Trinitas In Unitate

maybe if I post some more junk that noone else on planet Earth wants to read, I can encourage Mike or Josh to post… (just to push my entries farther down the page?)

Some interesting Latin grammar for the day, from Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar

Nesciō quis, when used in an indefinite sense (somebody or other), is not followed by the Subjunctive.

So also nesciō quō (unde, an, etc.), and the following idiomatic phrases which are practically adverbs:–

* mīrum (nīmīrum) quam, marvellously (marvellous how).
* mīrum quantum, tremendously (marvellous how much).
* immāne quantum, monstrously (monstrous how much).
* sānē quam, immensely.
* valdē quam, enormously.

Examples are:–

* quī istam nesciō quam indolentiam māgnopere laudant (Tusc. 3.12) , who greatly extol that freedom from pain, whatever it is.
* mīrum quantum prōfuit (Liv. 2.1) , it helped prodigiously.
* ita fātō nesciō quō contigisse arbitror (Fam. 15.13) , I think it happened so by some fatality or other.
* nam suōs valdē quam paucōs habet (id. 11.13A. 3), for he has uncommonly few of his own.
* sānē quam sum gāvīsus (id. 11.13A. 4), I was immensely glad.
* immāne quantum discrepat (Hor. Od. 1.27.5) , is monstrously at variance.

The buzz is that Venerable Cardinal John Henry Newman is going to be beatified soon, which I am very glad to hear.

In order for a beatification to occur however, it’s my understanding that at least one miracle has to be thoroughly investigated and attributed to the saint. But at the same time, I thought we weren’t all commended to ask for someone’s intercession precisely until after they have been beatified (if we belong to that locale) or canonized?

So how is it that people are asking the non-beatified Newman for his intercession? Technically, are the faithful only permitted to do this after a deceased has been
declared “venerable” (or something else, prior to beatification)?

While I don’t want to suggest this is at all a problem in the case of Newman, couldn’t it happen that the faithful were asking for the intercession of someone actually condemned, since the church hasn’t already weighed in definitively on their sanctity?

From his Chirograph

6. The music and song requested by the liturgical reform - it is right to stress this point - must comply with the legitimate demands of adaptation and inculturation. It is clear, however, that any innovation in this sensitive matter must respect specific criteria such as the search for musical expressions which respond to the necessary involvement of the entire assembly in the celebration and which, at the same time, avoid any concessions to frivolity or superficiality. Likewise, on the whole, those elitist forms of “inculturation” which introduce into the Liturgy ancient or contemporary compositions of possible artistic value, but that indulge in a language that is incomprehensible to the majority, should be avoided.

…

7. Among the musical expressions that correspond best with the qualities demanded by the notion of sacred music, especially liturgical music, Gregorian chant has a special place. The Second Vatican Council recognized that “being specially suited to the Roman Liturgy”[17] it should be given, other things being equal, pride of place in liturgical services sung in Latin[18]. St Pius X pointed out that the Church had “inherited it from the Fathers of the Church”, that she has “jealously guarded [it] for centuries in her liturgical codices” and still “proposes it to the faithful” as her own, considering it “the supreme model of sacred music”[19]. Thus, Gregorian chant continues also today to be an element of unity in the Roman Liturgy.

I added the second bit (about chant), because I think this raises some interesting questions. In what sense is singing Swahili hymns bad because the language is “incomprehensible to the majority”, while Latin is good, even “the supreme model of sacred music”?

I was thrilled to be at Mass with the Holy Father yesterday. I want to say something positive, but I should get the negative out of the way first.

The music was just plain awful. I don’t mean “poorly done”. It was technically excellent. It just had no place at a Catholic Mass.

Here’s one example, during distribution of Communion. This isn’t the worst of it, but I found it quickly…

At least we didn’t hear “Blest are they” yesterday. Sorry about that JP2!

What does the GIRM say about music at Mass? Enjoy, A musical journey through the GIRM.

You can read it here

I’m not sure how I could have missed this one! Here’s a nice bit from it,

In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

It reminded me of the music from yesterday’s stadium Mass.

…the less you have to say on your own.

Perhaps this is a good thing. When blogs first emerged, there was an explosion of sorts, and now we’re seeing an accretion. Planets are forming. It’s no longer just an inchoate swamp of rarified ideas. That is, not every blog is equally worthless.

Conversely, the more I get out of blogs and start reading elsewhere—say books (perhaps you’ve heard of those)—the more I have thoughts actually worth contributing to the blogosphere.

There’s a post at Jimmy Akin’s about calling a priests Father in Latin. He seems to have some of his data wrong, but I’m glad he brought up the topic.

From what I’ve seen now, at least in liturgical documents, you can refer to a priest as “Pater” (meaning just Father), as is done in the text of the extraordinary form. And, you can also call him “Domnus”, a contracted form of “Dominus”. This is used in the Breviary to mean “Reverand Father”, while the form Dominus is reserved for God.

So, to say to a priest, “vouchsafe, Father, to bless me”, it would be “jube Domne me benedicere”. While, to ask God for the same blessing, you’d say, “Jube Domine me benedicere.” You can find an example in the Matins from Easter Sunday

Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions about Gregorian Chant is that it is simply another genre of music. Consequently, many parish musicians think they are giving chant “pride of place” by occasionally singing Adoro te devote.

Or, more generally, people don’t realize that, when the church speaks about chant, they are talking about the liturgical music
utilized within its proper liturgical context. That means singing the Introit during the entrance, the Communion during Communion, and so on.

What might you say chant is then? I’m looking for a pithy and clarifying definition. You could just call it “sacred music”, but that assumes the listener understands a *lot* about what “sacred” means.

I’ll probably be posting occasionally now.

Is it ever acceptable to be happy that someone is dead?

My gut reaction is that, no, especially for an unrepentant sinner, we should not be happy.

But can’t we be happy when an indefatigable saint has passed? For someone living as a saint, already resolved to follow the Lord, death (and judgement) is only a confirmation of their course. They weren’t about to deviate from that course while they were alive, but now they have their reward.

But if someone is held to a different course, if someone is obstinately and manifestly unrepentant, can we rejoice that they also will be confirmed through death? Or, in other words, is it okay to rejoice in the confirmation of mercy but not of justice? That of a saint, but not the damned?

I’m speaking in the abstract here. I don’t at all wish Father Drinan to be condemned. But I do believe some are condemned. And I’m reminded of Thomas’ speculation that, part of the glory of heaven will be to witness the Lord’s perfect justice, and acknowledging that some are justly condemned.

In any case: Lord, have mercy on the soul of Father Drinan.

…and take a step back from your research when, after your adviser doesn’t promptly respond to your emails, you panic and go read the obituaries. Gloria Deo, there is nothing to report.

Now where is my adviser!?!

…qui es in caecis,
Sanctificetur nondum tuum.
Advertat Reginaldi tergum.
Fiat volatus tuus,
Sicut in caenum et in terrores.
Paludem nostram quotidianum da nobis odia.
Et dimitte nobis tradita nostra,
Sicut et nos decocimus decores notis.
Et ne nos educas de tentamentis,
sed libera nos a Missa Tridentina.

(Maybe in slightly poor taste, but I couldn’t resist…)

Go read Mark Shea

I haven’t actually read what he has to say yet, but I see that he isn’t talking about torture, which is pretty notable in itself.

—
Correction: After reading it, I see that he does use the word torture.

Next time you’re in Rome, be sure to stop by the Capuchin chapel, Santa Maria della Concepzione (St. Mary of the Immaculate Conception).

Not exactly the hot wedding spot, I would guess.

Have a holy Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception everybody.

Remember, if you normally don’t eat meat on Fridays, eat meat today. If we’re going to fast with the Church, we ought to eat big chunks of succulent flesh with the Church too.

Ora pro nobis Sancta Dei Genetrix absque peccato concepta!

From The Devastated Vineyard (emphasis mine):

But as soon as one makes the shared meal the main thing, one is trying to skip over that which is incomparably more important.  In this way even the sacred community, the supernatural meal, is distorted.  Here we have a specific infection of collectivism, an emphasis on community at the expense of the individual person.  The result is that one loses precisely that which one wants to attain.  For this holy community with others - or at least the consciousness of community - at the sacred meal, a community which is radically different from all natural communities, can never be achieved when the true hierarchy of things is upset.  This is the true sacred hierarchy: first the glorification of God, where we are directed exclusively to God in adoration, then the intimate union of love with Jesus in Holy Communion, and finally the triumphant unity with all the faithful who are present, as well as with the entire Church.  As soon as one aims at this unity directly and ignores this sacred hierarchy, one loses the unity and replaces it, at least subjectively, with a profane unity, such as we might find in an association of army veterans.  Blindness to the sacred as well as secularization go hand in hand with an overemphasis on the “collective,” with the triumph of collectivism.

Catholic World News is reporting

God bless the good bishop and his flock!