A (little) Light from the East

Not with my consent!

2011-09-30T22:10:00.000-07:00

It seems that someone impersonating the President of the United States has decided to kill a U.S. Citizen, without benefit of presentment or indictment, and without due process of law. The facts of that killing are evident, and without any doubt. The person in question has all but boasted of them.

I will remind you of the relevant words of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which I believe remains the law of the land here:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis in bold)

It would appear to follow that the so-called President has violated his Oath of Office, which I will quote here: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The text of that oath may be found in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight of that Constitution.

I do not care if the person killed was the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler, or had simply engaged (as he appears to have done) in the aid and comfort of the enemies of the United States. The so-called President should have had the brains, the heart, and the guts to declare war, and (at the very least) should have occasioned a trial of the man for treason, before killing him.

The failure of the so-called President to do so was and remains a violation of his Oath of Office. Under Article 1, Section 3, clauses 6 and 7, it is for the Senate to determine whether the so-called President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for his actions under Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.

While I doubt that the Senate will do so, as we currently have the best government that money can buy, I can at least exercise my rights of speech, the press, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances to say that this was a great wrong against the Constitution, and against the people of the United States.

Perhaps the so-called President can go down the road of tyranny.

But not with my consent!

What if this present were the world's last night?

2011-05-21T17:00:00.000-07:00

What if this present were the world's last night?
Mark in my heart, O Soul, where thou dost dwell,
The picture of Christ crucified, and tell
Whether that countenance can thee affright,

Tears in his eyes quench the amazing light,
Blood fills his frowns, which from his pierced head fell.
And can that tongue adjudge thee unto hell,
Which prayed forgiveness for his foes' fierce spite?

No, no; but as in my idolatry
I said to all my profane mistresses,
Beauty, of pity, foulness only is

A sign of rigor: so I say to thee,
To wicked spirits are horrid shapes assigned,
This beauteous form assures a piteous mind.

John Donne

The real reason the BP oil rig blew up in the Gulf of Mexico

2011-02-01T09:59:00.000-08:00

To find out why, click here.

Assisting your paranoid delusions since 2004.

Beginnings

2011-01-15T20:50:00.000-08:00

In an earlier post, entitled The Sacrifice of Cain, I had made the thesis that perhaps the main reason why the real reforms of the Second Vatican Counsel never were implemented properly was because the clergy did not implement the reforms in priestly education mandated by Optatam Totius.

Those reforms included making sure that candidates to the priesthood knew Latin well, that they were encouraged to learn the languages of Scripture and Tradition (i.e., Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic), that they were first to obtain the educational prerequisites needed for those who were to go on to professional academic work, and that they were to get a thorough education in philosophy and theology, with particular emphasis on the fonts of the Holy Spirit: Scripture, Tradition, and Church Authority.

As anyone who has much acquaintance with many (but not all) priests who received their formation in the last two score years, it is obvious that most have not come anywhere near to gaining such an academic formation. It is therefore not surprising that, for the most part, they have been unable to implement the real reforms of Vatican II. You can't give what you don't have.

A discerning reader might respond with the running gag from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: This is true, but unhelpful. I would entirely agree.

On the principle that it is better to light one small stick of dynamite than to curse the silence, or something like that, I am beginning to look through various websites, to find the means by which laymen or priests may get such an education on one's own. More will be forthcoming.

Watch this space.

Carpatho-Rusyn Chant, Part 1

2011-01-02T16:23:00.000-08:00

In an effort to show the riches that Slavic Chant contains, I think it wise to include Carpatho-Rusyn chant. This music was the beginning of my experience of those riches, and I am deeply indebted to it, and to those who introduced me to it.

And so, I would like to begin to introduce you to it. I am happy to say, though, that there are such abundant riches that it will take quite some time, and any number of entries, to get anywhere near to covering it all. But, as Lord Farquaad from the motion picture, Shrek, would say: "It is a sacrifice I am willing to accept."

So, let us begin:

1. Really Great Stuff from the Old Country. If one goes to the website of the Greek Catholic Church of Slovakia, one will find this webpage of beautiful music. All of it is quite good. I particularly like this piece, which is one version of the hymn, God is with us, sung during the Orthodox Compline of the Nativity and of the Theophany (aka Christmas and Epiphany). Another one is this gorgeous chant with ison version of the hymn, Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silent, well known in the West, largely thanks to Ralph Vaughan Williams, but found first in the East, sung by the Orthodox for Great and Holy Saturday of Passion Week, when we mourn the death of God Himself. (Nietsche, Sartre, and Hitchens, eat your hearts out!)

2. Neat Stuff from the New World. If one goes to the website of the Metropolitan Cantor Institute, one will find scads of written music and recordings, both in English and Slavonic. One lack, though, is that one can't get much in the way of pdfs of the original stuff. For that, let me suggest:

3. Archival Material from a Good Guy Steve Puluka has provided on his website pdfs of just about every irmologion, or collection of sacred liturgical music, that he has been able to find. One can find that website here.

Enjoy.

Serbian Chant

2011-01-01T19:01:00.000-08:00

At the beginning of the motion picture, The Peacemaker, we see an Orthodox Church in Serbia, and a small choir of men singing the service of Baptism (A YouTube clip of that scene can be found here). They are singing Serbian Chant, a chant that harks back to the Byzantine Chant of the Church that brought Serbia to the Faith. After seeing that motion picture, I was fascinated by the beauty of the chant sung there, and had wanted to learn more of it.

Thus, I would like to introduce you to the website of Nikola Resanovic, which may be found here. One of the chief treasures which can be found there (other than his own excellent compositions) is an extensive set of chant texts, in modern musical notation, in English translation, and on PDF, with many MP3s, of just about the entire Orthodox music in Serbian chant, which can be found here.

In addition, Mr. Resanovic has provided a complete set of PDFs of the Eight Tones of Serbian Chant, here, and instructional material as regards the nature and expression of those eight tones, here. These resources would reward any liturgical musician, whether Catholic or Orthodox, who wanted to examine (or perhaps to make liturgical use of) this musical tradition. And for those who would want to read or hear Serbian Chant in its original Slavonic, Mr. Resanovic is also beginning a new resource, which may be found here.

But Mr. Resanovic has done more than providing Serbian Chant: he has also continued the process of harmonizing Serbian Chant, which has been a tradition of the Serbian Orthodox Church for the last four or so centuries. PDFs and MIDIs of his work on liturgical harmonizations can be found here. Harmonized troparia and kontakia (hymns used in the Divine Liturgy, Vespers and Matins) can be found here. Hymns to Mary, Theotokos and Ever Virgin, can be found here. And paraliturgical hymns, including Christmas carols, can be found here.

For any one who wishes to sample the riches in Serbian Chant and harmonized hymns, I can think of no better beginning. Enjoy.

Watch This Space

2011-01-01T18:56:00.000-08:00

With the new civil year, I have decided to resume my weblog.

I have also resolved to the following changes:

From now on, while I will be pointing out problems in the religious, liturgical, and musical world, I shall also be looking toward finding solutions.

The two main solutions that I can see are toward education, and toward providing resources.

We will see what we can do to help.

An open letter to Arturo Vasquez

2010-09-27T20:36:00.000-07:00

Dear Arturo:

I really like your weblog. I have been following it, thanks to (or if you prefer to blame him, due to) The Young Fogey. I like the approach, which is very nearly that of ‘a voice crying in the wilderness’. The present apospasmatic (or if you prefer, ‘fragmentary’) age may be a technological terror or wonder (depending upon one’s point of view), but it is also a spiritual desert. Too many words. Not enough logos. Someone needs to call it for what it really is. Thanks for doing your part.

As regards your recent entry, Eastern Catholicism: UR DOING IT WRONG, I too have passed the various Kubler-Ross stages as regards Catholicism, from denial as regards how bad it is, to rage over its many failings, to bargaining (‘if only we restore Gregorian Chant. . .’, ‘if only we face the East. . .’, ‘if only we trust His Holiness, the Pope. . .’), to acceptance that it will really never change, save to get worse and worse. I’m expecting the parishes of St. Gilles de Retz in Laguna Beach, or Ss. Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas in either Oakland or Long Beach, or that we have discovered the ancient Liturgy of the Laodiceans, any day now.

I really don’t care any more. I am totally reconciled to the fact that, in spite of the high pronouncements and councils of perfection in the Second Vatican Council (and a lot of good scriptural, patristic and traditional advice there as well), Roman Catholicism in the United States and most other places appears to combine the worst aspects of a clerocracy and the booboisie of H.L. Mencken, and the lunatics in charge of the asylum will continue to do whatever they damned well please.

If you wish to consider this attitude as triumphalism, while I cling to my home parish of St. Andrew Russian Catholic Church with the fervor of a castaway holding on to his piece of wreckage, and for much the same reasons, then I suppose that the First Amendment would entitle you to your opinion. So far.

Unfortunately, I agree with you that the same rot is entering the Eastern Catholic Churches as well. As one example, most RC castaways who have clung to the Ruthenians (as but one example) are happy that their pieces of wreckage, which they call Byzantine Catholic Churches, are still above water. The old timers, among them many Rusyns who have been there far longer, have confessed to the same sinking feeling, though, and have either already bailed or are waiting to bail for something a bit more seaworthy.

I would also agree with you that it is best not to p*ss off the little old ladies. Of such are the stuff of St. Mary of Egypt, or St. Joan of Arc. Pat their heads patronizingly, and you are more than likely to draw back a stump. But from where I am standing, most of them are already more than a bit, er, peeved with both RC and EC churches. They are oh, so, hungry for that little taste of heaven which an honest prayer (or a well-served Liturgy) brings forth, and too many of the clerks have been depriving them of even the slightest of those tastes. Bad idea.

Speaking of other tastes, while I will sip Jerez if you set it before me, I much prefer either Modelo Negra or Guinness, at room temperature, thank you. I’d be happy to buy the first round, as we speak of Pico della Mirandola and the Christian Cabbalists and Neo-Platonists.

Very truly yours,

Bernard Brandt

Summorum Pontificorum: An Eastern Perspective

2010-09-14T17:17:00.000-07:00

Today is the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, celebrated by both Christian East and West. It is also the third anniversary of the papal decree, or moto proprio, of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, entitled Summorum Pontificorum. For those with an aversion to Latin, or to recent history, that was the decree permitting Roman Catholic priests to celebrate or serve the Gregorian Liturgy, or the Mass of St. Pius VI, after its suppression for forty years by the late Pope Paul VI.

Many Roman Catholics and Protestants have written about the matter since then, debating the whethers and whys and wherefores, almost ad infinitum, and certainly ad nauseum. I have held my peace about it for three years, largely because it did not concern me. I am an Eastern Catholic, and as singer and assistant choir director, for the past score of years, I have quite happily served the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on most Sundays, the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great on the Feasts of the Nativity and the Theophany of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and the Sundays of Great and Holy Lent, and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts of Saint Gregory Dialogos (aka Pope Saint Gregory the Great) on weekdays of Great and Holy Lent.

In short, the fact that a Pope of Rome had allowed priests to say the Old Mass in Latin was of as much (or as little) concern for me as if the Archbishop of Canterbury had allowed his priests to say the Sarum use of Mass, or the Coptic Pope had allowed his priests to say the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

But as the discussion has continued, I have noted that those talking about the matter have failed to speak about things that appear rather obvious to me, perhaps because of my own perspective, and the perspective of Eastern Christians, whether Catholic or Orthodox. In that spirit, I would like to add that perspective to the discussion.

I remember well, four or more years ago, reading the comments in conservative RC weblogs and newspapers, and that the rumors were that this indult had been considered and would be granted by His Holiness, Real Soon Now. With every announcement, and every disappointment, more and more of the RC faithful took up the biblical, psalmic, and prophetic cry: “How long, O Lord, how long?”

And in the fullness of time, on the seventh day of the seventh month of the seventh year of the new millenium, His Holiness, Benedict, Pope of Rome announced and pronounced his decision, and his great gift to His people. What is more, His Holiness proclaimed that this edict would go into effect on the fourteenth day of the ninth month, on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Life Giving Cross.

And curiously, most of the RC commentariat has either overlooked or ignored the significance of those two dates. The nearest that I saw anyone of that number observe the fact, it was the magazine of the Latin Mass Society, where the editor commented in his editorial that this was a lucky day, and the gamblers at Las Vegas took what advantage they could of it. But for one who has been steeped in the ways of the East, though, these numbers, and those days, shout out their meaning, unequivocally, and without any doubt.

Any one who has been open to the voice of the Holy Spirit (Who has spoken through the Law, the Prophets, and the Scriptures), knows that the number Three expresses Fullness in the Old Testament, and the Holy and Life Creating Trinity in the New Testament. And any one who has that same knowledge knows that in both the Old Testament and the New, the number Seven signifies the fullness of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. These are basics in the language of Scripture. One does not need to indulge in numerology or practice the gematria of the Kabbalists to know these things.

And any one who knew these basics, and that includes anyone who has been at the Divine Services of the East and has also paid some attention while there, knew that when His Holiness chose this day to proclaim his decision, His Holiness was asking the blessings of the Holy and Life Creating Trinity upon his decision, and the fullness of the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit. And we nodded to ourselves and said in our hearts: “His Holiness knows what he is doing.”

And when we heard that this good promise of His Holiness would be fulfilled on the fourteenth day of the ninth month, we knew two more things. Fourteen is compounded of Two and of Seven: the numbers of the true witness of Man and the fullness of the Holy Spirit. It is the number of the name of David, the Psalmist. And Nine is the number of the order and ranks of the Bodiless Ones, the Angels of God. The first thing we knew from His Holiness' decision was that he sought the blessings of the Psalmist and of the ranks of the Angels upon what he was doing.

But far more important than that, we knew that His Holiness had chosen the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross to fulfill his plans. And to explain the meaning of that, let me tell you a story.

In the First and Second centuries, after the death and glorious Resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, it was the custom of the pious to visit Golgotha, the place of Christ's Crucifixion, and the place of His entombment nearby in the grave that Joseph of Arimathea, Christ's uncle, had placed His Body after His crucifixion. In order to stop this practice, the Roman Emperor Hadrian in 135 A.D. Ordered that Golgotha be razed and filled with stone, and that a temple to Venus be built on the spot.

So things stood until nearly two centuries later, in 326 A.D., when the Emperor Constantine commissioned his mother, Saint Helena, to build cathedrals on the places of Christ's Birth and Crucifixion. The temple to Venus was in its turn razed, the site excavated, and it is even thought that St. Helena by a miracle found the cross upon which Christ was crucified.

The point of this story is that by his choice of dates, His Holiness Benedict XVI chose to restore the use of the Old Mass on a Feast day when holy things that had been long been lost had been recovered. While I admit that the sane generally do not find portents beyond need, the wise and those who know can at least take note of what is done, and when it is done.

I hold no brief on whether the Old Mass should have been permitted or not, save to suggest that it might be better to permit the pious to pursue their pieties than not. For those who do not wish to do a thing, let them not do it. But it strikes me as illiberal to try to prevent others from doing that with which they do not agree. It is odd that those who consider themselves to be liberal appear to wish to do this.

Watch This Space

2010-09-14T09:28:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers:

I would like to apologize for not doing much in the way of entries in my weblog for the last few years. I can only plead necessity: for the past five years, I have been either unemployed or underemployed. Much of such employment that I have had has been unrewarding, either financially or personally. As a result, I have not been in much of a way to write, or write effectively.

Two things have changed recently, however: 1) I now have employment which permits me to pay my own way, rather than to depend on the charity of my friends and family, and 2) for my church, September 1st is the beginning of the New Year, both liturgically and personally. On the New Year, we make resolutions. My resolutions for this new year are fourfold: prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and study.

The first three resolutions have little to do with this weblog, at least, not directly, and so in consequence, I will not be speaking of them here. But as a part of my fourth vow, study, I have decided to make study more a part of my life. I will also write of the fruits of that study, and to make those writings a part of this weblog.

As a result, there will be some changes in the ways that this weblog will be run. Between my work and my study, I will have little time for discussing 'current events', that fodder of the chattering classes, or the commentariat. Wise men, from Socrates through Henry David Thoreau and on to C.S. Lewis in the last century, have all agreed that there are better ways to spend one's time. I will try, for once, to be wise.

This will also mean that I will spend even less time than I have in contending with others in this weblog. Life is too short to be in a hurry, or in someone else's way. For those whom I have injured by my past practice of this vice, I offer my apologies, and ask their forgiveness.

And so, on this Feast of the Exaltation of the Life Giving Cross, this day of rediscovery of miracles which had been lost, I begin again.

Watch this space.

You are the new day

2010-08-23T22:15:00.000-07:00

For my wife, Elizabeth:

I found this music, once upon a time
And lost it just as quickly, to my shame.
I could not name it, for this song sublime
Withdrew, and would not deign to give its name.

But Time was kind, and in its time, again
Reminded me of what I had forgot.
It burst upon me, and with such sweet pain
That I had almost lost what is my lot.

And so I give it to you, and I hope
that it might please you, more, that it might show
A way that we might live, in ways above

The days that we have fought, and could not cope;
Instead, that we might live and start to know
(or else remember) all the ways of love.

Submitted for your consideration

2010-06-10T22:15:00.000-07:00

As I would prefer not to see the U.S. portion of the Gulf of Mexico turned into the Tarbaby, I would suggest that people make use of their ideas as to what to do about it and send them in to this website.

This is the idea that I have sent in:

Brief Description of Technology (200 words or less)

Requisition the X-Craft Seafighter. Construct and fit a sluice between the front of the two pontoons of this catamaran. Pump the oil/water mix from the sluice into the hold of the Seafighter. Bilge the water component of the mix at the bottom of the hold. Pump the oil component from the top of the hold into plastic reservoirs that are cast off for other ships to recover. Vacuum the slick by this means until done.

Materials Required (50 words or less)

X-Craft Seafighter; sluice; pumps; containment unit for hold; floating plastic reservoirs to contain oil.

Equipment Required (50 words or less)

See 'Materials Required' above.

Expertise Required – including description and numbers (100 words or less)

A capable captain and crew. An administration wise and brave enough to get off its good intentions and do something.

P.S. If you should happen to have any better ideas, now would be the time to send them in.

Eric Whitacre's Virtual Choir

2010-04-10T20:09:00.000-07:00

Whenever I come to the conclusion that there is no hope, God always manages to apply a cosmic 2 x 4 to get my attention.

This was one such example.

I had almost given up on modern Western RC liturgical music.

And then I heard the above.

The music is all the more remarkable, in that Mr. Whitacre managed to assemble his choir from the four corners of the earth, via modern technology.

This shows how he did it, with his 'rehearsal video'.

I had lost faith. But yes, it can be done. All it takes it the wisdom of the serpent, and the innocence of the dove, as our Lord has said.

And with that, I am back in the fray.

P.S., one can get more information as regards Eric Whitacre's good work by going here.

P.P.S. A tip of the hat is due to www.musicasacra.com and The Recovering Choir Director for this find. And my most sincere thanks.

Medical Care: A Modest Proposal

2009-07-28T15:31:00.000-07:00

We have heard a great deal of talk about how we should nationalize health care in order to make sure that everyone will at least get something. This seems to me to be a lot like rationing an available resource so that everyone will get at least something. This also seems to me to be an inadequate answer to the problem. It's something a Harvard MBA would come up with, and you know what that means: having someone divvy up the pie rather than trying to come up with new ways of baking more pies. That trick seems to have resulted in just about every American business going under.

Other methods seem to be in order. I suggest at least three.

1. Make Medical Education More Available.

In most civilized countries, doctors and nurses go through a specialized training in college, somewhere between four and six years. At the end of that period of study, they go through a residency of between one and three years in their specialization. Then they practice medicine.

In the United States, first they go through four years of college. Then they go through four years of medical or nursing school. Then they go through a residency program that can last between three and eight years. THEN they practice medicine.

So let me see: you can spend between five and nine years of study to become a doctor or a nurse in Europe, or eleven to sixteen years of study to become a doctor or nurse in the United States. Do you think that there may be a causal connection between the number of years required to become a health professional and the costs of their services? I certainly do.

Of course, you won't see any such change, because any such change would have to be approved by the American Medical Association, and they have an interest in keeping the number of physicians down in this country. You know, monopolies, a limited resource keeping prices for that resource up, that sort of thing. I do not think it a coincidence that the AMA pays more for Congressional lobbyists than anyone except for the pharmaceutical companies. Pity.

2. Make more effective regulations of pharmaceutical prices

Anyone who has gone to any other country besides the United States for any length of time knows that it costs far less to buy drugs there than it does in the United States. This is because most civilized countries, with the notable exception of the U.S., have regulations preventing pharmaceutical companies from charging whatever they wish for their drugs.

Shriek! Why, no Bernie: I thought you were a laissez-faire capitalist. I thought you were against any regulation of prices. How can this be?

Well, I used to be, but then a good number of years ago I saw an episode of the PBS science series, Nova. It was a review of what had been learned about the use of L-Dopamine in the treatment of Parkinson's Disease. In that episode, it showed a researcher spooning out a gram or two of the drug from what was a one kilogram jar. The researcher commented that he was glad that he had purchased the jar back before he and his team had reported the findings concerning L-Dopamine's effects in the New England Journal of Medicine. Before the report, one kilogram cost him $50.00. After the report, the pharmaceutical companies raised the price so that the same amount of the drug would have cost him $17,500.00.

In short, just upon finding that a drug in their control might have some effect upon Parkinson's Disease, the pharmaceutical company in question raised the price of a drug more than three hundred times its original price. In looking at many other drugs sold in the U.S., it would appear that similar price differentials between cost of production and sales price obtain.

I don't know about you, but when one sees price gouging of such range and magnitude, and in an industry which produces goods which are essential to the public and private health, it drives even the most ardent capitalist to thoughts of regulation, if not nationalization.

Of course, it would take Congressional legislation to regulate prices for pharmaceutical companies. And it seems that those companies pay just as much to and for lobbyists, if not more, than the AMA does to keep things just as they are. Again, pity.

3. Convert all medical malpractice cases from judicial trial to arbitration

One of the reasons why physicians, nurses, and other medical care personnel are getting to be more and more unwilling to practice is the real likelihood of being faced with a malpractice suit. Such suits have driven up the prices of malpractice insurance premiums to the point that physicians are starting to pay more in premiums than they do in taxes. This reduces the number of physicians in the U.S. who are willing to practice medicine, which in turn drives up the price of medical care. You can probably see where this one is going.

Many of those suits are spurious, brought by patients who have unrealistic expectations as to what modern medical care can actually do for them. They get dissatisfied with the care given them, and they bring lawsuits in state courts. The lawsuits in turn go through an elaborate process of pretrial motions, discovery, and preparation for trial. Most of those cases settle, but only after an elaborate expense has been made by and for the attorneys.

As regards the rest of the cases which DO go to trial, the factual matters of the trial, often matters of great expertise, are decided by twelve men and women who have been elaborately selected NOT to have any expertise in these matters of fact. The joke among lawyers is that a jury is a creature with twelve heads, twenty four legs, and no brain. Largely, in most trial cases, whether a patient or a physician prevails depends on who has the most persuasive attorney.

Of course, there is a simple remedy to this problem, which is Arbitration. What happens in such cases is that the patient files a simple process in which he or she explains what is the matter. Often, an independent physician is hired to examine the patient, and to examine the medical record of the patient. These findings are presented before a board of three or more arbitrators who have expertise in the medical field involved, and can quickly determine which cases are spurious, and which are valid. The whole process takes a fraction of the time, money, and trouble that a court case would require.

Of course, don't expect to see any congressional legislation requiring medical malpractice cases to be submitted to arbitration. The reason for this is that the American Bar Association, American Trial Lawyers' Association, and insurance companies pay nearly as much money to Congressional lobbyists as the AMA and the pharmaaceutical companies. It is not in the financial interest of these august associations to let that happen.

In short, as the late Will Rogers said, if the opposite of 'pro' is 'con', then the opposite of 'Progress' is 'Congress'. As long as Congress continues to permit the legalized system of bribery that we so endearingly call 'lobbying', we will continue to have high priced health care.

A Declaration of Independence, Redux

2009-07-04T18:17:00.001-07:00

When one people need to separate themselves from another, and to take the place to which the Laws of God and the Laws of Nature entitle them, they ought to say why they are doing so.

We hold that all humans are created equal, that God has given them rights that none can take away, and that those rights include Life, Freedom, and the means of seeking our own happiness. To do this, most people have found that governments should exist, but that their right to exist depends on the will and consent of those who are governed.

When governments stop doing this, the people have the right to shut those so-called governments down, and start over, in such a way that 'they don't get fooled again'. It is a matter of common sense that one does not change the government lightly, or because one person is upset at the way things are run. And often, one will keep going along with a bad government, because the alternative is often a worse one.

But when the system breaks down, or when it fouls up so repeatedly, or when its so-called leaders do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, it is both the right and the duty of the people to tell the government what it can do with itself, and start again afresh.

Just so that you know what we are talking about here:

The present government has refused to enact laws that would actually help the common good.

It has prevented Governors from passing laws that actually might help us, unless the government can in some way get credit for it.

It has kept the States from passing laws that might help the people in those states, unless those people buy into accepting a public dole.

It has called together Congresses at times and places that the people cannot follow what is going on, so that it can badger them into accepting what it has done.

It has undermined the will of the people, by electing representatives who have been bought and sold by lobbyists.

When it is displeased with the results of an election, it causes contests to exist which wear out the patience of those who were trying to have an election and to get things done.

Rather than helping the people of this land, it has allowed millions of people from another land to come in to waste the substance of citizens and taxpayers, and not to do one damned thing about it.

It has kept justice from being done by preselecting a group of judges who have no interest in justice or the people, but what the lobbyists can pay.

It has made a myriad of lobbies, bureaucracies, interests groups, and others to harass our people and eat out their livelihoods.

It has made standing armies, at home and abroad, without the consent of our governors or legislatures.

It has made the Department of Defense independent of and superior to the Department of State.

It has combined with the Supreme Court and the Congress to subject us to laws which we did not pass, or even to know of.

It has made a Department of Homeland Security, which has quartered a great number of 'gomer gestapo' who trouble and harry us while we try to travel.

It protects these morons from any consequences of their petty tyranny while it puts loyal citizens on 'watch lists'.

It regulates trade so that our jobs are 'outsourced' to other lands and we are sold down the river.

It imposes taxes upon us without our consent.

In so many ways, from traffic courts to administrative courts, it deprives us of trial by jury.

It changes our laws from the old 'common law' to one to which we have not consented, or even known.

It takes away our local Charters, abolishes our laws, and alters the forms of our government, for an agenda which they do not acknowledge.

It has bored us with stupid elections, and then told us that we consented to what was voted on by those who won.

At all times, we have told our government: stop doing these things without our consent or knowledge. But they continue. Anyone who does these things should be called tyrants, Nazis, and thugs, and unfit to try to govern us.

We've tried to warn you about this. You haven't been listening. We're going to have to get serious now.

Thus, we're going to have to stop following your stupid laws, and to make laws of our own. If you won't do anything, we will. Deal with it.

We therefore resist you to our last breath, and claim our independence and freedom. And to this, we will pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The Sacrifice of Cain

2009-03-18T12:42:00.000-07:00

Some time ago, I read the spiritual autobiography of the late William F. Buckley,Jr.: Nearer My God. In that book, which I recommend to all, Buckley presented his religious life, both before and after Vatican II. Like many of those of his day, he remembered with fondness the old ways, and looked with a certain regret upon the “reforms” which happened after the Second Vatican Council. But at the end of one chapter, he asked a most pertinent question: if the Council was such a time of powerful religious and spiritual reform, then why are the monasteries, seminaries, and nunneries so empty? Why have vocations among priests and religious so dried up? And why have so many who remain have been revealed as followers, not of Our Lord, but of such as Gilles de Rais and the Marquis de Sade?

These questions I have long pondered, and I have also pondered the answers that a number of people have given to those questions. It seems that those who are happy with the reforms after Vatican II have their answer, which in effect is to say: “we have not gone far enough down the road of reform to reap all of its benefits. We must follow the latest fashions and styles of the new musicians and liturgists. If folk masses are no longer au courant, then we must invent punk masses, with slam dances for the kiss of peace, and mosh pits in place of the sanctuary. We must call for a Third Vatican Council, which will finish those reforms which the People of God have called for. Then we will have reached the parousia, and we will be led into a land flowing with soda pop and saccharine.”

I don’t know about you, but such people remind me of Einstein’s definition: “Insanity is when people do the same thing over and over, and expect a different result.”

On the other extreme, I have seen and heard many so-called Roman Catholics say: “Many or all of the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council are in error, and that is why those who follow those doctrines have entered and have led many others into error.” There is just one problem with holding a view such as that: We have been promised by our Lord, among many other things, that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. As should be obvious, the three main ways that people are led into Hell are by sin, by error, and by death. To say that an Ecumenical Council of the Church has committed grave and repeated error is in effect to say either that our Lord is a liar, or that the Roman Catholic Church is neither the or a true Church of Christ. I do not see how any one who is a true child of that Church can say such things against Her, or against Her Lord. This is usually the role taken by Her enemies.

If nothing else, I would think that the brighter of such people would remember the fallacy of post hoc propter hoc: it is a logical mistake to think that because one thing happened after another, that the first thing is therefore the cause of the second. It thus may be a mistake to think that because many evils happened after Vatican II, that that Council was thus the cause of those ills.

Then there are some who say what I think is the most plausible reason so far given as to why what happened after Vatican II did not fulfill the promise offered by that Council: They say that there were many who failed to follow the teaching of Vatican II, but instead taught what they wanted to teach, and said that they were somehow following “the spirit” of Vatican II. This eisegesis, or this misinterpretation, they call the “hermeneutic of discontinuity”.

That is all very well, and it very well may be the root of the rot which has so damaged the Roman Catholic Church. But I find this explanation to be lacking on two levels: first, like any child of the East, I prefer the simple language of Scripture, of the Fathers, and of most of the saints, to the polysyllabic jargon of the Schoolmen, be they Aquinas and Bonaventure, or Husserl and Heidegger. The expression, “Hermeneutic of Discontinuity,” savors more of the university and the lectern than the cathedral and the pulpit.

But second, and more importantly, the expression, “Hermeneutic of Discontinuity” is not adequate to the task, because it does not adequately describe or explain how and why such damage happened to the Church after Vatican II.

I thus propose a simpler, and more Biblical, explanation of what happened after the Second Vatican Council: too many bishops, priests, religious, and lay people offered the sacrifice of Cain, and as a result, the Lord God did not bless their work.

If you will recall from the book of Genesis, Cain offered the sacrifice of the first fruits of his farm, while his brother Abel offered young lambs from his flock. The Lord blessed the sacrifice of Abel, and rejected that of Cain. Both the Rabbinic and the Patristic commentary on this scripture are agreed that the Lord had taught the family of Adam that the proper sacrifice before the Lord was the sacrifice of the lamb, and that Cain had offered what he wanted to offer, rather than that which the Lord demanded. The sacrifice of Cain is thus a type for all of those who offer what they want to the Lord, rather than what the Lord asks or demands.

Lest anyone think that I exaggerate here, I invite your attention to the Vatican II statement on Divine Revelation, or Dei Verbum. In it, the council fathers proclaim that Scripture, Holy Tradition, and Church Authority, rather than being “inconvenient truths”, are the three means by which the Spirit of God has spoken to human beings. Further, in their dogmatic statement on the Church, or Lumen Gentium, the council fathers proclaimed that one of the chief means by which the Holy Spirit has spoken through the Church has been in and through Her ecumenical councils. It would thus seem obvious to anyone who actually believes in what the Church teaches that God has spoken to us through Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition, and through the Councils of the Church. It should also appear obvious that any one who would ignore these teachings, was in fact ignoring the Word of God.

It should also be obvious that he or she who ignores the word of God, but who says that they are doing God’s will, is simply offering the sacrifice of Cain.

Taken in that light, let us examine what the Council documents have to say about the Divine Liturgy. Those on the Divine Liturgy ask that the Latin language be retained in some way in the liturgy. They commend that clergy and people make song a principal part of that liturgy, and that the Roman Church’s traditional chant be given pride of place in all liturgical gatherings, that the treasury of polyphony be preserved and cultivated, and that modern hymns be introduced. They ask that the liturgy be served with a noble simplicity, and that all art, architecture, music, vestments, lights, and incense be used to reflect the dignity and the beauty of heaven.

The fact that almost none of this has been done in and for most of the liturgies served in the last two score of years thus is not just a shame and a pity. For the last score of years at least, Canon 214 of the Code of Canon Law has stated that “the Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church.”

As those “legitimate pastors” would appear to include the Council Fathers, and as the documents of the Second Vatican Council doubtless would be included in the teaching of the Church, the failure to serve liturgies consonant with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council would appear to be both the denial of the word of God, and the denial of the rights of the Christian faithful. These denials would appear to be nothing less than sins before humankind, and before God.

If this were just a failure to serve the liturgy as God and as the Council Fathers had asked, it would be bad enough. But the sacrifice of Cain runs even deeper than this. Let us examine two other documents of the Council.

The first, Optatam Totius, expresses the Council’s wishes as regards the education and training of priests and bishops. It first commends that candidates to the priesthood be well grounded in Latin, and encourages them to learn the languages of Scripture and Tradition. As the languages of Scripture would appear to be Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and the languages of Tradition are Greek and Latin (and some would add Christian Aramaic, or Syriac), candidates to the priesthood are thus commended to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, and to use these tongues better to know the sources of Divine Revelation: that is, Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition, and Church Authority.

It then commends that the candidates, before entering the seminary, gain the scientific, literary, and humanistic education customary to those going on to higher studies. That is to say, the sort of education which is required before one can go on to studies in Medicine and Science, Law, Theology, and Philosophy. In short, the Council Fathers asked that candidates to the priesthood, even before entry into the seminary, be well educated in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, music, classics, literature, history, and political theory. As most areas of higher studies require a reading knowledge at least of French, German, and Italian, three of the four languages of modern scholarship (the fourth being English), these would also appear to be prerequisites.

It further states that the candidate should, while in seminary, take two years of study in philosophy, and four in theology. As regards philosophy, it recommends that all philosophical studies of “perennial” value should be undertaken. That would appear to include Plato and Aristotle, the Schoolmen, and everyone from Descartes to the modern philosophers. As regards theology, it commends that the sources of theology (again, Scripture, Tradition, and Church Authority) be examined thoroughly, that the candidate be fully trained in liturgical theology, moral theology, and dogmatic theology, and finally that the candidate be instructed in the Summa of the blessed Aquinas.

I have a question for my readers: how many priests do you know who have had or even approach the level of education demanded by the Council Fathers? I only know of three: Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, Fr. Joseph O’Leary, and my parish priest at St. Andrew’s, Fr. Alexei Smith. I hope and believe that there are some others. I fear that few of them live and serve in my country. This lack among the Roman Catholic priesthood is one of the main reasons that I am no longer a Roman Catholic. I need more than they can give me, or to the rest of the faithful.

The last document which I wish to examine in this essay is Presbyterorum Ordinis. In it, the Council fathers express their wishes for the spiritual life of priests and bishops. They state in no uncertain terms that the first duties of bishops and priests are to preach the word of God and to serve the sacraments. Priests and bishops are to work together as co-laborers, with priests acting in obedience to their bishops, and the bishops seeking to act to better direct and to ease the labors of their priests. The sacraments do not simply include the Eucharist and Penance, but also the Liturgy of the Hours, which in some part should be shared with the people. Priests are to cultivate the spiritual life, and are to assist the laity in their efforts to live that life. Further, priests are to keep up their knowledge of theology, through a thorough study of scripture, tradition, and authority, and are to keep up their knowledge of secular matters, so as better to bring the Gospel to the world.

Several questions come to mind, which I wish to pose to my readers: How many priests do you know who appear to spend more than a few minutes in the preparation of their sermons? How many show that they have even the remotest acquaintance with Holy Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, the lives of the saints, or the traditions and teachings of the Church? How many lead their people in Vespers, Matins, or any of the hours? How many have any inkling of the spiritual life, or show that they might have something to teach you of that life? I am happy to say that my parish priest does quite well in all these regards. I am sad to say that I know of few others who are where I live. Most of those either visit or help to serve at my church.

In short, most of the Divine Liturgies served for the last two score years, and most of those priests allegedly serving them, have neither been informed by nor obedient to the teachings of their Church, or of Her most recent Council. In the parlance of the sixties, they have “done their own thing.” They have offered the sacrifice of Cain.

There are three things that we know of from the Book of Genesis as regards the sacrifice of Cain: The first is that God will not bless it. This should be obvious. If we do not listen to the Spirit of God, or to do what it has to say, then how can God bless us? The Psalmist tells us, from the first to the last Psalm, that those are blessed who hear the word of God, who meditate upon it, and who do what it tells us. The Psalms also have some rather harsh things to say about those who do not listen, and who instead harden their hearts. I suggest reading Psalm 1, or Psalm 95, to see what God has to say here.

The second thing that we know from the Book of Genesis is that the error of the sacrifice of Cain is correctable. God told Cain, and through Cain, us, that if we did well, we would be rewarded, and if not, we would not be blessed. He thus gives us hope that if we were to listen to what God has to say, and to apply it to our worship and to our lives, that we can still obtain His blessing. I am happy to say that there are some who are now trying to bring the teachings of the Second Vatican Council for once into the worship of the Divine Liturgy in the West.

For priests in particular, and for those with the gifts for it, it is the simplest thing in the world to heal one’s ignorance. All that one needs is a little knowledge applied to one’s mind. For my part, later essays will attempt to give guides by which both priests and lay people can learn what needs to be known.

But the third thing that Genesis teaches us is that for those who persist in the sacrifice of Cain, sin lies in wait along the way, and that sin is twofold: the denial of God, and wrath for those who try to do His will. That wrath moved Cain to kill his brother, Abel. This wrath, which is the mark of Cain, is the surest sign that those bearing that mark have made the sacrifice of Cain. We see it now in the wrath which some display towards the advocates of the “hermeneutic of continuity”, or said more simply, those who wish to learn and to do the will of God.

Another "gentle critique" of the modern news media

2009-02-23T11:49:00.000-08:00

It would seem that the stable of whores who call themselves the modern news media, not being content with having trashed the name and the life of the governor of our northmost state, because of her temerity in running against The Chosen One, have decided to use the same tactics against the Holy Father as well.

We know the tactics well: look through every thing that the opponent has done, examine his or her trash, set investigators on every small detail of his or her life, and see what dirt you can find. If you cannot find any bad thing that one’s foe has done, then look to the foe’s family. Surely one can find a child born out of wedlock, or a charge of drunk driving in one’s spouse. Of course, it does not matter if the parents later wed, or if the spouse had been charged before the spouses married. Parade the shameful facts and declare the foe to be unfit for office, whether that office be the vice-presidency of the United States, or the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Of course, in the case of the Holy Father, it was a bit more difficult. Paparazzi and other poltroons find it hard to gain access to the Vatican. There are those little matters of the Swiss Guard while His Holiness is at home, or His diplomatic staff while He is abroad. It also does not help when faced with trying to find dirt on a man of the highest probity and privacy, as is certainly the case for the life of the man who, from priesthood to professorship to papacy, has shown himself in all things to be both a complex genius and a simple saint. It is even more difficult when His Holiness’ only close living relative is such a good and gentle man as His brother, Fr. Georg Ratzinger.

But, as all bad journalists know, when the going gets tough, the tough dig deeper. Look at every thing that the foe has done, every friend, every action, however minor. Look! The Pope has lifted the ban of excommunication on four bishops ordained by the schismatic, Archbishop LeFebvre. Let’s look at every single thing that these four men have said or written or done. Maybe we can find something we can use there.

And look! One of the four is a nutter who, in one of his sermons, questions whether the Holocaust ever happened. Let’s parade this out and repeat the shout: “The Pope is a Holocaust denier! The Pope is a Holocaust denier!”

Of course, it does not matter that His Holiness may have acted in a spirit of generosity to attempt to end a schism which had been plaguing the Roman Catholic Church for the last forty or so years. Nor does it matter that His Holiness has done much in support of modern Judaism and the state of Israel, and has roundly and repeatedly condemned ha-Shoah, that greatest of the evils of the Nazis. Nor does it even matter that His Holiness may not have known of the statements of this one idiot bishop, or that He acted immediately to condemn that statement once it had been brought to his attention. “To the guillotine! Off with his head!”

Now I can understand the motives of the secular press in acting as they have. Anti-Catholicism has long been known to be the one remaining “politically correct” bigotry. I suppose that it must be fun to trash someone whose positions one is in disagreement with; at least, this must be fun for the small minded.

Of course, the actions of the press in this and in so many other things, give repeated proof that they have long ago abandoned even their claim of impartiality and objectivity for what they actually stand for: partisanship and propaganda. Even the brightest stars of the Left have figured this one out. If you have any doubt of that, I suggest that you may want to read Edward S. Herman’s and Noam Chomsky’s excellent work, Manufacturing Consent.

In the words of the late H. G. Wells: “They have sold their birthright for a pot of message.” That sentence may well serve as an epitaph for the modern press. I can only take wry pleasure in the fact that the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and a score of other rags are quickly becoming as financially as they are morally bankrupt. With any luck, or if there is any justice, much of the electronic “news” media will soon follow suit. And there are some strong signs that that is in fact beginning to be the case.

What I can not understand is the reaction of a number of so-called Roman Catholics, who are joining in the present rush to judgment against His Holiness. In addition to being played for fools by the press, they are showing that they either do not know their own faith, or that they are unwilling or unable to practice it.

If I remember it right, one of the canons of the Second Ecumenical Counsel states that the Bishop of Rome is to be given the primacy of honor by all the faithful. I would think that “primacy of honor” would include such paltry matters as “giving the benefit of the doubt” or “presuming innocence until proven guilty” or “actually listening to what His Holiness has to say in the matter”. This is what even the glitterati of the press would call “a no-brainer”.

But I am given to understand that there are some RCs who seem to feel that the Second Vatican Counsel has abrogated all previous ecumenical councils. I should rather like to know where it is in the Council documents that such a momentous doctrine was published and promulgated. So far, I have been unable to find it anywhere in the documents of Vatican II, and I have read and looked long and hard. Be that as it may, if one looks at the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, or Lumen Gentium, at paragraph 25, one finds instead the following:

“. . .Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

I would personally think that this “religious submission of mind and will”, from the context given, would include such matters as actually listening to His Holiness, and giving Him the benefit of the doubt as regards his motives and intents in taking the actions that He has. Perhaps, though, such people as Fr. Hans Kung (who has been most vocal in the present foolishness) believe that there will be a Third Vatican Council, summoned by the People of God, which will abrogate all previous councils, including Vatican II, and will free that People from such retrograde “submission”. If so, I suggest that such people re-read Psalm II. You know, the one starting with “Why do the heathen rage?” God may have other things in mind.

Finally, I suspect that some RCs are of the mind that regardless of what they do, there is no law against what they are doing. If so, for those legalistic minds which can only understand laws and punishments, I would suggest that such people read Canon 1373 of the Code of Canon Law, which states that “One who publicly either stirs up hostilities or hatred among subjects against the Apostolic See or against an ordinary on account of some act of ecclesiastical power or ministry or incites subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or by other just penalties.”

In other words, folks, it’s not just Tradition, or Church Authority, or even just a good idea. It’s the law.

Now, I know that the canonists are not apt these days to construe Canon 1373 too strictly against those raising legitimate criticisms against Church leaders. Meaning no disrespect to His Holiness, who I believe has suffered unjustly from the above-mentioned media thugs, but it might be simple prudence these days, when trying to do good, to take some care to “vet” the people whom one is trying to help, if only to anticipate and avoid such pitfalls. After all, under the watchful eye of the media elites, no good deed goes unpunished.

In the same way, those who have offered useful critiques to the bishops who allowed child abuse to continue under their oversight, or those who have suggested that certain liturgical abuses have gone on for far too long, should not have to suffer for their critiques.

But when people say that the Pope, or any of his bishops, should be deposed, or should resign, because of simple mob rule, then I begin to think that those who call for such deposition, or resignation, out of simple justice, should themselves face the same accusers, and the same fate. I am tempted to say: “Where is Savanarola when you really need him?”

But I will not say that, or at least, not outside of quotes. Those great philosophers, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, have spoken truth when they said: “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” Nor should they. But our Lord has also said, “According to the measure that you measure out to others, it will be measured out to you.” For those who suggest, or demand, that the Pope be deposed because of some imagined imperfection, then I am sorely tempted to suggest the following: “May the same be done to you, according to your will.”

As for me, this uncharity of the unfaithful has tempted me to respond with such uncharity of my own that, as I am writing this on a Saturday night, I will go tomorrow to the Divine Liturgy, if God so permits me, and as per the counsel of the good Fr. Z, I shall pray, as I always do, for His Holiness, the Pope of Rome, for the priesthood, for the diaconate in Christ, and for all the clergy and people. And I will pray also:

Lord, have mercy.

Modern Roman Catholic Music: Still sucks

2008-11-29T11:10:00.000-08:00

Finally over my post election tristesse, I have decided to return to writing in my weblog. As usual, it is a case of reading the papers and reporting the facts.

It seems that Jeffrey Tucker, in a recent entry in that estimable web journal, The New Liturgical Movement, reports that while Musica Sacra has all sorts of free musical settings of ICEL texts, it is not permitted to publish them until for-profit publishers have geared up to ~~shill their swill~~, er, publish their own Haagen-Haas settings.

Ah, now I see.

I had actually thought for a time that my essays Why (Modern) Roman Catholic Music Sucks so Much and (Modern) Roman Catholic Music: Now Sucks Two-Thirds Less as well as those of the NLM and the Recovering Choir Director had actually had some effect in getting ICEL to modify its onerous and stupid policies concerning royalties.

I am relieved, in an odd way, to see that they are continuing their bureaucratic norm. In as many words, they are saying: "Why, of course, we will allow you to publish freeware liturgical music, but we will have to set the date when everyone will do it. And we will postpone that date, for as much as ten or so years, if necessary.

Of course, one should only expect this from a group that seems to worship, not the God, but the Dog in the manger.

Merry Christmas, all.

How I feel just now

2008-11-17T14:43:00.000-08:00

"Why yes, Bobby: any boy or girl can grow up to be slimed and slandered by elite media whores while they are running for President or Vice-President. But then, we have the best political system that money can buy."

An Historic Event

2008-10-20T11:06:00.000-07:00

The original purpose of this weblog was to speak of recent events from the point of view of an Eastern Christian. I would like this week to return to that original purpose. This last Saturday, I saw history being made. As usual, most of the usual suspects from the ~~fifth~~, er, fourth column were absent. Fortunately, EWTN was there to present, and hopefully, to record the event.

The event of which I speak took place in Rome, at St. Peter's, in the Sistine Chapel. There, at the invitation of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemew I addressed the assembled Synod of Roman Catholic Bishops. (The text of that address may be found here. In the event that I am able to find a YouTube or other video link, I will certainly put it up here.) As His All-Holiness remarked in His address, this was the first time in history that an Ecumenical Patriarch had been invited to address such a Synod. That alone would be saying something.

But there were three things that happened at His All-Holiness' address that have not happened in more than a millenium.

The first thing was that His All-Holiness, instead of simply reciting the Creed or a prayer together with His Holiness the Pope of Rome, initiated a prayer, in which He invoked the aid of the Holy Spirit to bless and to help the Synod of Bishops. That simply has not happened since the Schism of East and West.

The second thing was that His All-Holiness, in His written speech, addressed the assembled (Latin) bishops as "My brothers in Christ". Unless I am gravely mistaken, that has not happened since the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the last such council in which East and West spoke with one voice.

But the third thing that happened, which was not in the written speech, was that at that speech's end, His All-Holiness referred to His Holiness, Benedict XVI, as "My elder brother in Christ."

While I severely doubt that the Orthodox Churches would ever accept either Papal Infallibility or Jurisdiction as those terms are held among Roman Catholics, this would appear, at least to me, to be a first step between East and West in working toward an Orthodox understanding of papal primacy in synodicity. For more as regards this concept, I would suggest that the reader look here.

Whatever the ultimate result, history was made on that Saturday. I was happy that I was able to witness it.

Lady Palin and the Branchflower Report

2008-10-12T15:30:00.000-07:00

Well, I've decided to switch from economics to politics, at least for this week or so. It seems I'm needed to use my paltry knowledge of law to tell something like the truth about Lady Palin (with a tip of the hat to that genuine comedian and true reporter, Dennis Miller).

I've read the Branchflower Report, which may be found here, and after reading it, I now would like to read an Alaska State Ethics Report which actually follows Alaska law. Branchflower's report certainly did not.

I'm glad in passing to find that at least that Branchflower, the investigator who wrote the report, was able to find that Lady Palin was within her rights to fire the Administrator of Police, Mr. Monaghan. You see, Article 3, Section 25 of the Alaska Constitution states that all heads of Alaska's departments are to be hired by the Governor and are to serve as his or her pleasure. That basically means that Palin could hire and fire any one she pleased, with or without cause.

But I'm shocked, shocked to find that while Branchflower quotes a part of the law on Executive Ethics, he fails to quote, far less to act upon, any part of that law which would seem to me to exonerate Lady Palin.

You see, Branchflower, at pages 49 through 52 of his Report quotes from the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (Title 39, Chapter 52), and in particular, quotes from the first sentence of Section 110, subsection (a):

"The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

What I find surprising is that nowhere in his Report does Branchflower mention subsection (b) of that section, which I will quote in its entirety:

(b) Unethical conduct is prohibited, but there is no substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer's

(1) personal or financial interest in the matter is insignificant, or of a type that is possessed generally by the public or a large class of persons to which the public officer belongs; or

(2) action or influence would have insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter. (emphasis added)

Now I find this surprising because Branchflower goes out of his way to state that while Palin wanted to have Officer Wooten fired, and to have his administrative benefits cut off, she was unable to do that. It would seem clear to anyone reading the report that since Palin's actions had no effect on Officer Wooten's career, that Palin's actions had an "insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter", and thus did not constitute a substantial impropriety under Section 110(b)(2).

I also find Branchflower's report surprising because he goes out of his way to state that Palin wanted Officer Wooten fired, not only because Wooten was involved in a nasty divorce with Palin's sister, but because she had evidence that Wooten threatened to kill Palin's father, that Wooten had driven in a police vehicle with an open beer can, and that Wooten had committed other misdemeanors. It would seem to me that there was evidence by which Branchflower could find that Palin shared an interest with those members of the public (and I suspect they may be many) who would not want a police officer committing crimes under color of law or of his office. Thus, I think there was evidence that Palin's actions did not constitute a substantial impropriety under Section 110(b)(1).

Finally, I find surprising that Branchflower fails anywhere in his report to quote from subsection (c) of Section 110. I will quote it in its entirety:

(c) The attorney general, designated supervisors, hearing officers, and the personnel board must be guided by this section when issuing opinions and reaching decisions. (emphasis added)

It would seem to me that this subsection would apply to Branchflower as an appointed hearing officer, and that he should at the very least have quoted, and perhaps actually considered, this subsection before coming to his conclusions. I thus believe that under Alaska law, Branchflower has failed to follow a mandatory provision of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, and thus has come to both an invalid decision. I look forward to seeing a revised report which actually takes Alaska law in account. But I am not holding my breath.

Economics for Dummies, Part II

2008-10-06T15:11:00.000-07:00

Well, boys and girls, there have been a good number of questions raised about my last lecture. I shall do my best to answer them.

First, though, I would like to thank Darwin and his wife both for their kind comments, and for linking to my lecture, here. I would like all of you to know that I have known Darwin since he was a babe in his mother’s arms, and I have had the honor of being one of his teachers, in a very great hall. I am only sorry to say that I was the least among those who taught him; the greatest of those teachers began with Darwin’s father and mother. I am very proud to see that he has grown up to be a good and wise man, and that he has taken an equally good and wise lady as his wife. When I speak about boys and girls here, it is most surely NOT Darwin or Mrs. Darwin of whom I speak.

It seems that most of the questions raised are by a young Master Black Adder. They can be found here. Now while, as every good teacher knows, there are no dumb questions, it is a sad truth to say that one can phrase a good question in a very nasty and stupid way. One need only read the Gospels to see what I mean there. I would leave that as a word to the wise for young Master Adder.

That said, young Black Adder does raise some very good questions, which deserve good answers. Taking young Master Adder’s words for what I would hope that he meant, instead of what he said, I will try to answer.

Before every thing else, it seems that Black Adder asks whether one can explain complex matters in a simple way without being simple one’s self. I think that one can, and I know of at least three great men who have done so.

The first was a great scholar, by the name of C.S. Lewis, of whom I will be speaking again later, in my lectures on such things as "Modern Philosophy", "Modern Literature", "Medieval Literature", "Theology", and so on. Lewis thought that unless one could write simply about some thing that one knew, in very simple words, then one did not really know it at all, “not to the bitter, ruddy end,” as he put it. I think that his writings, from such grand topics as “etymology”, “mediaeval literature”, “modern fantasy and science fiction literature”, “Christian Trinitarian Theology”, “modern philosophy”, and many others, show that it can be done, and done well.

The second was a great writer and comic, called Mark Twain. While I could tell you any number of ways that Twain was able to write simply and well, I will give you only three: “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” is the first. Many people are trying now to write some thing called “The Great American Novel”. I’m sorry for those who are still trying, but Twain wrote it long ago, using only the words of a poor white trash kid. The second is that at a time when many “people” were talking about a thing called “Economic Determinism”, Twain explained it in the words of a poor young black slave (for those who are about to call me names, please note that this was back in the 1840’s): “You tell me where a fellow makes his corn pone, and I’ll tell you what his opinions are.” The third is this sentence: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

The third person who showed that one could write both simply and well about the most complex things was the late Doctor Richard Feynman. Feynman was one of those giants who put what we know about modern physics in the place that it now is, and explained it simply in two very good sets of books: Lectures in Physics, and Q.E.D.. The last of those books, by the way, boys and girls, was not the Latin for “thus it has been proved”, but explains some thing called” Quantum Electro-Dynamics”, which is much of the basis for what modern physics calls “The Standard Model”. Feynman does so, with skill and beauty, and with short words.

In short, dear young Black Adder, yes, I do think that one can write both simply and well about any subject. All that one needs to do this are two things: to know how to use words, and to know what one is talking about. I invite you to try, young Adder.

And no, Black Adder, I do not think that I am simple, though I have come to use simple words to speak my mind. The last time that I took the tests which measure what the many call “I.Q”, and what the few call “g”, I stood just a tad more than four sigmas to the right of that bell curve. Put a simpler way, at the age of 16, I was both smart enough to join Mensa, and wise enough to resign two months later, when I found what that scam was all about. I’ve gotten smarter and wiser since.

And now, dear boys and girls, since this is my second lecture on economics, I think it is now time to turn to the numbered questions of young Master Black Adder.

1. Do you equate the Market with the stock market?

No. I do think, though, that the agora, or market place, is a type for the study and actions of the market. In much the same way, the wise have viewed the City as a type for “Political Theory”, which is why we give it the name “Politics” (from the Greek word polis, or “city”). Further, the wise have found the old home (which often was the source of the farm and much of business until now) to be the type for what we call “micro-economics", which is why we give it that name, “ecos” or rather “oikos”, being the Greek word for “house” or “home”.

If I may put it an other way, those who study living things have long ago found that we can know more about the way that the human body has its structures and functions (which is a simpler way of putting such things as “anatomy” and “physiology”) if one first studies the structure and function of simpler creatures. In the same way, I think that one can better know or explain the functions and actions of a complex business system by starting first with the study of a simpler one.

2. Do you say that a recession is when the stock market goes down (so I guess that there was a recession on Monday, but it was over by Tuesday morning)?

Of course not, and I do not see how, young Black Adder, you could come to that thought from what I had written. I think that a fair and true reading of what I had said would be that if stocks have come to have far more than their real (or "fundamental") value, and if in a panic they lose that extra value, this is what is called a “market adjustment”. And if this happens to most or all of the stocks in a market, and for a long time, that is what is called a “recession.” I would advise you to pay more mind to what you read, young Master Adder.

3. Do you define a depression not in terms of the severity of an economic downturn, but in terms of its geography?

Again, no. And again, I think that that is neither a fair nor a true reading of what I had said. It is, alas, true that the experts do not all agree as to what a “depression” is, save that it is more severe than a “recession”. But just as I think it clear that a plague is more severe when it infects not just one country, but the whole world, so also is a “depression”, when it harms not only one nation’s markets, but all the markets of the world. That should be clear even to you, young Adder. It is a pity to say that that does not seem to be the case.

4. Do you say that it's dumb to try and figure out who to blame for a bubble only to proceed to blame Congress (despite having previously said that the problem was all the stupid people trading the bits of paper that weren't worth anything);

Again, the answer is no. And I think it clear from what I wrote that it is one thing to try to find out or prove how and why some thing has gone wrong, and quite another to use that knowledge to say that some one is bad, and should either be made to stand in the corner, or to be turned out of office. I think also that a fair reading of what I had said will show that I did the first thing, and not the second. I should think that even very small boys and girls know that and how these two things differ. It is again a pity that you do not seem to be able to do this, young Adder, or to read what I am saying.

5. Do you try to blame Congress for the housing bubble by obliquely referring to the Community Reinvestment Act? And is that really the case?

First of all, young Adder, do please read the answer above, where I repeat how the words “prove” and “blame” differ in meaning. That said, I will repeat what I said in my last lecture, that the main causes of the present mess seem to be the results of the wish of some in Congress to have people buy homes, even if they can’t afford them, added to the wish of some others to leave the Market alone, even if its actions should involve such things as theft and fraud.

Now if you want to know if what I have said is the case, all that I can say is that it seems to fit all of the facts, and it seems that both experts and newsmen agree that this is the case. One should be very leery of trusting something just because many say it, or just because experts say it. But when the facts, the experts and the many are all agreed on a thing, then the burden of proof tends to rest on those who would say other wise. That means you, young Adder. If you have other causes for the problem, I would suggest that you tell us of them. Simply laughing at those who say other wise just does not cut it, young Adder. And calling the opposing thesis names such as "an implausible scapegoat" without making one's case does not work well, either.

6) It seems that you do not explain why the bailout is a good idea, aside from saying that it's not socialism and that it's stupid to be against it.

For once, Black Adder, you have hit the mark. This one piece of gold makes dealing with the rest of your dross almost worth it. It is true that I did not explain why I think the bailout is a good idea in my last lecture, though I do not think that I really said in so many words that it would be stupid to be against the bailout. Again, young Adder, I think you should look to improve your reading.

Now, boys and girls, I did not explain why I thought the bail out was a good idea, for two reasons. The first was that I only had two hours to write my lecture down at the Public Library where I use the screen and keyboard there. You see, boys and girls, I have found it wise to limit the time that I go “on-line”, as you kids call it. I have found that one can do more, and read more, and think more, if one's world view does not begin or end on a CRT or plasma screen.

The second reason was that I do NOT think that the bail-out is a good idea. I do not like the bail-out on any of its terms. You see, boys and girls, I have long agreed with people with names like Smith and Hayek and von Mises, who thought that both Wall Street and Main Street do better when City Hall and Congress leave them alone. For as long a time, I have also thought that the ideas of people like Keynes or Samuelson are worth less than a hill of beans. From what I can see, it looks like both Black Adder and I are agreed on something.

I hate the idea, boys and girls, that Congress will spend hundreds of billions of OUR money on a course of action which will also bail-out many of the people on Wall Street who helped to cause this mess. I hate even more the idea that Congress will get the credit for taking care of something which it, that is, Congress, caused by its own actions. Last of all, I hate it that even in the best of all worlds, that money can not be used for much better reasons, such as lining the pockets of those who pay taxes, until the jokers who caused this mess are able to pay it back to us. And there is the real threat that we may never get it back at all.

No, boys and girls, I hate most of what the bail-out stands for. And I do not think that the bail-out is a good idea. I do think, boys and girls, that it is the only idea that I can think of that might work, and might keep us from going down the tubes to a very dark and stinking place, and one without a paddle to get us back out. If any of you boys and girls can think of anything that might work better, now is the time to speak of it.

What I do know is that Wall Street does not seem able to take care of it, and that we have had loads of history to show that if nothing is done there will be a run on most of the banks in the world. This means, boys and girls, that people will run to the banks, and will run with as much of their money as they can out banks, and will thus run most of the world's banks into the ground. And I fear this almost as much as I fear death. Be afraid, kids. Be very afraid.

7) It seems that you are saying things that are not so, such as that President Hoover didn't do anything about the stock market crash or buying into the whole tulip mania legend.

Let us take first things last. I think, young Adder, that if you were to read the essay you cite about the “tulip mania legend”, even those who pooh-pooh it agree that the facts show that there was a market in Holland for tulips (which were a Turkish import), that after a time, the price of tulips went far, far beyond their real value, and that after a time, too, that price dropped greatly.

While some of the claims made by Mackey and those who followed him may not have been strictly true, I think that they fall within the realm of that old Italian saying: “Non e vero, ma ben trovato,” which roughly means: “It may not be true, but it was well said.” This legend, as you call it, has been used by a number of writers in teaching others about the Market, from Mackey to Adam Smith (no, not the one whose name I took in vain in my last lecture, but the one who wrote The Money Game. Unless you would wish to try to debunk the work of those two good men as well, I would suggest that you drop it, young Adder.

And as regards former President Hoover, while it is true that in time he did try to do some thing about the Great Crash of ’29, it is also true that at the prompting of Secty. Mellon, (of the U.S. Treasury), he did nothing in the first ten months of the Crash, while nine HUNDRED banks failed. At that point, while he tried a number of things, they did not seem to work. Finally, he and Congress imposed a thing called the "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act", which just seems to have made things much worse. You must know, young Adder, that when one paints with a broad brush, it is hard to draw fine detail. But even you must know that doing nothing in time, or nothing for a long time, or nothing that works, or nothing that makes things better, translates very nicely into having “done nothing.” If you want to quibble about that, do so some where else. And I think that that answers all of the questions posed by the young Adder.

While it would be tempting to conclude that you do not know how to read, and even more tempting to suggest that you try working your way through this book,
I know as well, Blackadder (and for once I will stop taking your name in vain), that it is hard for any save the smartest and wisest to be able to read both clearly and well the work of some one with whom they do not agree. It may be that I have mis-judged you. It also may be that you have mis-judged me, or at least my lecture.

For my part, I will be happy to link my weblog to your's, if you allow it, as I find your writing there to be clear and good. I would also suggest that you may want to listen to the wise counsel of Elwood P. Dowd, which I have long tried (some times without success, alas), to follow: “My mother used to say to me, ‘Elwood’—she always called me Elwood—‘Elwood, in this world you must be oh-so clever, or oh-so pleasant.’ For years I was clever. I'd recommend pleasant—and you may quote me.”

Ballad of a Thin Man, Redux

2008-09-30T16:46:00.000-07:00

With most profound apologies to Robert Zimmerman

You walk into the room
With your pencil in your hand
You see somebody naked
And you say, "Who is that man?"
You try so hard
But you don't understand
Just what you'll say
When you get home

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister O?

You raise up your head
And you ask, "Is this where it is?"
And somebody points to you and says
"It's his"
And you say, "What's mine?"
And somebody else says, "Where what is?"
And you say, "Oh my God
Am I here all alone?"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister O?

You hand in your ticket
And you go watch the geek
Who immediately walks up to you
When he hears you speak
And says, "How does it feel
To be such a freak?"
And you say, "Impossible"
As he hands you a bone

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister O?

You have many contacts
Among the lumberjacks
To get you facts
When someone attacks your imagination
But nobody has any respect
Anyway they already expect you
To just give a check
To tax-deductible charity organizations

You've been with the reporters
And they've all liked your looks
With law professors you have
Discussed lepers and crooks
You've been through all of
Ralph Ellison's books
You're very well read
It's well known

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister O?

Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you
And then he kneels
He crosses himself
And then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice
He asks you how it feels
And he says, "Here is your throat back
Thanks for the loan"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister O?

Now you see this one-eyed midget
Shouting the word "NOW"
And you say, "For what reason?"
And he says, "How?"
And you say, "What does this mean?"
And he screams back, "You're a cow
Give me some ear-marks
Or else go home"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister O?

Well, you walk into the room
Like a camel and then you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose on the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin' around
You should be made
To wear I-Pod phones.

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister O?

Economics for Dummies

2008-09-29T15:09:00.000-07:00

Well, boys and girls, I suppose it is time to teach you all about Economics. You might ask what good it is to learn this, and I can tell you that this course will explain why your mommies and daddies are looking so scared these days, and why they keep changing the subject when you want to talk to them about getting your allowance for this week.

At any rate, it starts with something called the Market. Now this is not the place that you go at the end of the block to get eggs and milk or other things. No, this Market is a place where supposedly grown men and women buy and sell little pieces of paper which supposedly can be exchanged for things like gold and oil and land, or for companies that trade in those and other things.

Now it is not quite true that they are just buying and selling these little pieces of paper. They are betting that the value of these little pieces of paper will keep rising, so that they can sell these pieces of paper for other pieces of paper called "money", and for more money than they originally paid for them.

What happens occasionally, though, is that people in the Market sometimes pay a lot more for those little pieces of paper than the product which they are connected with are really worth. We won't be getting into the reasons why that happens in this course. We will be saving that for the course in Abnormal Psychology, when we talk about Mob Psychology. All that you need to know for right now is what Agent K said in the movie Men in Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb."

A couple of hundred years ago, economists started noticing dumb things like people willing to spend up to fifty-five thousand pieces of silver for a Holland tulip bulb. Last century it was a lot of people buying a lot more pieces of paper called "shares" than there were actually shares of a company.

When this happens, some people get kind of smart, and realize that they've bought a lot of vapor rather than substance. And then they also get kind of smart, and decide that they are going to sell their pieces of paper before others get wise as to the fact that those pieces of paper have no value. But then more and more people get really dumb, and decide that they will sell at any price, just so they can get a little back from what they paid for. When this happens to a stock or set of stocks, they call it a market adjustment. When it happens to a whole market, they call it a recession. And when it happens to all of the markets in the world, they call it a depression.

Now when you have a depression, what you have is a great number of depressed people. When you use the word "depressed" about peoples' psychology, it means that they are either unwilling or unable to feel or think or do much of anything. And when you use the word "depressed" economically, it means that they do not have either the capital or the will to do much of anything. And when you have a depression, it means all of those things at once, and for a long, long time, too. It is not a pretty picture, boys and girls. Believe me, you do not want to have a depression anywhere near your family or friends or country.

Unfortunately, boys and girls, that looks just like what we are about to have. Now when something this bad happens, a lot of really smart persons become just a bunch of dumb people. Let's try not to have this happen here with us, shall we, kids?

Now, one dumb thing that lots of dumb people do is to blame each other, rather than find out what has gone wrong, and why. And some smart people who have done dumb things blame others the most loudly, mostly to keep people from finding out what dumb things they have done.

It looks like that with Congress. Now, boys and girls, we won't be doing the lecture in Political Theory yet, in which we will learn a good number of things, including why Politics is not a science, and what Congress is good for, if anything. No, all that you really need to know is that since the word "pro" is the opposite of "con", that the opposite of Progress is Congress.

Seriously, though, a wise man long ago once noted that in any place where the many rule, they tend to vote for what they want, instead of what they need. That, and the fact that, as Agent K said, people are dumb, and that there are a lot of people in Congress.

Basically, boys and girls, the people in Congress wanted two things. The first thing that they, or at least some of them wanted, was for everyone in America to be able to buy and own a home of their own. The first one who wanted this to happen was a people (I know, Sally, that what I said was not grammatically correct, but he most definitely was not a person) named Senator Proxmire. Now as we all know, a Proxmire is a great bog in which anything living or useful gets mired down and dies. And the Senator was true to his name.

Senator Proxmire decided that it was so important that everyone be able to buy a house that he made it a policy that just about anyone could be loaned money to buy that house, whether they could afford it or not. The people who voted for this wanted it so much that they decided that they would not think about what could happen from this.

Now, the person who has been keeping this policy going is a "people" by the name of Congressman Barney. No, this fellow may be big and lumpy like Barney, and he may talk funny like Barney, and he may occasionally wear purple like Barney, but believe me, boys, you do not want to go sitting in his lap. I will explain later, when we have the course in "Abnormal Psychology", and discuss Human Sexuality and its variants, but for right now, just trust me, boys. You'll be glad you did.

Now what Congressman Barney did was perhaps something that a "people" would do, but it looks as though he meant well. It also looks as though some other people in Congress meant well, and they honestly believed in something called "trickle-down" economics, which seems to mean that things will get better if the rich make wee-wee on the poor. These people believed that if you just did not watch for any thing bad happening in the Market, nothing bad would ever happen.

But what happened is that a lot of people took out loans to pay for their homes, but did not have enough money to pay for those loans. And what also happened is that these bad loans got put together with a lot of other loans, and all these loans got attached to little pieces of paper, and the people in the Market bought and sold all of these little pieces of paper. And they started buying and selling these pieces of paper for much more than they were worth. I think that we know by now where this is leading, boys and girls.

This might have worked, as long as the price of land and the homes on them continued to rise. But at some point, just recently, even that price started to fall, and then to crash. Then a lot of "people" looked around, and found that they were in a game of Musical Chairs, the music had just stopped, and there were a lot fewer chairs than there were bottoms to sit on them.

Now that we know what is happening, the next thing for a smart person to do is to figure out what to do about it. The first thing that most "people" think to do is to do nothing. The last time that that was tried was by a President Hoover (who did not invent the vacuum cleaner, or anything useful like that. Remember what I said about depressions. President Hoover's decision brought on something called "The Great Depression". Only there was nothing great about it, except the suffering it caused. As the eminent philosopher, Rocket J. Squirrel, would say: "But that trick never works!"

Then there are some who think that we should get a lot of money from the government and have it buy up all of those bad loans, and for the government to own all of the buildings until such time that the people can buy them back. Some people have said, "But this is socialism!", and gotten everyone scared of that particular bogeyman.

Now, boys and girls, one of the ways, both in fairy tales and in real life, to destroy the power of a bogeyman is to find out its true name, or rather, what its name means. Now, the word "Socialism" means a system of government involving state ownership of all of the means of production. That means that the government owns all property and every way that some one can make money. It does not seem to me that the emergency purchase by the government of some land equals government ownership of all property. So much for "socialism".

As a matter of fact, there was a fellow by the name of Adam (no, not the father of mankind, but the father of Capitalism) who once said that government should be able to take care of dangers to the economy that individuals and the Market can not. This would seem to be one of those things that need taking care of, and which persons and the Market cannot. I believe that you kids call that one a "no-brainer."

But for those who are still afraid of government control (and, boys and girls, that is a real and honest fear), then why doesn't the Federal Government investigate the situation, and make judicious loans to businesses, until the price of land rises again and both the bad loans can be made good and the loans to the government paid back. Can you say "Bailout", boys and girls? I knew you could.

But the point of bailing out a leaky vessel is to do so before the ship founders and those in it drown. It looks like the world markets have lost half of their value which they had just three months ago. It also looks as though the market has just lost about six percent of its remaining value just today. Better start bailing, kiddies. Otherwise, I'd suggest that you get your allowance from your mommies and daddies Real Soon Now.

Blackstone's Commentaries of the Laws of England

2008-09-09T17:23:00.000-07:00

It is no secret to those who know me that I am guilty of having a law degree (Juris Doctor, that is). In the interest of the public good, I have recently decided to make use of the knowledge that I have rather painfully garnered to that end, in order to help laymen and laywomen to acquire a knowledge of the law.

Because of that interest, I have recently started Legal Secrets. In addition to having made an initial Manifesto, which I hope that you will read, I have also come to the conclusion that it would be reasonable to start this attempt at legal education with Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

I therefore invite you, the reader, to peruse the four sections of the Introduction to those Commentaries. They are:

Section One: On The Study of The Law.
Section Two: Of the Nature of Laws in General.
Section Three: Of the Laws of England.
Section Four: Of the Countries Subject to the Laws of England.

I hope to edit and publish a chapter of Blackstone's a day until the whole text is online and available to you. At that point, I will be editing and updating this text, with the working title of Brandt on the Common Law.

Enjoy.

A New Hope

2008-09-05T16:21:00.000-07:00

For us Easterners (Orthodox and Byzantine, that is), September 1 constitutes the Liturgical and actual new year. It is both the time of the barley harvest (an important feast for Europeans) and it is the Byzantine regularization into a solar calendar of the Jewish Lunar Feast of Rosh Ha Shanna, or the Jewish New Year. This is thought by Orthodox (both Jewish and Eastern Christian alike), to be the commemmoration of the first Day, in which God said, Let there be light.

It is thus a time of harvest, and of new beginnings. At any rate, I always felt so, in my heart of hearts, long before I turned my eyes Eastwards.

It is also a time of new resolution. Because of my difficulties, I have failed to post much in the last couple of years or so. I resolve that as of now, that will change.

I also resolve to post much more in my other two weblogs, Legal Secrets, and Abbe Faria's Cell. To that end, I have begun, as I have promised, to put an updated version of Blackstones Commentaries of the Laws of England, as the first step towards providing a treatise for the legal education of laymen and women. I invite you to read it.

Watch this space.

The Entertainment Value of the Nightly News

2008-09-03T17:06:00.000-07:00

It seems that when the Romans changed from the Republic to the Empire, around the time that Christ was born, they kept the people quiet by providing them with food and entertainment. Panes et circenses was what they called it back then: Bread and Circuses.

By circuses, they did not mean Le Cirque du Soleil, although that was a part of what was going on back then. It referred more to the large circular building which housed their entertainment. Among the Greeks, the circle was the amphitheatre, a big circle with one side devoted to the seats, while the other side was the stage in which those who sat in the seats were entertained. But among the Romans, the circle consisted of the seats surrounding the central stage. One of the best examples of that type of structure was the Coliseum of Rome.

The Greeks would have dramas and comedies, with an occasional bit of baudy of the Satyr-plays thrown in for comic relief. I’m told that one of the few examples we have of this is that an average evening would start with, say, a drama of Helen of Troy just before Troy’s fall. Then there would be a Satyr-play, in which a number of young men dressed only in furry chaps and long leather dildos strapped in the appropriate places would prance about the stage and discuss gang raping Helen. Then there would be a comedy, maybe one including the antics which happened when Agamemnon returned home from the Trojan wars with his trophy bride, Cassandra, only to find that his first wife, Clytemnestra, had already found a boy toy of her own. I’m also told that Cassandra had the last word: “I told you so.” But no one was listening.

Among the less cultured Romans, things were a bit simpler: they would have entertainments including dancers and acrobats. Then they would have sports, including boxing, horse races, and teams battling one another. Then they would end the evening with a comedy of a brainless rich family taken care of by a smart slave. As a matter of fact, this sort of comedy was updated and turned into the Broadway play and movie A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. Modern examples of this sort of comedy can be found in such sitcoms as The Nanny, The King of Queens, Everyone Loves Raymond, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Because the ancient Roman comedy so perfectly matched the modern sitcom, I decided to see whether there might be other matches between the past of bread and circuses and the present of rebates and TV. And behold: I found that there was an exact match. For the upper classes, there are PBS, Discovery, Biography and BBC America. For the lower classes, there are VH1, MTV, Spike, and what used to be called The Big Three. And for those who favor the modern equivalent of the satyr-play, there is Pay-Per-View.

There was, however, one little known aspect of the ancient Greek and Roman drama which I at first thought had no modern analogue. There was a stand up comic, who sat in the seats among the people, whose job was to take attention away from the main stage when the real actors, dancers and athletes were setting up for the next event. This stand-up comic was called the Hypocrite.

The Hypocrite’s job was quite simple, and quite effective: He would draw the laughter and scorn of the people in the seats by ostentatiously condemning them for doing the same things that he himself was doing. “You know,” bawled the Hypocrite, “I really hate it when people yell during intermission!!!. And I hate it even more when people are drinking wine in the seats (glug-glug-glug). And most of all, I hate it when people drop their bottles and let them roll into other seats (clank!, bounce-bounce-bounce).”

Now, we’ve seen occasional examples of this sort of thing among the so-called religious on television, and it is vastly amusing when it happens. The most amusing example of this in recent years was the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart, who on his television show was condemning the sinful, including such ”sinners” as Mother Teresa, even during the time that it was becoming more and more evident that he was engaging in acts which made even the real sinful blush, or to look on in admiration for his audacity.

Then I suddenly realized that there was an exact parallel with the Hypocrite and modern examples. It was the nightly newscasters and the political commentators. Here are a group of people whose supposed education is vaunted as teaching them to be objective presenters of the news; people who will go out of their way to give an impartial, accurate, and complete view of the world around them, and who will give equal time to all important views. What a laugh, when this ideal is compared with what they actually do!

One of the most amusing examples of this sort of humor can be found in the way that most newscasters decided to keep quiet about the peccadillos of Senator John Edwards of the Eeyore Party. It seems that Mr. Edwards, while he was so supposedly solicitous about his wife of many years, who was suffering from cancer, had been having a long term affair with one of his employees, and had been paying this woman considerable sums of money, either to keep her quiet, or to help support the child which he had fathered upon her.

We only learned about Edwards because one tabloid journalist kept investigating the matter until finally he caught Edwards in a hotel with this woman. And it seems that the rest of the press, while they knew what was happening, said and did nothing, because Edwards was first a presidential candidate, and then a possible vice-presidential candidate, and the press considered this to be “just a family matter.”

Of course, when Governor Palin of Alaska was announced as the Heffalump Party’s vice-presidential candidate, it took the press no time at all to reveal that Palin’s daughter was pregnant, to insinuate (falsely, it appears) that Palin’s fifth child was actually her daughter’s first, and to bring up the fact that Palin’s husband had twenty years ago had had a DUI, among the many other things which have been revealed in the last four days. Did the press once stop because all of these things neither concerned Palin directly, and until recently, were also considered to be “family matters”? What equanimity. What impartiality. What decency to Palin’s family. What a laugh!

And then there’s the fact that for the last sixteen years, the Eeyore party has been turning out presidential candidates weak on foreign policy experience. First there was former Bill Clinton, who proclaimed himself as a “domestic policy first” president, who had no knowledge of foreign policy as an Arkansas governor, and who slept through foreign policy briefings both during his candidacy and the first four years of his presidency. Then there was Al Gore, who was the classic example of Dr. Johnson’s withering rebuke: “There is a man who has but one idea, and that a wrong one!”

And then there was John Kerry, who as member of the Senate Intelligence Committee missed nine-tenths of its meetings, apparently read none of its findings, and followed Bill Clinton’s example in avoiding any briefing on intelligence reports and foreign policy during his candidacy. Finally, there is Barack Obama, whose foreign policy experience appears to consist of giving a speech four years ago and campaigning in this country, with one junket to the Mid-East and Europe about a month or so ago. Did our impartial press raise any outcry about these matters as disqualifications for any of these presidential candidates? Not to my memory.

But when Governor Palin, who has had more executive experience than any of the other three candidates combined, who is the governor of a state whose nearest neighbors include Russia, China, Korea and Canada, and whose state averages four billion dollars a year in trade to twenty nations, including the four named above, is chosen as vice-presidential candidate, do our impartial press and political commentators possibly give the benefit of the doubt to this experience? Do they consider that the vice-presidency has always been a world-class foreign policy apprenticeship, or that Governor Palin appears to be a quick study? Again, it is to laugh.

And finally, the press appeared to have debated among itself, during the contest between Obama and Clinton, and decided that yes, Ms. Clinton deserved to be treated as a legitimate candidate, and that this was supposedly no place for sexist characterizations. Has any of that slack been given to Governor Palin? That’s the funniest thing yet!

But the most amusing thing of all, other than that the press still considers itself to be journalists and not comedians, is that its members appear to be clueless as to why readership of newspapers or viewership of television news programs are declining so precipitiously. That is for two reasons: 1) any one who wishes to know what is actually happening is going straight to Reuters, Lexis/Nexis or is reading the (free) online foreign and domestic newspapers, and otherwise bypassing paying the press entirely, either through subscriptions or via advertising; and 2) as comedians, the newscasters and commentators really aren’t all that entertaining.

A number of years ago, the comedian Will Rogers solemnly announced that he was in fact a journalist: he “just read the papers and reported the news.” I find that I can do the same thing, simply by pointing out what American journalists preach and what they actually do.

And that is the funniest thing of all!

(Modern) Roman Catholic Music: Now Sucks Two-Thirds Less

2008-08-31T14:20:00.000-07:00

For those who have read my previous post, Why (Modern) Roman Catholic Music Sucks So Much, I am happy to inform you that two of the three causes for its sucking so much have now been removed.

To summarize that post, I said that the three reasons were (1) That ICEL had had a policy of prohibiting people from posting its translations online; (2) That ICEL had had a policy of preventing people from using ICEL texts without paying royalties; and (3) That ICEL's contractual and royalty requirements were so onerous as to prevent any composer from thinking seriously about using those texts for any music which he or she should wish to publish for pay.

It appears that the first two reasons have been recently eliminated by ICEL. The New Liturgical Movement has recently reported that ICEL has graciously decided to change its internet policy to permit web sites to have copies of ICEL texts online. It has further decided to allow people to publish musical settings of ICEL texts without restrictions, as long as they do not charge for those texts. I believe that the members of ICEL are to be commended for these forward-thinking policies.

Now, if only ICEL would make provision to reduce its royalty requirements from ten to eleven percent to five percent or less for those wishing to make for-purchase musical compositions, and would eliminate the expropriative restrictions from its sample contract for such composers, Modern Roman Catholic Music would be likely not to suck at all.

And, to put a plug in for three Roman Catholic Musical and Liturgical websites which definitely DO NOT suck, may I recommend MusicaSacra, The New Liturgical Movement, and Confessions of a Recovering Choir Director. Between the three of them, they give materials whereby RC choir directors, singers and priests can provide RC churches with decent (as in "fitting") music for liturgy. They give me hope that someday, modern Roman Catholic music may not suck at all.

The Bandarlog Political Convention

2008-08-26T17:40:00.000-07:00

Not to rain on your parade, chaps, but as Jerry Pournelle has just remarked, the first most liberal U.S. Senator has just nominated the third most liberal Senator as his V.P. running-mate. My uncle Joe taught me a long time ago that in choosing U.S. presidents, the American people have routinely picked those who appear to be more of the center. Is it just me, or are you guyz smoking something that you rolled yourselves? Or is it just that you are not collectively old enough to remember McGovern?

Further, that supposed presidential candidate has just alienated between one-third and one-half of his own electoral base by not choosing the second most liberal Senator as his running mate. While it is to be admitted that while The Chosen Child was wise enough not to turn the White House into a ménage à trois, with Bill and Hillary as the other points on that particular triangle, The Child so far has not shown himself wise enough to provide some sort of sop sufficient to overcome the problems raised thereby. Have you guyz ever heard the phrase, "Hell hath no fury. . ."?

And maybe it is just me, but I just heard on the ~~Democratic propaganda machine~~, er, the nightly news that The Child has made the political promise to provide each and every American child with a "world-class education" from kindergarden to graduate school. Have you crunched the numbers for that one yet? Have you any idea how much that will cost? Or who will pay for it?

I have come to the conclusion that this must be the political convention of the Banderlog, those amiable, brainless critters from Kipling's classic, The Jungle Book, who will forever sing:

Here we sit in a branchy row,
Thinking of beautiful things we know;
Dreaming of deeds that we mean to do,
All complete, in a minute or two--
Something noble and wise and good,
Done by merely wishing we could.

To paraphrase Monty Python & the Holy Grail: "I puke in your general direction."

The only problem is that I am terribly afraid that the ~~Eeyore~~, er, Republican Convention will be even more ludicrous.

A Few Languages among Friends

2008-08-21T13:03:00.000-07:00

My friend and fellow weblogista Darwin has put out a request for information as regards suggestions for learning languages such as Greek, Arabic, Russian/Slavonic, and Persian. I started to write this as a comment for his entry, but the answer got sufficiently large that I decided to put it on my weblog, and to put a link on his comments page. Here is what came up:

Golly, gee, guyz: I kinda thought that what Darwin was asking for in the above entry was input as regards what textbooks to buy or obtain that would help him to learn Greek, Arabic, Russian and Persian, rather than a lot of gassing about peoples' favorite languages, numbers of genders, etc.

Silly me.

Of course, going on the assumption that that was what he was asking help with, I may have some answers.

Greek:

Why buy Pharr's Homeric Greek, when you can get it as a free pdf from www.textkit.com? In fact, why buy the Reading Course in Homeric Greek when you can get free pdf files of Seymour's Introduction to the Language and Verse of Homer, Minckwitz' Book Twelve of the Odyssey in Greek, Clapp's The Iliad, books XIX-XXIV, and Perrin's The Odyssey, books V-VIII? You can find those, and a whole lot more, here.

Just as an aside, you can get whole loads of free pdfs of Latin texts by going here.

One additional thing: I have noted that consummate classics scholars (of the caliber of Prof. Peter Green or Bishop Kallistos Ware) can shift effortlessly from quoting Classical Greek in the pronunciations handed down by Erasmus and by the 20th century Cambridge scholars, to speaking flawlessly in modern Greek. If you want to go the extra mile, a good (and free) course of Modern Greek can be found here. Basically, it is the three volume set put out by the Foreign Service Institute. www.fsi-language-courses.com has ripped the pdf and mp3 files of that, and a whole lot of other languages as well.

Of course, when you get your Latin and Greek tuned up and out of the body shop, and have driven it around the block a few times, you might want to take it out on the open road. To do that on the cheap, may I recommend visiting Mischa Hooker's Classics website? Prof. Hooker has done the immense kindness of putting links up to Google Books' vast collection of public domain works on Latin Literature, Greek Literature, Bible-Judaism-Christianity, and Classical Scholarship. With just a few clicks, you can have access to most if not all of the Latin and Greek literary corpus, as well as whole bunches of texts in Judeo-Christian scholarship. For me, the pick of the litter of the latter is most of Migne's Patrilogia Latine et Graecae. All free of charge.

Arabic:

You can find online one of the most simply presented and informative precis of the Arabic language here. In addition to providing access to a number of free online courses, it also provides links to a large number of textbooks which one can purchase. Of the bunch, I have found David Cowan's Introduction to Modern Literary Arabic to be the simplest, most straight forward, and most effective introduction to both the classical and the modern literary languages. If you work your way through that, you will have the foundation and structure for Classical and Modern Arabic. If you then go on to Wright's Grammar of the Arabic Language, there will be little to throw you as regards the written Arabic language, classical or modern.

An important point though, which www.al-bab.com above makes, is that Arabic is both a unified literary language, and a set of fourteen or so almost mutually unintelligible dialects. Of the bunch, the Egyptian, Levantine, and Saudi dialects can usually be understood by most Arab speakers, particularly the Hijazi dialect of Saudi Arabia. Hijazi has the advantage that it is the language spoken in Jidda, Mecca and Medina, is spoken by most Saudi government officials, and has many borrowings from the Egyptian, Jordanian and Levantine dialects.

Fortunately for you, FSI-Language-Courses has a free online FSI text and audio for Hijazi Arabic and for Levantine Arabic pronunciation, as well as texts on the differences between Levantine and Egyptian dialects, and between Egyptian and Western African Arabic dialects, together with a text on the Classical Arabic writing system. With the lot of them, you would have the foundation for speaking with most modern arab speakers. You might also want to listen to the various online Arabic radio and television programs, starting with the infamous www.al-jazeera.com (or however it actually appears when you google it). You can find all of the above-mentioned texts and sound files here.

Russian/Slavonic

I would like to point out that the two languages above are considerably different from one another, say like the difference between Old Norse and Modern English. Nonetheless, as at least one commenter to your entry has noted, there is a lot of interconnect between various Slavic languages. I'd suggest starting with Russian, and then going on to Slavonic.

Russian:

Alas, www.fsi-language-courses.com has only a textbook and no sound files yet for its Russian course. Pity, but they've been known to find and put them up if and when they've found free versions.

On the other hand, www.freelanguagecourses.com has a free text and sound files for the Princeton University Russian course. It may be found here.

Slavonic:

There used to be an awful lot more available for learning Slavonic on the internet. www.justin.zamora.com was particularly replete with online grammars and lexicons. Alas, no more. The nearest I can now find is this website. There are some "notes" which are almost worthy of being called a grammar. I'll keep looking, however, and if I find more, I shall certainly let you know.

Persian/Farsi:

I'm terribly afraid that you're on your own on this one. However, four out of five is not bad, you must admit.

I hope this will be of some help to you.

Why (Modern) Roman Catholic Music Sucks so Much

2008-08-15T14:42:00.000-07:00

Now that I have got your attention, I will attempt to answer the question posed above.

At first, I simply thought that it was simply because the texts which have been translated into English were so poorly translated. After all, our Lord said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. And it was Mark Twain who said that a camel was a horse created by a committee. It is an obvious conclusion (at least to those who have drunk enough) that it is easier for a text written by committee to express the will of the Holy Spirit (other, of course, than an ecumenical counsel which specifically requested the aid of that Spirit) than it is for a rich person to enter into heaven. Or something like that.

Since the ICEL is one of the most uninspired and uninspiring committees that I have observed in the existence of recorded history, I thought that that was sufficient to explain the phenomenon. When both the eminent Fathers Zuhlsdorf and O'Leary are agreed on something, it must be beyond dispute.

Nonetheless, it would appear that other than some of the lamest translation into English that I have ever seen since the Norton Anthology of English Literature, there may be another reason besides the ICEL translations why Modern Roman Catholic Music sucks so much.

I mean to say, after all, we do have a number of good composers of liturgical music up and about these days. Henrik Gorecki is doing a capable job, as are Arvo Part, Ivan Moody, Sergei Glagolev, and even Sir John Tavener. The point is that all of them are Orthodox, and not Roman Catholic, composers.

However, all of these composers have two things going for them. The first is that they have decent translations to work with. Gorecki is working with Latin, Part is working with Slavonic, and the others are working with decent translations into English, Spanish and Portuguese. Even Sir John Tavener is working with the mock Elizabethan of the late Isobel Hapgood, which is better by far than anything that ICEL could muster.

But there is another factor. Everyone except ICEL puts their texts online, and allows you to use their texts without a hefty demand for royalties. Try googling liturgical texts for the Book of Common Prayer, or the Orthodox Church in America, or the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America. Hell, try accessing the Southern Baptists or the Presbyterians. No difficulty, and no problem.

Then try finding any online texts for ICEL. Good luck. Or perhaps I should say, fat chance. Some good people have attempted to put ICEL texts online so that people could actually see what they said (or more to the point, did not say.) In each case, the minions of ICEL acted to make them take those texts off the internet. How transparent. How communicative. How helpful.

But the real killer is what the ICEL charges in royalties. I took the opportunity to access the ICEL's statement on copyright, which includes their sample contract, which they impose on anyone so foolish to attempt to use their texts in a liturgical setting. Basically, if you were to use ICEL texts exclusively for a musical setting, ICEL charges between 10% and 11% of the price of the text as their share of royalties.

I will beg to point out that the standard in which most choral music publishers give to composers is 10 percent. In other words, if a composer were so foolish as to use an ICEL text for his or her work, all of the royalties would go to ICEL, instead of the composer. Is it any wonder why composers are somewhat less than willing to use ICEL texts?

But wait: it gets even better. The Sample Contract (which is on and after page 20 of the PDF text) states in Section 7 of the Contract that if anyone fails to pay royalties on the disputed text, that they forfeit all rights under the contract. In short, that means that all rights to their work goes to ICEL. How Christian. How generous of them.

But wait, there's more: Under section 9 of the Sample Contract, in the event that the Publisher fails to keep the publication in print, the contract is void, and ICEL gets all rights in the work. Oh, yes, and under section 16 of the Sample Contract, in the event that the publisher becomes insolvent or bankrupt, all rights revert to ICEL as well.

I don't know about you, but it looks as though ICEL's prophetic leadership strongly resembles the Gospel according to Geffen.

And I don't know about you, but it would appear to me that any composer of choral music with an IQ above room temperature is likely to tell ICEL where they can pound sand. I would not blame them.

And for the author of the estimable blog, Do Geese See God, I would have to tell him that, for the foregoing reasons, I doubt that he will see good musical settings of the propers of the English Novus Ordo anytime soon. I am terribly sorry about that.

A new weblog

2008-07-07T16:21:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers:

I have decided to start a new weblog devoted to law. It is called Legal Secrets. I invite my regular readers to take a look at it.

A comment in the box

2008-05-13T18:44:00.000-07:00

The New Liturgical Movement, a weblog that I read regularly, has made a recent entry that I find fascinating, Saving the 1962 Missal from 1962. I recommend that you read it.

I am afraid, though, that I was impelled to add something to its comment box. I provide the whole entry below:

I am almost humbled enough at the prospect of following up after the excellent writings of Father Peter Stravinskas and Father Deacon David Kennedy that I would be prevented from adding anything.

Almost.

I have but four things to add to the discussion at hand:

1. It is important to note that since at least 1987, canon law has mandated that we as Catholics have the right to have the liturgical services served as directed by and in the liturgical law. This weblog (among many others) has noted that by and large, that has not been done, for the last 40 years. Whether consciously or not, many of the faithful have responded to this denial of their rights with the feeling that they have been betrayed, and have responded in rage. I would suggest that, until and unless this denial of rights under canon law is addressed and corrected, those expressions of rage will continue.

2. For those who are living in rage, I would remind you that you are holding fast to Wrath, one of the Seven Deadly Sins. It will kill you if you let it, in this life and the next. I would suggest prayer and fasting to begin with, forgiveness of those who have betrayed you as the next step, and finding and praying in a Catholic church which serves the Divine Liturgy as faithfully as possible, in order to heal the wounds which have been inflicted on you.

3. For those who have been saying in effect that "Well, pre-Vatican II church life was no picnic, either", I would have to answer (in the words of Douglas Adams) that this is true, but unhelpful. As this weblog and its editors have noted, Vatican II mandated that in any gathering of the liturgy, Gregorian Chant was to be given pride of place, that the treasury of sacred polyphony was to be preserved, and that the modern hymns of the people were to be encouraged. This has not been done, and it has been one of the many failures of those whose duty it was to implement the reforms of Vatican II. Do stop trying to shift blame.

4. As noted above, we were supposed to have chant, polyphony, and modern hymns in the Divine Liturgy in order to fulfill the mandate of Vatican II. Those who prefer Gregorian chant alone, or Sacred Polyphony alone, attempt to mandate their preferences, and prevent other music from being served and sung, would be as unfaithful to the dictates of Vatican II as those who have inflicted on us a diet of Haagan-Haas corporate rock for the last 40 years.

And now I shall duck for cover.

Do please wait a minute. . .

2008-04-26T16:04:00.000-07:00

These days, I seldom get access to the Web. That is because for the last three years, I have either been unemployed or massively under-employed. As a result, the only time that I am able to get access to the web are when I go to the local library, or when I visit my mother and my brother (who is living with her).

As a secondary result, I seldom post on my weblog here. I would rather use the time to read from the wealth of information which is available on the 'net. I thus seldom see the need to put my oar into the discussion. On those occasions when I do, I will usually infest the comment boxes of other peoples' weblogs.

There is, however, one occasion when I see the need to point out additional ideas to someone who obviously has not thought things through. In this case, alas, such a case has happened to one whom I regularly both read and generally respect, the Reverend Konicki, of the estimable Deacon's Blog.

The reverend Deacon, it seems, has taken great exception to something said by Senator Clinton in a debate with the other contender to the throne of the Eeyore Party. Apparently, Mrs. Evil said to Mr. Inexperienced that in the event that Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel, and if she were President, she would in turn nuke Iran.

The good Reverend has pointed out very reasonable concerns about such an action, such as that there are 70 million people in Iran, and that this would be a great number of people to snuff, and a whole lot of collateral damage. Why, if one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day, just think of what ten to twenty of those little puppies would do. I mean, there'll be fallout everywhere. What a mess.

While I am perhaps making a bit light of the good Reverend Konicki's concerns, my irony, and my ire, is raised a bit by one paragraph in his posting above. That is, where he says:

For my part, let Israel take care of itself. Israel has nuclear weapons, and tons of military hardware provided by this country. Why should we get involved. Are we, as a county, so bent on defending a foreign land that we would initiate a nuclear holocaust on their behalf?

I would suggest, for reasons which I believe may become obvious, that it might not be a wise idea simply to let Israel take care of itself.

You see, Israel has a nice, understated little doctrine called the Samson Option. That Option, briefly stated, is that in the event that an Arab nation or Iran uses nuclear weapons against Israel, Israel in turn will use its nuclear arsenal to turn every Arab or Islamic nation, including Iran, into a glow-in-the-dark, over-heated parking lot.

Since it is estimated that Israel currently has between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons, and since that nation has a full complement of fighter jets, missiles, and submarines, it would appear obvious that Israel would have the means and opportunity to carry out its ~~threat~~, er, doctrine. As regards motive, may I suggest that even those, like Ahmadinijad, who appear to deny ha-Shoah, might consider that after 1945, the Israelis are justifiably testy about people who want to wipe them off the face of the earth.

I do not doubt that if Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Jerusalem were nuked, the Israelis would implement the Samson Option in a New York minute. Mrs. Evil's comments therefore should not be seen as inhuman, but more as a case of "too little, too late."

Of course, the consequences of the Samson Option would be around a billion Muslims dead, about fourteen nations of Africa and Asia shattered, and the sequelae of 200 to 400 nuclear weapons detonated in a four or so thousand mile stretch near the equator. I leave imagining the consequences of such a detonation as an exercise for the student. Needless to say, it would be even less pretty than the one that the good Reverend Konicki sets forth.

The choices that appear to be set before us are these:

1) We can continue to do nothing while Iran and Syria are seeking to obtain nuclear weapons, and "leave everything to Israel", as the Reverend Konicki suggests, or to bomb the snot out of the offending country afterwards, as Mrs. Evil suggests. I would offer the thought that for the reasons expressed above, the results would be less than optimal.

2) We can attempt to disarm Israel. As they appear to have had nuclear weapons for the last thirty or so years, and most probably have a great number of them by now, I would suggest that the probabilities of achieving this choice would be a trifle obese. In other words: fat chance. And finally,

3) We can continue our policy of intervention in countries which threaten both to develop nuclear weapons and to use them against Israel.

This last would seem to me to be the most reasonable. Of course, the only one who suggests this policy is Senator Country Club of the Heffalump Party. Which is why, after pinning my nose with a clothespin, I will probably vote for him come November.

Contre qui, rose?

2008-04-13T16:47:00.000-07:00

Contre qui, rose,
avez-vous adopté
ces épines?
Votre joie trop fine
vous a-t-elle forcée
de devenir cette chose armée?

Mais de qui vous protège
cette arme exagérée?
Combien d'ennemis vous ai-je
enlevés
qui ne la craignaient point?
Au contraire, d'été en automne,
vous blessez les soins
qu'on vous donne.

--Rainer Maria Rilke

Against whom, O rose,
have you now taken up
all these thorns?
Has your quiet joy
driven you, alas,
to now become this arméd thing?

But from whom are you protected
by this timid show of force?
How many foes have I removed from you
who never feared your thorns?
Ah, but no, from spring to fall,
you have torn the ones
who do you good.

--Tr. Bernard Brandt

Drudgery

2008-03-07T12:38:00.000-08:00

Sorry that I have not kept up, as I have promised to, but as that great philosopher, John Lennon, once said: "Life is what happens when you have made other plans." And he certainly should know.

However, one bit of housework needed to be done, especially after the Drudge Report managed to "out" a true hero, Prince Harry, after he had been in Afghanistan for about ten weeks or so. It is certainly the case that Drudge may publish what he wishes, as the United States, alas, appears to have no equivalent to Great Britain's Official Secrets Act.

I however can also do as I wish. I recall from one of my favorite movies, The Quiet Man that one of the antagonist in it said, "Write down his name and then strike a line through it." That is just what I have done in my weblinks section, and that will be the last time that I will ever read, refer to, advertise for, or otherwise have any dealings with that wretched blog.

I would suggest that good people do likewise.

In the meantime. . .

2008-01-14T15:53:00.000-08:00

I was going to start posting, but it appears that I have just become gainfully employed after a considerable hiatus. It also appears that I have a lot of work to do. And that, following my usual policy regarding work and weblogs, is just about all that I will have to say on the subject.

Nonetheless, in the course of my peregrinations, I have found that an old friend, Pontifications, written by the redoubtable Fr. Al Kimel, which I thought had stopped posting altogether, is now up again, here.

Welcome back, Fr. Kimel, Welcome back.

More later.

Once more into the frey, dear friends. . .

2008-01-07T10:20:00.000-08:00

After a considerable space of time, I have decided to return to the (we)blogosphere. I hope to have somethings to post soon, both on this and my other weblog. More later.

You have GOT to see this!

2007-08-12T18:35:00.000-07:00

For those interested, this is a Eastern European rock group called the Leningrad Cowboys, singing with the Red Army Choir.

Courtesy of Jerry Pournelle.

I have only three words for the last Harry Potter book

2007-07-24T08:39:00.001-07:00

Monumental. Cathartic. Satisfying.

Happy Harry Potter Day!

2007-07-21T12:58:00.000-07:00

Just a brief squib (sorry, no offense meant!):

I reserved my copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows a couple of months ago. I decided against going to the Midnight Event, and it turns out that I was wise to have avoided it: I was told by one who was in line this morning (out of the twenty or so there) that he had waited for three hours, only to be told, like many others, that the store was closing and that they would have to come back the next day.

The only spoiler I plan on giving is that the book is 750 pages long. So far, I have gotten to page 220. The rest of the day will be spent, however, at the wedding of one of my favorite nephews in Malibu. Other than that, I plan on dropping off the face of the planet and reading the rest.

And thank you, Joanne Rowling, for introducing so many of us Muggles to this world, and getting so many kids reading again.

The Declaration of Independence--An update

2007-07-04T15:17:00.000-07:00

WHEN THINGS get so balled up that the people of a country got to cut loose from some other country, and go it on their own hook, without asking no permission from nobody, excepting maybe God Almighty, then they ought to let everybody know why they done it, so that everybody can see they are not trying to put nothing over on nobody.

All we got to say on this proposition is this: first, me and you is as good as anybody else, and maybe a damn sight better; second, nobody ain't got no right to take away none of our rights; third, every man has got a right to live, to come and go as he pleases, and to have a good time whichever way he likes, so long as he don't interfere with nobody else. That any government that don't give a man them rights ain't worth a damn; also, people ought to choose the kind of government they want themselves, and nobody else ought to have no say in the matter. That whenever any government don't do this, then the people have got a right to give it the bum's rush and put in one that will take care of their interests. Of course, that don't mean having a revolution every day like them South American yellow-bellies, or every time some jobholder goes to work and does something he ain't got no business to do. It is better to stand a little graft, etc., than to have revolutions all the time, like them coons, and any man that wasn't a anarchist or one of them I.W.W.'s would say the same. But when things get so bad that a man ain't hardly got no rights at all no more, but you might almost call him a slave, then everybody ought to get together and throw the grafters out, and put in new ones who won't carry on so high and steal so much, and then watch them. This is the proposition the people of these Colonies is up against, and they have got tired of it, and won't stand it no more. The administration of the present King, George III, has been rotten from the start, and when anybody kicked about it he always tried to get away with it by strong-arm work. Here is some of the rough stuff he has pulled:

He vetoed bills in the Legislature that everybody was in favor of, and hardly nobody was against.

He wouldn't allow no law to be passed without it was first put up to him, and then he stuck it in his pocket and let on he forgot about it, and didn't pay no attention to no kicks.

When people went to work and gone to him and asked him to put through a law about this or that, he give them their choice: either they had to shut down the Legislature and let him pass it all by himself, or they couldn't have it at all.

He made the Legislature meet at one-horse tank-towns, so that hardly nobody could get there and most of the leaders would stay home and let him go to work and do things like he wanted.

He give the Legislature the air, and sent the members home every time they stood up to him and give him a call-down or bawled him out.

When a Legislature was busted up he wouldn't allow no new one to be elected, so that there wasn't nobody left to run things, but anybody could walk in and do whatever they pleased.

He tried to scare people outen moving into these States, and made it so hard for a wop or one of these here kikes to get his papers that he would rather stay home and not try it, and then, when he come in, he wouldn't let him have no land, and so he either went home again or never come.

He monkeyed with the courts, and didn't hire enough judges to do the work, and so a person had to wait so long for his case to come up that he got sick of waiting, and went home, and so never got what was coming to him.

He got the judges under his thumb by turning them out when they done anything he didn't like, or by holding up their salaries, so that they had to knuckle down or not get no money.

He made a lot of new jobs, and give them to loafers that nobody knowed nothing about, and the poor people had to pay the bill, whether they could or not.

Without no war going on, he kept an army loafing around the country, no matter how much people kicked about it.

He let the army run things to suit theirself and never paid no attention whatsoever to nobody which didn't wear no uniform.

He let grafters run loose, from God knows where, and give them the say in everything, and let them put over such things as the following:

Making poor people board and lodge a lot of soldiers they ain't got no use for, and don't want to see loafing around.

When the soldiers kill a man, framing it up so that they would get off.

Interfering with business.

Making us pay taxes without asking us whether we thought the things we had to pay taxes for was something that was worth paying taxes for or not.

When a man was arrested and asked for a jury trial, not letting him have no jury trial.

Chasing men out of the country, without being guilty of nothing, and trying them somewheres else for what they done here.

In countries that border on us, he put in bum governments, and then tried to spread them out, so that by and by they would take in this country too, or make our own government as bum as they was.

He never paid no attention whatever to the Constitution, but he went to work and repealed laws that everybody was satisfied with and hardly nobody was against, and tried to fix the government so that he could do whatever he pleased.

He busted up the Legislatures and let on he could do all the work better by himself.

Now he washes his hands of us and even goes to work and declares war on us, so we don't owe him nothing, and whatever authority he ever had he ain't got no more.

He has burned down towns, shot down people like dogs, and raised hell against us out on the ocean.

He hired whole regiments of Dutch, etc., to fight us, and told them they could have anything they wanted if they could take it away from us, and sicked these Dutch, etc., on us.

He grabbed our own people when he found them in ships on the ocean, and shoved guns into their hands, and made them fight against us, no matter how much they didn't want to.

He stirred up the Indians, and give them arms and ammunition, and told them to go to it, and they have killed men, women and children, and don't care which.

Every time he has went to work and pulled any of these things, we have went to work and put in a kick, but every time we have went to work and put in a kick he has went to work and did it again. When a man keeps on handing out such rough stuff all the time, all you can say is that he ain't got no class and ain't fitten to have no authority over people who have got any rights, and he ought to be kicked out.

When we complained to the English we didn't get no more satisfaction.
Almost every day we give them plenty of warning that the politicians over there was doing things to us that they didn't have no right to do. We kept on reminding them who we was, and what we was doing here, and how we come to come here. We asked them to get us a square deal, and told them that if this thing kept on we'd have to do something about it and maybe they wouldn't like it. But the more we talked, the more they didn't pay no attention to us. Therefore, if they ain't for us they must be agin us, and we are ready to give them the fight of their lives, or to shake hands when it is over.

Therefore be it resolved, That we, the representatives of the people of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, hereby declare as follows: That the United States, which was the United Colonies in former times, is now a free country, and ought to be; that we have throwed out the English King and don't want to have nothing to do with him no more, and are not taking no more English orders no more; and that, being as we are now a free country, we can do anything that free countries can do, especially declare war, make peace, sign treaties, go into business, etc. And we swear on the Bible on this proposition, one and all, and agree to stick to it no matter what happens, whether we win or we lose, and whether we get away with it or get the worst of it, no matter whether we lose all our property by it or even get hung for it.

--H. L. Mencken, 1921

With a tip of the hat to Jerry Pournelle

Remember

2007-05-28T11:11:00.000-07:00

Perhaps fourteen years ago, soon after my first wife died, my stepdaughter Adrian, my mother-in-law Mary, and I decided to keep a promise that we had made to my first wife, Carolyn: that we would go on a vacation to Hawaii. Because I had to work, I took a week's trip to Waikiki; Mary and Adrian took an additional week to Maui a week before me.

Although the sun was bright, my sorrow at the loss of Carolyn was such that I could not see its brightness. For me, it was the year without a summer.

Rather than doing touristy things, I walked from Waikiki (where my hotel was) to Chinatown and to the Anglican and Roman Catholic Cathedrals in Honolulu. The Anglican cathedral was, of course, far more beautiful: a neo-Gothic structure built from large blocks of rose coral.

Amazingly, though, at Waikiki, directly on the hotel row, I found a small, beautiful, traditional Roman Catholic church, where the pastor there gave an intelligent and devout sermon on the saint of the day, Saint Augustine, and where he simply and devoutly said, in English, the Mass of Pope Paul VI. It was one of the few times in many years that I found peace in that Mass.

But there was one thing that Mary, Adrian and I did together which was essential: we went to the Memorial at Pearl Harbor. We saw the documentary films there of the attack (which we had seen many other times, and in far more detail, in television documentaries on the attack). And we went on the cruise boat to the Memorial which had been built above the USS Arizona.

While I was there, I took off the lei, the wreath of island flowers which had been given to me on my arrival at the airport, and I cast it into the waters where all of those brave men had died in behalf of our country. And while I watched the lei drift off towards the shore, I quietly sang and prayed a hymn from the Orthodox Service for the Dead:

With all Thy Holy Saints,
repose, O Lord, Thy faithful servants' souls.
Comfort and free them from suffering and pain,
and may earthly cares fade
to joys of Thy reward of eternal life.

As I continued to watch the lei drift toward shore, I began to listen to our guide as she was speaking: "The Arizona and the other ships here still leak oil to this day. Now, it is said by the people of the island that whenever the souls of the sailors who died here are happy, there is an especially heavy flow of oil." Pause, and then: "You know, I've been a guide here for three years, and I've never seen such a big oil slick on the water here as today."

Remember.

An open letter to His Holiness, Benedict XVI

2007-04-18T13:51:00.000-07:00

Your Holiness:

I wish Your Holiness the best of days in celebration of Your Holiness' 80th birthday. May it be the beginning of a long period of good health, fruitful studies, and productive work.

For my part, I am looking forward to Your Holiness' second year of the present Pontificate, which happened to fall on my birthday (April 19th). If it would please Your Holiness, I consider Your Holiness' election to pontificate to be the fulfillment of my wishes, and the best birthday present I have ever received.

In the most filial devotion,

Bernard Brandt

(By the bye, those who wish to send an e-mail to His Holiness, Benedict XVI, may do so here.)

Gwydion's Pascha Vid

2007-04-18T09:34:00.000-07:00

Through the kindness of Gwydion, we have a video of some of the things that went on for Pascha at St. Andrew's, particularly of the baptism of two new members, and the chrismation of two new members of St. Andrew's, particularly Gwydion himself. Enjoy.

Liturgical Theology, Question 2

2007-04-17T11:32:00.000-07:00

Question 2:

Discuss and evaluate the various interpretations given to the Great Entrance in liturgical commentaries and show their effect on the texts and actions of the Liturgy.

In the course of my reading for this class, I have found five interpretations of the Great Entrance, by the following people: St. Germanos, Nicolas of Andida, Nicholas Cabasilas, Symeon of Thessalonike, and Fr. Alexander Schmemann. I will discuss each in turn.

First, however, it is important to note that both Hugh Wybrew’s, The Orthodox Liturgy, (hereinafter referred to as “Wybrew”) and Chapter Six (“The Sacrament of Offering) of Fr. Alexander Schmemann’s, The Eucharist, (hereinafter referred to as “Schmemann”) indicate that the original function of the Great Entrance was to transfer the Holy Gifts of bread and wine (which had been prepared in the Service of Preparation before the Liturgy of the Catechumens) from their original place at the north of the church. This was done with a certain amount of ceremony. As will be shown below, the various interpretations of this liturgical act have had considerable different effects on the extent and nature of the ceremonies performed.

A. St. Germanos. As indicated in Wybrew at pp. 126-7, St. Germanos in his Ecclesiastical History interprets the Great Entrance and the Cherubic Hymn that is sung during before it as representing three things: the angelic host, of which the earthly worshipers are a part; the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts; and the altar as the tomb of Christ.

One can observe several liturgical effects which would result from such interpretations: 1) the increasing importance of a slow procession, with the rapidia and incense, to better make an iconological representation of the procession of the angelic host; 2) recent liturgical composers, using this interpretation as a basis, have composed choral settings of the Cherubic Hymn which have downward progressions, indicative of the descent of the Holy Spirit. The Cherubic Hymns of Lomakin (especially his No. 9), Kastalsky, Tsaikovski, and Rachmaninoff provide examples of this tendency; 3) because the holy altar was thought to represent the tomb of Christ, the original pillars and post surrounding the altar in the Nicaean period, which barrier separated the Byzantine Emperor and his family from the rest of the people in any gathering, political or religious (and which was originally established in churches to indicate the royalty of God), gradually was transformed into a covered and roofed iconostasis. It is interesting to note that Nicholas of Andida, in the commentary to be next discussed, cites this interpretation as the reason for the development of the iconostasis in its present form.

B. Nicholas of Andida. Wybrew at pp. 141-2 notes that the Protheoria of Nicholas of Andida, in a rich display of allegorism, describes the Great Entrance (or more to the point, the preparation, transfer, and deposition of the Gifts in that Entrance) as any number of things: the preparation of the upper room, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension; the altar is Jerusalem, since the altar is set in the center of the church as Jerusalem is in the center of the world.

But in the main, the interpretation of Nicholas of Andida confirms and strengthens the earlier point made by St. Germanos: that the altar is to be separated from the people. It can be argued that the ultimate result of the interpretation of the Great Entrance in the Protheoria was to continue the process of separating the altar from the sight of the people by the iconostasis.

C. Nicholas Cabasilas. Wybrew at pp. 162-3 quotes from Nicholas Cabasilas’ Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy as regards Nicholas’ interpretation of the Great Entrance. While it is for the most part a simple description of the action of the priest and servers, it has one particular interpretive note: The Great Entrance is a symbol or type of Christ’s triumphant entrance into Jerusalem on Palm or Willow Sunday.

Cabasilas also warns the reader not to treat the Holy Gifts at the Great Entrance with the same reverence which the people of the time apparently offered to the Holy Body and Blood at the equivalent to the Great Entrance in the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. This would apparently indicate that the people of that time were in fact treating the Holy Gifts with such reverence.

The results of this interpretation would appear mainly to be to make a further emphasis on the Great Entrance as a procession of the priest and servers, with the focus being on the priest as an icon or a type of Christ.

D. Symeon of Thessalonike. Wybrew at pp. 168-9 cites Symeon’s commentaries as regards Symeon’s interpretation of the Great Entrance as follows: the Entrance is a type of the Last Coming of Christ and the Last Judgment. Further, in the liturgical praxis of the period, the epitaphios (redolent with the symbolism of the burial of Christ) was used as a covering for the Holy Gifts after they had been placed on the Altar. Finally, and most importantly for any discussion on the subject, Symeon contradicts the warning given by Nicholas Cabasilas, and states that the Holy Gifts are an anti-type of the Holy Body and Blood, and should therefore be given the same reverence.

The two consequences most likely to occur from such an interpretation is again to put the focus upon the priest as the icon of Christ, and upon the Holy Gifts as the anti-type of Christ’s Body and Blood.

E. Fr. Alexander Schmemann. Before beginning a review of Fr. Schmemann’s, it is important to note that each of the above interpretations are not to be considered to be wrong or misleading per se, but rather, that they tend to be reductionist, in that they reduce the worshiper’s understanding of the liturgical action to the interpretation provided.

Fr. Schmemann, in Chapter Six ( entitled “The Sacrament of Offering”) of his elaborate commentary on the Divine Liturgy, The Eucharist, on the other hand, provides a commentary on and a description of the Great Entrance which both incorporates the above interpretations and far transcends them. He begins in Section 1 of that chapter with the insight that all sacrifices offered by the many peoples of the past have been inspired by a thirst for God; that these sacrifices had been unavailing in quenching that thirst, and that only Christ’s sacrifice as and for man is the only one which can quench that thirst (section 2); and that the Great Entrance, in addition to the illustrative symbolism which has been attached (as cited above) to that Entrance, is in an important way connected with Christ’s sacrifice for us, and our offering to Him (section 3).

Having asked the question, ("in what way does this connection exist in the Great Entrance?"), Schmemann then indicates that through a historical examination of the actions in the Great Entrance, it was the practice of the members of the early Church to bring their own gifts of bread and wine before the Divine Liturgy, and to place them at the north of the Church. It was then the work of the deacons to select among these gifts to find those which would be used as the Holy Gifts for the Liturgy. In the mind of the early Church then (according to Schmemann), this Entrance of the gifts was the connection between the offering in love of the congregation, and the action in love of the deacons, with Christ’s loving Sacrifice for us in the Eucharist. (Section 4).

With this primitive understanding reestablished, Schmemann suggests that we can reexamine our symbolic understanding of what happens in the Great Entrance: the one Sacrifice has already been offered for us in Christ’s Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection, but the offering of the Holy Gifts before the altar is indicative of the connection between those gifts and Christ’s Sacrifice (Section 5).

More particularly, in presenting our prosphora (or offerings) before the altar, Schmemann indicates that we are thereby “offering ourselves and each other and all our life unto Christ our God”. Thus, Schmemann indicates that the essence of the Great Entrance is that it is the sacrament of Offering (Section 6).

Schmemann then says that a further and clearer understanding of this sacrament of Offering may be found through an examination of the prayers and the actions in the Great Entrance (Section 7). First, in the prayer of the priest, which begins “No one is worthy”, and which the priest says personally, Schmemann finds an indication that in the Offering and Sacrifice to come, the priest becomes the icon of Christ Sacrificing and Sacrificed; the prayer is thus a testimony to the unworthiness of all humankind, and a testimony also to supremacy of Christ as Priest and as Sacrificed (Section 8).

In the action of the censing, Schmemann sees the recognition of the Holy Gifts as in fact being holy and divine, in that these creations are being returned to their Creator (Section 9).

In examining the hymns sung by all during the Great Entrance (e.g., the Cherubic Hymn during most Sundays and Feasts, “Of Thy Mystical Supper” during Great and Holy Thursday, and “Let all mortal flesh keep silent” during Great and Holy Saturday, Schmemann finds a common element in all of these hymns is that they refer to Christ as King and to the coming of His Kingdom. In this, Schmemann sees the manifestation of God’s cosmic kingdom, and not simply symbolic referrals to Christ’s kingly entrance into Jerusalem, His Last Coming, etc. (Section 10)

Finally, Schmemann, examines the liturgical action in the Great Entrance, and suggests that it be restored, in that attention should again be paid to the community bringing their prosphora as offerings, or at the very least, that members of the church buy prosphora which the Church has made, and offer them, and themselves, in the Great Entrance, the sacrament of Offering (section 11).

Thus, we see in four of these commentaries symbolical and, unfortunately, reductionist tendencies which have affected the ceremonial actions in the Great Entrance in the ways which have been described above. Finally, in the last commentary, we see a historical, textual, and Patristic synthesis which I believe may be fairly characterized as maximalist.

ADDENDUM

While the writer believes that he has adequately answered the question and has sufficiently represented the positions taken in the five commentaries, particularly Fr. Schmemann’s, there are some additional concepts in Fr. Schmemann’s commentary (The Eucharist, Chapter 6, sections 12 through 15, which the writer has found of great value, which have inspired insights in the writer, and which the writer would like to present here.

In those last sections, Fr. Schmemann discusses the role of commemoration, or anamnesis, not only in the Divine Liturgy, but in the life and action of the Church. In essence, he says that anamnesis is a gift from God to Man, which allows the one remembering to manifest the past in the present; that the primary sin of Man is that he has forgotten God, and that by remembering Christ (or keeping Him in mind) we are in turn remembered by Christ, and kept into eternal life.

The primary insight which the writer has received from this (other, of course, than a better understanding of what is meant in the Pannychida service by “eternal memory”), is the central concept of anamnesis as the manifestation of the past into the present, and that it is that process of anamnesis which distinguishes the process of Orthodox theology from that of Roman Catholics.

The writer has noted that the polarity (or perhaps better said, the bipolarity) of Roman Catholicism has been between aggiorniamento or “contemporization” on the one hand, and resourcement or “research”, on the other. The writer has also noted that these two tendencies have been present in that Church not only since the Second Vatican Council, but long before it.

One example (out of many which could be cited) of the tendency towards aggiorniamento can be found in the action of the early Gallican church of Charlemagne to add the filioque to the Nicene Creed, ostensibly to combat a tendency towards Arianism which was then a contemporary threat to that Church. An example of resourcement may be found as well in the action of the early Roman church, after biblical and historical researches, to cease the practice of using leavened bread in favor of unleavened bread in the Eucharist.

A common theme in both aggiorniamento and resourcement is the tendency of attempting to cancel the common experience of the Church (perhaps another way of putting this is to say, to ignore or forget Holy Tradition) for the sake of either what is conceived to be a present need, or for the sake of the fruits of scholarly research (which are often made obsolete or shown to be inadequate by later researches).

An example of what I have termed anamnesis, on the other hand, can be found in the late Fr. Schmemann’s liturgical researches and writings, particularly as found in the above examination of his work, The Eucharist. In that and other works, Schmemann does not suggest that the form or structure of the Great Entrance be altered or replaced for the sake of something new, nor does he suggest that the traditional interpretations of that Entrance be replaced by present researches.

Rather, he maintains the past structure of the service, examines and honors the traditional interpretations, and seeks to harmonize and fulfill that structure and those interpretations through historical research and textual analysis of the prayers and actions. In short, he, like all Orthodox theologians and worshipers, engages in anamnesis: in the fulfillment of the past in the present.

The writer does not seek to engage in polemic in making these assertions. He has spent his youth and a third of his adult life as a Roman Catholic; he has also spent the remainder of his adulthood as an Eastern Christian. He has been pondering, for the last score of years, why the Liturgical Movement was so fruitful in and for the Orthodox Church, and why it was the cause of so much heartbreak and shipwreck of faith in the Roman Church. As a result of this course, and the question posed by its professor, the writer believes that he has finally found an answer to that question.

Liturgical Theology, Question 1

2007-04-12T09:07:00.000-07:00

Is Baptism a “private” or an “ecclesial” event? How is Baptism connected to the Eucharist? Does the contemporary Orthodox practice to which you have been exposed make this clear?

In this instance, the question presented has three parts. This answer will address each part in turn.

A) Is Baptism a “private” or an “ecclesial” event?

All experience is in essence private, particularly the experience of baptism, or illumination, in the believer. To that extent, Baptism may be considered to be a “private” event. Unfortunately, a number of Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have considered the baptism of their children to be a “private” or “familial” event, to be performed after the Divine Liturgy, or outside of it.

It could be argued that this familial practice or point of view could be decried, according to the Church’s underlying Greek ethos: that ethos holds, with Aristotle, that Man is a social being; that any attempt to privatize humans or to separate them from society is a diminishment of both Man and society; and that the very attempt is idiotic (in this context, it should be noted that the word idiot is derived from the Greek word idiotes, meaning a private individual.)

But in addition to the above described ethos, both the early Church, and contemporary Orthodox theologians in studying that Church, believe that Baptism is primarily an ecclesial event, one which properly is preceded by catachesis by the Church; in which the baptizand receives the mysteries of illumination, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Eucharist; and finally, by which the one baptized has put on Christ and becomes a member of His mystical Body. In particular, the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann, has expressed this belief briefly in his collection of essays, For the Life of the World, and in greater detail in his work on Baptism: Of Water and the Spirit.

To further explain how Baptism is an ecclesial and not a private event, it will be necessary to indicate how Baptism is connected to the Eucharist. That will be attempted in the next section.

B) How is Baptism connected to the Eucharist?

In Orthodox theology and worship, Baptism is connected to the Eucharist in three ways: as a prerequisite, as a part of Orthodox liturgical praxis, and in terms of the Eucharist’s historical and functional development.

Baptism has first been a prerequisite, in that the Church from its inception, as indicated both in Scripture and Holy Tradition, has permitted only those baptized in the Church to receive the Eucharist.

Further, Baptism is connected to Eucharist in Orthodox praxis in that, unlike Western Christianity, (which has reserved Baptism for infancy, Eucharist for the age of seven, and Chrismation (or Confirmation) for the age of thirteen to fourteen), in Orthodox praxis, all three mysteries are imparted to the recipient at the same time.

Finally, and most importantly, Baptism is connected to the Eucharist in terms of the historical and functional development of the Eucharistic service, particularly those of the major feasts.

As Fr. Schmemann pointed out in Chapter 1 of his work, Of Water and the Spirit, in the early Church, Baptism was usually done of adult converts, after a long period of instruction and preparation, or catachesis, and originally during Pascha or Lazarus Sunday (although later this was extended to Nativity, Theophany and Pentecost). The Baptism was then performed outside of the church, and then a procession was made into the Church, where the festal Liturgy was served, the newly baptized were chrismated, and then received the Eucharist during the Eucharist of the Faithful. Survivals of this practice are found, inter alia, in the use of the hymn “As many as have been baptized into Christ” during the feasts mentioned above.

While with the development of infant baptism, there was an increasing loss of awareness of this sacramental interdependence of Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist, through the efforts of theologians such as the late Fr. Schmemann, churches are beginning to restore such awareness. As shall be shown below, I believe that my local church has been a part of that effort.

C) Does the contemporary Orthodox practice to which you have been exposed make this clear?

I believe that I have been fortunate to have attended my church for the past twenty years, and to have begun my attendance on the very week that its present pastor began serving the Divine Liturgy. During that time also, I have been either a singer or a choir director at that Church (I would like to note here that both the liturgical texts and music used at my church are drawn mostly from the OCA texts, with the remainder being taken from the Antiochian texts). As a result, I have had more than ample opportunity to observe my priest’s pastoral choices and actions.

In this regard, I have noted that the number of private baptisms which he served were few. I ventured to ask my priest why that was so, and he said that when people came to him to be baptized, or have their children baptized, he gave them the choice of a private or an ecclesial service. Most chose an ecclesial service.

As for the baptism of children under the age of two, my priest would perform the baptism soon after it had been requested, by a combined baptismal service and Divine Liturgy. Basically, this was accomplished by performing the rite of baptism through the chanting of the hymn “As many as have been baptized into Christ”, continuing with the prokeimenon, Epistle and Gospel of Baptism, the acts of Baptism and Chrismation, and then going on to the Litanies before the Cherubic Hymn and continuing with the remainder of the Divine Liturgy. Usually, the parents would provide a meal for the congregation afterwards.

But for adults who sought baptism, he would first make sure that they received a thorough catachesis (taking usually between one to three years, depending on the individual’s needs), and then incorporate the baptismal service into one of the following festal liturgies: The Nativity of the Lord, The Baptism of the Lord, Lazarus Sunday, Pascha, or Pentecost. In these cases, he would not cut anything from the festal liturgy in question, but would basically reduce the part of the Baptism to essential parts of the prayers of exorcism, the blessing of the waters, the baptism and chrismation, and the reception of the Eucharist at the Eucharist of the Faithful.

I have had the opportunity of helping to serve at such services, and I have found them to be both moving and illuminating. By the many times that I have stood with the congregation facing West and renouncing Satan, turning to the East and accepting Christ, by witnessing the blessing of the waters and the baptism of others (including the one who is now my wife), I believe that I have experienced thereby a connection with the praxis of the Early Church, and a confirmation of my own baptism, which was done at my infancy, and which I cannot now remember.

Church History, Question 2

2007-04-10T09:57:00.000-07:00

Compare and contrast the theological schools of Alexandria and Antioch. Make note of their respective leaders and methodologies.

Most of the information which Walker provides regarding the School of Alexandria may be found at pages 76 through 83, In Period II, Section IX, The Alexandrian School.
Walker first points out the antecedent contribution of Alexandria to both Judaism and Christianity: an Egyptian city with a large Greek speaking population, and a large Jewish population as well, it was the home of Greek and Jewish scholarship which led to the writing of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and the biblical text of the Orthodox Church. I note also that it is quite likely that when the Holy Family fled Herod the Great into Egypt, that they sojourned in Alexandria.

Be that as it may, Alexandria was both the home of Jewish scholarship, and the ascendency of Neo-Platonism, as well as of several schools of Gnosticism. It is not surprising that by 185 A.D., a Christian school of catachesis was formed under a Stoic philosopher who had converted to Christianity, Pantaeus. While we know little about the founder of this school, we know more about his pupil and successor, Clement of Alexandria.

Clement appears to have sought a synthesis between the best of philosophy and Christianity in his surviving works, Exhortation to the Heathen, Instructor, and Stromata. Like his Jewish counterpart, Philo of Alexandria, he sought to show that the Greek logos, and the associated inquiry of reason and order, had its fulfillment in Christ, the living Word. Walker characterizes Clement as a true Christian Gnostic, who taught that in Christ is the fulfillment of all knowledge and philosophy. Clement appears to have been the first to have propounded a synthesis between Christianity and Neoplatonism.

While Clement left no systematic theology, his successor, Origen, did. Origen appears to have been a diligent student not only at the catechetical school of Alexandria, but of the Jewish and Neo-Platonist schools there, and appears as well to have studied in Greece and Palestine as well.

A principle fruit of this study was his Hexapla, a parallel text of the Hebrew Scriptures, four Greek translations, and his commentaries. Additionally, Origen made numerous commentaries upon the whole of the Old and New Testament. His Against Celsus has been considered one of the most capable apologies, or defenses, of Christianity that has ever been written. But his De Principiis was the first treatise of systematic Christian theology ever written.

While Origen’s philosophical system was largely Neo-Platonic, and sought a synthesis with this and Christianity, Origen’s method of hermaneutics, or interpretation of Scripture, appears to have been the first to have posited multiple meanings in Scripture, that is, the literal meaning, an ethical application, and a mystical or allegorical interpretation. With Origen, and after him, the School of Alexandria is noted for its allegorical interpretation of Scripture.

The School of Antioch, on the other hand, appears to have been founded around the year 275 A.D by Lucian, a priest about whom little is known. He appears to have rejected the allegorical method of interpretation of the Alexandrian school, and instead limited himself to the grammatical and historical study of Scripture. He, and his followers, also appear to have been more wary of association with Gnosticism, and largely avoided attempts to achieve a synthesis between Christianity and philosophy. Lucian’s main pupils were Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius.

The two schools of Antioch and Alexandria began entering into conflict when Arius taught (and quoted Origen to that effect) that Christ was a created being, and not God. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (312?-328), who was a follower of the school of Alexandria, condemned Arius (also quoting Origen as his authority), who was a priest under Alexander’s omophorion, for this teaching. Arius was later condemned for the same teaching by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

Undoubtedly, John Chrysostom, Arius’ successor to the School of Antioch, was a far more orthodox and influential exponent of that school. Chrysostom favored the grammatical and historical interpretation of Scripture over the allegorical, and his many sermons interpreting the books of the Old and New Testament were and are a counterpoint to those of Origen. His successor, Gregory of Nazianzus, continued the School’s literalist interpretive bent, and added to it the doctrine of the council of Nicaea. Nazianzus, and his followers, also combined the study of Aristotle with that of Plato.

In short, the schools of Alexandria and Antioch appear to have maintained, both between and within themselves, a tension between Tertullian’s query (“What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?”) and Origen’s goal of making all thoughts subject to Christ, even those of Plato and Aristotle.

Church History, Question 1

2007-04-09T12:33:00.000-07:00

Discuss Judaism in the period just prior to and during the New Testament period. Include all elements and their influence on the development of New Testament Teaching.

Walker at pages 11 through 18 indicates that the major elements of Judaism before and during the New Testament period included the following: A) the historical background of the Jewish diaspora in Babylon and Egypt and the return of the Jewish people to Palestine; B) the tension in leadership between the priestly class and the scribes; C) attempts at forced Hellenization of the Jews and the Maccabean response; D) the Sadducees, Pharisees, Herodians and Zealots; E) the Messianic hope and Apocalyptic literature; and F) the influence of Judaism upon Greek gentile society and Hellenization within Jewish society. This paper will deal briefly with each element, and the influence of each upon the development of New Testament teaching.

A) The historical background of the Jewish diaspora in Babylon and Egypt, and the return of the Jewish people to Palestine. Both Walker at pp 11-12 and the later historical books of the Old Testament indicate that after the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.C., the Jewish people were scattered throughout the world, with large colonies in what are now Persia and Iraq, Egypt and Syria. Of particular note, and to be mentioned later, was the largely Greek-speaking city of Alexandria in Egypt. While Jews were later able to return to Palestine, Walker indicates that they were likely a minority of the total Jewish population. In any event, whether in Palestine or the Diaspora, after the Babylonian conquest, the Jewish people remained under foreign domination, respectively from the Babylonians, the Persians, the Ptolemies, the Selucids, and finally the Romans. The main influence of this element upon New Testament times was the great dissatisfaction of the people of Israel with foreign domination, and the desire for liberation from that oppression.

B) The tension in Jewish leadership in Palestine between the priestly class and the scribes. Upon the return of the Jewish people to Israel, the leaders there were primarily the hereditary priestly class, who under the Law (ha Torah) were responsible for offering sacrifice in the Great Temple. However, because of abuse of that priestly authority, and because of a greater concern among the people of Israel with the study of the Law, gradually the Scribes (who were the main students and exponents of that Law) achieved more of a position of political as well as religious leadership.

One main influence of the Scribes on New Testament times and teaching was the development of worship in the synagogue rather than in the Great Temple. This worship, with its marked resemblance to the Liturgy of the Catachumens with its development of chant, readings from the Scriptures, and explication of those Scriptures, had enormous influence upon both early Christian worship, and our later Divine Liturgy.

C) Attempts at forced Hellenization of the Jews and the Maccabean response. Under the Greek Selucid monarch, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, an attempt was made around 167 B.C. to eradicate Jewish worship and customs, culminating in the desecration of the Temple by the sacrifice of a boar in the Holy of Holies. This resulted in the Maccabean revolt, which led to a period of relative Jewish independence until Palestine’s conquest by the Romans in 63 B.C.

The results of this period of independence, and the consequent Roman conquest, were the development of the four major Jewish political and religious parties of the New Testament period before the destruction of Jerusalem, which will be discussed in the next section.

D) The Sadducees, Pharisees, Herodians and Zealots. The Sadducees were the descendents of the politically successful Maccabean priestly families. These, in the main, had control of the Great Temple, and the wealth resulting from tithes offered there. The Sadducees appear, however, to have succumbed to the general Greco-Roman world view including disbelief in any afterlife, or any supernatural world of angels and devils. The Pharisees were scribes who vied politically and religiously with the Sadducees, both as regards the interpretation of the Law, and in holding to a strict interpretation of Torah which included belief in the resurrection and in a supernatural world. The Herodians were those Jews who supported the reign of the line of Herod the Great, a half-Jewish puppet of the Romans, while the Zealots were those who sought to revolt against Roman rule as the Maccabees did against Greek rule. Perhaps the main influence of these parties upon New Testament times is that an intelligent reading of the New Testament is impossible without an understanding of this background.

E) The Messianic hope and Apocalyptic literature. As a result of Roman oppression and Jewish political and religious fragmentation, there was a growing hope for the arrival of ha-Meshiach, (Greek: Christos) or the anointed one, whose coming was foretold by the Prophets, and about whom a contemporary apocalyptic literature was growing. While this literature was largely unavailable at the time that Walker was writing, more examples have been made available since the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. The main influences of this hope can be found in the initial acceptance, and later rejection, by the above political and religious parties when Jesus did not fit their respective preconceptions about who and what the Messiah was. Perhaps the main influence of the apocalyptic literature of the time was upon the Apocalypse, or the Revelation, of St. John the Theologian.

F) The influence of Judaism upon Greek gentile society, and Hellenization within Jewish society. Because of the Septuagint, or the Greek translation of the Old Testament by Alexandrian Jews, many gentiles (the so-called metuentes, or God-fearers) began to adapt the ethical code of the Jews. Similarly, Greek speaking Jews (such as Philo) began to look at the Law through Greek concepts such as logos and Sophia. At least two consequences of this cultural synthesis were that it formed the basis for the population of Jews and Gentiles who later became Christians, and also the matrix of Christian theology.

Up for some air

2007-04-09T12:15:00.000-07:00

It's been a strange week in Lake Woebegun. . . oops, sorry, wrong initial cue.

Actually, it has been a wonderful time at St. Andrew's. Great and Holy Week was particularly good: after Palm (or Willow) Sunday morning Divine Liturgy, and a practice that seemed to go on forever, we had the Bridegroom Matins for Great and Holy Monday at 7:30 p.m. that Sunday evening, sung by a male quartet of rather good singers (if you don't count me). For Monday and Tuesday we had the Bridegroom Matins of Great and Holy Tuesday and Wednesday, and on Wednesday evening we had the Service of Anointing, in the musical composition written by our choir director, Gabriel Meyer, and in which we received an anointing of the Holy Oil blessed by the Melkite Patriarch Maximos. For Great and Holy Thursday we had the vesperal Liturgy of St. Basil and the Reading of the Gospels, and on Great and Holy Friday we read the Royal Hours at noon (note that all of these services were pretty much sung by the quartet). On Great and Holy Friday evening, the whole choir sang the evening Vespers service, and on Great and Holy Saturday Morning, we did the Matins service including the Lamentations. Finally, on Pascha evening, we sang the Paschal Nocturns in the composition which I had made for my 50th birthday, almost four years ago and then the Paschal Matins and Liturgy. At the Liturgy, we had four catachumens either baptised or chrismated. It was a wonderful service, and our new singer, William Goldin, an operatic quality bass (and one of the members of the quartet) was entranced with his first real Pascha.

I was also happy to find that on Saturday evening just before Pascha, I got my final paper back from the St. Stephen's program, and it was a pass plus, with a brief note ("Bravo, Bernard!") from the professor. Since there is no way now that my posting them will make any difference, I will be posting the exam questions and answers on my website. Those who are not interested in my attempts at theology may certainly ignore them.

May you all have a happy Pascha.

It's not just an idea: it's the law

2007-03-21T14:52:00.000-07:00

I do know that some people seem to believe that our current president is the Antichrist. Whether this is the case or not, only time will tell. As for me, although I am in disagreement with my president's choices as regards the manner of prosecution of the war in Iraq, attempts to democratize that nation, and various other matters, I am reminded of Napoleon's maxim: Never ascribe to malice and conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence. I see nothing in our current president's actions that is inconsistent with the latter.

Nonetheless, would some of you guys please get a grip, a life, or the point? When I hear that some Congresscritters are seeking to subpoena the President's staff for the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, I have to laugh.

The reason for my laughter is 28 U.S.C. section 541, which I will proceed to quote in its entirety:

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.

(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President. (Emphasis added by weblogista)

Finish. Punto. End of story.

As I seem to recall, Congress is authorized to subpoena individuals if a federal crime of some sort has been committed. As far as I can see here, no crime occurred. It would appear that under the above U.S. code, the President had full and unqualified authority to remove whomever he chose. While one may disagree with his decision to do so (and personally, I think that the matter stinks to high heaven), as Congress voted on and passed the above law, Congress has in fact authorized the President to take exactly the action which he did. If Congress at this point should decide to change the law, it still would not make the President's actions a crime: you see, there is this little concept called ex post facto. . .

So, boys and girls, can we get on to some really important matters instead, such as why the U.S. Government is not bothering to finance research on what promises to be the best news that we've had regarding fusion technology in the last fifty years?

I've been away

2007-03-13T10:14:00.000-07:00

I would like to apologize to my admiring audience (all two or three of you), but I have been away taking care of my work, assisting with St. Andrew's Choir, and studying for the St. Stephen's program. As regards the first, it is my policy in this and other weblogs not to discuss my work; as regards the second, my efforts have mainly been regarding the setting and occasional composition of music for the services at St. Andrew's Church; regarding the third, I have recently completed the essay answers to the three courses I have so far been taking: Introduction to Orthodoxy, Church History I, and Liturgical Theology I. I've gotten my results back on Church History I, and have received both a pass score and some nice notes on my test paper. Please pray for me that I may do at least as well on my two other classes.

I would like also to draw your attention to a "new" weblog that I have started, L'Abbe Faria's Cell, named after the priest in the novel The Count of Monte Cristo, who gave Edmund Dantes an elaborate education while they were both imprisoned at the Chateau D'If. The point of this weblog is to assist those who are wishing, in these apospasmatic days, to obtain a proper education. Right now, this weblog is in a "watch this space" mode. I hope to begin correcting that in the next few days.

The Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete

2007-02-12T10:02:00.000-08:00

Through the kindness of Gwydion, who recorded the above YouTube clip, I present five of the nine Odes of the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, which we will be singing at St. Andrew's Russian Catholic Church next Monday, for the start of Great and Holy Lent. We will be singing the balance of the Odes next Friday.

While I had requested this recording in order to complete the Byzantine Hymnography application for the St. Stephen's program, and in spite of my poor voice (I definitely need to work on tremulo issues with my vocal technique), I present this to you to give at least an inkling of the beauty and depth of spirituality of this Canon. Those wanting more can go to the Metropolitan Cantor Institute of Professor J. Michael Thompson, and find the sheet music and a competent full text of the Canon in Carpatho Rusyn chant here. It would also well reward the inquiring soul to examine the publications of this worthy organization here, and the recordings of them here.

May you have a good Great and Holy Lent, and may you have a good journey to Pascha.

Things haven't changed all that much in 40 years, have they?

2007-01-11T20:10:00.000-08:00

Lyrics by Pete Seeger

Sonnet

2007-01-11T12:23:00.000-08:00

I sometimes wonder how it would have been
Had priests and laymen read the Council texts,
And had they not so sorely been vexed
With false talk of some “Spirit”, ‘way back then.

I wonder what we might have sometime seen,
Instead of churches turned into vast wrecks,
Had laity applied some vital checks
Upon the changes made by clerks unseen.

The damage has been done, though; at what cost
I do not think that we have measured yet,
Nor have we seen all that will come to be.

But we should not give up our Church for lost,
Nor look upon Her, sadly, with regret:
Her restoration starts with you and me.

--Bernard Brandt

The Holy Hand Grenade Strikes Yet Again!

2006-12-25T17:48:00.000-08:00

I am pleased to announce that Dr. Michael Liccione of Sacramentum Vitae is the latest ~~victim~~ , er, recipient of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, in honor of his efforts, in his weblog and in the weblog of his predecessor and protomember of the Order, Father Al Kimel, to lead discussion between Orthodox and Roman Catholics in an orderly and respectful manner.

Therefore, let the Rite of Investiture be said, let the Orb be given (at his own expense, of course), and let Dr. Liccione be inducted into the honorable Order of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

Villanelle

2006-12-21T11:19:00.000-08:00

Sheep scatter when they are not being fed.
We see this in the fields, and at the Mass.
Those who deny this know a lie is said.

Although most folk in vestments black and red
Do not believe that this has come to pass,
Sheep scatter when they are not being fed.

“It is because the Faith we held is dead,
that people now forsake the Church, alas.”
Those who proclaim this know a lie is said.

Bare ruined kirks where once sweet choirs led
In prayer and song, long gone, have caused this pass:
Sheep scatter when they are not being fed;

Shrewd parsons, who believed the faith they pled,
Replaced by yes-men to a mitered ass:
Those who deny faith know a lie is said.

Lord Christ, how long now will it yet be said
About Thy flock, and of the Holy Mass:
“Sheep scatter when they are not being fed:
Those who deny this know a lie is said”?

-Bernard Brandt

A religion of peace? Yeah. Sure.

2006-11-11T12:43:00.000-08:00

There has been a recent brouhaha over a speech by the mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, in his Ramadan sermon of a few weeks ago, in which he compared “immodest” Western women with meat, and in which he asked the question: “If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?” The good Sheik complained that his words were being taken out of context, and that he was being unjustly maligned.

In the interests of accuracy, the Australian News obtained a complete transcript of the good Sheik’s sermon, and had it translated into English. That transcript may be found here. In reading that sermon, I would have to agree: the good Sheik had far more to say than simply that women were responsible for adultery. In fact, I find his sermon and his reasoning to be so fascinating that I think it is in the interests of truth and justice that his full speech be published widely, and his hidden reasoning be brought out for all the world to see.

The sheik starts with an examination of the sura in the Koran which punishes for the crime of theft: “The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred”. He notes first of all that in the prohibition, the man is put before the woman. He contrasts this with the prohibition against and the punishment for adultery: “The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes.” The sheik notes that in this prohibition, the adulteress, that is, the woman, is put first. He further notes that in such prohibitions, in addition to the order of the prohibition, and the punishment, the prohibition ends with an attribute of God. In the case of adultery, the full statement is: “The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes, for God is mighty and wise.”

The sheik also remarks about a Hadith, a commentary on the Koran, in which a follower of the Prophet recites the verse on theft, as follows: "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", the follower said "for God is forgiving, merciful." A non-Muslim Bedouin hears the recitation, and knowing flawless Arabic, the Bedouin corrects the believer: The Prophet would never say such words. The believer and the Bedouin take their case before the Prophet, who agrees with the unbelieving Bedouin: God is mighty and wise, and not forgiving and merciful.

More particularly, the sheik notes that in all punishments involving a “cutting off”, including theft, adultery, and polytheism, that the attributes described concerning God indicate God’s wisdom and might, and not his forgiveness and mercy, because in such cases, no forgiveness nor mercy should be offered, either by God or by his “followers. More particularly, if God was merciful and forgiving, he would not have ordered the cutting off.

And then the sheik dwells more deeply on the subject of polytheism, in a way which should be of interest to every Christian. In the interest of fairness, and of justice, I give you the Sheik’s words in their entirety:

Also, in the same context, what we heard yesterday in the verse from Al-Ma'ida, in its end, what Jesus said. "And when God asked: Oh Jesus, son of Mary! Didn't you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside God?" He said, "Be glorified." He did not even want to repeat the accusation. He didn't want to repeat the same word. He said "Be glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then you knew it. You know what is in my mind and I do not know what is in your mind? You alone know what is hidden."

We come to the end of the verse, "I only told them what You bade me. I said, 'Serve God, my Lord and your Lord. I watched over them while living in their midst, and ever You took me to Yourself, You have been watching them. You are the witness to all things'." We come to the closing of the verse, "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them, surely You are forgiving, merciful?" Not at all.

Why wasn't the verse ended with forgiveness and mercy? Because there is a crime of polytheism. God does not forgive polytheism, and forgives everything else. These people said that God took a son, these people said that divinity united with man, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they will see mercy? They will never see it, not him or his father. Not dad or mum. No one will see mercy, of those who believe in polytheism. Our Master Jesus knows that the crime is big. And there is no appeal for it. No way the judgment can be appealed. And they will never have intercession on the Day of Judgment, because polytheism is a great injustice. If it was a simple matter, the verse would have ended with "For God is forgiving, merciful". But it ended with "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them." They'll never see it. You will be wise, You will rule, then they'll cop it.

Those who disbelieve amongst the people of the Book and the polytheists, where will they go? Surfers Paradise? Gold Coast? Where? To the fire of hell. And not part-time, they'll be in it for eternity. What are these people? The most evil of God's creation on the face of earth. The issue is clear. So, the verse should be ended with what? "For God is mighty, wise." Not "For God is forgiving, merciful". In regard to polytheism with our Master Jesus, and in regard to the judgment on those who steal, rob and mess everything, God is mighty, wise. "The man thief and woman thief." Why, my Lord. I am wondering, why didn't the Koran say "The woman thief and man thief, cut off their hands"? While there is "The adulteress and the adulterer, whip them". Why didn't He say, "The adulterer and the adulteress"? It's because they are wise words. The reason for putting the man ahead of the woman in the issue of stealing is because it is the wisdom. This is reality. This is the truth.

In other words, the sheik teaches that every one who believes in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the concept of God becoming man is a polytheist, deserves only the fires of hell, and will receive no mercy or forgiveness from God. Tough luck out there for any Christians in the audience, or for any former Christians or Jews.

Finally, the Sheik points out the reason for the difference in order between man and woman for the respective crimes of theft and adultery: man is supposed to be the provider, and theft deals mainly with the man using improper means of providing, whereas the woman is put first in adultery, because in the Sheik’s opinion, 90 percent of the time the woman is responsible for adultery. He even goes so far as to quote with approval another scholar’s opinion:

The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his literary works, he says: If I come across a crime of rape - kidnap and violation of honour - I would discipline the man and teach him a lesson in morals, and I would order the woman be arrested and jailed for life.

In short then, the Sheik , at least to his own mind, has been unjustly accused of intolerance towards women. He has, at least to his own mind, shown by sure logic that any one who is a Christian is to be damned to Hell by an unforgiving God for the “crime” of polytheism, that any woman who is involved in a rape or adultery is to be punished for her “crime”, and that the faithful Muslim should go out of his way to execute sentence in either case.

And this is supposed to be a “religion of peace”? Yeah. Sure.

An Open Letter to Senator John Kerry

2006-11-01T11:42:00.000-08:00

Dear Senator Kerry:

I write you now because of the recent comment which you made before the news media in which it is reported, and which I heard from your mouth personally (via television), the following words:

"You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

I would like you to know that you have made a terrible mistake in having said the above words, that you have slandered and insulted hundreds of thousands of servicemen, and have deeply offended millions of those servicemen’s’ wives, children, parents, family, and friends. Further, the longer that you postpone the inevitable acknowledgement of and apology for this slander, insult, and offense, the greater the injury will be to your honor, and ultimately, to your electability. Far worse, the greater the injury it will be to your own party.

You have insulted the thousands of servicemen who have degrees and a good education, who have volunteered for what I entirely agree to be an honorable but mistaken war. I have several friends in this category, one of whom has a masters’ degree in mathematics, and who volunteered for special service in Afghanistan.

Further, you have insulted the many thousands of servicemen who have volunteered, either in defense of this country, or in their own interest in order to gain that education. This includes the thousands of working class Americans who have studied hard, who wish to get ahead, and whose only choice in these days of expensive university or college tuition is to join the Armed Forces for the educational benefits which they would receive as veterans. I have a large number of friends in this category, including a family of eight whose father is a plasterer, and whose children have all gone into the Army, the Navy, and the Coast Guard, in order to have the means to that education.

In addition to insulting or offending these hundreds of thousands of servicemen and their extended friends and families, you have given the rather strong impression that you either do not know about or do not care about the fact that many bright people have volunteered for the armed forces in order to obtain an education. This in turn gives the impression that you have no concern for working class people, the people whom you claim to represent. Those working class people have a term for people who act as you appear to have acted: they call them “limousine liberals”.

It does not strike me as an intelligent act to so alienate a great number of the people who voted you into office. In the event that you seek to gain the Presidency in a later election, it would seem to me to be suicidally foolish to alienate the constituency whose support you may seek at such an election. Finally, it appears to me to be damnably foolish for you to endanger the upcoming elections of your fellow Democrats.

For all of these reasons, I think that the wisest counsel you could take would be to call a press conference, to acknowledge the offense which you unintentionally have given to servicemen and their friends and families, to distance yourself from the impression you have given that you have no interest in or care for the many who have enlisted in order to better themselves, and from there to go on to repeat your call for a policy in which those enlisted men may be safely and effectively withdrawn from Iraq.

I have been a Republican for most of my voting life, and if I were a partisan Republican, and actually viewed you as an enemy, I would not be writing this letter now. I would simply keep silent, and allow you to drown, while recounting to myself Napoleon’s maxim: “Never interrupt an enemy who is in the process of making a mistake.”

But I am not a partisan Republican. I am one who believes that, as a result of an over-bureaucratized and ineffectual intelligence network, and through wishful thinking, we have become involved in a futile effort to “democratize” a people who do not wish to have a democracy.

I think that a wiser policy, and one which would prevent the need for another Vietnam-like pullout, but would reduce the need for our occupancy, would be the partition of Iraq into a northern Kurdistan, a central Sunnistan, and a southern Shiastan (which in fact it had been before World War I). I also think that by supporting the Kurds, and by ceding the oil-bearing land to Kuwait in reparation for Iraq’s First Gulf War, we could stabilize the region, and prevent a situation in which Iraq’s oil-bearing land ultimately ends up in the hands of Iran.

Regardless of the above estimate as regards Iraq, if you fail to distance yourself effectively from your “botched joke”, both you and your party will ultimately be reduced in your ability to make policy as regards Iraq, whatever that policy may be. Please consider this.

Very truly yours,

Bernard Brandt

Note: For those who wish to write to Senator Kerry, one may do by going here.

Gwydion strikes again!

2006-11-01T09:37:00.000-08:00

It appears that my friend, Gwydion, has ~~inflicted~~, er, created another YouTube movie, this time of St. Andrew's Church, with the St. Andrew Choir under the direction of yours truly singing in the background. Fortunately for all concerned, especially the viewer, Gwydion had learned his lesson from the last take on St. Andrew's, and kept me out of the picture altogether. With that, and his improving handheld camera technique, I think that he has done a fine job with this.

By the bye, for those who are interested, the choir is singing the Vidubetsk Monastery Litany of Supplication (in English). The sheet music for this lovely chant can be found in PDF here, and a MIDI fle can be found here. Whole bunches of nifty Orthodox liturgical music in English and Slavonic can be found here. Enjoy.

An open letter to Muslims

2006-09-18T13:56:00.000-07:00

An open letter to Muslims

In light of the recent protests by many of your people, and the violence which has gone along with it, starting with the burning in effigy of His Holiness, Benedict XVI and the cursing of his name, continuing with the burning of Christian churches, some not even Roman Catholic, and culminating with the murder of a Roman Catholic nun whose only offense was in doing charitable work for the poor in Somalia, I feel that it is time to express what I, and what a great number of other westerners, think as regards your or your brothers’ actions.

First of all, I am given to understand that a lot of this response has been the result of accepting, on face value, what a large number of western media have reported in their headlines: That the Pope has somehow insulted or attacked Islam. I would first suggest that you look at the vastly inaccurate statements that this media has made about Islam and about Muslims over the course of many years. You may want to consider that this same media has repeatedly made many inaccurate statements about Christians as well. In short, as regards Western media, and at least insofar as religion is concerned, you may not want to believe everything that you read.

It also appears that some among you have actually read at least a part of what His Holiness has said, and have taken offense to a quotation which he made from a fifteenth century Byzantine emperor. At the risk of offending you again, I will recite the text of that quotation again.

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

I should point out something that any reasonable person would immediately understand: that quoting a person does not imply agreement with that person. I should also point out that any Muslim who had a knowledge of their own culture, and had any confidence in it, could proudly cite both Arab and Islamic contributions to civilization, from the passage of Greek philosophy to the West, to their contributions in logic and mathematics, to the development of the university, and could proudly and thoroughly refute the charge of the Byzantine emperor.

The fact that these many people could not says, at least to those of the West, that you or your brothers are in fact either ignorant of your heritage, or are acting on the belief that you are unable to repeat these glories of the past. To us of the West, their, and your, failure to use argument rather than threats and firebombs, rather than being an indication of your strength, are to us a sure sign of your weakness. Where we come from, we think that only bullies and blackguards try to compel by force what they cannot achieve by argument or persuasion.

I am given to understand as well that some among you have taken offense that His Holiness, and others, have characterized much of the Dar Al Islam, the House of Islam, as having been taken by the sword. If so, you are taking offense about that which is a manifest historical truth, spoken of by both Western and Islamic historians. The whole of Al-Maghrib, of northern Africa, from Egypt to Mauritania, was taken by the sword by the seventh century, as was Palestine and the Holy Lands, and all the land from Baghdad to Bombay by the thirteenth century. The whole of the Turkish empire, the former empire of the Emperor whose words were quoted above, was taken by the Islamic Turks in 1453. These all are indisputable facts. To take offense at that which is true does not speak much as regards your love of the truth.

In fairness, it must be admitted that some among you have avoided this general rush to judgment, like the Grand Mufti of Syria, who has quite reasonably requested further clarification; and further, there have been many who, upon hearing the clarification of His Holiness this last Sunday, have understood that he had not wished to cause offense, have agreed that there has been misunderstanding, and have relented from this course of violence. Those who have taken this action have our respect, and have preserved their own honor: we believe that it is an act of the wise and the good to admit it when they have been mistaken, and to turn away from their mistakes.

But as for those others, who act neither wisely nor righteously: know that you have spoken and acted falsely, and that you have attempted to malign a good and honorable man, one who is honored and respected as their spiritual leader by one sixth of the people of this world, and is honored by many millions of other people in the West. Know that by attempting to dishonor this good and holy man, you have in fact dishonored yourselves.

It is becoming apparent to us of the West that such people are attempting to pick a fight, or worse, to act like bullies, and to threaten violence unless we act in accordance with their wishes. While some among us are weak and foolish, and will wish to give in to such threats, know also that there are many more among us who will never give in to such threats, and who are willing to fight to their enemy’s death to make sure that those threats are never carried out. There are many, from Napoleon to Hitler, who have tried to impose their will on the West. They all now lie in the graves of failures, not martyrs.

One of our leaders once said that it was not our duty to die for our country, but rather, it was our duty to make our enemies die for their country. History has shown that we of the West have been very efficient at making that happen. Recent events have also demonstrated that same fact, even when led by as inefficient a leader as our current one. Know that the only effect of pursuing this present course of action would be to give us more resolve to prevail, and to replace our current leaders with even more ruthless and effective ones. Finally, know that we would prefer never to start such a fight; know also that once started, we will do everything in our power to finish it.

But history and recent events have also shown that we are quite good at putting aside differences, and becoming friends and partners with those who had once been our sworn enemies. We would much prefer having you as friends than enemies. We therefore invite you to continue the discussion which His Holiness had wished to begin, and to do as our common Lord and God has asked us to do, in the words of our Prophet Isaiah: Come, let us reason together.

Why I've not been posting much lately

2006-09-13T14:18:00.000-07:00

I'm now at something of a breathing spot, and can mention a few things that I could not before, which have been preventing me from posting.

1. I've recently started a new job, and this has been occupying a great deal of my time for the last two months. As it is my practice not to discuss my employment in my weblog, this will probably be my last post about my work.

2. I have recently, and officially, changed my rite from Roman Catholic to Melkite and Russian Catholic. This was surprisingly easier than I had at first thought: I had heard horror stories of it taking two to four years to accomplish. This would probably still be the case, if the Eastern Catholic Code of Canon Law had not been changed. But Canon 32 of that Code states as follows:

1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See.

2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.

As my parish priest is also the Director of Ecumenical Affairs for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, he was able to tell me how to go about obtaining consent from his Eminence, Roger Cardinal Mahony, and from His Grace, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton: I wrote what I thought was a polite letter to His Eminence, and within a week I received a very polite (and very kind) letter from His Eminence himself, granting my request and forwarding a letter with a copy of his consent to His Grace, Archbishop Cyril.

Within another week or so, and before I could write the letter to His Grace, Archbishop Cyril had already written to my priest, Fr. Alexei, granting my request. I was told that the change of rite would be effective when I acknowleged the change before two witnesses. And so, last Sunday, during the apodosis of the Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos, and the Feast of the Holy Martyrs Menodora, Metrodora, and Nymphodora at Nicomedia, with Deacon Irenaeus Dionne, and my good friend and choir director, Gabriel Meyer, as witnesses, and with my wife Elizabeth and my friend Mary Macdonald present, I became a member of the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church.

3. I've been looking into obtaining an appropriate theological education, and while I am looking with interest at both the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute(and its Formation Theologique par Correspondance) as well as the Pavel Florensky School of Theology and Ministry of Euclid University, I have presently applied to and have been accepted into the St. Stephen's Program of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, with an eye towards perhaps going on to their Master's and Doctorate programs at Balamand University.

In short, it's been somewhat busy around here. More later.

I'm on TV!

2006-09-12T10:15:00.000-07:00

It appears that through the kindness of my friend Gwydion, I've been put on YouTube. While it also appears (from looking at his website) that some people have been kvetching about some of Gwydion's other productions, I think that considering the equipment that he's been using (including a video camera smaller than my fist), he's doing a fine job, particularly in editing and in putting music to his video clip.

The only really objectionable thing about the clip was the ugliness of the subject (me), and he even minimizes that by breaking up the painful experience with really neat shots of my church, St. Andrew Russian Catholic Church.

One note, though: the reason why I was grinning with almost a rictus was that I was trying to see whether I could break the camera with my ugliness. Strange- it works just fine with regular cameras and mirrors. I guess that I'll just have to try harder next time.

Various liquid pursuits

2006-09-04T14:55:00.000-07:00

I've been rather busy lately, but I am not presently at liberty to discuss precisely what it is that I have been doing. More on that later.

In my copious free time, I've been indulging in various summertime vices. Alcohol in particular. Not so much the drinking of it (although there has been some of that) but more in the manufacture of various drinks. Flavored vodkas, mainly.

It seems that Stoli, Smirnoff and a number of other companies have been busy inflicting flavored vodkas on the unwary American public, and more particularly, inflicting premium prices for their manufacture and sale. While I enjoy flavored vodkas as much as the next man (and probably more so), I do not enjoy having to pay high prices for the privilege. Thus, my essays into practical alchemy. These are the results:

Vodka Vanil or Vanilla Vodka

-One vanilla bean, cut lengthwise and serated
-One bottle of vodka of your choice(750 ml)

Place the cut and serated vanilla bean in the bottle of vodka. Keep in a cool, dark place for a week. Remove vanilla bean. Keep in freezer until time to drink, at which time, drink neat, in shot glasses. It looks like amber and tastes like silver. (Note: at the Pascha party that my church throws after the Paschal Matins and Liturgy at around 3 a.m., I can be seen going up and down, and to and fro in the parish patio, with a bottle of this pulchritudinous potable, seeking whom I might to lead into temptation).

Vodka Piertzevka or Pepper Vodka

-Two tablespoons whole peppercorns (black, white, or pink)
-One bottle vodka (750 ml)

Pour vodka into a 1 liter mason jar. Pour peppercorns into jar after vodka. Screw on top to mason jar. Taste every two hours until vodka has all the flavor of the pepper, and a little of its heat. I find four to eight hours works for me. Then take a large funnel (preferably glass or stainless steel), fold a paper towel into fours and place in wide end of funnel, place narrow end back in vodka bottle, and pour decoction through the funnel until it is all back in the bottle. Put bottle in freezer until needed. Can be drunk neat, or makes excellent Bloody Marys.

Vodka Limonaya or Lemon Vodka

-Zest from one lemon (yellow part only; avoid the white pith; a zester or microplane work for removing zest quickly)
-One bottle vodka (750 ml)

Pour vodka into a 1 liter mason jar. Pour zest into jar after vodka. Screw on top to mason jar. Taste every two hours until vodka has all the flavor of the lemon, but stop before it starts to get bitter. I find four to twelve hours works for me. Then take a large funnel (preferably glass or stainless steel), fold a paper towel into fours and place in wide end of funnel, place narrow end back in vodka bottle, and pour decoction through the funnel until it is all back in the bottle (except for the zest, of course). Put bottle in freezer until needed. Can be drunk neat, or works wonderfully with sparkling or tonic water.

Vodka Oranzhievnii or Orange Vodka

-Zest from one orange (orange part only; avoid the white pith; a zester or microplane work for removing zest quickly)
-One bottle vodka (750 ml)

Pour vodka into a 1 liter mason jar. Pour zest into jar after vodka. Screw on top to mason jar. Taste every two hours until vodka has all the flavor of the orange, but stop before it starts to get bitter. I find four to twelve hours works for me. Then take a large funnel (preferably glass or stainless steel), fold a paper towel into fours and place in wide end of funnel, place narrow end back in vodka bottle, and pour decoction through the funnel until it is all back in the bottle (except for the zest, of course). Put bottle in freezer until needed. Can be drunk neat, or works wonderfully with sparkling or tonic water.

Vodka Izviestaya or Lime Vodka

-Zest from two limes (green part only; avoid the white pith; a zester or microplane work for removing zest quickly)
-One bottle vodka (750 ml)

Pour vodka into a 1 liter mason jar. Pour zest into jar after vodka. Screw on top to mason jar. Taste every two hours until vodka has all the flavor of the lime, but stop before it starts to get bitter. I find four to twelve hours works for me. Then take a large funnel (preferably glass or stainless steel), fold a paper towel into fours and place in wide end of funnel, place narrow end back in vodka bottle, and pour decoction through the funnel until it is all back in the bottle (except for the zest, of course). Put bottle in freezer until needed. Can be drunk neat, or works wonderfully with sparkling or tonic water.

Finally, while this is not a vodka, it's well worth trying:

Quinine Tonic Simple Syrup

-Six ounces sugar (by volume)
-Six ounces water (by volume)
-One 260 mg Quinine Tablet (you need a doctor's prescription for this, at least in the U.S.)

Pour water and sugar together into small saucepan. Heat and stir until sugar has dissolved and solution is clear. Turn off heat before bubbles start to appear. (At this point, you have what is called a simple syrup. This is great for putting in iced tea or other cold liquids without the sugar leaving crystals on the bottom of the glass).

Then crush quinine tablet into powder with a mortar and pestle, and stir powder into the still hot simple syrup until the powder dissolves (Note: Quinine melts at around 160 degrees Centigrade, so you should be okay if you don't allow the solution to boil). Let solution cool to room temperature. Then use stainless steel funnel and paper towel (see instructions above) to filter solution into a bottle with a lid. The simple syrup should be clear, and you should be able to keep it without problems for weeks.

Note that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sets the limit of quinine to water at 68 parts per million. Three ounces of this simple sugar per liter of sparkling water should do the trick quite nicely. I find, however, that pouring a jigger (One and one-half ounces) of this simple sugar into a glass, followed by a jigger of vodka (unflavored, or lemon, lime, or orange), then followed by twelve ounces of cold sparking water, also works quite satisfactorily, and tastes like Schweppes Tonic Water (or Schweppes Bitter Lemon, Lime, or Orange, depending on the type of flavored vodka you use).

Enjoy!

Pluto is a Planet!

2006-08-24T13:11:00.000-07:00

To the tune of “Yes, Jesus Loves Me”

Scientists have now agreed
That nine planets we don't need;
After nearly eighty years,
Pluto's place has disappeared.

Chorus:
Pluto's a planet,
Pluto's a planet,
Pluto's a planet,
Clyde Tombaugh told me so!

Pity poor Venetia Phair,
Victim of a ruse unfair.
She called Pluto by its name.
Will she be left with the blame?

Chorus:

Pluto, so the savants say,
Is a dwarf as of today,
Clearly, one more victim from
Size dis-cri-mi-na-ti-on.

Chorus:

Pluto, just like Socrates,
Was sentenced by majority.
Let’s hope that the voters may
Not be treated the same way!

Chorus:

The Ballad of the Goodly Fere

2006-08-12T11:48:00.000-07:00

Simon Zelotes speaketh it somewhile after the Crucifixion:

Ha' we lost the goodliest fere o' all
For the priests and the gallows tree?
Aye lover he was of brawny men,
O' ships and the open sea.

When they came wi' a host to take Our Man
His smile was good to see,
"First let these go!" quo' our Goodly Fere,
"Or I'll see ye damned," says he.

Aye he sent us out through the crossed high spears
And the scorn of his laugh rang free,
"Why took ye not me when I walked about
Alone in the town?" says he.

Oh we drunk his "Hale" in the good red wine
When we last made company,
No capon priest was the Goodly Fere
But a man o' men was he.

I ha' seen him drive a hundred men
Wi' a bundle o' cords swung free,
That they took the high and holy house
For their pawn and treasury.

They'll no' get him a' in a book I think
Though they write it cunningly;
No mouse of the scrolls was the Goodly Fere
But aye loved the open sea.

If they think they ha' snared our Goodly Fere
They are fools to the last degree.
"I'll go to the feast," quo' our Goodly Fere,
"Though I go to the gallows tree."

"Ye ha' seen me heal the lame and blind,
And wake the dead," says he,
"Ye shall see one thing to master all:
'Tis how a brave man dies on the tree."

A son of God was the Goodly Fere
That bade us his brothers be.
I ha' seen him cow a thousand men.
I have seen him upon the tree.

He cried no cry when they drave the nails
And the blood gushed hot and free,
The hounds of the crimson sky gave tongue
But never a cry cried he.

I ha' seen him cow a thousand men
On the hills o' Galilee,
They whined as he walked out calm between,
Wi' his eyes like the grey o' the sea,

Like the sea that brooks no voyaging
With the winds unleashed and free,
Like the sea he cowed at Genseret
Wi' twey words spoke' suddently.

A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea,
If they think they ha' slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.

I ha' seen him eat o' the honey-comb
Sin' they nailed him to the tree.

--Ezra Pound

Sorry for the interruption

2006-06-28T11:08:00.000-07:00

It appears that I have been doing no posting for the past month. That has been because I have been taking care of my wife, Elizabeth, who has been recovering from her latest round of reconstructive surgery status post breast cancer. She's all right; I'm so-so.

More later.

Memorial Day

2006-05-29T08:35:00.000-07:00

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

-Francis Scott Key

A Letter to an Eastern Catholic Friend

2006-05-17T14:50:00.000-07:00

Dear B:

Sorry for the delay in responding to your e-mail, but things have been interesting around here. One thing of interest is that Beth was scheduled for further reconstructive surgery in later June. That has been bumped up to this Thursday. In consequence, it looks as though we will have to skip going to Disneyland with you on Friday. Sorry. I've looked at the ticket situation for Disneyland, though, and have found that the ticket discount for Southern California residents ended on 4/27, and would only have been about $10 dollars per ticket. Ah, well.

On the other hand, it looks as though Beth will have recovered enough from this surgery so that she should be able either to see you at St. Andrew's on Sunday, or later Sunday afternoon and evening for dinner at my mother's house. You and your family are of course invited. My mother sends her greetings: she rather likes youze guyz.

As regards your RC theology internet class, and the subject of the ordination of women, we tend to get a fair amount of that nonsense, especially from our relatively close contact with RC priests, and Loyola Marymount University. The latter's poor excuse for a theology department is why I am looking at St. Stephen's Program and St. Serge Seminary for distance learning.

One of the things that one should realize is that the feminist impetus, which is the driving force for the ordination of women, is neither based upon a concern for scripture nor tradition: rather, it is founded upon the classic liberal ideal of "empowerment" for those who had been formerly "oppressed" or "subjugated" by retrograde ways of thinking, mainly of "patriarchal" society. For those who hold the feminist view, tradition and adherence to scripture, especially as they relate to the presbyterate and the episcopate, are part and parcel of that "retrograde", "patriarchal" way of thinking, which in more these more enlightened times should be put away by the intelligent and the mature.

The feminist view is greatly assisted by the fact that in the Latin West, the priesthood and the sacraments have until quite recently been looked upon as "powers" or a "club" reserved for men only, to which considerable political, intellectual, and "spiritual" privilege have been attached. Put a bit more crassly, in the West, the clergy are paid to be good, while the laity are good for nothing. I dare say that if I were a woman, and if I were confronted with an ethos like that, I would be all in favor of dismantling the lot of it.

I think the thing to point out to the feminists of either sex among the Latins is that the East has a rather different ethos, or way of doing things. In our little village, the church property is generally owned and run by the people of the community, rather than the hierarchy; the priest and the deacon are guys who have a job like us, and are people with whom we work and live, and their wives have as an important a role in the community as they do. The bishop is as often as not a monastic, devoted (as were the Apostles) to the teaching of the Gospel and the divine services. Our real intellectual and spirtual elite are the monastics, who quite often are laypeople who are devoted to the spiritual life, and who may be either male or female. And female monastics, from St. Catherine to Cassiani to Mary of Egypt, have been as important to our spiritual life as have the men folk.

Finally, we do not consider the priest or the deacon to be "invested" with a "power" to make or "confect" the sacraments; instead, by the laying on of hands by the Bishop, he has become an icon of Christ, and it is Christ in him who anoints the sick, who hears confessions and absolves sins, and who accomplishes the Paschal sacrifice by which bread and wine become His sacred body and blood, and our spiritual nourishment. More particularly, rather than being the guys who run the show (as was the case until recently in the West), the priest and deacon are the primary (but not the only) actors in the great drama of the Divine Liturgy: they are icons of Christ the Teacher and Christ the Servant. We choose men to serve those roles because Christ was a man, and for much the same reason that we choose men to play the roles of Gandalf, or Aragorn, or Hamlet, or Kent in King Lear. While I suppose that a director might decide to miscast women for those roles, the resulting mess would be a bad play. And our Church, in her wisdom, has decided that those roles in the Divine Liturgy are to be served only by men. No problem, though: there is plenty enough for the rest of us to do in that Liturgy, and, by the grace of God, in the Kingdom of Heaven as well.

I hope this is of some help to you.

Bernie

Why I am a Christian

2006-04-20T18:59:00.000-07:00

Introduction: For those few actually wondering what I’ve been doing of late, other than Great and Holy Week, Pascha, and Bright Monday, in my spare time I have been infesting the web pages of Dan Simmons. In the course of that infestation, I’ve written several things which have apparently aroused the curiosity of the readers there. One of the readers there happened to ask how and I why I became a Christian. This letter followed (with some minor alterations and additions). The name and identity of my correspondent will remain concealed, in order to protect the noncombatants.

Dear Mr. X:

Thank you for your well-wishes for my birthday yesterday. It was a good one: I had a two-hour walk along the beach (Hermosa and Manhattan Beaches) near my home, I began reading Richard Feynman's "QED" (his elegant explanation of Quantum ElectroDynamics), and I cooked for my wife and myself a nice beef rib steak with baked potato, butter and sour cream. All and all, it was one of my better birthdays.

Thank you also for your request to learn more about why I chose to become a Christian. As I find distasteful the current tendency among Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals to "witness" to their faith (I believe that J. D. Salinger quite wittily referred to it as “the worst form of name-dropping”), I thought it best to answer your request in a private letter, rather than to parade my story about in a public posting in the Forum.

It would probably be good to give some background: while I was raised as a Roman Catholic for my first seven or so years in Tulsa, Oklahoma (an interesting story in itself), I was fortunate enough to escape childhood persecution by the baby Baptists and Fundamentalists there when my family moved to Southern California. I continued to go to Catholic school there, but, being a voracious reader and an occasional thinker, I decided at the age of 13 to become an atheist. I did so because, on a diet of Philip Wylie, Montague Summers, and Ayn Rand, I decided that an uncritical faith was not for a critical thinker.

For a couple of years, I espoused the Objectivism of Ayn Rand, and, unfortunately, I was an arrogant little prig in those days. To quote from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", though: "I got better."

Basically, I noticed that a lot of atheists adhered to their atheism as a matter of faith, just as much as theists held their beliefs. As I did not have much respect for faith at the time, I decided to become an agnostic.

It was just a couple of months after I had done so that I realized that there were two types of agnostic: those who were not sure whether or not there was a God, and those who believed that it was impossible to know whether or not there was a God. I came to the conclusion that the latter course was one that I could not take: not only did it involve a rather uncritical faith, but it closed off any sort of inquiry on the subject. I thus decided that I was an agnostic in the first sense, and was uncertain whether or not there was a God. I also decided that it would be worthwhile to examine that question further, and to prove, one way or another, whether there was such a thing as God.

During this time, the philosophy of Existentialism was becoming popular in the United States. I read Sartre and Camus, and found them both wanting. Basically, I found that their philosophy was entirely self-consistent, and the death of any inquiry for truth. If one believes that there is no rational order to the universe, and that there is no meaning in it, other than a meaning which one makes for one's self, then one can become an atheist, or whatever else one wishes. But without meaning, without an underlying order to the universe, there is no possibility of science or of knowledge, and life was absurd.

I also was in the process of learning formal logic, and studying rational systems. I found that such systems did not go into infinite regress, but began with axioms; in other words, with ideas or things worthy of belief. As a result of this study, I came to several conclusions: 1) that it could be consistent with reason for one to start with self-evident beliefs, and to build rational systems of though from these; 2) that the only alternative to the belief that life and that the universe were absurd would be that the universe, and the life which began in that universe, was an ordered, or rational system, and 3) that if the universe was a rational system, then it was a necessary consequence that in its origins, it would not go from effect to cause in an infinite regress, but that ultimately, there would have to be a First Cause.

In examining aspects of the universe, I found that there was great beauty, order, and (for want of a better word) wisdom in it. As manifestations of the effect had (to my mind) to be present in the cause, I came to the conclusion that in the First Cause was Order, Beauty, and Wisdom. Basically, rather than the wheel, I had reinvented the lines of reasoning of Plato and Aristotle.

From this conclusion, I came to two others: the first was that the more that I examined it, this First Cause seemed to be indistinguishable from God. But the second was not so much a conclusion, as an emotional response: at some point, I asked myself what was the appropriate response of a rational being to the possibility of the existence of God, and my immediate response was: gratitude, love, and the desire to learn more of this Being. At this point, I became a Theist.

I also had to deal with the unsettling possibility that not only did God exist, but that this God may have in some way communicated with humankind. I decided to start reading the world's religions, including Greco-Roman and world pagan mythologies, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Taoism, the teachings of Confucius, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. From this study, I came to several conclusions:

1. That many of the pagan mythologies appear to be compilations of stories told to attempt to explain things to the people of the time (rather like the modern tendency towards science fiction and fantasy), and that mixed in with a fair amount of nonsense is some truth, and some measure of inspiration;

2. That many of the world's religions (e.g., Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, etc.) appear to be attempts by their respective authors to sift through their indigenous mythologies and to find in them a human wisdom through which humankind might find peace and happiness. In the cases of Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism, the authors of those religions have specifically stated, one way or another, that the search for an "almighty God" or an "almighty Spirit" was irrelevant to their studies;

3. The only world religions I know of which specifically claim inspiration from or communication with a transcendent being are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism;

4. From a simple study of the texts of those religions, it appears that only Judaism and Christianity develop unique doctrines. A textual study of the basic texts of Islam and Mormonism reveals a certain derivativeness: Islam from Judaism and Mormonism from 18th Century Protestant Christianity. While both of the latter religions have strengths in that they maintain the high moral code of Judaism and Christianity, they also have admixtures of a peculiar mythology (in the case of Mormonism), and of a barbarism (in the case of Islam: that is, its martial aspect, its subjugation of non-Islamic religions in the basic texts, and in some of the moral aspects of its leader, Muhammad) which I found to be personally repugnant.

I also started examining the religions from another angle: from their creation myths, from the Aborigines to the Zulus, and just about everything in between. With but one exception, all the other creation myths were of the fanciful sort found in the Firesign Theatre's "I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus". That one exception, which followed in large part just about all that we have learned from modern cosmology, biology, phylogeny, and anthropology, was the creation myth to be found in the first chapter of Genesis. That was my first clue.

Other clues that I found as I started reading Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (e.g., Psalms) was the odd conjunction of a particularly barbarous people, and some of the highest wisdom that I had found in any of the religious writings that I had read. I also started seeing that this people was gradually transformed into one of the most intelligent, cultured, and simply civilized people on the face of the Earth. I personally came to the conclusion that there might be something to this God thing, at least as far as Torah was concerned.

I also started reading the New Testament, and as I was learning Greek at the time, also got into what was originally being said. I also started reading the apologetic writings of C.S. Lewis (together with similar writings as well as the fantasy literature of J.R.R. Tolkein, Charles Williams, and Dorothy Sayers). As a result of that reading, the objections which I had originally had to the possibility of supernaturalism (e.g., miracles), divine inspiration, of sin, and of resurrection, began to fade. I began to accept the possibility that the transcendent God might not only have communicated with us, but have actually become present as a human being.

Finally, at the age of 24, and on the Great and Holy Thursday before Easter, I accepted Christ, both in my heart and through the Eucharist, in the church of two friends who had helped me take the final steps, after an absence of more than ten years.

You have only asked me how I became a Christian, and so I will spare you the details of how I became a Russian Catholic, or why I decided that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy were both at the center of Christendom. I would, however, like to point out several things before I close this letter:

1. This is only an attempt to show the lines of reasoning by which I became first a Theist, and then a Christian: it is not an attempt to convert you. As Robert A. Heinlein put in the mouth of one of his characters, faith, like trust, is like a lifejacket: it can only help or cover the one who uses it;

2. This is not an attempt at religious chauvinism, or to attempt to say (as with so many religious believers) that "my religion is the one True Faith--everything else is totally wrong and damned. I find (as do many Catholics and Orthodox) the "philosophia perennis" of the pagan Plato and Aristotle and their later followers to have much wisdom quite compatible with both Judaism and Christianity. I also find much of the wisdom which I have found in Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism to be of great value to me, and each of these religions have given me great insights into human nature in general and my own happiness in particular. I must point out though, that the best of all of the virtuous pagans (including the Gautama Buddha, Lao Tze, Kung Fu Tze, Plato, and Aristotle) ask different questions, and point in different directions, than do Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, the Prophets, and Jesus of Nazareth. If it comes down to it, I prefer to follow the latter rather than the former line of teachers;

3. The possibility exists that I am entirely wrong: that there may be no sentient God, no Resurrection, no Heaven or Hell, and that when I die, that will be the end of my consciousness, forever. (Alternatively, I may wake up to hear the angels proclaiming “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One” in Hebrew, or “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet” in Arabic). I got used to that concept when I was in the middle of my atheism at the age of 13. I do not believe as I now do because I find such faith “comforting”, or “an escape”, or “a consolation in my later years.” I believe as I do because I believe it to be true. If it were adequately shown to me that it was not, then my immediate response would be to say: “To Hell with it!”

4. It is likely that one reading this long and tedious tirade would say: “How can one believe in Christianity, when so many atrocities have been committed in its name?” It is a reasonable question, and one which is the primary reason why it took me more than eleven years to accept Christ. I will note, however, two conclusions that I have come to after many years of reading World History and Religion, which I have come to term “Brandt’s First and Second Laws of Human Behavior”:

“First, there is no concept, idea, belief or creed so noble or holy that human beings cannot somehow manage to screw it up.

“Second, the fact that humans can screw up any concept, idea, belief, or creed does not by itself undermine the validity of the underlying idea, etc.”

Hoping that all of this rather tedious drivel might in some way answer the question which you asked, I am

Very truly yours,

Bernard Brandt

Dan Simmons' April Message-Update

2006-04-16T23:25:00.000-07:00

Several days ago, I posted the full message of Dan Simmons' April Message here, because either technical error or a hacker's intent had caused the message to be removed, and because I thought that it was important that that Message should be read.

Mr. Simmons has since put the text back on his website, here. A mirror site which has the full message may be found here. Since Mr. Simmons' Message is available, I thought it best that people get that message directly from the source. I have thus set up these links, but have removed the text of that message.

Nonetheless, there has been a lively debate regarding the Message in Mr. Simmons' Forum, with some people (apparently genuinely) believing that the Message was just the expression of "hateful vitriol". I decided to take part in that debate, and (of course) I took the other side. What follows is the text of my reply:

* * *

If the assembled multitudes at www.dansimmons.com and its forum will permit a comment from a newcomer, I would like to counter the thesis of William Lexler, who has asserted that the April Message is Hateful Vitriol. Mr. Lexler’s thesis appears to be that a subtext of the April Message is that the West should kill millions and millions of Muslims, which is genocide, and which in turn is hateful. If it is true that Mr. Simmons’ message posits that, then Mr. Lexler would have a point.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Wexler does not bother actually to read the April Message, or to point out in it where Mr. Simmons is saying that we should begin a genocide of Muslims. I find, however, that if one were actually to read the message, and to read between the lines of it, Mr. Simmons is in fact saying something entirely different.

In my reading of the Message, Mr. Simmons is presenting a science fiction/horror story of the type: “If this goes on.” George Orwell’s 1984 is one example of this genre. Orwell’s story is an explication of “what would happen if English Socialism were to prevail in Great Britain. Simmons’ story is likewise an explication of what would happen if the West were to remain conflicted over whether to take steps to prevent radical Islamic nations or groups from manufacturing or using nuclear weapons.

I come to this conclusion from the words which the Time Traveler gives as hints of what is to come in the year 2006: Ahmadenijad, Natanz. Arak. Bushehr. Ishafan. Bonab. Ramsar. Anyone who would bother to Google these words, or to check on them at www.wikipedia.com or www.globalsecurity.com, would know that Ahmadenijad is the name of the current President of Iran, who is pushing for Iran’s development of thermonuclear weapons, who has vowed the destruction of Israel, and who has even been insane enough to posit that the Holocaust did not exist. The remaining words are the names of Iranian cities or towns in which Iran’s heavy water program, its nuclear plants, its plutonium purification program, its nuclear technology, and its sources of uranium are located.

The remaining words are just as indicative: General Seyed Reza Pardis is the General of Iran’s Air Force, who has sworn that attempts by Israel to disable Iran’s nuclear capabilities would be responded to with retaliation with all weapons at Iran’s disposal, including nuclear ones. Shehab-one, Shehab-two, Shehab-three are the names of Iran’s continental and intercontinental ballistic missile programs. The remaining names, from Tel Aviv to Dimona, are likely targets of Iran’s efforts: from cities in Israel to U.S. Army and Air Force bases in the mid-east.

Whether or not the United States would respond to nuclear aggression by Iran with a nuclear response, it is certain that Israel, a nuclear power, would respond with such weapons: since the 1970’s, the Government of Israel has quietly, but repeatedly, stated that if Arab or other Muslim nations were to succeed in the destruction of Israel, Israel would have no choice save to exercise its Samson Option: the retaliatory bombing of all Arab or Muslim combatant countries, which at present include Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. The most likely result of that would be the genocide of both Jews and Arabs, a pan-Muslim Jihad against the West, global thermonuclear war, and a protracted conventional war. A “Century War” would not be outside the realm of possibility, or probability. The destruction of Western Civilization for centuries thereafter would be a more than likely consequence.

In this context, the Time Traveler’s (or TT’s) comments about Category Error and the War against Terror, the miscalculations of the Athenians at Syracuse, and the related Allied miscalculation regarding Iraq, make much more sense: I personally would tend to agree with the TT that a crucial mistake of Bush II after 9/11/01 was in framing the war as one against terror, rather than as against a radical ideological movement within Islam. The mistake is understandable, in that some of our allies were and are Muslim countries, and some of their leaders are sympathetic to that movement.

Nonetheless, in framing the conflict in those terms, Bush II inevitably lost support when he turned his attack from Afghanistan, the center of Al-Qa’ida’s efforts, to Iraq, which appeared to have little connection with terrorism. The facts that Iraq also attempted to obtain or develop thermonuclear weapons since the late 70s, that according to the U.N. Report on the subject, came within six months of achieving such weapons in 1991 (when Operation Desert Storm intervened), that Iraq’s leader had repeatedly stated the intention of using such weapons against Israel, and finally, the fact its leader appeared to be continuing to obtain such weapons in 2002, would have been valid reasons for toppling the government of Iraq, had the conflict been defined in terms of a war on a nuclear belligerent form of Islam, rather than a “war on terror”.

But Bush II miscalculated in two ways in his war on Iraq: 1) he was unwilling or unable to read the intelligence analyses which would determine whether Iraq was a current nuclear threat (and in fairness to Bush II, his predecessor had spent the previous years in dismantling the intelligence agencies and analysis communities which would have made such analysis either possible or accurate), and; 2) Bush II appears to have entered the war without a clear idea of an end game. Instead of returning the so-called nation of Iraq to its pre-WWI partition of a northern Kurdistan, a middle Sunnistan, and a southern Shiastan (and perhaps the ceding of the oil-bearing land to Kuwait for reparition for the 1991 war), Bush instead poured most of his military, economical and political capital into the “democratization of Iraq” for a people who either did not want democracy, or, if they did, to exercise the franchise in a way entirely inimical to the interests of the United States (much in the same way as the Palestinians are now exercising their democratic franchise).

Unfortunately, while Bush II had invested so much energy into the neutralization of Iraq as a nuclear threat, Iran continued, unchecked, to develop its nuclear capability, to the point where estimates now indicate that Iran is within three to six months of obtaining both thermonuclear weapons. Further, it appears that Iran is more than likely, especially with its current president, to carry out the intentions earlier expressed by Saddam Hussain regarding the destruction of Israel.

At this point, it is good to point out a mistake that a number of westerners, including those posting on this forum, are making: they are assuming that people of the Muslim world are proceeding on the same rational self-interest and desire to live and let live that we are. It is a reasonable, and indeed a charitable mistake to make, and perhaps, in the cases of many Muslim families outside of the Middle East, it may be not a mistake at all. But for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people in the Middle East, they are not proceeding on that basis at all.

They are instead proceeding on the basis that their religion tells them that they are the rightful owners of all of the property and people of the world; that at present, there is the Dar al Islam (or House of Islam) and the Dar al Harb (or House of War); that the job of all believing Muslims is to turn the Dar al Harb into the Dar al Islam and to subject all People of the Book (that is, Jews and Christians) into submission as dhimmis, to convert all pagans to Islam by the sword, and to condemn all apostates from Islam, Christianity, or Judaism to death. By the bye, all you secular humanists, atheists, agnostics and general non-believers who have Christian or Jewish roots are considered to be apostates, as is the secular state of Israel and the post-Christian United States of America.

That is the reason why the Arab and Islamic world has rejected the state of Israel for more than the past half-century: Muslims believe that once a land, like Palestine, has been claimed by the Dar al Islam, it can never be permitted by Allah to be returned to unbelievers. That is why Al Qa-ida has called for the fatwa against the United States and the Allies for their unspeakable act of occupying the land of the Dar al-Islam. And that is why Iraq has called the United States “the Great Satan”, and seeks its destruction, along with that of Israel, even now.

It is hard for someone who has not gone to the mid-East, or read Arab or Persian newspapers, or watched their television, to understand the depth of that conviction, or that hatred, among many Muslims there. I recommend that those who are doubtful on this point start reading the English version of al-Jazeerah. I also recommend that they Google and start reading DhimmiWatch. Finally, as the most illustrative effort, I recommend that those with sufficient internet capability watch the newsclips of Islamic television around the world to be found at this web address (http://www.memritv.org), and to read the transcripts of what these people are saying: they are speaking truly poisonous and “hateful vitriol” against Israel, against Jews, and against the United States and the West, and are expressing their firm intention of destroying each and every one of these “enemies”. The most interesting thing about the newscasts are the thousands to hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are cheering, while this “hateful vitriol” is being uttered.

Thus, it appears that we of the West have two options, as both the facts and the April Message of Dan Simmons indicate: we can continue ruthlessly to suppress Muslim extremist attempts at developing thermonuclear weapons and using them against Israel and the West, or we can expect a thermonuclear and a conventional war, in which the ultimate aim is to subject Western Civilization to the “cleansing” effect of Islam and Shari’a law, and which, if we are to resist it at all, would mean a war involving the genocide of the Muslim peoples.

I leave as an exercise for the student the question of which of these two options would be the true expression of “hateful vitriol”.

Why we fight

2006-04-11T15:28:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of Jerry Pournelle:

Why We Fight — An Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto (2.0)

WHEREAS, the period since the terrible events of 9/11 has exposed the vacuity and moral confusion of all too many of the thinkers, politicians, and activists operating within conventional political categories;

WHEREAS, the Left has failed us by succumbing to reflexive anti-Americanism; by apologizing for terrorist acts; by propounding squalid theories of moral equivalence; and by blaming the victims of evil for the act of evil;

WHEREAS, the Right has failed us by pushing ‘anti-terrorist’ measures which bid fair to be both ineffective and prejudicial to the central liberties of a free society; and in some cases by rhetorically descending to almost the same level of bigotry as our enemies;

WHEREAS, even many of the Libertarians from whom we expected more intelligence have retreated into a petulant isolationism, refusing to recognize that, at this time, using the state to carry the war back to the aggressors is our only practical instrument of self-defense;

WE THEREFORE ASSERT the following convictions as the premises of the anti-idiotarian position:

1. THAT Western civilization is threatened with the spectre of mass death perpetrated by nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons placed in the hands of terrorists by rogue states;

2. THAT the terrorists and their state sponsors have declared and are pursuing a war not against the vices of Western civilization but against its core virtues: against the freedom of thought and speech and conscience, against the life of reason; against the equality of women, against pluralism and tolerance; against, indeed, all the qualities which separate civilized human beings from savagery, slavery, and fanaticism;

3. THAT no adjustments of American or Western foreign policy, or concessions to the Palestinians, or actions taken against globalization, or efforts to alleviate world poverty, are of more than incidental interest to these terrorists;

4. THAT, upon their own representation, they will not be dissuaded from their violence by any surrender less extreme than the imposition of Islam and shari'a law on the kaffir West;

5. THAT, as said terrorists have demonstrated the willingness to use civilian airliners as flying bombs to kill thousands of innocent people, we would commit a vast crime of moral negligence if we underestimated the scope of their future malice even without weapons of mass destruction;

6. THAT they have sought, and on plausible evidence found, alliance with rogue states such as pre-liberation Iraq, Iran, and North Korea; states that are known to have active programs working towards the development and delivery of weapons of that would multiply the terrorists' ability to commit atrocities by a thousandfold;

WE THEREFORE DECLARE that both the terrorists and their state sponsors have made themselves outlaws from the moral community of mankind, to be dealt with as rabid dogs are.

WE FURTHER AFFIRM that the ‘root cause’ of Islamo-fascist terrorism lies in the animating politico-religious ideas of fundamentalist Islam and not in any significant respect elsewhere, and that a central aim of the war against terror must be to displace and discredit those animating ideas.

WE REJECT, as a self-serving power grab by the least trustworthy elements of our own side, the theory that terrorist depredations can be effectively prevented by further restrictions on the right of free speech, or the right of peacable assembly, or the right to bear arms in self-defense; and we strenuously oppose police-state measures such as the imposition of national ID cards or airport-level surveillance of public areas;

IN GRAVE KNOWLEDGE that the state of war brings out the worst in both individual human beings and societies, we reject the alternative of ceding to the world's barbarians the exclusive privilege of force;

WE SUPPORT the efforts of the United States of America, its allies, and the West to hunt down and capture or kill individual members of the Islamo-fascist terror network;

WE SUPPORT speedy American and allied military action against the rogue states that support terrorism, both as a means of alleviating the immediate threat and of deterring future state sponsorship of terrorism by the threat of war to the knife.

WE SUPPORT, in recognition of the fact that the military and police cannot and should not be everywhere, efforts to meet the distributed threat with a distributed response; to arm airline pilots, and to recognize as well the ordinary citizen's right and duty to respond to terrorist aggression with effective force.

WE SUPPORT, as an alternative greatly preferable to future nuclear/chemical/biological blackmail of the West, the forcible overthrow of the governments of nations that combine sponsorship of terrorism with the possession of weapons of mass destruction; and the occupation of those nations until such time as the root causes of terrorism have been eradicated from their societies.

WE DEFINE IDIOTARIANISM as the species of delusion within the moral community of mankind that gives aid and comfort to terrorists and tyrants operating outside it.

WE REJECT the idiotarianism of the Left — the moral blindness that refuses to recognize that free markets, individual liberty, and experimental science have made the West a fundamentally better place than any culture in which jihad, ‘honor killings’, and female genital mutilation are daily practices approved by a stultifying religion.

WE REJECT the idiotarianism of the Right — whether it manifests as head-in-the-sand isolationism or as a a Christian-chauvinist political agenda that echoes the religious absolutism of our enemies.

WE ARE MEMBERS OF A CIVILIZATION, and we hold that civilization to be worth defending. We have not sought war, but we will fight it to the end. We will fight for our civilization in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds.

WE HAVE AWAKENED; we have seen the face of evil in the acts of the Bin Ladens and Husseins and Arafats of the world; we have seen through the lies and self-delusions of the idiotarians who did so much to enable and excuse their evil. We shall not flinch from our duty to confront that evil.

WE SHALL DEMAND as citizens and voters that those we delegate to lead pursue the war against terror with an unflagging will to victory and all means necessary — while remaining always mindful that we must not become what we fight;

WE SHALL REMEMBER that the West's keenest weapons are reason and the truth; that we must shine a pitiless light on the lies from which terrorist hatred is built; and that we must also be vigilant against the expedient lie from our own side, lest our victories become tainted and hollow, sowing trouble for the future.

WE HAVE FAITH that we are equal to these challenges; we shall not be paralyzed by fear of the enemy, nor yet by fear of ourselves;

WE SHALL SHED the moral cowards and the appeasers and the apologists; and we shall fight the barbarians and fanatics, and we shall defeat them. We shall defeat them in war, crushing their dream of dominion; and we shall defeat them in peace, using our wealth and freedoms to win their women and children to civilized ways, and ultimately wiping their diseased and virulent ideologies from the face of the Earth.

THIS WE SWEAR, on the graves of those who died at the World Trade Center; and those who died in the Sari Club in Bali; and those who died on U.S.S. Cole; and indeed on the graves of all the nameless victims in the Middle East itself who have been slaughtered by terrorism and rogue states:

YOU SHALL NOT HAVE DIED IN VAIN.

--Eric S. Raymond
26 December 2003

Ontological Differences, Part II

2006-04-06T07:42:00.000-07:00

In my last entry, I had presented the address of His All-Holiness, Bartholemew, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, in which His All-Holiness suggested that there might be ontological differences between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches which would need to be addressed. One of the things that I have noted about Orthodox Theology, is that it asks different questions and speaks almost in another language from that with which Western “theologians” are familiar. In my near twenty year sojourn in Russian Catholicism, I have learned perhaps a little about that language and those questions. Perhaps it would be helpful to those readers to present what I believe that I have learned.

The two main questions which I have learned, which the Orthodox continually ask, and to which Western theologians seldom respond, are these:

1. Why do you “theologize” through intellectual disputation rather than through your worship?

That the Orthodox ask this question comes in part from their own eponym: the very word Orthodoxy comes from a Greek phrase which can either mean right belief or true worship. Wrapped up in this linguistic nexus is the settled belief among Orthodox that only those who have entered into the heavenly worship can truly be called “theologians”. As far as I have been able to find, Orthodoxy accords the term “theologian” to only three people: John the Evangelist, Maximos the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas. All of those writers have in common the doxologies, or the praise of God, in their writings.

And the Orthodox regard most highly their hymnographers, from Ephrem the Syrian and John of Damascus, to the many (and usually anonymous) monastic theologians who have inscribed the dogmata of their theology into their hymns. Good translations into modern English of those hymns, and that theology, can be found at Archimandrite Ephrem Lash’s website of Anastasis. Otherwise, I would recommend that one compare in Fr. Alvin Kimel’s excellent weblog, Pontifications, his extracts from many eastern writings, which include the highest hymnography, with those of Western theologians, if only to mark the difference in language.

By comparison, most Western “theologians”, from the Schoolmen onward, appear to be far more interested in intellectual dispute than in the praise of the mysteries. From the viewpoint of those in the East, these appear to be, at worst, mere attempts to “unscrew the inscrutable”, and at best, attempts to treat the saving truths of salvation as data for analysis. Their opinion of this process can be best summed up by the Angelic Doctor, the Blessed Thomas Aquinas, who at the end of his life, in response to a divine vision which he was granted, considered all of his writings to be “so much straw.” The Orthodox would entirely agree.

In consequence, many Orthodox appear to believe that much of post-Schism Roman Catholic formation of dogma, from its definition of Transubstantiation, through its definitions of Purgatory, Papal Primacy and Infallibility, and even that of the Assumption of Our Blessed Lady (which the Orthodox express in their Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos), is tainted by an overintellectualization of basic truths, which should be better worshiped as mysteries than defined as doctrines.

I would venture to say that until and unless Roman Catholic “theologians” start to understand and address the question raised above, a basic ontological difference will continue to exist between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and attempts at union which ignore that difference are doomed to failure. Perhaps the main reason why Orthodox are beginning to look with interest on the current pontiff, His Holiness Benedict XVI, is that His Holiness appears to understand the question, and moreover, appears both to worship and to “theologize” as the Orthodox do.

The second question which Orthodox raise, which is actually a summary of several questions which they ask, is this:

Why does your worship so seldom express your theology, or Sacred Tradition?

I will leave discussion of this question, and its subsidiary questions, to a later posting.

Ontological Differences

2006-04-05T23:20:00.000-07:00

At present, something of a debate is going on over at Pontifications. The debate regards an essay of Fr. Louis Bouyer regarding union between Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Bouyer suggests that a form of union already exists between the two churches, and that it is just a matter of recognizing it. Tighe, a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, suggests that Bouyer's thesis is historically naive. Freeman, an Orthodox priest, suggests that an analogy to the Orthodox/Catholic schism may be found in relations between divorced spouses, and that it is a mark of the present schism that Orthodox and Catholics are talking about the same things but are saying essentially different things. Finally Likoudis, a former Greek Orthodox who has converted to Roman Catholicism, also finds Bouyer's thesis to be theologically naive, in that union between Orthodox and Catholics cannot occur without acceptance of all of the dogmata of the Roman Councils after the first seven ecumenical councils; and that opposition to such acceptance is mainly due to anti-unionist Orthodox.

In response to all of these theses and points for debate, I think that it would be wise to read His All-Holiness Bartholomew, and his speech before the Georgetown faculty on the occasion of his receipt of an honorary doctorate from that University. His All-Holiness suggests that there may be "ontological differences" preventing such a reunion, at least at present.

In the interest of providing light as well as heat on the matter, I shall be including a copy of His All-Holiness' address before the faculty of Georgetown. Here it is (and here is my source):

Address Of His All Holiness
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
Phos Hilaron
(Joyful Light)
Georgetown University, Washington, DC
21 October 1997

Your Eminences, Your Excellencies and Graces, Father O'Donovan, President of this University, Honored Guests, Beloved children in the Lord:

It is a special honor that this distinguished University confers the title of Honorary Doctor upon my Modesty. This is an opportunity for us to approach one another and communicate in the spirit of brotherhood. Although we proclaim that we worship the one and same Lord Jesus Christ, whose name we bear as Christians, we seek in common the causes of our divergence.

In the distant past, great attempts have been made by both sides to prove, and motivated by a different spirit, each side has judged the other as being divergent from the true faith.

This deeply rooted conviction of our divergence has led us to a thousand years of separate and autonomous courses. We confirm not with unexpected astonishment, but neither with indifference, that indeed the divergence between us continually increases and the end point to which our courses are taking us, foreseeably, are indeed different. Our heart is opposed to the specter of an everlasting separation. Our heart requires that we seek again our common foundations, and the original starting point that we share. So that, retrospectively we can discover the point and the reasons for our divergence that led to separate courses, and be able, by lifting blame, to proceed thereafter on the same road leading to the same common goal.

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive.

The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.

No one ignores the fact that the model for all of us is the person of the Theanthropos (God-Man) Jesus Christ. But which model? No one ignores the fact that the incorporation in Him is achieved within His body, the Church. But whose church?

Because of the varying responses to these basic questions, we marched on divergent courses. This is easily understood and unavoidable. For whether we comprehend this or not, our existence is ontologically shaped in symphony and harmony with our inner self. According to the description of our Lord, in Matthew 15:11, not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth. This means that our essence is in continuous transformation [Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18] by the renewing of your mind, and in the reflected glory of the Lord.

A characteristic detail, that cannot be understood without special attention, just as is described in the Old Testament, is that Jacob succeeded in having his flock bear multicolored lambs by placing before them multicolored rods [Genesis 30:37-43]. In a similar way, the Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians says that we are being transformed into the likeness of the image of the glory of the Lord, which we reflect. Consequently the glory of the Lord, which we see, as in a mirror, is that which transforms us. This glory is that to which we are likened. The reflection of the divine glory recreates or otherwise regenerates us into something other or different in essence than our previous nature. Therefore, transformation into the image of the Lord and the image of His body becomes the fundamental pursuit of our life, accomplished in essence by the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore we do not engage in idle talk and discuss intellectual concepts which do not influence our lives. We discuss the essence of the Being who truly is, to whom we seek to become assimilated by the grace of God, and because of the inadequacy of human terms, we call this the image of the glory of the Lord. Based on this image, and in the likeness of this image, we become partakers of the divine nature [2 Peter 1:4]. We are truly changed, although neither earth, nor voice, nor custom distinguish us from the rest on mankind. [To Diognetos 2, P.G. 2,1173]

This change, which is bestowed on us from the right hand of the Most High, remains hidden, secret and mystical to many. And thus, a life which is directed toward Him is called mystical. That which leads to divine grace are called mysteries. The entire change of both language and intellect is beyond comprehension and when directed by God leads to unspeakable mysteries.

However, the change of man's essence, theosis by grace, is a fact that is tangible for all the Orthodox faithful. Grace is not only obtained through the transformed relics of the saints, which is totally inexplicable without acceptance of the divine. Grace also radiates from living Saints who are truly in the likeness of the Lord [Luke 8:46]. This change is also obtained through Holy Baptism which through grace transforms the neophyte. The transformation may only be grasped and discerned by the senses of those, who have been baptized, and who are receptive to it without external persuasion. According to the trustworthy testimony of devout Christians, divine grace even infuses the inanimate. This too, is discerned by those who are sensitive and pure of heart. Grace can also be obtained by the presence of the Saints who have influenced and sanctified, and to a degree transformed, natural objects and places.

Therefore, the Orthodox Christian does not live in a place of theoretical and conceptual conversations, but rather in a place of an essential and empirical lifestyle and reality as confirmed by grace in the heart [Hebrews 13:9]. This grace cannot be put in doubt either by logic or science or other type of argument.

Our conception of Holy Tradition moves upon the same track. Holy Tradition for the Orthodox Christian is not just some collection of teachings, texts outside the Holy Scriptures and based on their oral tradition within the Church. It is this, but not only this. First and foremost, it is a living and essential imparting of life and grace, namely, it is an essential and tangible reality, propagated from generation to generation within the Orthodox Church. This transmittal of the faith, like the circulation of the sap of life from the tree to the branch, from the body to the member, from the Church to the believer, presumes that one is grafted to the fruitful olive tree [Romans 11:23-25], the embodiment in the body (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 12:12-27).

Membership in the Church is not an act of cataloging a person as a member of a group but it is the true rebirth of this person in a new world, the world of grace. From that moment forward, he or she is nourished and grows a new body which is of different substance than the body of the flesh, and is joined with the body of Christ through baptism.

The relevant baptismal Hymn, Whoever is baptized in Christ, has been clothed in Christ is not simply symbolism or a poetic allegory. It is a real fact that brings change in the substance of the human being.

Those baptized as infants, whose Orthodox parents grafted them into the body of the Church, are unable to express in words the change that took place in them, but they feel it. However, those present at the moment of baptism who have purity of heart see the grace that surrounds them. Those baptized at a more mature age and with depth of faith are able to describe the liberating feeling of renouncing the devil and joining Christ.

This ontological view of the life in Christ entails a substantial element of the experience of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glow of its light illumines all facets of our ecclesiastical and personal life in the Church and disposes of the need for foolish inquires. The Master himself knocks on the door, and seeks that we open to him the door of our entire being, so that he may enter and break bread with us. This is the foundational issue and posture for us as Orthodox. Understanding this opens the door for communication and makes dialogue possible.

The same ontological position of the Orthodox Church brings us to the difficult issues before us.

Let us look at some:

Regarding Dogma, the Orthodox Church maintains an apparently opposing position. On the one hand, Orthodoxy has never started a dogmatic dialogue, on the other hand, the Church has never neglected one. And let me explain why.

As we have said, the Orthodox faithful awaits and desires to become the reflection of the glory of God and through the grace of the Holy Spirit he becomes an image of our Lord Jesus Christ. He desires, in other words, to immediately know one person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, and through him the remaining two, the unapproachable person of the Father, and through the Son alone, the person of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Christian strives towards purity of Heart for the visitation of grace, and having been fulfilled, is able to behold the sought-after glory of God. Being thus transformed, from glory to glory, the Orthodox Christian approaches God. On the spiritual journey a dogmatic description of the manifestation of the Lord and his Body, the Church, is not required because our experienced guide at every moment protects us from deception, and allows us to accept the Glory of the Lord in any appearance it takes. Therefore, experiencing the Dogma of the Church is not something that is taught through intellectual teachings, but it is learned through the example of him who, through incarnation, joined Himself to us. To this point, dogma is life and life is the expression of dogma. However, a mere theoretical discussion on the meaning of life and dogma is unnecessary.

However, the evil opponent of man tries to interject between the enlightened faithful and the illuminating glory, his own distorted filter, that is a doctrine, a false glory, so that he might deceive the faithful as being the same. In this case, the Church, like a good shepherd, hurries to guide the faithful towards right glory. The entire body of the Church rises and vigorously warns that the said doctrine is false and that, by embracing it, it separates us from the true glory of God, leads us off the track resulting in the loss of our desired goal. The Church therefore, to protect the faithful from missing the mark, battles the distortions of the glory of God, that cunning spirits continuously plant.

Consequently, this difference in dogmatic theory does not lend itself to systematic analysis. Because, a systematic exposure of this dogmatic teaching could be understood only spiritually and therefore could harm the purity of the pure vision that the faithful has, by the voluntary import of all distortions. That is, immediate empirical and living knowledge of the only true glory of God and not the epistemological enumeration of a multitude of false imitations. This is summarized in the recognition that for those who have an immediate personal knowledge of the Lord, any description of him is rendered needless. For those that are on the road to knowing him, but still do not, a correct presentation of the basic elements of His glory is useful to have and particularly as much as it is necessary so that they do not engage in false beliefs.

Concerning those that have freely chosen to shun the correct Glory of God, the Orthodox Church follows the Apostle Paul's recommendation which is a man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition, reject (Titus 3,10). The same, of course, does not hold true for those who ask you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear (1 Peter 3:15). Therefore the Orthodox Church is always open for every good-faith dialogue but declines to partake in planted squabbles, because there is always a danger to be misunderstood in such a context.

If time and your kindness permit, let us examine one such case so you can better discern our position.

The nature of the Church, viewed in the light of the Orthodox Faith, is a reality which is recognized spiritually and not descriptively. Each one of us knows the members of his own body not because he has been taught about them or because they have been described in detail by anyone. He knows them, in a special way, because of the direct and living bond with them, even if he does not understand this scientifically.

The Church is our body. As a result of the existence of its Head, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, before all time, and before creation, the Church co-exists with Him before all time. The Church is not an imaginary entity, is not a legal entity, a mere gathering of the faithful, or a worldly establishment or creation. The Church is Christ and those that He chooses, in one body with him for all ages.

The comprehension of the meaning of this, as much as is possible, assumes living this reality fully. That is, what our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life (1 John 1:1), without exception, a sense of the union of all things in Christ, in Whom all things surmised, not pantheistically, but christologically.

All this leads to the conclusion that the organization, the goals, the functions and all aspects of the life of the Church are not determined by human judgment, but the real and unchanging nature of the Church. Thus, the steadfastness of the Orthodox Church on ecclesiastical assumptions of every type is not the product of any narrow perception, but the natural result of our living ecclesiastical experience. We are not talking about an object, subjected to our free manipulation, but of an existence independent of our desires and directed by him who governs all things and Who bestowed upon us limited responsibility or ministry. The starting point of the occasionally misunderstood position of the Orthodox Church concerning ecclesiological matters is rediscovered in the essence of this ministry in this real body directed by its head, the Lord Jesus Christ.

So much for this.

Time is passing and the subject cannot be exhausted. However, in these few words your judgment is expected regarding my thoughts about our hope, a hope starting from a living experience rather than an intellectual conception.

We thank you for your patience and attention. Our love towards you is warm. Let not the simplicity of my words cloud your judgment regarding their truth. You are able to understand the words of the divine Logos through the uttering of human words. Let us always hear the words of the divine Logos so that His grace may always be with us. For this indeed is our wish for you.

Thank you.

The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch Strikes. . .Well, you know.

2006-04-02T17:16:00.000-07:00

It is my great pleasure to announce once again to the world that the Order of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch has once again been awarded, this time to Gabriel Syme of Et in Arcadia Ego. The discerning will note that the name is a nom de plume, and while I personally think that the name with which he was christened is an estimable one, I will respect his decision as regards choice of name.

While Mr. Syme has more than qualified with his sympathetic and intelligent writings regarding Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism in general, his recent posting here are of particular note.

So let the Rite of Investiture be administered, let the Holy Orb be given (at the bearer's own expense, alas), and let it be announced that Mr. Gabriel Syme of Et in Arcadia Ego has been inducted into the Order of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. And let the assembled multitudes offer their congratulations, or their condolences, as the case may be.

The Feast of Pope Saint John Paul the Great

2006-04-01T22:12:00.000-08:00

Today is the first anniversary of the falling asleep in the Lord of His Holiness, Pope Saint John Paul the Great. While at least one weblogista in my acquaintance has repeatedly referred to this saint as "John Paul the Over-rated", I think this speaks more to this person's flippancy than to his acumen, at least on this one issue.

When I first learned of His Eminence, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, more than thirty years ago, I found that he was a philosopher, at a time when the most important movement in modern philosophy was phenomenology, and the most important advocate of phenomenology was Edmund Husserl. I found that the most important journal of Husserlian phenomenology, the Analecta Husserliana in 1977 devoted an entire issue of its journal to a treatise by the then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla. I knew even then that he was a great man. Everything since then has confirmed that first impression.

Under Pope John Paul's auspices, the codes of Canon Law for both Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches were reformed; priestly fraternities both for the Old and the New Mass were developed; the magisterial Catechism of the Catholic Church (the first in four hundred years) was promulgated; and most importantly, under his pen, a wealth of encyclicals, from Laborem exercens to Ut unum sint were written. Finally, under his papacy, and through an incredibly intelligent and virtuous development of nonviolent opposition, one of the most evil empires which humankind had the misfortune to experience crumbled into nonexistence.

For all of these reasons, Pope Saint John Paul deserves, together with his brother popes and saints, Leo and Gregory, the title: the Great.

While it is unfortunate that His late Holiness did not do more to combat the tendency towards heterodoxy and unholiness which have developed in the Roman Catholic Church, it is good to consider that His late Holiness had to deal with both the oldest bureaucracy in human existence, and the most incredible tendency towards rebellion and stupidity which humankind has ever experienced. In this context, one should remember the words of the German poet, Schiller: "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain." If a god could not prevail against such, how could one expect a simple saint, or even a profound pope, to do any better?

A more intelligent and a more charitable critique of His late Holiness could be found in the words: de mortuis, nil nisi bonum -- concerning the dead, say only good. I think that under the circumstances, we can and should say that not only was this pope and this saint good, but also, that he was great.

Something to hope for (part II)

2006-03-25T22:22:00.000-08:00

Several months ago, I reported that the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awarded its 1995 prize to a paper which indicated that an anti-gravitic field sufficient to escape the Earth's gravity and to achieve super-luminar speed could be achieved by means of a combination of a rotating torus of superconducting hydrogen to which a field of 13 Tesla was administered. My original essay may be found here.

Since that time, www.physorg.com has indicated that British scientists have found that if one makes use of a rotating torus of superconducting hydrogen, a slight but recognizable anti-gravidic field may be generated. The report by www.physorg.com may be found here.

It is perhaps rash of me, but under the circumstances, I think it may be high time for scientists to experiment to determine whether the combination of a rotating torus of superconducting hydrogen, together with a magnetic field of 13 Tesla, might not have the results predicted by the theory of Burkhard Heim.

Just a thought.

And another hindquarter heard from

2006-03-16T11:44:00.000-08:00

In the interest of giving even the Devil his due, I introduce to you Reginold, demon from the Seventh Circle of Hell, who has recently been been giving his opinions as regards various types of morons, in his acclaimed (alright, declaimed) series, Y.A.A.F.M. If the reader wishes to flesh out the acronym, he or she can do so, here. Don't say you weren't warned, though.

In addition to exhibiting the evidence of moronic behavior of everyone from Michael Moore to our current president, Reginold has I think adequately demonstrated the moron status of radical Muslims, here.

My suggestion, for those who have objections to Reginold's opinions, particularly radical Muslims, is that they address their complaints personally to Reginold, at his home office.

But for those Shia, Sunni, Ismailis and Sufis, however, who understand that Jihad is the very real struggle against the promptings of the Evil One, peace be upon you. And, as Danny DiVito in The Jewel of the Nile said: "Sufis Rule!"

Processional

2006-03-16T11:19:00.000-08:00

Constantine, of Memoirs of a Catachumen, has introduced this video clip of a most interesting processional. I link to that clip here. Do watch it. You won't be glad you did.

Edward, of Inferno XVI, has commented on the processional, with these words: "Are those acolytes on loan from the Chocolate Factory or are they actually direct from Loompa-Land?"

And I, with my usual facility and lack of discretion, give you the following:

Ooompa-loompa-doompity-doo,
I have a perfect riddle for you.
Ooompa-loompa-doompity-dee,
If you are wise you'll listen to me:

What do you get when the Mass is a mess?
priests wearing stoles like they're wearing a dress?
Celebrants spinning while holding a book;
Processionals made up all of kooks.

I don't like the look of it!

Ooompa-loompa-doompity da,
If you're not stupid, you will go far.
You will live in happiness, too,
Like the trads and Oompa-loompities do!

Some thoughts on the Danes and on Danegeld

2006-03-03T09:42:00.000-08:00

We have heard a great deal of talk about the Danish newspapers and the recent cartoons that have so upset many Muslims. We have also heard of endeavors by Muslims to attempt to impose Sharia on non-Muslim nations, with the threat of violence in the event that such nations do not stop "disrespecting" the Prophet Muhammad, or the religion of Islam.

We have also heard (though not through the mainstream media) that Danish Imams went to elaborate efforts to spread knowledge of the offending pictures, and even to manufacture additional pictures (which were far more offensive than the originals) in order to foment violence. As a consequence of this fomenting of violence and of fraud (I can find no better word than "fraud" to describe this deception), hundreds of people have been killed, largely Christians, and at least one martyr has been made as result of this fraud. Muslims are threatening more such violence, unless their will is respected.

What they are demanding is an end to freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought. They are demanding that we censor ourselves so as not to say things which would offend them. What they are threatening is more violence if their will is not followed.

There are many words which can describe this course of action. I find that the word which best describes that course of action is Danegeld. Wikipedia has rather simply and eloquently defined Danegeld as follows:

The Danegeld was an English tribute raised to pay off Viking raiders (usually led by the Danish king) to save the land from being ravaged by the raiders.

Danegeld was continued later under the name tallage. The term has come to mean protection money, or any coercive payment.

While it is true that the Muslims in question are not asking for the coin of money, they are asking for a more precious coin: our freedom. Some, who do not value that coin, are more than willing to pay it, simply to prevent more violence from occuring. Others (and I am in that number) are not willing to pay that coin, at any price. Certainly, the Danes, who have been the recipients of Danegeld in centuries past, have at least learned from their own history, and their Queen has rightly commended her country to resist the payment of this tribute to fear.

While I am willing to pay respect to the religion of Islam (for there is much in Islam worthy of respect), such payment can only be reciprocal: respect must be earned. The actions taken by many Muslims in rioting, in killing, and in martyring, have earned only the world's scorn. If such people seek respect, they must first earn it. So far, they have not done so.

In closing, I think that the counsel of Rudyard Kipling is well worth following. I give you that counsel as follows:

Danegeld

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

And yet another attempt at being tolerant and ecumenical

2006-02-28T12:21:00.000-08:00

I saw this charming little ditty at Mere Comments, here. Enjoy:

Gaia Loves Me

Gaia loves me, this I know,
For the witches tell me so:
Small ones are to her most near
As they stiffen on the bier.

Refrain:

Yes, Gaia loves me,
Yes, Gaia loves me,
Yes, Gaia loves me,
The witches tell me so.

Gaia has no hand to save
From the terrors of the grave;
Rather she's the gayest when
She consumes the sons of men. Refrain.

Gaia minds not what we do,
Whom we swindle, slay, or scr-w:
This her single easy law:
Come to thy devouring Maw. Refrain.

Though we fall to evil, she
Waits upon us patiently,
Waits her time while some poor chap
Rots the sooner from the clap. Refrain.

Look not for the tender heart
Should your little child depart:
Heart and head of stone are hers,
Image of her worshippers. Refrain.

Gaia won't discriminate:
Wide the mouth and broad the gate.
Heav'n may shut its doors to sin,
But there's room in Gaia's inn. Refrain.

Private she and most discreet,
Makes our human frailty sweet,
Decks her charnel house for trysts
Fit for fools and feminists. Refrain.

Carbonaceous is her crust;
Nothing else is human dust,
Born to wail for one brief breath
Till she mothers it to death. Refrain.

Gaia stuffs us all and some:
Cares not how her children come,
Never dainty in her feed --
Fried or stewed or fricaseed. Refrain.

Gaia loves me, I affirm,
Gaia loves the lowly worm;
Worm and maggot are her friends
In the feast that never ends.

Final Refrain:

Yes, Gaia loves me,
Yes, Gaia loves me,
Yes, Gaia loves me,
The numbskulls tell me so.

What we did in preparation for Great Lent (Part III)

2006-02-19T15:47:00.000-08:00

The Sunday of the Last Judgment

Epistle (1 Cor 8:8-9:2)

Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do. But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak. If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be "built up" to eat the meat sacrificed to idols? Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died. When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin. Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Gospel (Mt 25:31-46)

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Kontakion (Tone I)

When You, O God, shall come to the Earth in glory,
All things shall tremble
And the river of fire shall flow before Your Judgment Seat;
The Books shall be opened and hidden things disclosed;
Then deliver me from the unquenchable fire,
And make me worthy to stand at your right hand, O Righteous Judge.

Music in Russian Standard (Obikhod)

What we did in preparation for Great Lent (Part II)

2006-02-19T15:42:00.000-08:00

The Sunday of the Prodigal Son

Epistle (1 Cor 6:12-20)

"Everything is lawful for me," but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is lawful for me," but I will not let myself be dominated by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food," but God will do away with both the one and the other. The body, however, is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body; God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take Christ's members and make them the members of a prostitute? Of course not! (Or) do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For "the two," it says, "will become one flesh." But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.

Gospel (Lk 15:11-32)

Then he said, "A man had two sons, and the younger son said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me.' So the father divided the property between them. After a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set off to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation. When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need. So he hired himself out to one of the local citizens who sent him to his farm to tend the swine. And he longed to eat his fill of the pods on which the swine fed, but nobody gave him any. Coming to his senses he thought, 'How many of my father's hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger. I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers."' So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him. His son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.' But his father ordered his servants, 'Quickly bring the finest robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Take the fattened calf and slaughter it. Then let us celebrate with a feast, because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.' Then the celebration began. Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing. He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean. The servant said to him, 'Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.' He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him. He said to his father in reply, 'Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends. But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.' He said to him, 'My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours. But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.'"

Kontakion (Tone 3)

I have recklessly forgotten your Glory, O Father;
And among sinners I have scattered the riches which You had given me.
Therefore I cry to you like the Prodigal:
I have sinned before you, O compassionate Father;
Receive me, a penitent, and make me one of Your hired servants.

Music in Russian Standard (Obikhod),
Greek Chant
And special melody (Podoben)

With all due respect to Darwin Catholic

2006-02-13T18:10:00.000-08:00

Forget Intelligent Design in the schoolyard. I for one would be satisfied if one could find it in modern American manufacturing.

For the Martyr Andrea of Rome in Trebizond (February 5)

2006-02-08T13:38:00.000-08:00

Edward Yong has related the story of the neo-martyr, Fr. Andrea Santaro, of the Diocese of Rome, who was sent to Trebizond in what is now Turkey, and who was lately martyred there. A brief story of his life and martyrdom may be found here, here and here.

Edward has suggested that a petition be sent to Rome (in perfect Latin), requesting of Pope Benedict for a new line to be added to the Litaniae Sanctorum - 'a tyrannide Hagarenorum, libera nos Domine'. He has also suggested that a troparion and a kontakion be written for the martyr.

It will probably be three years before I would be able to write the petition (at least by my present schedule of studies), but I offer this troparion and kontakion for the holy martyr:

Troparion (Tone 4)

O Holy Martyr Andrea,
You gave your life for the sake of your Church,
As another Nicholas you defended the poor from dishonor,
And in the Church of the Lord you received your crown.
You turned your back on your persecutors,
Because your eyes were fixed upon the Lord.
Pray that our souls be saved.

Kontakion (Tone 4)

Let us praise the holy Martyr Andrea
For by the witness of his life Christ our God has shown forth,
He went to a distant land to protect the poor,
And preached our Lord Christ to those who but knew Him in part,
Let us cry to him: “Rejoice in Christ God, O glory of martyrs.”

What we did in preparation for Great Lent this week (Part I)

2006-02-05T15:33:00.000-08:00

Kontakion:

Let us flee from the pride of the Pharisee!
Let us learn humility from the Publican’s tears.
Let us cry to our Savior:
“Have mercy on us,
O only merciful one.

Written music in standard Russian Court Chant (Obikhod), Russianized “Greek” Chant, or Special Melody (Podoben).

Epistle (2 Timothy 3.10-15)

My son Timothy, Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Gospel (Luke 18.10-14)

Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, `God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, `God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Our priest told us in his sermon that our job was to be merciful, to endure sufferings in patience, and that our responsibility was to pray, to fast and to give alms, that is, to assist in the process of the peace of others, by acquiring a spirit of peace, and by acting in the spiritual and physical worlds.

Editor’s Note: I will endeavor to be more proactive, and to provide the Orthodox texts for the preparatory weeks of Lent a few days beforehand, as I believe that it is far better to light one small stick of dynamite than to curse the silence (or something like that).

An essay toward the psychology of dissent.

2006-02-03T09:41:00.000-08:00

I highly recommend Fr. Powell's most recent comment in his excellent weblog: Domine, da mihi hanc aquam, entitled "On the habits and spirit of dissent". It is a suscinct, precise, and eloquent statement as regards what I call "the psychology of schism". Do read it.

The 2006 Catholic Blog Awards

2006-01-31T21:38:00.000-08:00

Well, the 2006 Catholic Blog Awards are being made again. I've voted for The Pontificator, myself, for Most Theological Weblog. I recommend that you all do the same.

Five guides to the Divine Liturgy

2006-01-31T18:04:00.000-08:00

In the course of my reading of other peoples’ weblogs, I have often found much food for thought. One case in point has been Fr. Philip N. Powell’s Give Me That Water. Although he is a Westerner, we won’t hold that against him, as he has written a good number of cogent articles on preaching and on listening to preaching, which is altogether appropriate for one who is a member of the Order of Preachers (Ordo Praedicatorum).

But the article which has impressed me the most has been his entry regarding suggestions for those who listen to sermons or homilies. He has five suggestions: 1) Put down the missalette; 2) Pay attention to key words, images, phrases, ideas; 3) Repeat every word in your head; 4) Listen now, argue later; 5) Pray. I recommend that you read his entry, as it is worth reading by itself. You can find it here.

What has given me food for thought, however, is that the advice that he has given is of equal value, not just for listening to sermons, but for our participation in the Divine Liturgy. I think that with a few minor modifications, his advice could be used to assist in that “conscious, intentional, and active participation” in the Liturgy which the Council Fathers had intended in their magnificent statement on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium.

And so, by filing off the serial numbers, changing the body lines a bit, and trotting it out as my own (and with apologies to Fr. Powell), I would like to offer these suggestions for participation in the liturgy:

1) Take home the missalette (or the Prayer Book)

I entirely agree with Fr. Powell that the church is no place for a missalette, although I would not go quite as far as him in tearing up a book. My reverence for the written and the printed word prevent such a stance. Nonetheless, I will repeat: the church is no place for a missalette, particularly in an Orthodox church. As Fr. Sergei Glagolev, a remarkable Orthodox priest and musician once said, the Church is the last oral culture left on earth. The Apostle Paul did not say that “faith comes by reading the word of God” but “faith comes by hearing the word of God.” All of the prayers of the priest, the deacon, the cantors (or choir) and the congregation are meant to be said aloud, and to be heard. The people cannot respond with “Lord, have mercy” or “Grant it, O Lord”, or “Amen” to the prayers if they cannot hear them. And so often, at the liturgy at St. Andrew’s, I have seen people with the prayer books in front of their faces, blocking their view of the divine drama which is unfolding before them, and deafening them to the chant going on around them.

But there is a place for the missalette, or the Prayer Book: buy a copy of the Missal, or whatever prayer book you use, and take it home with you. Don’t hide it away in your library, or put it under your pillow, or on your coffee table. Read it. Even better, pray with it. Let the words of the hymns in that book gradually become a part of you. And bring that prayer back with you to the Liturgy.

When the hymns of the liturgy become a part of what C.S. Lewis called “the furniture of one’s mind”, then one can go on to start reading the epistle, psalm, gospel and other readings for the day. For the Westerners among you, there is also a wealth of chant and propers available. Even if the local church does not use it, you can read and chant it yourselves. Perhaps it might even prompt you to start a schola cantorum for the benefit of yourselves and others in the church.

The point, though, is that if the hymns and readings are a part of you, it is easier to you to participate in the Liturgy, to see when it is going wrong, and to help it to go right.

2) Pay attention to the language, the hymnography, and the iconography of the Liturgy

When some liturgicide in the clergy or the academy proposes something like a clown liturgy, or distributing teddy bears during Pascha, or altering the altar, or moving the reserved Host out of any place of reverence, among many other sins, a lot of us in the pews or choir lofts get rather the impression that, in addition to talking a great deal of rot, the offending souls have stopped speaking the common language of the Liturgy, if they ever knew it to begin with.

For there is a language of liturgy, a language spoken not only with words, but with music, with images, and with the common elements of life: water, fire, air, earth. Even with such simple things as bread and wine. But this is a language which can only be learned by speaking it, that is, by praying, and by attending when important things are going on.

For us in the East, it is a bit easier: We still have the great blessing of the waters for Theophany; we have the yearly miracle of the lighting of candles, and of the great procession around the church before the Matins of Pascha; we have the blessing of the earth and the fruits of the earth on the Feast of the Transfiguration of our Lord; and we have the weekly blessing and incensing of our churches by our priests or deacons before the Divine Liturgy. And we have our deacons ever reminding us: This is wisdom: pay attention.

But although that voice is fainter in the West, it still speaks in the baptisms, in the blessings of pious priests, and in the mystery of the Eucharist. Those who wish to be true theologians, that is, those who wish to pray well, will listen attentively whenever they hear that voice.

3) Repeat every word in your head. I’d put that another way myself: Learn how to be inwardly silent, and devote one’s self to listening and to prayer. Of course, one of the best ways to learn that silence is first to attend fully to what is going on around you, as Fr. Powell quite wisely suggests. Another useful way of learning silence is the Prayer of the Heart, which I have mentioned before. The point though, is first to recognize that which Plato taught us, in one of the first thought experiments on record in The Republic: the human mind is for most of us a battlefield, in which our angers and fears, our desires and disgusts, and the internal dialogue rage on endlessly. It is only by emptying ourselves of ourselves first that we may be filled with the good things of the Lord, chief among which is the Divine Liturgy, and the grace which it gives us.

4) Listen first, argue later This is almost a continuation of the last point. So often, our internal dialogue argues with whatever is being presented. This is all very well in the marketplace, the courts, or in the sports hall, but not in church.

Unfortunately, it is also the case that many churches are filled with priests or people who seem to like to replace the words of the liturgy with their own words, or to replace the language of the liturgy with the language of newscasts, or situation comedies, or MTV. In addition to being a violation of the canons of both East and West, this also interferes with our hearing the language of the liturgy, which is simply the language of Holy Tradition.

And so it is necessary first to find a church where the priest and the people are attempting to speak the language of the liturgy. This may take some doing, and one may have to go to some distance to find it. But as the Proverbist says, better a morsel eaten in peace, than a feast served in contention.

But when one has found a peaceful church, it still may come about that something may be said or done poorly. If that happens, it is best simply to listen to what is being said or done (if only to be a better witness). Take it home with you, and think about it afterwards. If you believe that it is wrong, take it quietly and privately to the offending party, and attempt to resolve matters in peace.

5) Pray I can only second what Fr. Powell has to say here. If you are upset with the ones who are serving the Liturgy, pray for them that they may repent. If you are happy with the beauty of the Liturgy, pray that it may continue, and pray for those who are serving it well. More than anything else, though, pray through the Liturgy with the priest and deacon, servers and cantors. Unite your minds and hearts with the prayer, ask that it may be done, and respond with your Amen. This is after all what we will be doing in the Kingdom of Heaven. Contention, distraction, hatred and suffering will be found only in that other horrible Kingdom, of which it is better that we speak no further.

Why don’t you try doing something, instead of just giving something up for Lent?

2006-01-30T16:08:00.000-08:00

As yesterday was the Sunday of Zacchaeus at St. Andrew’s, thoughts of Great and Holy Lent are not far off.

Oh, let me explain: In the East, we do Lent a bit differently than youze guyz in the West. We don’t start preparing for Lent on Mardi Gras or Carnivale by a big feasting blowout, then (maybe) have a meatless Ash Wednesday, think about giving up something, and then (maybe) have another meatless Good Friday.

No, we start with the Sunday of Zacchaeus, where we remember the man who, in the hopes of meeting the Lord, was willing to repent and to entirely change his life, and who was given the great honor of having the Lord Himself dine with him. Then, the next week, we have the Sunday of the Pharisee and the Publican, where we are reminded that inward conversion and contrition are more important than outward displays of piety (particularly including such matters as fasting). And then, the next week, we have the Sunday of the Prodigal Son, where we are reminded of the foolish one who had wasted his inheritance –his life in short— on extravagances, but who was honored by the Father by his repentance and his return to his Father’s house.

Then we start doing outward things as well: The next Sunday is the Sunday of the Last Judgment, where we remember that in the Kingdom, it is not those who have boasted of their service of the Lord, or their preaching, or their miracles, who will enter into the Kingdom, but those who have given food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, or comfort to the poor and unfortunate. On the Sunday night, those of us who are healthy and of reasonable age are also asked to put aside meat until that Feast of Feasts, Pascha.

Perhaps the most beautiful of the things that we do is in the next week, on the Sunday of Forgiveness, where we are reminded in the hymns and in the readings for the Epistle and the Gospel that the measure of God’s forgiveness to us is the same forgiveness which we show to those near to us. At the end of that service, it has been our custom (as I believe it is in many Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches) for the priest and deacon to ask forgiveness of each person there, and for each person to also ask the forgiveness of all the others there. And on that Sunday night, those who are able are also asked to put aside all dairy, eggs, and (at least for the Greek and Arab East) fish, for the next six weeks until Pascha.

And for those six weeks, we fast. But we are not asked to put aside those things that we think are good, like chocolate or whatever. Rather, we are asked for that brief time to simplify the ways and the things that we eat, and for a time to be like our ancestors before the Flood, who ate only fruits and vegetables, grains, beans and nuts (and perhaps, fish without backbones, like shrimp and crab). It is true that we are also asked from Monday to Friday to put aside wine and olive oil, as those were drink and foods that came into use after the Flood, but for Saturdays and Sundays during Great Lent, they are allowed, because the day of the Resurrection should never be one of anything but rejoicing.

Some among us will also restrict the amount that we eat, and some among us will put aside music or idle entertainments, or things of that sort, but this putting aside is so that we can devote ourselves to the three things that our Lord has taught and asked us to do: fasting, prayer, and almsgiving.

During Great Lent, we are also given the opportunity of prayer: Through the reading of Genesis and Proverbs, through the Akathists and through the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, and most importantly, through the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. In the canons of the East, we were forbidden to consecrate the Eucharist during weekdays in Lent, but due to the greater need of God’s grace, Pope St. Gregory the Great (revered by true Christians in both the East and the West), decreed and helped to form the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, where at a vesper-like service, the Holy Gifts of Christ’s Body and Blood (which had been sanctified the previous Sunday) are given to the Faithful, usually on Wednesdays and Fridays. These Lenten services are among the most beautiful of our Church year.

Finally, during Great Lent, we are asked to pay particular mind to almsgiving: to helping the poor and unfortunate. Many among us have put aside the money which would have been spent on more expensive foods, and have devoted that instead to charities, or better, to giving to the poor who like Lazarus are always near at hand, in spite of attempts by overbusy police and local politicians to silence and separate them from “decent people”. If one is fearful that they might misuse money, one can give food and drink and clothes to them instead.

The point of all this writing is that in years past, I have seen so many go on about what they were planning on “giving up” for Lent, like chocolate or weblogging or whatever. I suppose that this is harmless. But wouldn’t you rather be doing something that Our Lord has specifically asked us to do instead? In the same vein, there has been so much talk about WWJD “What would Jesus do?” Isn’t it more important to remind ourselves of, and maybe even to attempt, that which our Lord has specifically asked us to do?

And our Lord has asked us to fast (without grumbling, boasting or comparing, thank you), to pray, and to help the needy. Our Lord has also made the suggestion (through the parable of the Servant sacked by his Master) that we be as inventive in ways of doing good as the children of this world are in inventing ways of gratifying themselves. Perhaps one could try buying or using the cookbook Diet for a Small Planet, or praying the Prayer of the Heart, or the Western Liturgy of the Hours or Book of Common Prayer (depending on one’s flavor of Christianity), or even just ways of making the life of someone a little easier than it was before they met you. Who knows, it might just even start to be a habit for one’s life outside of Lent.

I would be curious to see how inventive you all could be.

Housekeeping

2006-01-26T11:20:00.000-08:00

As I have previously promised, I have finally updated my weblist to include those weblogistas who have linked to my weblog, or who have otherwise made reference to my weblog. At the top of my list are Ian (who has been waiting most patiently; thank you), Deacon's Weblog, Et in Arcadia Ego, Garland, Man on a Quest, Memoirs of a Catachumen, and Vatican Watcher. Thank you all for assisting my (no doubt temporary) rise to the status of "Crawly Amphibian" in the TTLB Ecosystem.

The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch strikes yet again

2006-01-19T20:32:00.000-08:00

As I had threatened, I had planned to ~~inflict~~, er, award the Order of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch on yet another ~~unfortunate sod~~ worthy individual.

As I had also threatened, I was originally planning on deleting the Rite of Investiture of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Ultimately, however, I have relented, and have chosen instead to set up links to the offending Monty Python sketches, to ~~avoid a heavy lawsuit by infringing copywrite~~ put the offending texts in a place where the unwary may read them at their leisure.

Seriously, though, let it be announced that Neil Dhingra of Catholic Sensibility has been honored with the Order of the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch, in honor of his charitable and truly intelligent application of Orthodox theology in his essays. Let the Orb be given him, let the Rite of Investiture be duly performed, and let all know that he has been enrolled in the Order of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

Something to hope for

2006-01-19T13:27:00.000-08:00

Through the courtesy of Jerry Pournelle, I read a brief entry about something which, if true, would be as momentous for this century as the Wright Brothers' little escapade at Kitty Hawk was in the last century.

It seems that the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics gives an annual award to scientific or technical papers which in some way advance aeronautics or space flight. In late 2005, the AIAA gave first prize to this paper: Guidelines for a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim's Quantum Theory, by Droscher and Hauser. The two authors of the paper have made a study of the Quantum Theory of Burkhard Heim, and have proposed the following three theses in that paper:

1) Heim Quantum Theory (or HQT for short) predicts two forces or interactions in addition to the four fundamental forces (i.e., gravity, electromagnetism, weak force, and strong force) predicted by the current Standard Model of physics: These additional forces or interactions are described in HQT as gravitophotonic (or a gravity-like field), and quintessence (or a repulsive gravitic field which is the basis for phenomena such as dark energy, dark matter, and black holes);

2) By applying an electromagnetic field of approximately 13 Tesla to a torus of hydrogen, HQT also predicts that sufficient gravitophotons can be generated so as to form a gravitic field somewhat in excess of 1 G. Such a field would permit a spacecraft to escape Earth's gravity, and to accelerate indefinitely at a rate of ten meters per second per second. Translated into practical terms, such a field would permit travel from the Earth to the Moon in four hours, and from the Earth to Mars in thirty-four days;

3) By applying an electromagnetic field of approximately 30 Tesla to a torus of some other material than hydrogen, HQT predicts that a spacecraft traveling at 0.01 C (or one one-hundredth of the speed of light) would temporarily enter a dimension or alternate universe in which C greatly exceeds 300 million meters per second, and which would also accelerate the speed of the craft to the point where it could travel the distance of a lightyear in twenty-four hours. As a constant acceleration of 1 G would result in a speed of 0.01 C in thirty days, again in practical terms, a space flight of ten lightyears could be accomplished in seventy days: thirty days to accelerate to the required speed, ten days in the proposed dimensional drive (at a lightyear per day), and thirty days to decelerate.

I am told that NASA and Sandia Labs are currently testing Thesis #2. If the results of these tests are as predicted and repeatable (can everyone say "Pons and Fleischman"?), there are hopes that Thesis #3 can be tested within the next five years.

I for one hope that those experiments might achieve the results predicted by the theory.

This and That

2006-01-19T11:19:00.000-08:00

Well, after having thrown the proverbial M-80 into the punchbowl, I suppose that I should move on to other things. It was fun, though, and I particularly have enjoyed the proceedings over at Pontifications. Thanks again, Fr. Kimel.

I've not been writing much here otherwise, however, because of so much that has been happening in my life. That will be explained by the next two entries, the first of which should be entitled "Three Funerals and a Wedding", and the second of which will be written and posted soon after this one. I've been holding off on the "Funeral" posting because one of those funerals was the funeral of my dear, late friend, Jonothon Hodge, and the father of DarwinCatholic; I wanted to wait until Darwin has had the opportunity to write first.

More later.

Versus Populum

2006-01-15T22:09:00.000-08:00

They have lied in the chapel and schoolhall.
They have practiced a terrible fraud.
For the priests have not turned to the people:
They instead turned their backs on their God.

We were told that the past was mistaken;
That to hold with Tradition was odd;
That the East was the source of all shadow,
And the West held the Son and our God.

But the Dayspring on High was not mocked by this;
He allowed them to flirt with this baud,
And revealed that the things done in secret
Were true sins against Man and his God.

And so those in the Nave and the Choirloft
Still await the day when we may laud
The return of the prodigal Fathers,
Who will turn with us back to our God.

--Bernard Brandt