon so as to go more quickly and finish the Mass more quickly.”
Afterwards Cardinal Gut said to me: “Monseigneur, if one were to ask my opinion (when he said “one” he was speaking of the Pope, since nobody was over him except the Pope), but I’m not certain it is asked of me (don’t forget that he was Prefect for the Congregation for Worship and was responsible for everything which was related to Worship and to the Liturgy!), but if the Pope were to ask for it, I would place myself on my knees, Monseigneur, before the Pope and I would say to him: ‘Holy Father, do not do this; do not sign this decree.’ I would cast myself on my knees, Monseigneur. But I do not know that I will be asked. For it is not I who command here.”
This I heard with my own ears. He was making allusion to Bugnini, who was the third in the Congregation for Worship. There was first of all Cardinal Gut, then Archbishop Antonini and then Fr. Bugnini, President of the Liturgical Commission. You ought to have heard that! Alas, you can now understand my attitude when I am told: you are a dissident and [a] disobedient rebel.
Scripta manent.
The moderation queue is ON.
From a reader:
I (think) I have a tough question (“hagan lío”?):
Can a man and a woman, who validly embraced the Sacrament of Marriage 10 years ago and who STILL WANT to carry on living as husband and wife their indissoluble Catholic Marriage (which has already been blessed with three children) – can this couple get a civil divorce (excuse the pleonasm)?
“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.”
Is not the Sacrament of Marriage a (indissoluble) “thing of God”. And is not civil marriage a (dissoluble) thing of Caesar?
If husband and wife have become unhappy, uncomfortable with their country’s civil law consequences for their civil marriage (namely the laws of succession ‘mortis causa’), can the couple get a civil divorce (while still remaining commited to a happy and indissoluble Catholic Marriage)? Would obtaining a civil divorce be – in any case – a grave sin?
GUEST PRIEST RESPONSE: by Fr. Tim Ferguson
Interesting question. The Church expects us to be good, law-abiding citizens. Matthew 22:21 (“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”) is often cited as Our Lord’s command to be obedient to the legitimate civil authority in those areas where civil authority exercises legitimate authority. Even in the early Church, operating within the Roman Empire, which was hardly operating under Christian principles, the Fathers of the Church urged the faithful to be obedient to civil laws, as long as those laws did not violate the moral law or the demands of the Gospel.
Ideally, the Church and the State work together for the good of citizens, and there are clear lines between the Church’s realm and the State’s realm. Our history shows that, in reality, those lines often get blurred, often to the detriment of the Church (see, for example, Henry VIII of England, Joseph II of Austria, Otto von Bismarck of Germany)
The Church, which has been given authority over marriage, recognizes that the civil authorities have legitimate interest in marriage. Marriage is good for society. Stable commitments between one man and one woman provide many benefits to the civil order, not the least of which is the procreation and upbringing of adorable future taxpayers. Without surrendering her authority over marriage, the Church prefers to cooperate with the civil authority, and leaves to the civil government the regulation of certain aspects of marriage. Thus, in most countries around the world, a marriage in Church requires the possession of a civil marriage license. Some countries (for example France and Mexico) do not recognize the Church’s role in marriage. In these places, lamentably, couples are forced to go through two ceremonies – a civil one, and then an ecclesiastical one. This is not ideal, and we should never rest comfortably with situations like this – the Church should strive as much as possible to keep a good relationship with the State for many reasons.
When it comes to divorce, the Church does not recognize the right of the State to “end” marriage. Only the death of one of the spouses or, in certain extreme circumstances, the intervention of the Holy Father (exercising his authority as Vicar of Christ) can end marriage. That said, the Church is not naive, and recognizes divorce as a reality. While it does not end marriage, it does have certain effects on the lives of the faithful, and the Church leaves to the civil courts such matters as the division of assets, the custody of children, and so forth. Divorce is a bad thing. Choosing divorce when there are other options is a sinful thing – gravely sinful, considering the gravity of marriage. There are circumstances, such as spousal abuse (which no one should be forced to endure), that make choosing divorce a legitimate, and non-sinful option. Ideally, this is done after consultation with one’s pastor. The Church has a canonical process for seeking the bishop’s permission to separate and pursue a civil divorce. While some try to claim that this canonical process is mandatory, and filing for divorce without the bishop’s permission is wrong and sinful, this is not the teaching of the Church.
In recognizing the State’s legitimate interests in marriage, the Church also knows that sometimes, the State errs. In times past, some civil authorities had laws that restricted the real freedom that people have in choosing marital partners. In some places, persons of different “races” were not allowed to marry each other. In some places, slaves and free men were not allowed to marry. In some places, nobility were not allowed to marry common folk, or were required to obtain permission to marry. The Church has rejected those prohibitions and has authorized secret marriages not recognized by the civil authority because of the illegitimacy of these civil restrictions.
Yet, the Church recognizes that some restrictions the State puts on marriage are legitimate, and is reluctant to intervene. Only the bishop can permit secret marriages, and usually, the bishop is reluctant to do so if the restrictions put on by the State are legitimate. For example, an older couple, both widowed, wants to get married, but does not want to do so civilly because doing so would lessen or eliminate their respective pensions. The Church would be reluctant to grant permission for a secret marriage because pension law is something that the State has legitimate authority over. If the civil law is unduly harsh, the solution is to work to change the law, not to try and get the Church involved in circumventing the law. Laws regarding pensions, property, taxes, inheritance – these are all things over which the State has legitimate authority, and the Church respects that authority. If the laws are unjust, the Church urges the faithful (especially the lay faithful, since this is their proper sphere of activity) to work to change the laws and be good, law-abiding citizens, only engaging in civil disobedience in extreme cases.
So, getting to the point – can a Catholic married couple seek a civil divorce while remaining in their hearts and minds (and bed and board) still married because the inheritance laws of the State seem onerous? No.
[The moderation queue is ON.]
In the past I have posted about an organization called TEAM RUBICON.
Team Rubicon is made up of present and former first responders, former military, doctors, experts in many fields as a fast response team which swoops in as fast as possible when disasters of all kinds strike.
Hurricane Harvey has them ramping up.
Perhaps my bestest friend ever let me know about a donation just made to Team Rubicon. HERE
May I recommend this good organization? Read their story.
A priest friend of mine in Houston sent the following about his parish:
Dry so far. A nearby creek is close to overflowing, so that could be trouble. About 800 made it to Mass over the weekend, 10% of our usual attendance. [800 is 10%?] We continue with regular Masses and confessions, and a few are able to attend. Since I don’t have a boat to pitch in with Dunkirk on the Bayou (as I’m calling it), and even if I did, the Mass is the most powerful weapon we have. Oremus pro invicem!
Father also sent me this video about the really sad situation of another Houston parish.
https://www.facebook.com/ignatiusloyolacc/videos/1425309677579546/
PRAYERS, please! Both for my priest friend’s parish and for that parish that is so badly struck.
I have just tuned in for the first time in several days with any real attention to the news.
I see that about an hour and a half ago as I write, N. Korea launched a missile over Japan.
My prayers go out to the people of S. Texas. Wow.
Many times I have urged readers to have a plan for natural disasters and the need to bug out fast, especially if you have children and others who depend on you. The need to bug out might come in the form of an angry ex-boyfriend.
Everyone, make plans. Make sure you have enough food, a way to secure and purify water, defend yourselves. Be sure to have documents and anything of that nature that can’t be replaced. Perhaps digitize important information and precious photos and keep them on something like an Ironkey 1GB Secure Flash USB Drive. US HERE – UK HERE For your mobile phones, perhaps a small unit that can power your handheld even my solar. A big option is like the JuiceBox, but it is heavy. Smaller could be like this power-bank. US HERE – UK HERE Consider any medications you might need. A hand held radio, such as a radio (get your HAM licence!) could make a huge different when cellular coms are down. US HERE – UK HERE.
Just think about what you need and what might happen. Where will you meet if you are separated? How will you move yourselves? What can you quickly grab and carry? What will really cause dangerous suffering if you lack it?
Look. Terrible things can strike suddenly. However, I hope never to read an email that any of you were seriously hurt or killed in some problem for which you could have prepared for ahead of time with relative ease.
And so, the most important thing, examine not just your material lives frequently, but also frequently your spiritual lives and …
GO TO CONFESSION!
On this glorious feast of St. Augustine, allow me to repost an answer to a question I get fairly often and answer off the blog:
QUAERITUR:
What is the best translation of St. Augustine’s Confessions?
It depends a little on who you are and why you are reading this magnificent work.
The Confessions is usually the only work most people are exposed to when it comes to the Doctor of Grace.
The best translation – for most people – is probably by Dame Maria Boulding, OSB, who was at Stanbrook Abbey. She captures the aspect of prayer in The Confessions without, for the most part, sacrificing accuracy of translation in the process.
The Confessions is, of course, an extended prayer.
You can quibble about some of her choices, of course. All translations limp. For example, Augustine says in Book X that he was “loved and feared” (amari et timeri – 10.36.59) by his people. (Get it Your Excellencies? Fathers?) She choose to say “loved and esteemed” (or something woolly like that), which does not get at what Augustine really said.
By the way, I wrote about that “amari et timeri” HERE. I even have a mini PODCAzT with the Latin.
Boulding’s is better – for most people – than Pine-Coffin‘s. (I am not making up his name.) His translation is good but it is in a style of English many people are no longer used to. Pinecoffin, however, sometimes hits it out of the park. For example, when Augustine is talking about his profligate youth in Carthage, P. renders “amans vias meas et non tuas, amans fugitivam libertatem” (3.3.5) as “I loved my own way, not yours, but it was a truant’s freedom that I loved”. Not precise, but dead on. “A truant’s freedom”. Wonderful.
Chadwick‘s… no thanks.
Boulding’s translation is also quite affordable. The paperback is only $9 and the Kindle version is only $8. UK Link HERE.
And speaking of The Confessions…
GO TO CONFESSION!