Just a quick post to correct the previously announced time for the upcoming Mass in Aberdeen. The Date is in fact the SATURDAY 16th NOVEMBER, at 11:00 am. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Showing posts with label Clarifications. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clarifications. Show all posts
Fearless Cardinal O'Brien - to the Church and the World
Cardinal O'Brien to the Church and the World
The Government is this month launching a consultation on same-sex marriage, asking the public whether it should be introduced in England and Wales.
I hope many respond and consider signing the petition in support of traditional marriage organised by a new organisation, the Coalition for Marriage.
On the surface, the question of same-sex marriage may seem to be an innocuous one.
Civil partnerships have been in place for several years now, allowing same-sex couples to register their relationship and enjoy a variety of legal protections.
When these arrangements were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman.
Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, warned that in time marriage would be demanded too. We were accused of scaremongering then, yet exactly such demands are upon us now.
Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.
Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting same-sex marriage into law will be immense.
But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?
If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?
Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?
In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided.
Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.
As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government. It was not created by governments and should not be changed by them. Instead, recognising the innumerable benefits which marriage brings to society, they should act to protect and uphold marriage, not attack or dismantle it.
This is a point of view that would have been endorsed and accepted only a few years ago, yet today advancing a traditional understanding of marriage risks one being labelled an intolerant bigot.
There is no doubt that, as a society, we have become blasé about the importance of marriage as a stabilising influence and less inclined to prize it as a worthwhile institution.
It has been damaged and undermined over the course of a generation, yet marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father.
This brings us to the one perspective which seems to be completely lost or ignored: the point of view of the child. All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be.
Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.
Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another? If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can three adults who love each other be prevented from marrying?
In November 2003, after a court decision in Massachusetts to legalise gay marriage, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primary schoolchildren were given homosexual fairy stories such as King & King. Some high school students were even given an explicit manual of homosexual advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century. Education suddenly had to comply with what was now deemed “normal”.
Disingenuously, the Government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant.
No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.
Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: marriage is a right which applies to men and women, “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.
This universal truth is so self-evident that it shouldn’t need to be repeated. If the Government attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right, they will have forfeited the trust which society has placed in them and their intolerance will shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world.
I hope many respond and consider signing the petition in support of traditional marriage organised by a new organisation, the Coalition for Marriage.
On the surface, the question of same-sex marriage may seem to be an innocuous one.
Civil partnerships have been in place for several years now, allowing same-sex couples to register their relationship and enjoy a variety of legal protections.
Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, warned that in time marriage would be demanded too. We were accused of scaremongering then, yet exactly such demands are upon us now.
Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.
But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?
If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?
In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided.
Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.
This is a point of view that would have been endorsed and accepted only a few years ago, yet today advancing a traditional understanding of marriage risks one being labelled an intolerant bigot.
It has been damaged and undermined over the course of a generation, yet marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father.
Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another? If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can three adults who love each other be prevented from marrying?
In November 2003, after a court decision in Massachusetts to legalise gay marriage, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primary schoolchildren were given homosexual fairy stories such as King & King. Some high school students were even given an explicit manual of homosexual advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century. Education suddenly had to comply with what was now deemed “normal”.
Disingenuously, the Government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant.
No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.
"No one will be forced to keep a slave."
Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”.Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: marriage is a right which applies to men and women, “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.
This universal truth is so self-evident that it shouldn’t need to be repeated. If the Government attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right, they will have forfeited the trust which society has placed in them and their intolerance will shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world.
Cardinal O’Brien
is President of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland
and Britain’s most senior Catholic.
is President of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland
and Britain’s most senior Catholic.
Our Brothers in Christ according to the flesh.
In response to some of the lively comments made to our last post,
which, according to Ven, Pius XII,
would derive
"from the poisoned source of religious and moral agnosticism,"
we give here some authority for calling our Jewish brothers
"our brothers."
Venerable Pius XII
in the Encyclicals
Summi Pontificatus
and
Mystici Corporis Christi.
Among the many errors
which derive from the poisoned source
of religious and moral agnosticism,
We would draw your attention, Venerable Brethren,
to two in particular, as being those which more than others
render almost impossible or at least precarious and uncertain,
the peaceful intercourse of peoples.
(Summi Pontificatus, 34)
...Ven. Pius XII offering the redeeming sacrifice...
The first of these pernicious errors, widespread today,
is the forgetfulness of that law of human solidarity and charity
which is dictated and imposed by our common origin
and by the equality of rational nature in all men,
to whatever people they belong,
and by the redeeming Sacrifice
offered by Jesus Christ on the Altar of the Cross
to His Heavenly Father
on behalf of sinful mankind.
which, according to Ven, Pius XII,
would derive
"from the poisoned source of religious and moral agnosticism,"
we give here some authority for calling our Jewish brothers
"our brothers."
Venerable Pius XII
in the Encyclicals
Summi Pontificatus
and
Mystici Corporis Christi.
Among the many errors
which derive from the poisoned source
of religious and moral agnosticism,
We would draw your attention, Venerable Brethren,
to two in particular, as being those which more than others
render almost impossible or at least precarious and uncertain,
the peaceful intercourse of peoples.
(Summi Pontificatus, 34)
...Ven. Pius XII offering the redeeming sacrifice...The first of these pernicious errors, widespread today,
is the forgetfulness of that law of human solidarity and charity
which is dictated and imposed by our common origin
and by the equality of rational nature in all men,
to whatever people they belong,
and by the redeeming Sacrifice
offered by Jesus Christ on the Altar of the Cross
to His Heavenly Father
on behalf of sinful mankind.
(Summi Pontificatus, 35)
"...all mankind..brothers..."The Apostle of the Gentiles later on makes himself
the herald of this truth
which associates men as brothers in one great family,
when he proclaims to the Greek world
that God "hath made of one, all mankind..." (Acts 17:26)
(Summi Pontificatus, 37)
...The Jewish people ... our brothers in Christ...True love of the Church, therefore, requires
not only that we should be mutually solicitous one for another
as members and sharing in their suffering
but likewise that we should recognize in other men,
although they are not yet joined to us in the body of the Church,
our brothers in Christ
according to the flesh, (c.f. below, Rom. 9:3)
called, together with us, to the same eternal salvation.
(Mystici Corporis Christi, 96.)
...Our Brothers in Christ according to the flesh...For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ,
for my brethren,
who are my kinsmen according to the flesh,
Who are Israelites,
to whom belongeth the adoption as of children,
and the glory, and the testament,
and the giving of the law,
and the service of God,
and the promises:
Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ,
according to the flesh,
who is over all things,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.
(Rom. 9:3-5 )
for my brethren,
who are my kinsmen according to the flesh,
Who are Israelites,
to whom belongeth the adoption as of children,
and the glory, and the testament,
and the giving of the law,
and the service of God,
and the promises:
Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ,
according to the flesh,
who is over all things,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.
(Rom. 9:3-5 )
The Mass of All Time -a sign of our times.
Don Nicola Bux on the forthcoming
Instruction on the Motu Proprio:
Monsignor Nichola Bux is a consultant to
the Office of Liturgical celebrations of the Holy Father.
Here is one question from the interview he granted
to the Italian daily Avanti
which was published today and
translated from the Italian by
Rorate Caeli:
Instruction on the Motu Proprio:
Monsignor Nichola Bux is a consultant tothe Office of Liturgical celebrations of the Holy Father.
Here is one question from the interview he granted
to the Italian daily Avanti
which was published today and
translated from the Italian by
Rorate Caeli:
How many obstacles is the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the pre-Conciliar Mass facing?
I believe that, currently, the obstacles are becoming feebler than at the time in which the Motu proprio was issued, in 2007. Through the internet, one can see how there is a discreet movement of young people who look for and, as much as it is possible, go to the Traditional Mass, also called the Latin Mass or Mass of All Time. And this, I believe, is a very important sign to gather.
It is clear that the pastors of the Church, first the bishops and then the parish priests, although often saying that we must be able to grasp the signs of the times, an expression very much in use after Vatican II, often fail to understand that the signs of the times are not defined by them, but they happen and are regulated mainly by young people. I think this is the most interesting symptom, because, if [only] the elderly, the adults, went to the Traditional Mass, one might harbor a suspicion that it is nostalgia. The fact that it is mostly young people who seek and participate in the Latin Mass is completely unexpected and therefore deserves to be read, understood, and particularly accompanied by the bishops.
I think the Pope acknowledges this and that is why he intends to make a further contribution through an instruction on the application of the motu proprio, to help everyone understand that, in addition to the new form of the Roman Rite, there is the ancient or extraordinary form.
It is clear that the pastors of the Church, first the bishops and then the parish priests, although often saying that we must be able to grasp the signs of the times, an expression very much in use after Vatican II, often fail to understand that the signs of the times are not defined by them, but they happen and are regulated mainly by young people. I think this is the most interesting symptom, because, if [only] the elderly, the adults, went to the Traditional Mass, one might harbor a suspicion that it is nostalgia. The fact that it is mostly young people who seek and participate in the Latin Mass is completely unexpected and therefore deserves to be read, understood, and particularly accompanied by the bishops.
I think the Pope acknowledges this and that is why he intends to make a further contribution through an instruction on the application of the motu proprio, to help everyone understand that, in addition to the new form of the Roman Rite, there is the ancient or extraordinary form.
Thanks to Rorate Caeli.
after Mass in Coimbra, Portugal.
A Window to the Christmas Mysteries
The holy season of Christmas opens to our meditation the mysteries that perhaps we accept too blindly. Forming, as they do, the foundation of our Holy Faith, they should be known to some degree by all Catholics. As a young boy, I remember enquiring about certain points of the Faith; what they were exactly I no longer recall; but the answer to my many questions I remember well, it was always the same, it is still present to me: “It is a mystery.” It seemed to mean that I should abandon my questions and accept the fact blindly. Believe heartily but without understanding. This I did and often.
In conflicts about the sacred mysteries of the Virgin Birth of the Saviour and the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God I defended the truth with the solitary defence: It’s a mystery. There must still be many Catholics in that situation. Believing, indeed; having Faith, yes; but not being able to sound anything of the mystery except that it is a mystery. No, Faith seeks to understand, and something can be understood of the mysteries that are beyond our grasp, not perhaps very much in this life, but at least enough for us to be in admiration and reverential awe of God’s mysteries; now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. (1 Cor 13:12).
Some years ago, reading an old book, I came across a beautiful explanation of the sacred Christmas mysteries. The preacher was speaking of the two nativities of the Son of God: the first in Eternity as the Only Begotten Son of the Father, and the second, at Christmas when he was born of the Virgin Mary. After the Ave Maria the preacher addressed his listeners:
I wish to explain to you the marvels of these two births by a comparison so clear and understandable, such that if you do not understand it there will be nothing in the whole world that could make you understand these mysteries. Among all the purely material creatures, none is a better image of God than the Sun.
6. Now the ray of sun comes in through the red glass window of a beautiful church: How does light pass into the glass? I don’t know. How did it come out of the glass? I don’t know. But as much as it goes into the glass so much does it come out from it. The ray enters the red glass window without opening it and it leaves it without breaking it. The ray passes through the coloured glass without affecting it, without breaking it, without ruining it at all. Thus, the Son of God has come into the world, and has passed through the the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. How was He conceived? I do not know. How did he come to be born? I do not know. But the fact is that He was conceived and born without opening, without breaking, without affecting the virginal womb.
11. The support of this red colour which appears on the church floor is the sunbeam, because this colour does not exist without the sunbeam. Thus, what is the support of the holy humanity? It is the Son of God, it has no subsistence but Him.
13. Who is the father of this coloured sunbeam? It is the sun; but the sun has not produced the colour, it is true; but it has produced the sunbeam which is conjoint with the colour. And what is the mother? It is the stained-glass; but it has not produced the sunbeam? no, but it has produced the beaming colour, it has clothed the sunbeam with this robe of colour.
Who is the Father of Jesus Man-God? It is the eternal Father; He has not begotten with His substance the humanity of Jesus? no, it is true; but He has begotten from His substance the person of His Son, who is man.
Who is the Mother of this God-Man? It is Mary; She has not begotten the Divinity; no, but she has conceived the man who is God. She has clothed with our humanity, the Divinity of the Son of God.
It is the sunbeam in as much as it is the sunbeam, the child of the sun, for it existed long before the stained-glass; it is from the beginning of the world, it is just as old as the sun itself. But the sunbeam, as a coloured sunbeam, is younger than the stained-glass.
Who is older, Jesus or Mary?
Jesus as God or the Son of God is long before Mary; He is without beginning from eternity as is the Father and the Holy Ghost; but Jesus as man is younger than His Mother, because she was fifteen years old when She gave Him birth.
And thus the Son of God in the bosom of His Eternal Father is invisible, indescribable, inaccessible and incomprehensible: Who inhabiteth light inaccessible (1 Tim 6:16) but this same Son of God, clothed in our humanity and conversing with us has made Himself visible, palpable and sensible: Which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, says St John.
The zealous Missioner, then continued on to another point, but I paused to savor his exposition of these sacred mysteries now made as clear as day by his profound considerations. What added a poignant background to his words about the sun and colour, was reading that this young Oratorian priest, Father Lejeune, became blind at 35 years of age and never again saw light or colour. Born in 1592 he died in 1672. Although blind, he had been given special permission to celebrate Holy Mass; but, man of God that he was, he never used that permission and abstained from saying Mass those 45 years lest perhaps he might commit an irreverence at the altar while celebrating the Holy Mysteries. In this, his life speaks to our age!
In conflicts about the sacred mysteries of the Virgin Birth of the Saviour and the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God I defended the truth with the solitary defence: It’s a mystery. There must still be many Catholics in that situation. Believing, indeed; having Faith, yes; but not being able to sound anything of the mystery except that it is a mystery. No, Faith seeks to understand, and something can be understood of the mysteries that are beyond our grasp, not perhaps very much in this life, but at least enough for us to be in admiration and reverential awe of God’s mysteries; now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. (1 Cor 13:12).
Some years ago, reading an old book, I came across a beautiful explanation of the sacred Christmas mysteries. The preacher was speaking of the two nativities of the Son of God: the first in Eternity as the Only Begotten Son of the Father, and the second, at Christmas when he was born of the Virgin Mary. After the Ave Maria the preacher addressed his listeners:
I wish to explain to you the marvels of these two births by a comparison so clear and understandable, such that if you do not understand it there will be nothing in the whole world that could make you understand these mysteries. Among all the purely material creatures, none is a better image of God than the Sun.
The sun is the Father of its ray.
1. You see that the sun produces a ray which is like its child; there is nothing more visible than the sun producing its ray, there is nothing more clear, nothing more bright and shining; and nothing more visible than the ray coming from, emanating from the sun; and nevertheless, there is nothing that is so difficult for us to see; we cannot look at it fixedly, not through lack of light, but through excessive brightness and by the debility of our eyes, the inability of our sight; thus, the Son of God is begotten of the Father, in splendoribus sanctorum, In the brightness of the saints, (Psalm 109) in the light of His Divinity by way of knowledge and science; there is nothing more intelligible than this generation, and all the same, there is so little we can understand about it: it is darkness for us because of the weakness of our comprehension.
He is from eternity like Him.
2. Again while the ray is as the child of the sun, being produced and emanating from it, even so, the ray is just as old as the sun, and if the sun were eternal, its ray would be equally eternal: thus again, while Jesus according to His Divinity, is the Son of God the Father, according to His Divinity, He is nevertheless as old as His Father, He is always like Him: He is from eternity like Him; He is without beginning like Him.
Through Him.
3. The Sun by its beam makes the earth fertile, it warms the air, and forms here below the metals and the minerals: thus the Father through the Son has created the heavens and the earth, men and angels and does all His works through His Son. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, all things were made by Him (St. John 1:3).
The splendour of His Father.
4. The sun produces its beam without loss to its substance, it loses nothing in giving the beam its being; on the contrary, the brightness, the beauty and the ornament of the sun is its sunbeam: thus the Son of God is the splendour of the Father and the figure of His substance. It is a very great perfection of the Father, to beget a Son who is God like Him and one same God with Him.
He leaves without having gone.
5. Next, the ray leaves the sun and is sent here below; yet it leaves without having gone; it is here below, and, all the same, it dwells above. You see the sunbeam in the sun and you see it also on the earth. Thus when the Faith teaches us that the Son of God came down from Heaven and came into the world, that is not to say that He left the bosom of the Father; He always remains there and comes to earth without ever leaving heaven.
6. Now the ray of sun comes in through the red glass window of a beautiful church: How does light pass into the glass? I don’t know. How did it come out of the glass? I don’t know. But as much as it goes into the glass so much does it come out from it. The ray enters the red glass window without opening it and it leaves it without breaking it. The ray passes through the coloured glass without affecting it, without breaking it, without ruining it at all. Thus, the Son of God has come into the world, and has passed through the the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. How was He conceived? I do not know. How did he come to be born? I do not know. But the fact is that He was conceived and born without opening, without breaking, without affecting the virginal womb.
Virginity made brighter.
7. Even more, the sunlight passing through the stained-glass made it more beautiful, clear, and sparkling: thus Jesus passing through the womb of Mary made Her Virginity more pure, holy and sacred.
The Virgin clothed Him with our human nature.
8. What therefore did this sunbeam do in the red stained-glass? It borrowed a little red colour, it became coloured; the stained-glass covered it with the colour of red. And what did Jesus in the womb of Mary? He clothed Himself in a human body which is composed of a little red earth: Adam, means red earth. Adam, id est terra rubra. There He is humanised, He is made man there, the Virgin clothed Him in our human nature.
Without loss.
9. The sunbeam, taking red colour from the stained glass, did not rob something from the glass, and Jesus taking from Mary our human nature, did so without any loss to Mary.
Since He entered into Mary.
10. The sunbeam, before entering the stained glass window was a sunbeam, but it was not colour nor coloured; however, since it has gone through the window and come inside the church it is a coloured sunbeam and a beaming colour, it is a colour which is a sunbeam. Thus Jesus before the Incarnation was God from all eternity, but he was not man. Now, since He entered into Mary, he is a God humanised, and a man deified, He is God who is a man, He is a man who is God.
11. The support of this red colour which appears on the church floor is the sunbeam, because this colour does not exist without the sunbeam. Thus, what is the support of the holy humanity? It is the Son of God, it has no subsistence but Him.
Only in Heaven and in the Blessed Sacrament.
12. This sunbeam, in as much as it is a sunbeam or light of the sun, is everywhere in the world; but as a coloured sunbeam it is not everywhere; it is only here and in a few other places. Jesus, as God and Son of God, is in every place; but as man he is not everywhere, He is only in Heaven and in the Blessed Sacrament.
Who is the Father of Jesus Man-God? It is the eternal Father; He has not begotten with His substance the humanity of Jesus? no, it is true; but He has begotten from His substance the person of His Son, who is man.
Who is the Mother of this God-Man? It is Mary; She has not begotten the Divinity; no, but she has conceived the man who is God. She has clothed with our humanity, the Divinity of the Son of God.
Red sunbeams from stained glass.
14. Which is the older, this coloured sunbeam or the stained-glass?It is the sunbeam in as much as it is the sunbeam, the child of the sun, for it existed long before the stained-glass; it is from the beginning of the world, it is just as old as the sun itself. But the sunbeam, as a coloured sunbeam, is younger than the stained-glass.
Who is older, Jesus or Mary?
Jesus as God or the Son of God is long before Mary; He is without beginning from eternity as is the Father and the Holy Ghost; but Jesus as man is younger than His Mother, because she was fifteen years old when She gave Him birth.
The Invisible made visible.
15. This sunbeam being from the sun is so brilliant and shining, that we cannot look at it, it dazzles and blinds the eyes of those who wish to look at it; but this same sunbeam, being clothed in a red colour, has come here below, and we can easily look at it.And thus the Son of God in the bosom of His Eternal Father is invisible, indescribable, inaccessible and incomprehensible: Who inhabiteth light inaccessible (1 Tim 6:16) but this same Son of God, clothed in our humanity and conversing with us has made Himself visible, palpable and sensible: Which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, says St John.
St. Philip Neri
Spiritual Father of Oratorians
Spiritual Father of Oratorians
The zealous Missioner, then continued on to another point, but I paused to savor his exposition of these sacred mysteries now made as clear as day by his profound considerations. What added a poignant background to his words about the sun and colour, was reading that this young Oratorian priest, Father Lejeune, became blind at 35 years of age and never again saw light or colour. Born in 1592 he died in 1672. Although blind, he had been given special permission to celebrate Holy Mass; but, man of God that he was, he never used that permission and abstained from saying Mass those 45 years lest perhaps he might commit an irreverence at the altar while celebrating the Holy Mysteries. In this, his life speaks to our age!
Taking Christ out of Xmas
At this time of year,
it is possible to hear that by writing
Xmas to abbreviate the word Christmas,
we are joining the secular world
and,
effectively,
taking Christ out of Christmas
as if we had put an X through His Holy Name.
But not so!
Such is not a traditional insight.
This is a false new notion
that threatens to take Christ out of Xmas
and fill us with fear of using the hallowed abbreviation.
This is then a good time to remember
that the use of the letter X
comes from the original Greek of the Gospel
and is one of the very ancient abbreviations in our language
that precisely means
Christ.
it is possible to hear that by writing
Xmas to abbreviate the word Christmas,
we are joining the secular world
and,
effectively,
taking Christ out of Christmas
as if we had put an X through His Holy Name.
But not so!
Such is not a traditional insight.
This is a false new notion
that threatens to take Christ out of Xmas
and fill us with fear of using the hallowed abbreviation.
This is then a good time to remember
that the use of the letter X
comes from the original Greek of the Gospel
and is one of the very ancient abbreviations in our language
that precisely means
Christ.
When we look at the picture of Our Mother of Perpetual Succour
we see that the letters above the Infant Jesus
are
IC XC
the abbreviation for
Jesus (IC) Christ (XC).
we see that the letters above the Infant Jesus
are
IC XC
the abbreviation for
Jesus (IC) Christ (XC).
In the Greek of the Gospels,
the word Christ
Christos is written as Χριστός,
and the letter X
is just the first letter of his name.
Thus the icon writes the first and last letter of Χριστός
as
XC.
Not all did this.
Some abbreviated Christ to the first two Greek letters Xp.
the word Christ
Christos is written as Χριστός,
and the letter X
is just the first letter of his name.
Thus the icon writes the first and last letter of Χριστός
as
XC.
Not all did this.
Some abbreviated Christ to the first two Greek letters Xp.
The X in Xmas
is the Greek letter equivalent to the English letters Ch;
monks and priests have used it for centuries
when writing the Holy Name of Christ.
In English Xt is a common ecclesiastical abbreviation fo Christ.
Seminarians with fast speaking professors
often come to writing
Xt for Christ or even Xh for Church.
The most ancient way to abbreviate Christ's name
was Xp
which in English is the same as
Xr
(since the Greek for 'r' is written as 'p').
That abbreviation -the XP- shown above to the right of Christ
comes from the catacombs.
The XP is also is often seen on sacred vestments;
it is the abbreviation and monogram for Christ.
is the Greek letter equivalent to the English letters Ch;
monks and priests have used it for centuries
when writing the Holy Name of Christ.
In English Xt is a common ecclesiastical abbreviation fo Christ.
Seminarians with fast speaking professors
often come to writing
Xt for Christ or even Xh for Church.
The most ancient way to abbreviate Christ's name was Xp
which in English is the same as
Xr
(since the Greek for 'r' is written as 'p').
That abbreviation -the XP- shown above to the right of Christ
comes from the catacombs.
The XP is also is often seen on sacred vestments;
it is the abbreviation and monogram for Christ.
The Anglo Saxon Cronicle.
In our own language we find the Greek Xp
first rendered in English as Xr.
In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle written about 1100 we read
Christmas
abbreviated to
Xres mæsse.
About the same time that we have this abbreviation for Christmas,
we also have an example in the donation Inventory
written by Bishop Leofric
of England
(1046 - 1073)
who records the gift of a Saxon Gospel thus:
Englisc Xres-boc
English Christ-book
He also used the Xr abbreviation in Xres-boc for Christ-book.
(Illustrations of Anglo Saxon Poetry, John Conybeare, London, 1826, p. 199)
Xmas is an ancient abbreviation for Christmas.
Its use does not "take Christ out of Christmas".
Its use continues the ancient style of
uniting the Greek X of the Gospel to our English language,
as our forebears have done
for nearly a thousand years.
Let us keep Christ both in Xmas
and indeed in Christmas too.
we also have an example in the donation Inventory
written by Bishop Leofric
of England
(1046 - 1073)
who records the gift of a Saxon Gospel thus:
Englisc Xres-boc
English Christ-book
He also used the Xr abbreviation in Xres-boc for Christ-book.
(Illustrations of Anglo Saxon Poetry, John Conybeare, London, 1826, p. 199)
Xmas is an ancient abbreviation for Christmas.
Its use does not "take Christ out of Christmas".
Its use continues the ancient style of
uniting the Greek X of the Gospel to our English language,
as our forebears have done
for nearly a thousand years.
Let us keep Christ both in Xmas
and indeed in Christmas too.
The Catholic Herald article
The Catholic Herald Article.In mid-August we welcomed
Mark Greaves from the Catholic Herald
who came to write an article on the community.
It was published last Friday, October 1st.
There were but two corrections we would make to the article.
1) It was not all the members of the monastery
but only the Monastery Council
that read the FSSP study
and voted on the question of our reconciliation.
2) Fr. Bisig did not write to me what was reported in direct speech;
but rather, in a very kind manner,
he intimated that he wanted to be honest with us from the beginning
and that for theological -and not polemical- reasons
he did not agree with me about
the non-schismatical character of our community.
It is very difficult to perfectly report every detail
when writing an article for publication.
We thank Mark for his excellent article
that reflects the community as to date it stands.
The article is found here.
Mark Greaves from the Catholic Herald
who came to write an article on the community.
It was published last Friday, October 1st.
There were but two corrections we would make to the article.
1) It was not all the members of the monastery
but only the Monastery Council
that read the FSSP study
and voted on the question of our reconciliation.
2) Fr. Bisig did not write to me what was reported in direct speech;
but rather, in a very kind manner,
he intimated that he wanted to be honest with us from the beginning
and that for theological -and not polemical- reasons
he did not agree with me about
the non-schismatical character of our community.
It is very difficult to perfectly report every detail
when writing an article for publication.
We thank Mark for his excellent article
that reflects the community as to date it stands.
The article is found here.
A Note from Rome
Last night I was surprised to be alerted to the article of Damian Thompson in The Telegraph blog. We had not been asked about this project as I am sure the organisers would state. It is true that our faculties for celebrating the Mass in public are restricted to the islands of Papa Stronsay and Stronsay.
I would like to give our friends and families an update on our process of canonical erection. To be as clear as possible I limit myself to saying that things are not at all easy for us.
Our seminarians, two of whom could be ordained to the priesthood, finish their studies this month and are not able to be ordained because we have not been canonically erected as yet. We ask for your prayers.
For the rest, let me invoke St. Arsenius as quoted by St. Alphonsus. I am thankful for their wisdom particularly in a time when one would like to speak from the heart; and loudly.
Restraint and silence are the better roads.
Devotedly,
Fr. Michael Mary, F.SS.R.
Rome, 15 May, 2010
Very celebrated
is that saying of the holy Abbot Arsenius,
which he used to repeat many times,
and even sing it,
as Sirius in his History says:
“I HAVE OFTEN REPENTED OF HAVING SPOKEN
BUT NEVER OF HAVING KEPT SILENCE.”
ME SÆPE PŒNITUIT DIXISSE,
NUMQUAM TACUISSE.
S. ARSENIVS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
