Check out my friend's Etsy shop PaxCarmel. She and her husband are selling beautiful knives made from railroad spikes made on a tiny forge in their backyard.
I have the coolest friends!
13 November 2011
12 November 2011
11 November 2011
Veteran's Day
When I think of WWI, I always think of two pictures that hung on the wall of my parents' home when I was a child. The pictures were of my mother's grandfathers, Otis and Olen, each in an Army uniform. Unfortunately I don't have copies of those pictures to share. I don't have pictures of my grandfather and grandmother in their Navy and Army Nurse uniforms. I don't have pictures of my great-uncle, or two uncles, or assorted cousins, or father-in-law in their uniforms, either. In fact, I hardly have any family photos at all. I'll inherit them eventually. In the meantime, it's just as well--I'd probably lose them.
I do, however, have access to one photo of the aforementioned Otis, which happens to have been published on the internet. Otis is the small boy in the Little Lord Fauntleroy suit. The older boy is his half-brother (his mother's son from a previous relationship, even though Genealogy.com will try to tell you they're full brothers), the baby is his sister, held by their mother. The man in the coffin is Otis's father, an Irish immigrant, dead of dysentery at 39.
It might look like Maggie is smiling here, but I assure you that her face is clearer in the original photograph and she is clearly not smiling.
I remember the first time I saw this photo in a family album. I was pretty shocked. But photos like this were not uncommon at the time--pretty much the last chance to take a family photo if you didn't already have one. The children here did not meet happy fates, alas. The older boy was a professional card player in a smoke shop, and the baby was eventually sent off to be raised by another family. Otis joined the army, and then came home and married a very pretty local girl and had a son. Otis's wife died of TB just a few years later and Otis had to send his son to be cared for by relatives, first by Maggie here pictured, and later with the boy's maternal relatives. Otis died of TB in 1933 at a VA hospital. He was 40 years old.
Otis's little boy is 91 years old now, having surpassed the combined lifespans of his father and grandfather a decade ago. He's a veteran, too--of WWII and Korea.
When I think of WWI, I always think of two pictures that hung on the wall of my parents' home when I was a child. The pictures were of my mother's grandfathers, Otis and Olen, each in an Army uniform. Unfortunately I don't have copies of those pictures to share. I don't have pictures of my grandfather and grandmother in their Navy and Army Nurse uniforms. I don't have pictures of my great-uncle, or two uncles, or assorted cousins, or father-in-law in their uniforms, either. In fact, I hardly have any family photos at all. I'll inherit them eventually. In the meantime, it's just as well--I'd probably lose them.
I do, however, have access to one photo of the aforementioned Otis, which happens to have been published on the internet. Otis is the small boy in the Little Lord Fauntleroy suit. The older boy is his half-brother (his mother's son from a previous relationship, even though Genealogy.com will try to tell you they're full brothers), the baby is his sister, held by their mother. The man in the coffin is Otis's father, an Irish immigrant, dead of dysentery at 39.
It might look like Maggie is smiling here, but I assure you that her face is clearer in the original photograph and she is clearly not smiling.
I remember the first time I saw this photo in a family album. I was pretty shocked. But photos like this were not uncommon at the time--pretty much the last chance to take a family photo if you didn't already have one. The children here did not meet happy fates, alas. The older boy was a professional card player in a smoke shop, and the baby was eventually sent off to be raised by another family. Otis joined the army, and then came home and married a very pretty local girl and had a son. Otis's wife died of TB just a few years later and Otis had to send his son to be cared for by relatives, first by Maggie here pictured, and later with the boy's maternal relatives. Otis died of TB in 1933 at a VA hospital. He was 40 years old.
Otis's little boy is 91 years old now, having surpassed the combined lifespans of his father and grandfather a decade ago. He's a veteran, too--of WWII and Korea.
27 October 2011
Breakfast
Sorry the photo is a little blurry. I took it with my brand-new iPod Touch 4G, an early anniversary present from my husband. He thoughtfully had the back inscribed, "MVSICA LAETITIAE COMES MEDICINA DOLORVM." The previous iPod had my name and phone number on the back, but statistically it's unlikely to be returned even with that information. So we have a fun inscription this time, of the sort that's usually written on painted harpsichords and lutes. It will serve just as well to identify it if I accidentally leave it behind at airport security or something.
Anyway...breakfast! Yes, that's what I meant to talk about. This is a picture of my breakfast this morning: pumpkin oatmeal and tea. Isn't the Eeyore mug cute? It contains "O'Sullivan's Favorite" tea from a beautiful little tea shop in Raleigh. Loose-leaf tea, that I make in a proper teapot. The blue and white teapot has a built-in filter, which is quite cool. I've had the teapot for five or six years now, certainly since before I married, but I never used it much. Now I use it almost every day.
Maybe you're curious about the pumpkin oatmeal. Did you know that pumpkin is very good for you? It's high in fiber and Vitamin A, it has a little bit of protein, and it's not very high in calories if you're not putting a bunch of sugar in it to make a pie. Pumpkin oatmeal is very easy. Make your oatmeal as usual--you could probably even do this with the instant kind that you just add boiling water to--and add two tablespoons of mashed pumpkin (I use canned) per serving. Don't use canned pumpkin pie mix (nasty stuff), just plain canned pumpkin. I add raisins and dried cranberries while it is cooking, so the dried fruit plumps up in the hot water. A little brown sugar or maple syrup on top, a little milk, some walnuts or almonds if you need more protein, and it's ready. It takes about ten minutes, maybe less, if you do it on the stovetop with regular oats. I'm sure this would also be good with other kinds of grainy cereal, like that Bob's Red Mill 7 grain hot cereal, but it might be a little weird with Cream of Wheat.
A good, healthy breakfast for a beautiful fall morning.
Sorry the photo is a little blurry. I took it with my brand-new iPod Touch 4G, an early anniversary present from my husband. He thoughtfully had the back inscribed, "MVSICA LAETITIAE COMES MEDICINA DOLORVM." The previous iPod had my name and phone number on the back, but statistically it's unlikely to be returned even with that information. So we have a fun inscription this time, of the sort that's usually written on painted harpsichords and lutes. It will serve just as well to identify it if I accidentally leave it behind at airport security or something.
Anyway...breakfast! Yes, that's what I meant to talk about. This is a picture of my breakfast this morning: pumpkin oatmeal and tea. Isn't the Eeyore mug cute? It contains "O'Sullivan's Favorite" tea from a beautiful little tea shop in Raleigh. Loose-leaf tea, that I make in a proper teapot. The blue and white teapot has a built-in filter, which is quite cool. I've had the teapot for five or six years now, certainly since before I married, but I never used it much. Now I use it almost every day.
Maybe you're curious about the pumpkin oatmeal. Did you know that pumpkin is very good for you? It's high in fiber and Vitamin A, it has a little bit of protein, and it's not very high in calories if you're not putting a bunch of sugar in it to make a pie. Pumpkin oatmeal is very easy. Make your oatmeal as usual--you could probably even do this with the instant kind that you just add boiling water to--and add two tablespoons of mashed pumpkin (I use canned) per serving. Don't use canned pumpkin pie mix (nasty stuff), just plain canned pumpkin. I add raisins and dried cranberries while it is cooking, so the dried fruit plumps up in the hot water. A little brown sugar or maple syrup on top, a little milk, some walnuts or almonds if you need more protein, and it's ready. It takes about ten minutes, maybe less, if you do it on the stovetop with regular oats. I'm sure this would also be good with other kinds of grainy cereal, like that Bob's Red Mill 7 grain hot cereal, but it might be a little weird with Cream of Wheat.
A good, healthy breakfast for a beautiful fall morning.
21 October 2011
Racism
We have a parochial vicar from South America. This has been a problem for some people in the parish ever since he arrived.
"Why did they send us a hispanic priest?!" (Maybe because we have a huge hispanic community?)
"I can't understand him!" (Our sound system is lousy. Try sitting at the front of the church instead of at the very back! Also, some people can't understand your accent. Deal with it.)
"Father, are you coming to the Sodality dinner?"
"Um, I don't know. What is a Sodality?"
"And you call yourself a Catholic priest?!" (Yes, he's just not a native English speaker.)
"Why don't you go back to Mexico." (1. He's not from Mexico. 2. He'd like to go home, but he knows we need him here, because you didn't encourage your sons and nephews to think about becoming priests.)
And no, not all of these people are old. Clearly racism is still an issue here.
We have a parochial vicar from South America. This has been a problem for some people in the parish ever since he arrived.
"Why did they send us a hispanic priest?!" (Maybe because we have a huge hispanic community?)
"I can't understand him!" (Our sound system is lousy. Try sitting at the front of the church instead of at the very back! Also, some people can't understand your accent. Deal with it.)
"Father, are you coming to the Sodality dinner?"
"Um, I don't know. What is a Sodality?"
"And you call yourself a Catholic priest?!" (Yes, he's just not a native English speaker.)
"Why don't you go back to Mexico." (1. He's not from Mexico. 2. He'd like to go home, but he knows we need him here, because you didn't encourage your sons and nephews to think about becoming priests.)
And no, not all of these people are old. Clearly racism is still an issue here.
17 October 2011
Prayers for a Suffering Priest
If you are reading this, please stop and say a prayer for a priest who is suffering. He recently began a very difficult assignment, one that few priests in his diocese would take on willingly. I suspect that even he doesn't do it very willingly, but only because his bishop gave him no choice. He is desperate to leave this situation, already counting down the days until his one year in this assignment will be ended. In the meantime, he does the best he can, but he is depressed and discouraged.
He needs your prayers. All priests need your prayers. Remember especially those who suffer from loneliness and depression, and who are persecuted for doing good work and preaching the faith.
If you are reading this, please stop and say a prayer for a priest who is suffering. He recently began a very difficult assignment, one that few priests in his diocese would take on willingly. I suspect that even he doesn't do it very willingly, but only because his bishop gave him no choice. He is desperate to leave this situation, already counting down the days until his one year in this assignment will be ended. In the meantime, he does the best he can, but he is depressed and discouraged.
He needs your prayers. All priests need your prayers. Remember especially those who suffer from loneliness and depression, and who are persecuted for doing good work and preaching the faith.
08 October 2011
On Glossolalia
I have several friends who have or have had involvement in the Catholic Charismatic movement. I don't care for it myself, but there is one particular feature that I don't have much patience for: the phenomenon referred to as "speaking in tongues."
Many Charismatics, both Catholic and Protestant, use the term "speaking in tongues" to refer to various noises people make that do not correspond to any human language. They may sound like yodeling, muttering, or like ordinary speech in nonsense syllables. Hardly anyone--either the speakers or others--will claim to be able to interpret these "tongues."
These tongues are presumed to correspond to the phenomenon described in 1 Corinthians 14. But is this really what St. Paul was talking about?
Let's look at what some Church Fathers have to say on the issue. St. John Chrysostom clearly equatesthe gift in 1 Corinthians 14:6 the gift to the Apostles at Pentecost; that is, the gift of speaking in human languages never before studied or spoken by the gifted person. Pope St. Leo the Great also equates the gifts described in 1 Cor. 14 with Pentecost. St. Gregory Nazianzen includes Isaiah 28:11 ("With other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people") in the same category.
Angelic tongues are sometimes mentioned, but when these are spoken, they are still expected to result in rational messages that can be interpreted.
Unintelligible messages (that is, unintelligible in content) are mentioned, and there is some discussion of utterances that cannot be interpreted. These types of utterances are to be kept private, because they are of no value to the community. Standing up in front of a crowd and talking gibberish is not encouraged.
So, if you think you are speaking in an angelic tongue, hook up with someone who has the gift of interpretation. Don't head up to the front of the church, or grab a microphone. If the interpreter can't interpret what you're saying, one of you doesn't have an authentic gift.
If, on the other hand, you suddenly start speaking Mandarin Chinese, or Xhosa, or German, without ever having studied or spoken it before, please seriously consider the possibility that the Holy Spirit is working in you, and may be equipping you for missionary work.
I have several friends who have or have had involvement in the Catholic Charismatic movement. I don't care for it myself, but there is one particular feature that I don't have much patience for: the phenomenon referred to as "speaking in tongues."
Many Charismatics, both Catholic and Protestant, use the term "speaking in tongues" to refer to various noises people make that do not correspond to any human language. They may sound like yodeling, muttering, or like ordinary speech in nonsense syllables. Hardly anyone--either the speakers or others--will claim to be able to interpret these "tongues."
These tongues are presumed to correspond to the phenomenon described in 1 Corinthians 14. But is this really what St. Paul was talking about?
Let's look at what some Church Fathers have to say on the issue. St. John Chrysostom clearly equatesthe gift in 1 Corinthians 14:6 the gift to the Apostles at Pentecost; that is, the gift of speaking in human languages never before studied or spoken by the gifted person. Pope St. Leo the Great also equates the gifts described in 1 Cor. 14 with Pentecost. St. Gregory Nazianzen includes Isaiah 28:11 ("With other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people") in the same category.
Angelic tongues are sometimes mentioned, but when these are spoken, they are still expected to result in rational messages that can be interpreted.
Unintelligible messages (that is, unintelligible in content) are mentioned, and there is some discussion of utterances that cannot be interpreted. These types of utterances are to be kept private, because they are of no value to the community. Standing up in front of a crowd and talking gibberish is not encouraged.
So, if you think you are speaking in an angelic tongue, hook up with someone who has the gift of interpretation. Don't head up to the front of the church, or grab a microphone. If the interpreter can't interpret what you're saying, one of you doesn't have an authentic gift.
If, on the other hand, you suddenly start speaking Mandarin Chinese, or Xhosa, or German, without ever having studied or spoken it before, please seriously consider the possibility that the Holy Spirit is working in you, and may be equipping you for missionary work.
26 September 2011
Liturgiam Authenticam
I bought Peter Jeffery's book "Translating Tradition" over a year ago, but only gave it a cursory glance. Hyped up on caffeine last night (should have ordered decaf!), I worked through 3/4ths of the book.
I don't agree with everything he says--I agree with another reviewer who opined that Dr. Jeffery "over-interprets" the document in certain respects.
I think that the issues he has with the document are not actually with its directions for literal translation. He agrees, and I do too, that more literal translation of the liturgy into English is a good thing. The problem is with how LA talks about the history of liturgy and what that reveals about the thought processes of people who are in charge of our liturgical directives.
There is one other thing that I agree with Dr. Jeffery about. I am not going to deny that the Church has the right to change the liturgy. She absolutely does. But like Dr. Jeffery, I think that the reasons for doing so should be laid out openly and honestly. Those reasons clearly don't have much to do with actual history.
The problem isn't with the new translation. It's a good thing. But it's like putting a band-aid on a broken limb. And the brokenness of the current liturgy is really what Dr. Jeffery was getting at, although he didn't come out and say it. The idealogical problem began much earlier. Even the 1962 Missal is flawed from this perspective, though it's a lot better than the OF.
The more I read, the more extreme my views on this get. I am not a Lefebvrist, and I never will be. I will continue to attend Mass according to the Ordinary Form. The Ordinary Form is a valid liturgy. It's just very, very far from being the ideal for the Roman Rite. I would be happy if most of the 20th- and 21st-century alterations to the Mass and Divine Office were thrown out (although I do think the revision of the Holy Week liturgies was a good thing).
It gets harder, in some respects, to reconcile my scholarly life with what I see at Mass every week. Sometimes I'm good at focusing on the Lord and ignoring the deficiencies of our liturgical expression. Other times, I am angry that we are not giving our very best. I don't like to be angry at Mass. Maybe someday I won't have reason to be any more.
I bought Peter Jeffery's book "Translating Tradition" over a year ago, but only gave it a cursory glance. Hyped up on caffeine last night (should have ordered decaf!), I worked through 3/4ths of the book.
I don't agree with everything he says--I agree with another reviewer who opined that Dr. Jeffery "over-interprets" the document in certain respects.
I think that the issues he has with the document are not actually with its directions for literal translation. He agrees, and I do too, that more literal translation of the liturgy into English is a good thing. The problem is with how LA talks about the history of liturgy and what that reveals about the thought processes of people who are in charge of our liturgical directives.
There is one other thing that I agree with Dr. Jeffery about. I am not going to deny that the Church has the right to change the liturgy. She absolutely does. But like Dr. Jeffery, I think that the reasons for doing so should be laid out openly and honestly. Those reasons clearly don't have much to do with actual history.
The problem isn't with the new translation. It's a good thing. But it's like putting a band-aid on a broken limb. And the brokenness of the current liturgy is really what Dr. Jeffery was getting at, although he didn't come out and say it. The idealogical problem began much earlier. Even the 1962 Missal is flawed from this perspective, though it's a lot better than the OF.
The more I read, the more extreme my views on this get. I am not a Lefebvrist, and I never will be. I will continue to attend Mass according to the Ordinary Form. The Ordinary Form is a valid liturgy. It's just very, very far from being the ideal for the Roman Rite. I would be happy if most of the 20th- and 21st-century alterations to the Mass and Divine Office were thrown out (although I do think the revision of the Holy Week liturgies was a good thing).
It gets harder, in some respects, to reconcile my scholarly life with what I see at Mass every week. Sometimes I'm good at focusing on the Lord and ignoring the deficiencies of our liturgical expression. Other times, I am angry that we are not giving our very best. I don't like to be angry at Mass. Maybe someday I won't have reason to be any more.
23 September 2011
Das ElevatorMusik or '80s Science Fiction Theme?
One of my friends pointed out the remarkable similarity between this unfortunate incident:
And the theme of one of the awesomest scifi shows ever:
She's so right. And it's so wrong.
One of my friends pointed out the remarkable similarity between this unfortunate incident:
Opening of Berlin Papal Mass from Rocco Palmo on Vimeo.
And the theme of one of the awesomest scifi shows ever:
She's so right. And it's so wrong.
22 September 2011
Why Don't We Chant?
A dissertation that I'm currently reading for research gives a list of reasons cited by church musicians who are avoiding compliance with liturgical norms regarding music. Here are the basic points (some are paraphrased):
1. Composers believe in good faith that any musical form might be adopted in church.
2. It's easier to obtain impressive effects with small forces in "modern" styles.
3. The people like it.
4. Numbers in church would dwindle if theatrical music were suppressed.
5. Musicians think chant masses are not impressive enough.
6. Patriotism: liturgical music (both Gregorian and polyphonic) is foreign, in an "old, dead white male" way rather than an exotic way.
Do these reasons sound familiar?
Can you guess where these points originated?
William Whitehouse wrote the dissertation, and it's on the state of music leading up to the Second Vatican Council. The list he gives is a summary of points made by Pius X in his 1895 Pastoral Letter of Venice.
Pius X was a pastor. He understood. I'm sure he is disappointed in how his reform and the subsequent reforms turned out, but he's probably not surprised. 116 years later, nothing has changed.
A dissertation that I'm currently reading for research gives a list of reasons cited by church musicians who are avoiding compliance with liturgical norms regarding music. Here are the basic points (some are paraphrased):
1. Composers believe in good faith that any musical form might be adopted in church.
2. It's easier to obtain impressive effects with small forces in "modern" styles.
3. The people like it.
4. Numbers in church would dwindle if theatrical music were suppressed.
5. Musicians think chant masses are not impressive enough.
6. Patriotism: liturgical music (both Gregorian and polyphonic) is foreign, in an "old, dead white male" way rather than an exotic way.
Do these reasons sound familiar?
Can you guess where these points originated?
William Whitehouse wrote the dissertation, and it's on the state of music leading up to the Second Vatican Council. The list he gives is a summary of points made by Pius X in his 1895 Pastoral Letter of Venice.
Pius X was a pastor. He understood. I'm sure he is disappointed in how his reform and the subsequent reforms turned out, but he's probably not surprised. 116 years later, nothing has changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
